"I'm 63 and I'm Tired"
by Robert A. Hall
I'm 63. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked hard since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired.
I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.
I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them with their own money.
I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood Entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the economy of Zimbabwe , the freedom of the press of China the crime and violence of Mexico , the tolerance for Christian people of Iran , and the freedom of speech of Venezuela .
I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.
I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of U.S. Senators from Illinois.
I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less arrogantly of an all-knowing government.
I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but thinks that Obama's, at triple the cost, were wonderful; that thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress; that picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his; that slammed Palin, with two years as governor, for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever. Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News? Get a clue. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.
I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and mandrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America , while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.
I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough.
I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I #@*# sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.
I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic, and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person, who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military.... Those are the citizens we need.
I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people than themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years and still are? Not even close. So here's the deal. I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims, who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.
I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers; bums are bipartisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bipartisanship. I live in Illinois , where the "Illinois Combine" of Democrats has worked to loot the public for years. Not to mention the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet.
I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.
Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.
I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems.
Yes, I'm #@*% tired. But I'm also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I'm not going to have to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughter.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
Nobody checked his JUNK
Authorities managed to foil a plot over the weekend to kill perhaps hundreds of people at a Christmas tree lighting in Portland, Oregon. I'll give you a few guesses as to who plotted this terrorist attempt ...... was it a retired teacher with a colonoscopy bag? Was it a white female breast cancer survivor with a prosthetic breast? Was it a Jewish male who carries nail clippers in his pocket? Was it a three-year-old girl with Barbie backpack? Or ... was it a young Muslim male named Mohamed?
If you went with "young Muslim male named Mohamed" then you would be correct. Steam is coming out of your ears from all the amazing brain work, isn't it?
An actual Muslim! Another foiled terrorist attempt, plotted by a Muslim male who was doing his great service of Jihad in the cause of Allah.
We see deadly political correctness at work in at least two area here. First, of course, at airport screening. Even with his name of Mohamed Mohamud this Islamic goon would not have been singled out for any special attention at one of our airports. That would have been profiling! And no matter how many Americans must die we cannot single out people for special attention at airport security lines simply because they are clearly members of a group of people who, on a daily basis, express their desires to see as many of us dead as possible.
Just how many people do you think have died in this country as a result of political correctness thus far? How many more WILL die?
By the way ... this Islamic maniac's target was Portland, Oregon. In 2005 Portlnd decided not to allow Portland law enforcement officials to participate in key anti-terror efforts with the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force. This is the same FBI that saved Portland's butt here. Now these Democrat "leaders" in Portland are saying that they may reverse their decision and start cooperating. Why? Well ... because now Barack Obama is in the White House.
Idiots.
If you went with "young Muslim male named Mohamed" then you would be correct. Steam is coming out of your ears from all the amazing brain work, isn't it?
An actual Muslim! Another foiled terrorist attempt, plotted by a Muslim male who was doing his great service of Jihad in the cause of Allah.
We see deadly political correctness at work in at least two area here. First, of course, at airport screening. Even with his name of Mohamed Mohamud this Islamic goon would not have been singled out for any special attention at one of our airports. That would have been profiling! And no matter how many Americans must die we cannot single out people for special attention at airport security lines simply because they are clearly members of a group of people who, on a daily basis, express their desires to see as many of us dead as possible.
Just how many people do you think have died in this country as a result of political correctness thus far? How many more WILL die?
By the way ... this Islamic maniac's target was Portland, Oregon. In 2005 Portlnd decided not to allow Portland law enforcement officials to participate in key anti-terror efforts with the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force. This is the same FBI that saved Portland's butt here. Now these Democrat "leaders" in Portland are saying that they may reverse their decision and start cooperating. Why? Well ... because now Barack Obama is in the White House.
Idiots.
Don't get content oiver this Holiday time.
Happy Holidays! Are you in the Christmas spirit? Am I allowed to say "Christmas" anymore, or will be I shut down by the PC-police? But this period between Thanksgiving and Christmas is a time in which most Americans will tune out the politics. Their main concern is the latest sale at the local mall, rather than the shenanigans in Washington. Let me remind you that now is just as important a time to pay attention. We have some serious issues facing us within the next couple of weeks .. the main issue being the Bush tax cuts. We may also have the DREAM Act to contend with, along with budget battles, union butt kissing and more. But as the lame duck session of Congress continues to battle it out in Washington, you are probably under the impression that your job is done. You did your part in showing up to the polls in November. Wrong. Think about it like this: every dollar that you spend in the stores this holiday season is a dollar that the government has its eye on. The more of your money the government has, the more power the government has over you. While you're out there spending, saving, investing ... whatever ... the money you have worked for you need to remember that there are people in Washington who actually believe that they, not you, are the best people to spend that money. After all ... you belong to the government, right? You don't believe it, just ask them! It is the province of the politicians to determine just how all of these government assets are to be used to make life better for everyone in America. Assets? You, my friend. To many in Washington --- and I'm including no small number of Republicans here - you are nothing more than a government asset. You are to be permitted to keep as much of the wealth that you produce as is necessary to preserve the fiction of a free society. All it takes is just momentary lapses in attention ... those brief moments where you're more focused on jock sniffing and celebrity worship than you are on these people who can use force to accomplish their goals. Stay alert .. or 12 months from now the government will be exercising even more control over your life. There are votes to be bought, and your wealth is the currency.
Alright .. enough of the ranting and on to the warm and fuzzy fact of the day from the Weekly Standard. It has to do with those tax dollars, which the federal government is prepared to seize.
Over the past 20 years, the average interest rate the Treasury has had to pay on money it has borrowed has been 5.7%. But over the past year, the average rate has been 2.2%. That's no small difference given the size of our debt.
... if the current very low rate continues, and our fiscal policy basically follows the track laid out by the president's last budget, then the interest on the debt 10 years from now will be a little over $350 billion. If the rate goes back to the 20-year average, however, interest on the debt 10 years from now will be more like $1.15 trillion. Again, no small difference. Indeed, it is enough to make some prominent elements of our deficit debate seem a little ridiculous.
The increase in annual interest costs in 2015 alone--$557 billion--is nearly six times the additional revenue that is supposed to be collected by letting the higher end of the Bush tax cuts expire, the centerpiece of the current fiscal policy debate in Washington. The increase in interest costs in 2019--$795 billion--is two-and-a-half times the value of all the Bush income tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 that are due to expire.
PrezBo, Nancy Pelosi and the general Democrat mantra is that we can't "afford" to let tax cuts continue for the evil rich. More appropriately, "We can't afford to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires." But even if you increase taxes on these evil rich people, it can't even come close to paying the interest on what the Democrats have spent over the last few years. We don't have a revenue problem, folks. We have a spending problem.
Alright .. enough of the ranting and on to the warm and fuzzy fact of the day from the Weekly Standard. It has to do with those tax dollars, which the federal government is prepared to seize.
Over the past 20 years, the average interest rate the Treasury has had to pay on money it has borrowed has been 5.7%. But over the past year, the average rate has been 2.2%. That's no small difference given the size of our debt.
... if the current very low rate continues, and our fiscal policy basically follows the track laid out by the president's last budget, then the interest on the debt 10 years from now will be a little over $350 billion. If the rate goes back to the 20-year average, however, interest on the debt 10 years from now will be more like $1.15 trillion. Again, no small difference. Indeed, it is enough to make some prominent elements of our deficit debate seem a little ridiculous.
The increase in annual interest costs in 2015 alone--$557 billion--is nearly six times the additional revenue that is supposed to be collected by letting the higher end of the Bush tax cuts expire, the centerpiece of the current fiscal policy debate in Washington. The increase in interest costs in 2019--$795 billion--is two-and-a-half times the value of all the Bush income tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 that are due to expire.
PrezBo, Nancy Pelosi and the general Democrat mantra is that we can't "afford" to let tax cuts continue for the evil rich. More appropriately, "We can't afford to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires." But even if you increase taxes on these evil rich people, it can't even come close to paying the interest on what the Democrats have spent over the last few years. We don't have a revenue problem, folks. We have a spending problem.
Reality Bites IV
Country after country in Europe have had to be bailed out by the International Monetary Fund with help from more solvent nations. And in country after country we're seeing people in the streets demonstrating. Why are these countries facing these problems? Because they've gone into deep debt doing for people what the people should have been doing for themselves .. and because politicians everywhere realize the value of having huge workforces dependent on them for their livelihoods. Thus the demonstrations? "What do you mean I'm going to have to start fending for myself again? Are you kidding me? Hey .. I know my government job may not be all that essential, and I know that I'm getting paid more than I'm really worth to the taxpayers of this country ... but you're going to throw me under the bus now? You're going to cut my pay and my outrageous benefits now?
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Be afraid---Be very afraid..
Why do you go into business? OK .. seems a bit trite, I know. But seriously consider the question. I assume your response would be: to make money. But if you ask the Obama administration, people go into business in order to serve others, and there are times when the government can force your services on others and then dictate how much you are allowed to keep from providing those services. I am talking about health care .. ObamaCare.
Yesterday the Obama administration released details on a new regulation to go into effect January 1, 2012. It states that money collected from private health insurance premiums must go toward medical care, rather than overhead, administrative costs or - gawd forbid - profit. In fact, the government can now demand that you offer your customers a rebate if you collect too much in premiums that is not spent on medical care.
Here's how it is explained in the news reports ...
The healthcare law requires large group health plans to allocate at least 85 cents per premium dollar to medical care, not administrative costs or profit. Plans for individuals or small groups must spend 80 cents per dollar.
If plans do not spend at least that much on care, policy holders get a rebate. HHS said Monday up to 9 million Americans could be eligible for up to $1.4 billion in rebates starting in 2012.
Are you believing this, folks? The government is requiring that an industry spend 85% of its earnings on providing that service, leaving 15% left for everything else. What does "everything else" include? Administrative costs, marketing, taxes, commissions and profit! Among other things. A study released in 2006 found that "The private market administrative costs are expected to remain at about 9% of total private insurance cost, excluding premium taxes, commissions, and profit. With such items, private costs would be slightly under 17%." Folks, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with providing you better care at a better cost and everything to do with growing government and growing your dependency on government.
Yesterday the Obama administration released details on a new regulation to go into effect January 1, 2012. It states that money collected from private health insurance premiums must go toward medical care, rather than overhead, administrative costs or - gawd forbid - profit. In fact, the government can now demand that you offer your customers a rebate if you collect too much in premiums that is not spent on medical care.
Here's how it is explained in the news reports ...
The healthcare law requires large group health plans to allocate at least 85 cents per premium dollar to medical care, not administrative costs or profit. Plans for individuals or small groups must spend 80 cents per dollar.
If plans do not spend at least that much on care, policy holders get a rebate. HHS said Monday up to 9 million Americans could be eligible for up to $1.4 billion in rebates starting in 2012.
Are you believing this, folks? The government is requiring that an industry spend 85% of its earnings on providing that service, leaving 15% left for everything else. What does "everything else" include? Administrative costs, marketing, taxes, commissions and profit! Among other things. A study released in 2006 found that "The private market administrative costs are expected to remain at about 9% of total private insurance cost, excluding premium taxes, commissions, and profit. With such items, private costs would be slightly under 17%." Folks, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with providing you better care at a better cost and everything to do with growing government and growing your dependency on government.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Reality
"Everything is on the table." Sounds familiar, right? That is what we've been told when it comes to PrezBo's deficit reduction commission. But if you are a Democrat, "everything" principally applies to tax increases on the evil, disgusting, crooked, undeserving filthy rich, and perhaps even a tax increase in the form of a VAT tax (which will be billed as a "deficit reduction sales tax").
What is another line that sounds familiar? How about, "We can't afford tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." How many times have we heard THAT line over the past few weeks. Some Democrats think that line is working so well they've even edited it to leave out the "millionaires" part and are limiting it to "billionaires." They've further modified their class warfare script to include the idea that it's not just a tax cut, it's "$100,000 checks for billionaires." Democrats will go to any length to step up class envy and class warfare in this country. This is because they know that most people who are envious of or hate those with considerably more money than they have will most certainly vote Democrat. But when it comes to "affording" these tax cuts, remember that we are really talking about tax INCREASES on the rich. Democrats want to increase taxes. Got it?
We're told that increasing these taxes will lead us on a path toward eliminating our deficit. That's the Democrat argument. How many of you actually believe that? And just how many of you actually believe that if we increase taxes, thereby increasing the amount of money that the federal government collects, we will then use that money to apply it toward deficit reduction?
Before you answer that, perhaps I can share a little nugget of information with you. I'll try to make this semi-interesting .. In the late 1980s, some economists at Ohio University got together to do a little study for the congressional Joint Economic Committee. They wanted to know what happens when the government increases taxes and therefore collects more money for its coffers. Did government spending grow or did our debts shrink? These bean counters worked and slaved over their research and calculators and came up with something that is now known as the $1.58 study. This is what they found: "Every new dollar of new taxes led to more than one dollar of new spending by Congress. Subsequent revisions of the study over the next decade found similar results."
Let's review: Higher tax collections have never resulted in less spending by Congress. Do you understand that word? NEVER! And you think this time it would be different? Under Obama? At some point you really have to try to start thinking more clearly. It's not painful, really. The only pain is the embarrassment you feel over having been conned for so long.
Don't be fooled by the Democrat rhetoric; and don't expect the ObamaMedia to tell you the facts behind tax increases. Increasing taxes on the rich has nothing to do with reducing our deficit. It has everything to do with pandering to the wealth envy crowd. When presented with the information that increasing capital gains taxes resulted in less revenue for the government, our own president said that he would still increase taxes "for the purposes of fairness." How can you even debate such logic?
What is another line that sounds familiar? How about, "We can't afford tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." How many times have we heard THAT line over the past few weeks. Some Democrats think that line is working so well they've even edited it to leave out the "millionaires" part and are limiting it to "billionaires." They've further modified their class warfare script to include the idea that it's not just a tax cut, it's "$100,000 checks for billionaires." Democrats will go to any length to step up class envy and class warfare in this country. This is because they know that most people who are envious of or hate those with considerably more money than they have will most certainly vote Democrat. But when it comes to "affording" these tax cuts, remember that we are really talking about tax INCREASES on the rich. Democrats want to increase taxes. Got it?
We're told that increasing these taxes will lead us on a path toward eliminating our deficit. That's the Democrat argument. How many of you actually believe that? And just how many of you actually believe that if we increase taxes, thereby increasing the amount of money that the federal government collects, we will then use that money to apply it toward deficit reduction?
Before you answer that, perhaps I can share a little nugget of information with you. I'll try to make this semi-interesting .. In the late 1980s, some economists at Ohio University got together to do a little study for the congressional Joint Economic Committee. They wanted to know what happens when the government increases taxes and therefore collects more money for its coffers. Did government spending grow or did our debts shrink? These bean counters worked and slaved over their research and calculators and came up with something that is now known as the $1.58 study. This is what they found: "Every new dollar of new taxes led to more than one dollar of new spending by Congress. Subsequent revisions of the study over the next decade found similar results."
Let's review: Higher tax collections have never resulted in less spending by Congress. Do you understand that word? NEVER! And you think this time it would be different? Under Obama? At some point you really have to try to start thinking more clearly. It's not painful, really. The only pain is the embarrassment you feel over having been conned for so long.
Don't be fooled by the Democrat rhetoric; and don't expect the ObamaMedia to tell you the facts behind tax increases. Increasing taxes on the rich has nothing to do with reducing our deficit. It has everything to do with pandering to the wealth envy crowd. When presented with the information that increasing capital gains taxes resulted in less revenue for the government, our own president said that he would still increase taxes "for the purposes of fairness." How can you even debate such logic?
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
It's just not that complicated
We've got some serious work to do when it comes to tackling our fiscal inadequacies. How does this one sit with ya? Senators Tom Carper (D-Delaware) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio) want to increase fuel taxes. The proposed 25-cent-per-gallon increase would go toward deficit reduction and the highway trust fund. If implemented, it could raise $200 billion over five years. There you go ... two members of the Senate who think we have a revenue problem instead of a spending problem.
Raising taxes. That's all these people can ever come up with. Just a few weeks ago, I shared this little tidbit with you from the Congressional Budget Office. We can eliminate the deficit .. and do it relatively quickly ... WITHOUT cutting spending or raising taxes. Three scenarios:
* If we cap federal spending at current levels and extend the Bush tax cuts the budget will be balanced by 2016.
* If we limit increases in government spending to a rate of 1 percent above inflation and population growth the budget will balance by 2017.
* If we limit increases in government spending to a rate of 2 percent above inflation and population growth the budget balances by 2020.
But I guess these options are not nearly as sexy as taxing the rich or coming up with new ways to raise or increase taxes. After all, these politicians need something to do in Washington to make it seem like they are working. They can't write press releases for their local districts, bragging about how they aren't spending money.
Raising taxes. That's all these people can ever come up with. Just a few weeks ago, I shared this little tidbit with you from the Congressional Budget Office. We can eliminate the deficit .. and do it relatively quickly ... WITHOUT cutting spending or raising taxes. Three scenarios:
* If we cap federal spending at current levels and extend the Bush tax cuts the budget will be balanced by 2016.
* If we limit increases in government spending to a rate of 1 percent above inflation and population growth the budget will balance by 2017.
* If we limit increases in government spending to a rate of 2 percent above inflation and population growth the budget balances by 2020.
But I guess these options are not nearly as sexy as taxing the rich or coming up with new ways to raise or increase taxes. After all, these politicians need something to do in Washington to make it seem like they are working. They can't write press releases for their local districts, bragging about how they aren't spending money.
Monday, November 08, 2010
Don't let up the pressure on the Republicans
Maybe you've sensed it too. The rhetoric coming from some Republicans leaders in Washington has been, shall we say, just a bit odd. Well, for one, they're upset with the Tea Party movement because the Republicans say that the Tea Parties cost them at least three Senate seats by pushing unqualified candidates (Sharron Angle, Cristine O'Donnell and Ken Buck) in races the GOP could have won.
Say what? Is it sounding to you like the Republicans actually went out there and won this midterm election on their own? Now there attitude seems to be "Well, we're in power again. Time for these Tea Party people to go back to their Bibles and stuff."
You would have thought that some of the brighter minds in the Republican Party would have realized that the voters didn't vote FOR them ... they voted AGAINST Democrats. This "Hey! How cool are we!" stuff is going to get tiring.
This John Boehner guy? Still not sure about him. As Andrew C. McCarthy pointed out in this column, Boehner wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street journal about the election and opportunities for Republicans and didn't once use the word "debt" in that article. At the start of World War II a single American's share of our national debt was about $370. Today that figure is at $44,370. Boehner focused in that article on earmarks. Earmarks account for less than one percent of our budget. Hey, Boehner ... how about a little focus on the REAL problems out there?
We need to ride the Republicans even harder than we did the Democrats. With the Democrats there were alternatives. If the Republicans start enjoying their power a bit too much, and forget why they were put back in charge of the House ... then where do we turn?
And the GOP social conservatives? Concentrate, for a while, on how you live your own lives. Nobody is going to force you to have an abortion. Nobody is going to force you to marry someone of your sex. Nobody is going to coerce you into a homosexual act. And you can still pray whenever and wherever you want. Getting back on those tired rants isn't going to save our country .. it will serve, instead, to deliver us right back into the hands of those who want to destroy --- or "fundamentally transform" - America.
Say what? Is it sounding to you like the Republicans actually went out there and won this midterm election on their own? Now there attitude seems to be "Well, we're in power again. Time for these Tea Party people to go back to their Bibles and stuff."
You would have thought that some of the brighter minds in the Republican Party would have realized that the voters didn't vote FOR them ... they voted AGAINST Democrats. This "Hey! How cool are we!" stuff is going to get tiring.
This John Boehner guy? Still not sure about him. As Andrew C. McCarthy pointed out in this column, Boehner wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street journal about the election and opportunities for Republicans and didn't once use the word "debt" in that article. At the start of World War II a single American's share of our national debt was about $370. Today that figure is at $44,370. Boehner focused in that article on earmarks. Earmarks account for less than one percent of our budget. Hey, Boehner ... how about a little focus on the REAL problems out there?
We need to ride the Republicans even harder than we did the Democrats. With the Democrats there were alternatives. If the Republicans start enjoying their power a bit too much, and forget why they were put back in charge of the House ... then where do we turn?
And the GOP social conservatives? Concentrate, for a while, on how you live your own lives. Nobody is going to force you to have an abortion. Nobody is going to force you to marry someone of your sex. Nobody is going to coerce you into a homosexual act. And you can still pray whenever and wherever you want. Getting back on those tired rants isn't going to save our country .. it will serve, instead, to deliver us right back into the hands of those who want to destroy --- or "fundamentally transform" - America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)