It's a well known fact that there isn't a spending program that Democrats can really say they hate. They want to spread your dollars out everywhere so they can buy themselves votes. You work hard, you come home tired, you still have to do things around the house, you go to bed, and get up just to do the same thing all over again....just so you can pay for programs like the one Harry Reid is describing in this short clip:
I hope that Nevadans who voted for this moron are pleased with themselves. This bozo has never held a real job in his entire life, yet he wields power in the Senate to spread your money around, so some poor down and out cowboy poets (who don't have real jobs either) can sit around and have a place to recite poetry. I bet NPR even covers it.
Yippee the @#$%!! ti yi yay.
Showing posts with label Government Spending. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government Spending. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Intents And Purposes: The Constitution
It has been said and written many times that people should not engage in discussions about religion and politics, especially at work. Even with this knowledge so well ingrained in our minds, there is usually someone who occasionally will make a light (or not so light) comment that will easily reveal their ideological and philosophical beliefs.
I try to refrain from responding. As a father (and grandfather) who has raised teens, I am well-conditioned at ignoring things.
One day at work, I was talking with a nice lady (who has made such subtle self-revealing comments in the past) made a statement that left just enough of an opening where I thought it to be profitable, in shutting down future invitations of such discussions.
I was able to communicate something similar to what I have said here many times.
I am a person who is guided by deeply held principles. I respect all people's rights to believe anyway they wish as long as they do not try to force what they believe onto to me (and this is especially true, when they use their belief system as an excuse to want to kill me....only because I disagree with them). I then said something to the effect of, I am not one to praise or extol the virtues of government because they have not not looked out after any of my interests....but only their own.
I could tell she disagreed with me, but remember I said she was nice. And she is. So she remained courteous in her response, by saying something that has led me to this post. She said that she believes the government is us, the people. She added that it is a dynamic force that changes because we are the ones who can change it. It must change, as we change.
It was at that point where I chose to change, the subject, because I knew that where she was coming from wasn't quite where I sat. But she wasn't entirely wrong.
It is our responsibility to vote personnel in or out, based on what we the people think needs to be done, at any given point in time. But I certainly did not want to tell her that the Constitution is not what I believe to be a dynamic, living document that changes with the whims and impulses of people. Somehow, I knew how she would feel about this, so there was no need to extend the discussion any further.
I did, however, think about this quote--which has widely been attributed to a person who was once considered a radical in some circles, in his day:
Today's debate about whether or not the Constitution is a living document will often rest on what people think the founding fathers thought, or what they meant when they wrote it. The words contained within are words that are parsed over and often distorted to justify government taking more control over people's lives.
With this in mind, it is not surprising to learn that there are even debates over whether Henry actually said this. Many people dispute this being attributed to him, because he was at first a staunch opponent of the Constitution in it's initial phases. The reason was, he feared the Federalists would take it down a path that would leave susceptible to becoming another monarchy. That's where they just came from and it's all they knew. He was afraid that we would eventually replace one form of tyranny with another.
Like all good statesmen who find themselves on the losing end of an argument, he acquiesced and accepted the outcome.
When he learned of the brutal outcome the nation of France was made to endure, after its bloody revolution, he did come to an understanding that there needed to be some kind of a reasonable blueprint for a union to prevent an out of control mob, from taking control of this new experiment he had worked so hard to initiate. It had to be one that provided for the rights of the states and protected the rights of the citizens of the new nation.
He knew that by working through the system, he could make the Constitution better by adding protections to the states and citizens, who could someday become victims of an out of control federal government. He was an instrumental force for the adoption of the amendments known as the Bill Of Rights.
Once these safeguards were in place, he became a staunch supporter and defender of the Constitution. So with this knowledge, it is not so unreasonable to think that he could have made this statement in some forum or another. But in the big picture, it is not important whether he said it or not (for it does not negate the fact that it is a true statement).
If we fast forward to today, we see that Henry and many other skeptics of his day were wrong about, as far as, the federal government becoming a monarchy that would become an imposing force upon the people. It didn't. But it did become an oligarchy, which has become an imposing force that is strongly influenced (and in many cases controlled) by out of control special interests.
These are interests that do not care about the rights of the citizens, but only what is best for them.
As free thinking intelligent people, we know this did not come to be overnight. It had to evolve over time.
The metamorphosis was slow, gradual, and insidious in nature. The sad part is that it was tolerated by the people along the way. Based on handouts to states, corporations, and individuals who failed develop a strong functional understanding of the Constitution and it's original purpose, the people let their guards down.
In short, they traded safety, security, and comfort for the present time, for loss of rights in the future.They became addicts to big government.
When states, corporations, and/or individuals ran into trouble along the way, the federal government would give them handouts to help them recover. They did it with the full knowledge there were strings attached to that help. Rather than help them with no stipulations, the federal government would use it as bribery, to get the entity being helped to do things that the federal government thought was best.
These things were not in the best interests of the entities accepting the help. however as you can imagine, they were certainly in the best interests of the federal government. These were things wrested from the entities in question and were absorbed into the national responsibility, coming further under the grip of an ever-increasing beast that we see today.
We are now many generations removed from the one that carved out the blueprint for our beloved republic. We now find ourselves in a state of dependency, which is about as far from the original vision as we can get. We can see the federal oligarchy dictating to states, what they must do with money they receive. We see the same with corporations and individuals too. It's especially disheartening, when we realize that we are the ones paying for this.
So now, we see a movement within the nation that desperately wants to reverse the current course of certain destruction. It is comprised of an informed and enlightened citizenry who are not fooled by what has been transpiring over the many decades of foolish actions. But the individuals of this movement are not well-received by the beast we have created, or those who are dependent on its handouts.
In fact, they are often demonized by those who have become accustomed to the free flow of taxpayer money and cannot learn to live without it. They are corporations, both private and public. They are individuals who would rather sit idly by and be parasites of host organisms--who are out in the world making things happen. They know that by cutting off the gravy train, many of them will have to produce something of value to survive, and they know they are not capable of doing so.
So, what do they do? They make those of us who are tired of this massive injustice out to be the villains. They carry signs, they shut down governments. They do it a variety of ways. They are refusing to acquiesce and resign themselves. While clearly being in the minority, they try to bully, threaten, and manipulate events to get their way--because they are too afraid to accept they are losing the argument.
They are not going to win.
Not as long as there is a real working class made up of strong individuals who have made their names and reputations by by hard work and dedication to their duties they committed themselves to perform. Not as long as they realize they want their children and grandchildren to have the same opportunities they did, when given the chance. Certainly not as long as there is breath in my aging body, will I resign myself to accepting the fact that this is a nation of weak and pathetic leeches who want to destroy what we have worked so hard to build and preserve.
Do I speak for you? Or against you?
You must make that decision. But if we are to survive this onslaught from the beast we have created, we must make a stand now. So....for all intents and purposes, I must once again quote the man that I spoke of earlier in this essay:
He used it in a literal context, but I use it metaphorically. Because there is no war acceptable in this struggle, except at the ballot box. I condone no shedding of blood for this, only working hard from within the system as Henry once did in his later life.
I have made my choice.
Have you?
I try to refrain from responding. As a father (and grandfather) who has raised teens, I am well-conditioned at ignoring things.
One day at work, I was talking with a nice lady (who has made such subtle self-revealing comments in the past) made a statement that left just enough of an opening where I thought it to be profitable, in shutting down future invitations of such discussions.
I was able to communicate something similar to what I have said here many times.
I am a person who is guided by deeply held principles. I respect all people's rights to believe anyway they wish as long as they do not try to force what they believe onto to me (and this is especially true, when they use their belief system as an excuse to want to kill me....only because I disagree with them). I then said something to the effect of, I am not one to praise or extol the virtues of government because they have not not looked out after any of my interests....but only their own.
I could tell she disagreed with me, but remember I said she was nice. And she is. So she remained courteous in her response, by saying something that has led me to this post. She said that she believes the government is us, the people. She added that it is a dynamic force that changes because we are the ones who can change it. It must change, as we change.
It was at that point where I chose to change, the subject, because I knew that where she was coming from wasn't quite where I sat. But she wasn't entirely wrong.
It is our responsibility to vote personnel in or out, based on what we the people think needs to be done, at any given point in time. But I certainly did not want to tell her that the Constitution is not what I believe to be a dynamic, living document that changes with the whims and impulses of people. Somehow, I knew how she would feel about this, so there was no need to extend the discussion any further.
I did, however, think about this quote--which has widely been attributed to a person who was once considered a radical in some circles, in his day:
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."~Patrick Henry
Today's debate about whether or not the Constitution is a living document will often rest on what people think the founding fathers thought, or what they meant when they wrote it. The words contained within are words that are parsed over and often distorted to justify government taking more control over people's lives.
With this in mind, it is not surprising to learn that there are even debates over whether Henry actually said this. Many people dispute this being attributed to him, because he was at first a staunch opponent of the Constitution in it's initial phases. The reason was, he feared the Federalists would take it down a path that would leave susceptible to becoming another monarchy. That's where they just came from and it's all they knew. He was afraid that we would eventually replace one form of tyranny with another.
Like all good statesmen who find themselves on the losing end of an argument, he acquiesced and accepted the outcome.
When he learned of the brutal outcome the nation of France was made to endure, after its bloody revolution, he did come to an understanding that there needed to be some kind of a reasonable blueprint for a union to prevent an out of control mob, from taking control of this new experiment he had worked so hard to initiate. It had to be one that provided for the rights of the states and protected the rights of the citizens of the new nation.
He knew that by working through the system, he could make the Constitution better by adding protections to the states and citizens, who could someday become victims of an out of control federal government. He was an instrumental force for the adoption of the amendments known as the Bill Of Rights.
Once these safeguards were in place, he became a staunch supporter and defender of the Constitution. So with this knowledge, it is not so unreasonable to think that he could have made this statement in some forum or another. But in the big picture, it is not important whether he said it or not (for it does not negate the fact that it is a true statement).
If we fast forward to today, we see that Henry and many other skeptics of his day were wrong about, as far as, the federal government becoming a monarchy that would become an imposing force upon the people. It didn't. But it did become an oligarchy, which has become an imposing force that is strongly influenced (and in many cases controlled) by out of control special interests.
These are interests that do not care about the rights of the citizens, but only what is best for them.
As free thinking intelligent people, we know this did not come to be overnight. It had to evolve over time.
The metamorphosis was slow, gradual, and insidious in nature. The sad part is that it was tolerated by the people along the way. Based on handouts to states, corporations, and individuals who failed develop a strong functional understanding of the Constitution and it's original purpose, the people let their guards down.
In short, they traded safety, security, and comfort for the present time, for loss of rights in the future.They became addicts to big government.
When states, corporations, and/or individuals ran into trouble along the way, the federal government would give them handouts to help them recover. They did it with the full knowledge there were strings attached to that help. Rather than help them with no stipulations, the federal government would use it as bribery, to get the entity being helped to do things that the federal government thought was best.
These things were not in the best interests of the entities accepting the help. however as you can imagine, they were certainly in the best interests of the federal government. These were things wrested from the entities in question and were absorbed into the national responsibility, coming further under the grip of an ever-increasing beast that we see today.
We are now many generations removed from the one that carved out the blueprint for our beloved republic. We now find ourselves in a state of dependency, which is about as far from the original vision as we can get. We can see the federal oligarchy dictating to states, what they must do with money they receive. We see the same with corporations and individuals too. It's especially disheartening, when we realize that we are the ones paying for this.
So now, we see a movement within the nation that desperately wants to reverse the current course of certain destruction. It is comprised of an informed and enlightened citizenry who are not fooled by what has been transpiring over the many decades of foolish actions. But the individuals of this movement are not well-received by the beast we have created, or those who are dependent on its handouts.
In fact, they are often demonized by those who have become accustomed to the free flow of taxpayer money and cannot learn to live without it. They are corporations, both private and public. They are individuals who would rather sit idly by and be parasites of host organisms--who are out in the world making things happen. They know that by cutting off the gravy train, many of them will have to produce something of value to survive, and they know they are not capable of doing so.
So, what do they do? They make those of us who are tired of this massive injustice out to be the villains. They carry signs, they shut down governments. They do it a variety of ways. They are refusing to acquiesce and resign themselves. While clearly being in the minority, they try to bully, threaten, and manipulate events to get their way--because they are too afraid to accept they are losing the argument.
They are not going to win.
Not as long as there is a real working class made up of strong individuals who have made their names and reputations by by hard work and dedication to their duties they committed themselves to perform. Not as long as they realize they want their children and grandchildren to have the same opportunities they did, when given the chance. Certainly not as long as there is breath in my aging body, will I resign myself to accepting the fact that this is a nation of weak and pathetic leeches who want to destroy what we have worked so hard to build and preserve.
Do I speak for you? Or against you?
You must make that decision. But if we are to survive this onslaught from the beast we have created, we must make a stand now. So....for all intents and purposes, I must once again quote the man that I spoke of earlier in this essay:
Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
He used it in a literal context, but I use it metaphorically. Because there is no war acceptable in this struggle, except at the ballot box. I condone no shedding of blood for this, only working hard from within the system as Henry once did in his later life.
I have made my choice.
Have you?
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
The Market For Unions Is Crashing
Unions and their Left-Wing supporters are demonizing the efforts of governors and legislators, whose only offense is they want to make paying union dues voluntary.
The argument being used here is, without unions having the ability to forcibly extract union dues from workers, the result will be a loss of jobs. The argument for implementing this is, it will keep the government solvent and save jobs.
To analyze and evaluate these opposing view points, I think we must look at the law of supply and demand. To properly do this, we must examine the most basic principle of microeconomics. When supply is high and demand is low, we know that prices go down. The opposite is true when demand is high and supply is low.
Labor is something we can use in the equation.
When there are a number of workers in a given area that outnumber the number of jobs available, wages go down. Companies figure that because unemployment is high, workers will work for less. And they will, if the government isn't handing out limitless unemployment benefits.
When there are more jobs available than there are workers available to work, wages go up. Workers have more choices based on this scenario. The reason for this is because, if they do not like their jobs they can usually find others fairly quickly. That's why we see a lot of job-hoppers in a booming economy.
So if we look closely at the union position in these cases, we are being told that by compelling workers to pay union dues, this will magically create more jobs and raise the standard of living in these areas. They make these weak and faulty claims in face of looming layoffs that will most certainly be necessary to accommodate union jobs. These are jobs that the employers are forced to pay for, under the duress.
When there is only so much money in a labor budget, it's all a company or government can use and still remain solvent. You only have X amount of dollars to use and if the unions are demanding more, this means a certain amount of people will need to be let go to accommodate the union workers' and their demands.
When people are let go, the union will often blame the company or government when it is in fact the union that caused it. Pointing fingers is little consolation for the one who lost his/her job. The result is more workers looking for work while there are less jobs for them, thus bringing down wages on the whole.
If states have "right to work" laws on the books, it can be used as a tool to attract more businesses to the state. The more businesses in the state mean more opportunities for workers who are looking for work. When this gets to the point where there are more jobs, very often there will be a bidding war between companies for labor and wages will rise. Companies will also do more to retain good workers who show up every day and give it their all.
The only losers in this scenario are the union leaders who have made themselves rich by using agitation and coercion, as a middleman in all of this. Worker sell their time to companies, so companies can make money. If the company makes money, the workers' jobs are secure--unless a worker misbehaves and is terminated for it.
This serves as incentive to do the job, a worker has been hired to do. But under union domination, we have created an environment where tenure and seniority rules. The man or woman who has the most seniority can and often does get away with things, because they are safe from layoffs and the union makes it much harder for the company to shed the dead weight.
Maybe it's time someone makes a stand against this fraud that unions have created in many workplaces, in America. I certainly believe it's time for union leadership to be on the job market, and experience the frustration that comes with losing a job. My guess is the only thing they will qualify for is a position as a petty street thug, who is hired by a mob boss to shake down store owners for protection money.
The Teamsters are fed up and not going to take it any more. At least that is what they are saying in essence as they oppose what they call Wisconsin Governor Scot Walker’s “job-killing budget.”
"Wisconsin needs three things right now: jobs, jobs and more jobs," said Gegare. "We do not need a budget that destroys jobs and lowers the standard of living for everyone in the state.
"Walker's budget plan is a partisan, job-killing proposal aimed at punishing his political enemies and rewarding his political backers. Walker claims to be the original Tea Party in Wisconsin."
The argument being used here is, without unions having the ability to forcibly extract union dues from workers, the result will be a loss of jobs. The argument for implementing this is, it will keep the government solvent and save jobs.
To analyze and evaluate these opposing view points, I think we must look at the law of supply and demand. To properly do this, we must examine the most basic principle of microeconomics. When supply is high and demand is low, we know that prices go down. The opposite is true when demand is high and supply is low.
Labor is something we can use in the equation.
When there are a number of workers in a given area that outnumber the number of jobs available, wages go down. Companies figure that because unemployment is high, workers will work for less. And they will, if the government isn't handing out limitless unemployment benefits.
When there are more jobs available than there are workers available to work, wages go up. Workers have more choices based on this scenario. The reason for this is because, if they do not like their jobs they can usually find others fairly quickly. That's why we see a lot of job-hoppers in a booming economy.
So if we look closely at the union position in these cases, we are being told that by compelling workers to pay union dues, this will magically create more jobs and raise the standard of living in these areas. They make these weak and faulty claims in face of looming layoffs that will most certainly be necessary to accommodate union jobs. These are jobs that the employers are forced to pay for, under the duress.
When there is only so much money in a labor budget, it's all a company or government can use and still remain solvent. You only have X amount of dollars to use and if the unions are demanding more, this means a certain amount of people will need to be let go to accommodate the union workers' and their demands.
When people are let go, the union will often blame the company or government when it is in fact the union that caused it. Pointing fingers is little consolation for the one who lost his/her job. The result is more workers looking for work while there are less jobs for them, thus bringing down wages on the whole.
If states have "right to work" laws on the books, it can be used as a tool to attract more businesses to the state. The more businesses in the state mean more opportunities for workers who are looking for work. When this gets to the point where there are more jobs, very often there will be a bidding war between companies for labor and wages will rise. Companies will also do more to retain good workers who show up every day and give it their all.
The only losers in this scenario are the union leaders who have made themselves rich by using agitation and coercion, as a middleman in all of this. Worker sell their time to companies, so companies can make money. If the company makes money, the workers' jobs are secure--unless a worker misbehaves and is terminated for it.
This serves as incentive to do the job, a worker has been hired to do. But under union domination, we have created an environment where tenure and seniority rules. The man or woman who has the most seniority can and often does get away with things, because they are safe from layoffs and the union makes it much harder for the company to shed the dead weight.
Maybe it's time someone makes a stand against this fraud that unions have created in many workplaces, in America. I certainly believe it's time for union leadership to be on the job market, and experience the frustration that comes with losing a job. My guess is the only thing they will qualify for is a position as a petty street thug, who is hired by a mob boss to shake down store owners for protection money.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Academic Welfare
Many years ago I read where the federal government was appropriating money to study the mating habits of the Japanese quail. It incensed me then.... and today when we read this story, it still irritates the hell out of me.
But this one is worse.
Now that we have learned the deepest physical and psychosocial aspects of this bird's reproductive process, we must reach out further to understand it more. For a grant of $181K, we must know what the bird's sex drive is like on cocaine.
Will we learn anything from this? Only that birds on dope have sex more, or less. That's about all.
If so, how will it affect people to know this? Gee, how hard can answering this question be?
If this gets you upset, then maybe this will just push you over the limit into "really pissed off" status, real quickly. There's a whole lot of waste you may not be aware of, much of tied to research grants like this one.
If you are not fully agitated by now, you either know or are one of those academics, possibly a Senator's nephew/niece or friend of the family who could not get a job with a doctorate in zoology. So that means you (or someone you know) told dear uncle/auntie and he/she asked what you were interested in doing. He/she told you to go to some university with a government grant in your pocket. He/she then tagged it on and earmarked it, into the next piece of legislation. You were then able to study some bonehead concept on the taxpayers' dime.
We have all heard the arguments for and against both social and corporate welfare, now let me introduce you to academic welfare.
It's a simple thing. When a professor (or someone trying to become one) gets taxpayer money from the government to study something, it's academic welfare. This doesn't mean anything to the man or woman who has been out of work for a month or longer and cannot pay their bills. It doesn't mean anything to the man or woman who busts their rear ends everyday to stay free from government dependence, and may have to work until they die because they must foot the bill for this kind of crap.
In 2011, the TEA Party supporters must make this an issue on a huge scale. The elected officials must listen or they can/will be fired in 2012.
But this one is worse.
Now that we have learned the deepest physical and psychosocial aspects of this bird's reproductive process, we must reach out further to understand it more. For a grant of $181K, we must know what the bird's sex drive is like on cocaine.
Will we learn anything from this? Only that birds on dope have sex more, or less. That's about all.
If so, how will it affect people to know this? Gee, how hard can answering this question be?
If this gets you upset, then maybe this will just push you over the limit into "really pissed off" status, real quickly. There's a whole lot of waste you may not be aware of, much of tied to research grants like this one.
If you are not fully agitated by now, you either know or are one of those academics, possibly a Senator's nephew/niece or friend of the family who could not get a job with a doctorate in zoology. So that means you (or someone you know) told dear uncle/auntie and he/she asked what you were interested in doing. He/she told you to go to some university with a government grant in your pocket. He/she then tagged it on and earmarked it, into the next piece of legislation. You were then able to study some bonehead concept on the taxpayers' dime.
We have all heard the arguments for and against both social and corporate welfare, now let me introduce you to academic welfare.
It's a simple thing. When a professor (or someone trying to become one) gets taxpayer money from the government to study something, it's academic welfare. This doesn't mean anything to the man or woman who has been out of work for a month or longer and cannot pay their bills. It doesn't mean anything to the man or woman who busts their rear ends everyday to stay free from government dependence, and may have to work until they die because they must foot the bill for this kind of crap.
In 2011, the TEA Party supporters must make this an issue on a huge scale. The elected officials must listen or they can/will be fired in 2012.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Needed: Constitutional Conversation, Not Moral Debate
Most have probably heard of the flap about O'Donnell's questions, concerning the words "separation of church and state". WaTi has a report.
Technically she is right, those words aren't there.
"Shall make no law" and "prohibiting the free exercise of" are the operative phrases here. They are not the least bit vague, they are very clear.
Many of the evangelical leaders (who get involved in politics) use this to lobby in certain moral issues that get brought up during the course of every election. This is their rationale for wanting to legislate morality. This is something that is never wise to do, unless it is an issue that directly and adversely affects another person. Our rights all end, where our neighbors' begins.
Don't misunderstand me, there is nothing wrong with voting a person's conscience.... for it is our constitutional right to do so and it is an elected official's, as well. There is nothing wrong with a person's faith guiding their tough decisions as long as it does not impose upon, nor restrict the freedom of others. But if we are discussing this in a deeply analytical way, we must consider something else besides the Constitution when answering this moral dilemma.
When Christ's followers asked Him if it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, He asked for a coin and inquired as to whose inscription was on the money. They told him it was Caesar and He proceeded to admonish them to give Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and God the things that are God's.
In my book, this speaks pretty plain as to what Christ thought of government. It was to be respected and the laws were to be obeyed (unless any of them restricted their rights to practice their faith), but both entities were to be attended to separately. If we truly heed the words of the Holy Bible, this story must not be overlooked or disregarded.
"Congress shall make no law" is a powerful directive that binds the arms of any government that would seek to impose its beliefs onto its citizenry. So if this really be the case, candidates should not promise to make such a law, nor should they promise to impose their personal beliefs on others. Once elected, they must obey the Constitution because it is their Christian duty to do so.
It is at this point in the campaign, whereby moral issues are not important to win independents. They are not looking for pastors, they are looking for leaders to manage the government properly. They want those leaders to create and support the freedom for them to practice whatever faith they choose. In the meantime, liberal interviewers and debate moderators are chomping at the bit to trip up strong candidates, because of social issues. Moral issues are the last ditch gasps they can muster and can be expected to be used even more so, as the election nears.
This is why I get so frustrated with some conservative candidates.
When asked questions that involve personal and deeply held beliefs that are not relevant to any constitutional or government discussion, it is better off to ignore those questions and focus on the issues that are going to sink us as a nation. Instead of being sucked into an irrelevant sidebar, they should be redirecting the conversation back to these things that are of the utmost importance.
How to stop the out of control:
1. spending
2. accruing massive amounts of public debt
3. borrowing money to cover the losses
4. growing government
...and generally screwing up the natural order of things.
These are the things people need to hear, because government is wanting to restrict and tax even more than they already have to this point and they'll do it if we do not rein them in. What does the source of homosexuality have anything to do with anything? Is that going to get people back to work and off the public dole?
In the final two weeks, we need to stay on track and focus on the messages that got us to this point and on those principles that beget this movement. It's time to start the purge of dead weight in the legislature and can those who do not share those principles begin planning the next phase of the purge that will come in 2012.
"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" Ms. O'Donnell asked while Democrat Chris Coons, an attorney, sat a few feet away.
Mr. Coons responded that Ms. O'Donnell's question "reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. ... The First Amendment establishes a separation."
She interrupted to say, "The First Amendment does? ... So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is in the First Amendment?"
Technically she is right, those words aren't there.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;......"
"Shall make no law" and "prohibiting the free exercise of" are the operative phrases here. They are not the least bit vague, they are very clear.
Many of the evangelical leaders (who get involved in politics) use this to lobby in certain moral issues that get brought up during the course of every election. This is their rationale for wanting to legislate morality. This is something that is never wise to do, unless it is an issue that directly and adversely affects another person. Our rights all end, where our neighbors' begins.
Don't misunderstand me, there is nothing wrong with voting a person's conscience.... for it is our constitutional right to do so and it is an elected official's, as well. There is nothing wrong with a person's faith guiding their tough decisions as long as it does not impose upon, nor restrict the freedom of others. But if we are discussing this in a deeply analytical way, we must consider something else besides the Constitution when answering this moral dilemma.
When Christ's followers asked Him if it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, He asked for a coin and inquired as to whose inscription was on the money. They told him it was Caesar and He proceeded to admonish them to give Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and God the things that are God's.
In my book, this speaks pretty plain as to what Christ thought of government. It was to be respected and the laws were to be obeyed (unless any of them restricted their rights to practice their faith), but both entities were to be attended to separately. If we truly heed the words of the Holy Bible, this story must not be overlooked or disregarded.
"Congress shall make no law" is a powerful directive that binds the arms of any government that would seek to impose its beliefs onto its citizenry. So if this really be the case, candidates should not promise to make such a law, nor should they promise to impose their personal beliefs on others. Once elected, they must obey the Constitution because it is their Christian duty to do so.
It is at this point in the campaign, whereby moral issues are not important to win independents. They are not looking for pastors, they are looking for leaders to manage the government properly. They want those leaders to create and support the freedom for them to practice whatever faith they choose. In the meantime, liberal interviewers and debate moderators are chomping at the bit to trip up strong candidates, because of social issues. Moral issues are the last ditch gasps they can muster and can be expected to be used even more so, as the election nears.
This is why I get so frustrated with some conservative candidates.
When asked questions that involve personal and deeply held beliefs that are not relevant to any constitutional or government discussion, it is better off to ignore those questions and focus on the issues that are going to sink us as a nation. Instead of being sucked into an irrelevant sidebar, they should be redirecting the conversation back to these things that are of the utmost importance.
How to stop the out of control:
1. spending
2. accruing massive amounts of public debt
3. borrowing money to cover the losses
4. growing government
...and generally screwing up the natural order of things.
These are the things people need to hear, because government is wanting to restrict and tax even more than they already have to this point and they'll do it if we do not rein them in. What does the source of homosexuality have anything to do with anything? Is that going to get people back to work and off the public dole?
In the final two weeks, we need to stay on track and focus on the messages that got us to this point and on those principles that beget this movement. It's time to start the purge of dead weight in the legislature and can those who do not share those principles begin planning the next phase of the purge that will come in 2012.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The Tone Of Truth: Real vs. Perceived
Have you heard this little tidbit?
From the AP comes this story:
Unbelievable, isn't it? Who would have guessed that at some point, someone would have to pay for the gross negligence and malfeasance that has been thrust upon the American people by their elected officials? Just because Obama and Congress have been openly conspiring to overspend us into oblivion, why can anyone say he/she is surprised?
This is what they said they would do, this is what Obama told Joe the Plumber. They are making good on their promises.
In fact, most everyone who frequents this joint has always believed that Obama and his imperial rubber stamping legislature would raise taxes to pay for their power-drunken spending spree. We all saw it coming and we clearly said so, time and time again..... both here and in other forums.
But the naive dreamers (who thought we were a bunch of bigoted and paranoid right-wingers) did not believe us. They did not think that big time liberals would take our money, disregard our wishes, and thumb their noses while doing it. They thought we were delusional.
So to anyone who stumbles across this blog and fits this specific description, I have a question for you:
Can you hear us now?
From the AP comes this story:
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Tuesday that tax increases will eventually be necessary to address the nation's mounting debt, raising a difficult election-year issue as Democrats fight retain control of Congress.
Unbelievable, isn't it? Who would have guessed that at some point, someone would have to pay for the gross negligence and malfeasance that has been thrust upon the American people by their elected officials? Just because Obama and Congress have been openly conspiring to overspend us into oblivion, why can anyone say he/she is surprised?
This is what they said they would do, this is what Obama told Joe the Plumber. They are making good on their promises.
In fact, most everyone who frequents this joint has always believed that Obama and his imperial rubber stamping legislature would raise taxes to pay for their power-drunken spending spree. We all saw it coming and we clearly said so, time and time again..... both here and in other forums.
But the naive dreamers (who thought we were a bunch of bigoted and paranoid right-wingers) did not believe us. They did not think that big time liberals would take our money, disregard our wishes, and thumb their noses while doing it. They thought we were delusional.
So to anyone who stumbles across this blog and fits this specific description, I have a question for you:
Can you hear us now?
Thursday, March 19, 2009
A Summer Of Discontent?
Frustration often leads to anger. When people do not think they are being listened to, they tend to speak louder, with more passion and tone. When it reaches the anger point, it can turn to rage. This is where it becomes counter-productive and it solves nothing at all. But when anger turns to appropriate action, things can get done.
Right now it looks like frustration has made way for anger and we are seeing some anger converted into action over this massive government spending:
This is small potatoes right now, but it is a beginning. To make any real waves, there must be more actions like this -- all within the confines of the law and visible to the public, with or without MSM coverage.
What is needed right now (with summer coming up) is a plan for conservative entertainers to work in some free appearances, at some rallies like this. I'd like to see what kind of drawing power can counter the push for socialist overhaul.
I'd also like to see someone that has the health, ability, and will, to stand up and run against the machine -- someone to oust the likes of Dodd and Frank and anyone else that has committed a great malfeasance against this great land. Maybe someone that loves their country will step to the forefront and offer themselves as an example of honor and integrity, as they make an integral contribution to cleaning up Washington. Someone with brains and doesn't need the money or the power, but only wants to see this nation get back on a realistic course.
(Now if you'll excuse me, the plane is about to land on the island and I have to find Tattoo.)
Right now it looks like frustration has made way for anger and we are seeing some anger converted into action over this massive government spending:
This is small potatoes right now, but it is a beginning. To make any real waves, there must be more actions like this -- all within the confines of the law and visible to the public, with or without MSM coverage.
What is needed right now (with summer coming up) is a plan for conservative entertainers to work in some free appearances, at some rallies like this. I'd like to see what kind of drawing power can counter the push for socialist overhaul.
I'd also like to see someone that has the health, ability, and will, to stand up and run against the machine -- someone to oust the likes of Dodd and Frank and anyone else that has committed a great malfeasance against this great land. Maybe someone that loves their country will step to the forefront and offer themselves as an example of honor and integrity, as they make an integral contribution to cleaning up Washington. Someone with brains and doesn't need the money or the power, but only wants to see this nation get back on a realistic course.
(Now if you'll excuse me, the plane is about to land on the island and I have to find Tattoo.)
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Distorted Imagery
I like to look at graphs. Here is one that I have found interesting, of late. As long as as I am mildly familiar with the subject matter contained in the graphs, I can analyze and correlate them with other forms of knowledge and data --like tables. Tables are not hard to analyze, either. Here's one that I find enlightening.
As long as graphs and tables are accurate and the information contained in them are not skewed, most people that have any critical thinking skills can determine some pretty important things. If a person doesn't have the ability to do a minute amount of research on their own and/or any analytical skills to process that research, there is a good chance they will believe articles like this, without any skepticism whatsoever.
The term "renowned investor" will likely impress some people who do not take, the time to educate themselves on the world around them. Other times, the word "billionaire" is used with the name George Soros and that may impress other people, as well. These things may impress some, but others who are able to use these skills I have spoken of are anything but impressed.
For several months now, I have been listening to the message from Democrats and even some Republicans, how the sky is falling and this current economic crisis is comparable to the Great Depression. The Dems did throughout the two terms of GWB, so this is nothing new; they are used to doing it and we are used to hearing it. It was hyperbole for the most part, until the housing market and credit crunch hit in the autumn of last year.
Since that unfortunate time, the Dems have successfully used it as a campaign issue to sweep themselves back into power. It was an opportunity, they took it, as we would have expected them to do. It has been done before and will likely be done again, but the election has been over for almost four months now. The new Congress has been seated for almost two months and the new President, for one. And the gloom and doom is still being advanced, like there is no tomorrow.
Now let's pause for a moment here before we get too far.
We are in a recession, there can be no argument. We have been in them before, this is nothing new. The market continues to drop, layoffs are occurring in most economic sectors, and consumer confidence is low. When this happens, responsible people tighten their belts and do not spend any more then necessary. Even those that have jobs cut back, because of the fear their job may be the next one cut.
The media has been instrumental in this, their daily gloom and doom reports have been a huge factor in this entire mess. We cannot entirely blame them, but they haven't been much of a help, because much of the American market is driven by stocks and stocks are driven by speculation. The same can be said for consumer spending.
When those who have jobs hear the constant bombardment of job losses, comparisons with the Great Depression, and the generalized dismal future this nation is facing, it makes people (with jobs) scared their job will be eventually be eliminated. For that reason, they begin to save instead of spend.
But let's get back to the Democrats, let's get back to Mr. Soros.
The Dems have long been in bed with Mr. Soros. He bankrolled much of the failed bid to get John Kerry into the White House in 2004, he was highly instrumental in the Dems sweep back into power in the 2006 mid-terms, and it is well known that he played a major financial role in the 2008 election of Barack Obama.
The Soros message has been gloom and doom, all along. On the surface, it would seem because of his politics and his desire to see a Democrat in power. But if we look deeper, we would know something different. George Soros has made his fortune by crashing markets and currencies. Just look back to 1992, when he broke the back of the Bank of England.
This should start making sense now, if it hasn't before. Soros gets his people into power. They (in turn) turn out legislation that will not help. Then, the ignorant masses think it is a positive step and glorify those that are responsible for it. In the meantime, everyone involved (including Soros) gets on the gloom and doom bandwagon, continues to turn out negativity with the hope of breeding more negativity, and people buy into it.
Now, about the graph and table I linked to earlier in the post:
It's interesting to look at the graph because it represents the Dow Jones Industrial throughout the last six months, which include: 1) the latter part of the election season, 2) the days of the transition, and 3) the days since the inauguration. The media and the Democrats did a great job of painting a bleaker picture than it was, albeit it wasn't a great outlook with the credit and housing crunch.
As for the table, take a look at the unemployment rates from 1940 until now; then, read about the Great Depression. The Great Depression had unemployment rates of around 25%, and the year 1940 showed a 14.6% rate. At various points from the 40s on, we have had recessions that have resulted in high unemployment. And we have always pulled out of them, eventually.
The point I want to make is simple. We cannot win confidence back, if our leaders in Washington can/will not stop accentuating the negative. No one wants to be lied to, this much is true. But most people already know we are in a difficult situation, and to keep harping on it is only scaring investors. Investors are the crux of our economy, all of the talk of nationalizing banks will not instill confidence.
The only person that appears to be prospering from this kind of talk is George Soros, and the Democrats who are facilitating more opportunities for him to capitalize on other people's misfortunes.
As long as graphs and tables are accurate and the information contained in them are not skewed, most people that have any critical thinking skills can determine some pretty important things. If a person doesn't have the ability to do a minute amount of research on their own and/or any analytical skills to process that research, there is a good chance they will believe articles like this, without any skepticism whatsoever.
Renowned investor George Soros said on Friday the world financial system has effectively disintegrated, adding that there is yet no prospect of a near-term resolution to the crisis.
Soros said the turbulence is actually more severe than during the Great Depression, comparing the current situation to the demise of the Soviet Union.
The term "renowned investor" will likely impress some people who do not take, the time to educate themselves on the world around them. Other times, the word "billionaire" is used with the name George Soros and that may impress other people, as well. These things may impress some, but others who are able to use these skills I have spoken of are anything but impressed.
For several months now, I have been listening to the message from Democrats and even some Republicans, how the sky is falling and this current economic crisis is comparable to the Great Depression. The Dems did throughout the two terms of GWB, so this is nothing new; they are used to doing it and we are used to hearing it. It was hyperbole for the most part, until the housing market and credit crunch hit in the autumn of last year.
Since that unfortunate time, the Dems have successfully used it as a campaign issue to sweep themselves back into power. It was an opportunity, they took it, as we would have expected them to do. It has been done before and will likely be done again, but the election has been over for almost four months now. The new Congress has been seated for almost two months and the new President, for one. And the gloom and doom is still being advanced, like there is no tomorrow.
Now let's pause for a moment here before we get too far.
We are in a recession, there can be no argument. We have been in them before, this is nothing new. The market continues to drop, layoffs are occurring in most economic sectors, and consumer confidence is low. When this happens, responsible people tighten their belts and do not spend any more then necessary. Even those that have jobs cut back, because of the fear their job may be the next one cut.
The media has been instrumental in this, their daily gloom and doom reports have been a huge factor in this entire mess. We cannot entirely blame them, but they haven't been much of a help, because much of the American market is driven by stocks and stocks are driven by speculation. The same can be said for consumer spending.
When those who have jobs hear the constant bombardment of job losses, comparisons with the Great Depression, and the generalized dismal future this nation is facing, it makes people (with jobs) scared their job will be eventually be eliminated. For that reason, they begin to save instead of spend.
But let's get back to the Democrats, let's get back to Mr. Soros.
The Dems have long been in bed with Mr. Soros. He bankrolled much of the failed bid to get John Kerry into the White House in 2004, he was highly instrumental in the Dems sweep back into power in the 2006 mid-terms, and it is well known that he played a major financial role in the 2008 election of Barack Obama.
The Soros message has been gloom and doom, all along. On the surface, it would seem because of his politics and his desire to see a Democrat in power. But if we look deeper, we would know something different. George Soros has made his fortune by crashing markets and currencies. Just look back to 1992, when he broke the back of the Bank of England.
This should start making sense now, if it hasn't before. Soros gets his people into power. They (in turn) turn out legislation that will not help. Then, the ignorant masses think it is a positive step and glorify those that are responsible for it. In the meantime, everyone involved (including Soros) gets on the gloom and doom bandwagon, continues to turn out negativity with the hope of breeding more negativity, and people buy into it.
Now, about the graph and table I linked to earlier in the post:
It's interesting to look at the graph because it represents the Dow Jones Industrial throughout the last six months, which include: 1) the latter part of the election season, 2) the days of the transition, and 3) the days since the inauguration. The media and the Democrats did a great job of painting a bleaker picture than it was, albeit it wasn't a great outlook with the credit and housing crunch.
As for the table, take a look at the unemployment rates from 1940 until now; then, read about the Great Depression. The Great Depression had unemployment rates of around 25%, and the year 1940 showed a 14.6% rate. At various points from the 40s on, we have had recessions that have resulted in high unemployment. And we have always pulled out of them, eventually.
The point I want to make is simple. We cannot win confidence back, if our leaders in Washington can/will not stop accentuating the negative. No one wants to be lied to, this much is true. But most people already know we are in a difficult situation, and to keep harping on it is only scaring investors. Investors are the crux of our economy, all of the talk of nationalizing banks will not instill confidence.
The only person that appears to be prospering from this kind of talk is George Soros, and the Democrats who are facilitating more opportunities for him to capitalize on other people's misfortunes.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Choosing A Legacy Now
Neal Boortz has some interesting things to say about taxes, in his latest Townhall essay. Fat chance if anyone in Washington is giving much thought to the contents of this piece. But maybe someday, someone will. I can tell you, it will only happen if "we the people" get educated on things of importance, and actually vote the power-hungry crooks out. Here's a sample of the Boortz article:
You can read about the idea in the rest of the article, I won't spoil it for you. But more than anything, you can tell that Rep. Gohmert is a greenhorn. The reason i say this? He still formulates ideas that would actually benefit the people.
Some of the freshman law-makers are sincere about getting Washington reformed when they first get there, but they all soon learn the system and climate are not conducive for reform. We could change that, but we don't. We think about it. We talk about it. But when it comes to vote, we go to the polls and re-elect the same corrupt bastards, we bitch about time after time, day after day.
Gohmert's solution needs to be looked at, but as Neal and the rest of us know, it won't. This begs a couple of questions. What good is it to come up with innovative solutions, cutting edge ideas, and bold measures to better the nation as a whole, if we do nothing about it? Why even waste the time and energy?
How many times have we heard, how someone that gets elected to national office for the first time, "this man/woman this is a rising and promising young talent? Then, after the swearing in, they are all told to sit down, shut up, listen, and do what they are told?
Americans had better wake up. We had better soon realize that Rome fell with many of the same calamities as contributing factors, as we have right now. And do not be fooled, there is nothing written anywhere that says we won't.
This is not the kind of legacy I want to leave for my children and grandchildren. I don't know about all of you, but I want to leave them better off than a bunch of corrupt leaders milking every penny they can from the people, to do with it what they want with no accountability. I want them live in a world of real hope and promise, not just one dreamed up as a campaign slogan.
Is this a pipe dream, part of a fantasy that will never be fulfilled? Or is this an opportunity to make something real happen, something that can help fulfill and facilitate true citizenship?
Is it something that will will truly make them proud to be Americans and develop a profound respect for what we all worked for? Or will it embitter them and disillusion them, further turning them from hope to cynicism and defeatism?
The choice is ours.
There’s a lot of talk in Washington about yet another so-called “stimulus” package. If the next one is anything like the last one it will simply be a mechanism for taking money away from people who aren’t spending it the way politicians would like, and transferring it to people who will. Our soon-to-be ruler feels like adding some grandiose public works projects (raking leaves in a National Forest) to the list.
Let’s break away from these political stimulus ideas for a few minutes and study an absolutely brilliant idea from Texas Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert. Now Louie hasn’t been around the halls of congress all that much (just three years) so he is not yet all that acclimated to the Washington lust for absolute power. If he were, he never would have come up with this idea.
You can read about the idea in the rest of the article, I won't spoil it for you. But more than anything, you can tell that Rep. Gohmert is a greenhorn. The reason i say this? He still formulates ideas that would actually benefit the people.
Some of the freshman law-makers are sincere about getting Washington reformed when they first get there, but they all soon learn the system and climate are not conducive for reform. We could change that, but we don't. We think about it. We talk about it. But when it comes to vote, we go to the polls and re-elect the same corrupt bastards, we bitch about time after time, day after day.
Gohmert's solution needs to be looked at, but as Neal and the rest of us know, it won't. This begs a couple of questions. What good is it to come up with innovative solutions, cutting edge ideas, and bold measures to better the nation as a whole, if we do nothing about it? Why even waste the time and energy?
How many times have we heard, how someone that gets elected to national office for the first time, "this man/woman this is a rising and promising young talent? Then, after the swearing in, they are all told to sit down, shut up, listen, and do what they are told?
Americans had better wake up. We had better soon realize that Rome fell with many of the same calamities as contributing factors, as we have right now. And do not be fooled, there is nothing written anywhere that says we won't.
This is not the kind of legacy I want to leave for my children and grandchildren. I don't know about all of you, but I want to leave them better off than a bunch of corrupt leaders milking every penny they can from the people, to do with it what they want with no accountability. I want them live in a world of real hope and promise, not just one dreamed up as a campaign slogan.
Is this a pipe dream, part of a fantasy that will never be fulfilled? Or is this an opportunity to make something real happen, something that can help fulfill and facilitate true citizenship?
Is it something that will will truly make them proud to be Americans and develop a profound respect for what we all worked for? Or will it embitter them and disillusion them, further turning them from hope to cynicism and defeatism?
The choice is ours.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Some Sunday Reflections
After a wild and emotional week that was no less than anti-climactic on Wednesday morning, I thought I'd take a moment and reflect on some things that have emerged from the recesses of my brain.
President-Elect Obama will be my president. I may not like his policies (which led me to vote and actively campaign against him), but he is the man the American people elected and he will treated as such. I will criticize every policy, every stance, which I do not think is right for America. But make no mistake, he will get a far better shake here than George Bush got at liberal blogs. If he does the right thing, I will applaud him for it. If he doesn't, then (metaphorically speaking) I will rip his head off and spit down his neck.
Every move he makes will be watched and studied closely. He has already made some bold moves in his short time as the victor and here is my take on those:
1. Appointed Rahm Emanuel as WH Chief Of Staff.
Some people do not like him because of his affiliation with the Clinton Administration. From WND (HT: AICS) comes this article.
During the campaign, one of my deep concerns was Obama's commitment to Israel. He said he would continue to support the nation, despite the fact Jesse Jackson opened his big mouth to the contrary.
Make no mistake here. Emanuel is a tax and spend liberal, when it comes to domestic policy and it is expected this will not change much. But from the WND article, it would appear Israel will still have a friend in the White House, at least during the opening days of the Obama Administration. This is good news.
2. Obama is committed to the auto industry bailout.
In one respect, I am against the government getting involved in any industry or company within that industry. I do not believe that government intervention is the answer to all issues pertaining to a free market economy. From this perspective, I am not pleased.
But this is the auto industry we are talking about. It is a key component to the industrial infrastructure of this nation. To allow this industry to suffer and even risk shutting down would be a major blow, economically and militarily. If all out war were to ever break out, we need to have the capabilities of manufacturing military vehicles on our own soil and it would be utterly foolish to job it out to foreign countries, which may oppose out efforts.
The one caveat I would bring to the discussion is simple enough. If the car companies get bailout money, they must restructure their management and fire all of the bastards that have mismanaged the situation, allowing us to get to this point. Like I said, I am not thrilled about this at all. But this is a necessary evil, at this point in time, not for union jobs as much as the other reason I have stated.
3. I will be watching how he approaches the Fairness Doctrine issue.
It is my hope that he considers this a background issue for now, with other things considered to be more important. But, being the skeptic I am, I have a feeling this will generate out of Congress and be forced upon him. The question will be, how will he receive it?
As a responsible blogger, I want to ensure that I do my part to act professionally, not like the Daily Kos and HuffPo did during GWB's term. But know this, I will hit hard on issues of freedom and liberty and this area I will consider a priority, if he takes the wrong side of this issue.
4. I believe his election is in some ways positive.
For many blacks it has been viewed as a redemption of sorts, for slavery and other abuses. No one alive today lived under enslavement, but is a fact that many still harbor resentment over it. With that said, there are many good decent (key word: many) black people alive today, who did live under unfair Jim Crow laws. I work with one such woman.
I have worked with this lady for over ten years and she is the sweetest person anyone would ever meet. She remembers being out with her parents and other family members as a little girl in Louisiana; she could not eat in certain restaurants and was relegated to sitting on the back of the bus.
On the day after the election, I felt a myriad of emotions just like the rest of us that worked so hard for Obama's defeat. Some disappointment, disillusionment, and profound sadness permeated my sensibilities on that day. And when I saw her at work that morning, she (knowing I had supported McCain) saw me and was slightly guarded in the first instance of eye contact.
I immediately walked over to her and put my arm around her (in a filial way) and spoke directly to her saying, "although I didn't vote for him because of his politics, for you and especially you, I am truly happy for you. She shed a little tear and looked so relieved and gave me the biggest hug.
Another older black gentleman who I have known and worked with for years, is usually quiet, humble, and overall the nicest guy you would ever want to be around. Never has his countenance shown anger and hostility, at least not that I have ever seen. Many times it has shown some measure of melancholy, with his gait slow, and his head looking at the ground while in the hallways. But when I saw him Friday, he had a spring in his step and a smile on his face; he was walking with meaning and purpose.
For him, I also am happy. But to the little snerts with their hands out, those who haven't had to endure what this man and woman experienced, I have little joy for them.
All it has done for me is confirm what I have already known and believed, for some time now. A black person can make it in America, if they work hard. Obama may not be where I think he ought to be and I may not like his background and teachings, but I cannot deny the fact that he has worked hard for what he has achieved. Running for township trustee is time-consuming in my eyes, I can only imagine how busy he has been for the last two years.
I hope that from this point forward, all blacks can truly believe they are welcome to contribute to this society and that hard work WILL get them somewhere. Dr. Bill Cosby has believed it, Herman Cain has believed it, and countless other success stories have proved this, years ago. And there is no one person in the world happier for these two and the many others, than I am.
So now, the election is over. It is done, it is finished. Now comes the time to govern and set the tone for the next election. President-Elect Obama will get fair treatment here, just as George Bush did. His actions will be assessed, evaluated, and intelligent conclusions will be drawn and communicated, based on merit or the lack thereof.
I am LASunsett and I approved this message.
President-Elect Obama will be my president. I may not like his policies (which led me to vote and actively campaign against him), but he is the man the American people elected and he will treated as such. I will criticize every policy, every stance, which I do not think is right for America. But make no mistake, he will get a far better shake here than George Bush got at liberal blogs. If he does the right thing, I will applaud him for it. If he doesn't, then (metaphorically speaking) I will rip his head off and spit down his neck.
Every move he makes will be watched and studied closely. He has already made some bold moves in his short time as the victor and here is my take on those:
1. Appointed Rahm Emanuel as WH Chief Of Staff.
Some people do not like him because of his affiliation with the Clinton Administration. From WND (HT: AICS) comes this article.
While President-elect Barack Obama and his pick for chief of staff see eye-to-eye on domestic policy, they may find themselves arguing over foreign policy, especially when it comes to Israel, Iraq and Iran.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., who served as a captain in the Israeli army, is surprisingly hawkish when it comes to fighting the war on Islamic terror.
And unlike his new boss, he supported the war in Iraq, although he criticized President Bush for missteps.
During the campaign, one of my deep concerns was Obama's commitment to Israel. He said he would continue to support the nation, despite the fact Jesse Jackson opened his big mouth to the contrary.
Make no mistake here. Emanuel is a tax and spend liberal, when it comes to domestic policy and it is expected this will not change much. But from the WND article, it would appear Israel will still have a friend in the White House, at least during the opening days of the Obama Administration. This is good news.
2. Obama is committed to the auto industry bailout.
US President-elect Barack Obama vowed swift moves to help the country's auto industry recover from an economic crisis that has brought car-making giants to their knees, after General Motors said on Friday it was on the brink of collapse.
In one respect, I am against the government getting involved in any industry or company within that industry. I do not believe that government intervention is the answer to all issues pertaining to a free market economy. From this perspective, I am not pleased.
But this is the auto industry we are talking about. It is a key component to the industrial infrastructure of this nation. To allow this industry to suffer and even risk shutting down would be a major blow, economically and militarily. If all out war were to ever break out, we need to have the capabilities of manufacturing military vehicles on our own soil and it would be utterly foolish to job it out to foreign countries, which may oppose out efforts.
The one caveat I would bring to the discussion is simple enough. If the car companies get bailout money, they must restructure their management and fire all of the bastards that have mismanaged the situation, allowing us to get to this point. Like I said, I am not thrilled about this at all. But this is a necessary evil, at this point in time, not for union jobs as much as the other reason I have stated.
3. I will be watching how he approaches the Fairness Doctrine issue.
It is my hope that he considers this a background issue for now, with other things considered to be more important. But, being the skeptic I am, I have a feeling this will generate out of Congress and be forced upon him. The question will be, how will he receive it?
As a responsible blogger, I want to ensure that I do my part to act professionally, not like the Daily Kos and HuffPo did during GWB's term. But know this, I will hit hard on issues of freedom and liberty and this area I will consider a priority, if he takes the wrong side of this issue.
4. I believe his election is in some ways positive.
For many blacks it has been viewed as a redemption of sorts, for slavery and other abuses. No one alive today lived under enslavement, but is a fact that many still harbor resentment over it. With that said, there are many good decent (key word: many) black people alive today, who did live under unfair Jim Crow laws. I work with one such woman.
I have worked with this lady for over ten years and she is the sweetest person anyone would ever meet. She remembers being out with her parents and other family members as a little girl in Louisiana; she could not eat in certain restaurants and was relegated to sitting on the back of the bus.
On the day after the election, I felt a myriad of emotions just like the rest of us that worked so hard for Obama's defeat. Some disappointment, disillusionment, and profound sadness permeated my sensibilities on that day. And when I saw her at work that morning, she (knowing I had supported McCain) saw me and was slightly guarded in the first instance of eye contact.
I immediately walked over to her and put my arm around her (in a filial way) and spoke directly to her saying, "although I didn't vote for him because of his politics, for you and especially you, I am truly happy for you. She shed a little tear and looked so relieved and gave me the biggest hug.
Another older black gentleman who I have known and worked with for years, is usually quiet, humble, and overall the nicest guy you would ever want to be around. Never has his countenance shown anger and hostility, at least not that I have ever seen. Many times it has shown some measure of melancholy, with his gait slow, and his head looking at the ground while in the hallways. But when I saw him Friday, he had a spring in his step and a smile on his face; he was walking with meaning and purpose.
For him, I also am happy. But to the little snerts with their hands out, those who haven't had to endure what this man and woman experienced, I have little joy for them.
All it has done for me is confirm what I have already known and believed, for some time now. A black person can make it in America, if they work hard. Obama may not be where I think he ought to be and I may not like his background and teachings, but I cannot deny the fact that he has worked hard for what he has achieved. Running for township trustee is time-consuming in my eyes, I can only imagine how busy he has been for the last two years.
I hope that from this point forward, all blacks can truly believe they are welcome to contribute to this society and that hard work WILL get them somewhere. Dr. Bill Cosby has believed it, Herman Cain has believed it, and countless other success stories have proved this, years ago. And there is no one person in the world happier for these two and the many others, than I am.
So now, the election is over. It is done, it is finished. Now comes the time to govern and set the tone for the next election. President-Elect Obama will get fair treatment here, just as George Bush did. His actions will be assessed, evaluated, and intelligent conclusions will be drawn and communicated, based on merit or the lack thereof.
I am LASunsett and I approved this message.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Blame Game
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, and now AIG are dominating the financial news. Naturally, the blame placers are looking to finger everyone, other than themselves.
Ms. Pelosi has to be in the biggest state of denial, since the dawning of time. In the election of 2006, the Democrats promised to clean up "George Bush's mess", if only the American people would give them a chance. They have had almost two years to get things done, and so far nothing but some hearings on baseball steroid use. They also promised to make this Congress the most ethical in the history of the institution. They have had almost two years to clean up the vile stinking culture of Congress, and yet, tax-cheat Charlie Rangel still has his committee chair and William Jefferson still has his seat. Some ethical reform that was.
Additionally, Obama has been a member of the US Senate for almost four years and has been running for President for 19 months, now. That has been ample time to warn the people of the impending doom. But until today, he has essentially been silent. In fact, it is very interesting to note that he has benefited greatly from Freddie and Fannie.
When Reid Pelosi or Obama are asked about what this major debacle, all they do is blame the policies of George W. Bush. If you ask them what can be done about the entire mess, all they say is elect them so they can change directions from the "failed policies of George Bush".
Democrats running Congress into the ground further than it already was and Barack Obama standing idly by until it gives him campaign fodder. Can anyone fathom the damage that will be done if these imbeciles control both the legislative and executive branches of the US government?
Personally, I don't think government should do anything about these greedy companies that make bad business decisions. I think the government should allow the market corrections to take place, unabated. At some point, we must stop the bailouts and ride this thing out. But as you can see, I am not in Washington and have no plans to ever be, unless it's a sight-seeing tour.
Politicians should stop trying to insult my intelligence by telling me that this someone else's fault (usually the opposite party and its leadership). It's not government's job to control the economy, it's their job to get the hell out of the way and allow the market to cleanse itself. Anything else just sets the market up for failure, another day.
Think of it as resuscitating a terminal cancer patient, only to have the patient die next week.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when asked Tuesday whether Democrats bear some of the responsibility regarding the current crisis on Wall Street, had a one-word answer: “No.”
Pelosi (D-Calif.) ripped President Bush’s “mismanagement” of the economy and a lack of regulation that led to the current situation.
“I think the American people have had it with this situation where the middle-income people in our country are not protected from the ramifications of the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions,” Pelosi told MSNBC.
When asked whether the Democrats “deserve some responsibility” regarding the economic crisis, Pelosi responded: “No.”
Ms. Pelosi has to be in the biggest state of denial, since the dawning of time. In the election of 2006, the Democrats promised to clean up "George Bush's mess", if only the American people would give them a chance. They have had almost two years to get things done, and so far nothing but some hearings on baseball steroid use. They also promised to make this Congress the most ethical in the history of the institution. They have had almost two years to clean up the vile stinking culture of Congress, and yet, tax-cheat Charlie Rangel still has his committee chair and William Jefferson still has his seat. Some ethical reform that was.
Additionally, Obama has been a member of the US Senate for almost four years and has been running for President for 19 months, now. That has been ample time to warn the people of the impending doom. But until today, he has essentially been silent. In fact, it is very interesting to note that he has benefited greatly from Freddie and Fannie.
When Reid Pelosi or Obama are asked about what this major debacle, all they do is blame the policies of George W. Bush. If you ask them what can be done about the entire mess, all they say is elect them so they can change directions from the "failed policies of George Bush".
Democrats running Congress into the ground further than it already was and Barack Obama standing idly by until it gives him campaign fodder. Can anyone fathom the damage that will be done if these imbeciles control both the legislative and executive branches of the US government?
Personally, I don't think government should do anything about these greedy companies that make bad business decisions. I think the government should allow the market corrections to take place, unabated. At some point, we must stop the bailouts and ride this thing out. But as you can see, I am not in Washington and have no plans to ever be, unless it's a sight-seeing tour.
Politicians should stop trying to insult my intelligence by telling me that this someone else's fault (usually the opposite party and its leadership). It's not government's job to control the economy, it's their job to get the hell out of the way and allow the market to cleanse itself. Anything else just sets the market up for failure, another day.
Think of it as resuscitating a terminal cancer patient, only to have the patient die next week.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Some Things To Consider In The Great Depression Of 2008
The Independent has published a report that seeks to compare the economic downturn of 2008 with the Great Depression that gripped the nation, after the Stock Market Crash of 1929.
Now, this is all well and good. And it certainly doesn't diminish the fact that there are more people on food stamps now, than last year. But, some perspective would be nice. If we are going to use data to draw accurate conclusions, we must understand some things:
Note the graph in this NYT article.
Understanding that many would love to use this as some kind of evaluation tool to prove that George W. Bush is the worst President in history, we must consider the trend of the indicator provided in this NYT article.
Supposedly, Clinton gave us the best years of our lives. Yet, in the mid 90s, the number of people on food stamps was near what it is now. Supposedly, Reagan gave us the worst years of our lives. But, if we look at the numbers in the mid 80s, we see that the number of people on food stamps were much lower.
One thing this Independent.com article does not factor into the mix is, the number of people crossing our borders and receiving this government benefit. Non-citizens are using this program too.
I have said before, we are a long way from the poverty and suffering in the Great Depression. One number that stands out is the 25% unemployment rate, during that time. But that seldom-considered piece of data doesn't stop the naysayers, who want to discredit this administration for the specific purpose of empowering themselves. They'll reach for anything, if they think it'll work in their favor.
Update:
How ironic this article turns out to be.
We knew things were bad on Wall Street, but on Main Street it may be worse. Startling official statistics show that as a new economic recession stalks the United States, a record number of Americans will shortly be depending on food stamps just to feed themselves and their families.
Dismal projections by the Congressional Budget Office in Washington suggest that in the fiscal year starting in October, 28 million people in the US will be using government food stamps to buy essential groceries, the highest level since the food assistance programme was introduced in the 1960s.
The increase – from 26.5 million in 2007 – is due partly to recent efforts to increase public awareness of the programme and also a switch from paper coupons to electronic debit cards. But above all it is the pressures being exerted on ordinary Americans by an economy that is suddenly beset by troubles. Housing foreclosures, accelerating jobs losses and fast-rising prices all add to the squeeze.
Now, this is all well and good. And it certainly doesn't diminish the fact that there are more people on food stamps now, than last year. But, some perspective would be nice. If we are going to use data to draw accurate conclusions, we must understand some things:
Note the graph in this NYT article.
Understanding that many would love to use this as some kind of evaluation tool to prove that George W. Bush is the worst President in history, we must consider the trend of the indicator provided in this NYT article.
Supposedly, Clinton gave us the best years of our lives. Yet, in the mid 90s, the number of people on food stamps was near what it is now. Supposedly, Reagan gave us the worst years of our lives. But, if we look at the numbers in the mid 80s, we see that the number of people on food stamps were much lower.
One thing this Independent.com article does not factor into the mix is, the number of people crossing our borders and receiving this government benefit. Non-citizens are using this program too.
I have said before, we are a long way from the poverty and suffering in the Great Depression. One number that stands out is the 25% unemployment rate, during that time. But that seldom-considered piece of data doesn't stop the naysayers, who want to discredit this administration for the specific purpose of empowering themselves. They'll reach for anything, if they think it'll work in their favor.
Update:
How ironic this article turns out to be.
Friday, January 11, 2008
The Drunken Sailor Approach To Government - Made Easy
When your banks are tanking from making bad loans and the credit card companies are taking a dive from extending credit to people they know cannot pay it back, who do you call to bail them out?
Answer: Nations that don't like you very much and would love to see you weakened.
Well, it's only a matter of time. When we get so far into these people, they are going to call these loans in. Mark it down. Meanwhile, they will own a significant amount of our financial infrastructure and control nearly all of the means of production, all because we export our factory jobs overseas.
In WWII, we succeeded partially because we converted regular plants that could manufacture the supplies we needed, to defeat a formidable enemy. But many of those are slipping away with a lot going overseas to nations like China. If the balloon goes up, does anyone think China will let us job that out to them?
This is what happens to a nation, when it spends way too much.
To state it in a Greek patriarchal manner much like Michael Constantine's character in the movie, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, "But nobody leesens to me".
Answer: Nations that don't like you very much and would love to see you weakened.
Citigroup is putting the final touches to its second big capital-raising effort in as many months, seeking up to $14bn from Chinese, Kuwaiti and public market investors.
Under the proposal being discussed, the bulk of the money – roughly $9bn – would be most likely to come from China, people familiar with the negotiations say. The Kuwait Investment Authority would contribute about $1bn, while $2bn to $4bn would be raised through a public placement of shares.
Well, it's only a matter of time. When we get so far into these people, they are going to call these loans in. Mark it down. Meanwhile, they will own a significant amount of our financial infrastructure and control nearly all of the means of production, all because we export our factory jobs overseas.
In WWII, we succeeded partially because we converted regular plants that could manufacture the supplies we needed, to defeat a formidable enemy. But many of those are slipping away with a lot going overseas to nations like China. If the balloon goes up, does anyone think China will let us job that out to them?
This is what happens to a nation, when it spends way too much.
To state it in a Greek patriarchal manner much like Michael Constantine's character in the movie, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, "But nobody leesens to me".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)