I think it is kind of funny how everyone here is arguing like one side of the Government is any better than the other. Both sides have done what they can to fill their own pockets at the expense of Taxpaying Americans, but this is to be expected. Incompetence is to be expected. Sledding down a hill, you can’t rightly decide halfway that you don’t want to sled anymore, unless you roll off (how is Canadian immigration laws these days…?). You put the power in their hands to fleece you, turn a blind eye to criminal behavior, then act all insulted afterwards as it becomes apparent they aren’t going to be your friends? This is what THEY do. It is their job. You think they have their wealth from hard work and diligence?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Category: Uncategorized
AH, but before you start passing out poll numbers, take a look at all of them, don’t just single out the one you like best, such as “More than 8 in 10 are dissatisfied with the way the nation is being governed, 53% have little or no trust in political officeholders, and 57% lack trust in government to solve domestic problems;” or “Forty-three percent of Americans say Barack Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, 22% say he has been about the same, and 34% say he has been worse. Obama compares less favorably to Bill Clinton: 12% say Obama has been better, 35% about the same, and 50% worse.” Ya know, just to balance things out.
More on House Republicans
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Further Musings…
Of course, through the day, there was no talk of this Congressional Power Strain going on, of course not, not here, safe in the Corn Belt with a huge pan of fried chicken, spiraled honey ham — how could anyone even dare think such thoughts?
But I checked in when I got back to the hotel and was completely unsurprised that there had been no resolve. I mean, one, there’s Saturday Morning Cartoons, so nothing gets done till nearly noon, then lunch, and the afternoon was so hot… And a new question occurs:
A debt ceiling implies that there is a debt; a debt implies that we owe someone some money. Who, exactly? Please clarify. Please.
Along this line of thinking was the thought that we give away way too much money. Who are we giving this money to? What are these recipients doing for us? Are they, in taking this money, doing anything that leads to a less dependance on charities and hand-outs?
There is a thought out there that charitable financial givings should be lessened, at least by ten percent. Ten percent? Barely a dink in the bucket. Closer to fifty percent, I think, and at the least a twenty-five percent decrease. This may seriously disrupt the economies of these countries, but it may also be a catalyst needed to get these countries moving on their own? Wow, why would we want that?
Would they argue? “No, hey, that just isn’t enough free money, we need more…” Would the bleeding hearts feel we are being less American if we gave other people less in order to take care of Americans? Are we obligated to save the world, at the expense of ourselves?
This Scrooge thinking led in different paths, as anything in my head tends to. One thought was on the paychecks of these Senators and Congressmen. I would have to do some digging – something I am not set ready to do at the moment – but didn’t they just give themselves a raise within the recent decade? And, yes, this pay raise is not responsible for any deficit, but what was the percentage of that raise? Why would the same percentage not given to the rest of Americans, along with that free medical coverage? Just a thought…
I really think, in this day and age, there should be a better way for the American Public to give input on anything that goes on in those Sacred Halls. You know that no one actually gives honest answers to pollsters, and any news media is only going to focus on the one side of the political spectrum that is paying their bills. There is no clarity.
There was something else I was thinking, but I’m tired now and The Goonies is on, and we have a few hours of peace. Sometimes that’s harder to come by than national financial security…
I usually don’t listen to NPR. Too stuffy in their liberal views – the preppy college kid who acts as though they are really giving back because they notice the poor slums and the starving children on the other side of the world, hell, they’ll even go talk to them. As with any all politically-slanted media, it only portrays one aspect of the going-ons in the world and only tries to appeal to one corner of listeners. I do, however, really dig that chick with the English accent. I don’t know what she is talking about, I just get all mushy at the sound of her Britified, whispery voice – thanks, Mel…
But in the country roads of Indiana, when nothing else but country music even remotely cackles on the car radio, there wasn’t too much choice to listen and pay attention. On the way to the surprise birthday celebration of an elderized lady, with the Missus having nodded off, I had nothing else to focus on. And the topic of the week is the troubles Congress is having with rasing the debt ceiling. There is no explanation on what it all is about, and I have been avoiding news, on both the national and local fronts, for the past few months as I re-assimilate. But it is a national debt ceiling, pretty easy to figure out. The talk is about who in the country, which citizens will be short-changed because there isn’t enough money to go around. Some little old lady in Iowa. A firefighter in Texas. Border patrol guards in Arizona. The regular people. No mention of politicians at all, without consideration that one of their paychecks will cover for three of the people’s needs. That would be ludicrous, of course.
Congress is at a stalemate, a filibuster, as the Republicans will not pass the proposals the Democrats put on the table in reference to a higher debt ceiling. There is not clear declaration on who the debt is to – taxpayers, other nationalities, corporations? – which I think should be an important consideration. Is it that big a deal if we owe it back to our own pockets? What are other countries going to do it we decide to not pay on their schedule? What do the Republicans want in order to pass the movement? What necessities are in the air that make such a raising needed? Because, usually, I see a lot of politicians asking for money for issues that should have been handled differently: if funds were not mis-used, then more funds would not need to be beggared for. Of course, of course.
And those gray-suited bastards are hard at work over the weekend, trying to hammer out a deal that both parties can agree to, while Barry is on the golf course saying how the Republicans are against him, are against us all.
I bring this up because, listening to all this talk about how our economy hangs in the balance, how our way of life depends on this higher debt ceiling (which, if you consider it, is the NEW American Way of Life: Live on Credit and Put the Receipts in a Shoebox), I didn’t hear any talk about how much money we are handing out to the Middle East so that they can rebuild. I didn’t hear a word on how much money we give away, based on someone else’s decisions, to countries that have learned it is easier for them to scratch by on hand-outs than it is to knuckle down and be responsible for themselves. Nothing said about the debts we owe to countries that have reneged on their own promises and debts.
The United States has focused too much, for too long, on being a global presence, and it is time to reign that back in and take care of our own yard. As a parental unit, the United States would have lost custody long ago, and may have gotten lucky with supervised visitation rights, but as a national force, it is left to self-implode, along with its citizenry.
Here’s a thought: every move a Congressman or Senator makes is recorded and reported to those citizens he or she answers to. If it is a decision those voters dislike, that can be made immediately. Screw this writing the Congressman a letter that gets read and laughed at by some underpaid aide; there should be a forum made available that shows every move there in Washington and what the general public thinks of it. Maybe if the opinions and wishes of the public were honestly known, the politicians would move in a direction that truly focuses on this country, or give reasons why such decisions are unwise.
After today’s shin-dig, I want to read more on this debt ceiling and I will follow this up as soon as I can. With more blind opinions, name-calling, and ingratuity, of course.
A copy of an email that came to me, a sort of “hoax email.” It’s not true, not a real speech, but it says things people are calling “racist,” “bigoted,” and “hateful.” Why? Because saying anything that smacks of strong patriotism can only mean you are full of hate and prejudice these days…
Australia says NO – Second Time he has done this !
He’s done it again..
He sure isn’t backing down on his hard line stance and one has to appreciate his belief in the rights of his native countrymen.
A breath of fresh air to see someone lead.
I wish some leaders would step up in Canada & USA ..
Australian Prime Minister does it again!!
This man should be appointed King of the World.. Truer words have never been spoken.
It took a lot of courage for this man to speak what he had to say for the world to hear. The retribution could be phenomenal, but at least he was willing to take a stand on his and Australia ‘s beliefs.
Whole world needs a leader like this!
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks..
Separately, Rudd angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation’s mosques. Quote:
‘IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.. Take It Or Leave It.
I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians. ‘
‘This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom’
‘We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!’
‘Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.’
‘We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.’
‘This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, ‘THE RIGHT TO LEAVE’.’
‘If you aren’t happy here then LEAVE. We didn’t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.’
Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves in Canada & USA , WE will find the courage to start speaking and voicing the same truths.
If you agree please SEND THIS ON and ON, to as many people as you know
I looked into whether it was fact-based or not and found the following websites if you care to read further on it:
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/howard-muslim-speech.shtml
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/australia.asp
http://www.reconciliationtalk.com/2009/02/why-search-for-kevin-rudd-speech-on-islam.html
I know some people won’t like reading that I’d post this, though I’m not too worried about that.
Today’s society faces an ever-growing pool of social problems, ranging from drug abuse to unemployment to violent crimes, homelessness to inadequate health care, racism, poverty, a wide educational gap between economic poles, and a growing political stratification. It may seem trite to consider divorce as a social problem that has, in light of other concerns, a damaging impact on the social structure of the United States, especially in consideration of the acceptability of marital divorce and a relaxation of the stigma that has accompanied divorce for centuries, and which still is present in many foreign countries. That divorce is a contemporary social problem that the nation must address often seems to insult the citizenry, though the problems that are borne of marriage dissolution are often demanded to be rectified by government entities at the local, state, and national levels (Robinson, 2000).
However, as family is a cornerstone of individual personality and development, the ramifications of divorce have a reach much further than what is generally considered. It is not only the divorcing spouses which are impacted by divorce, nor only their children and immediate family. In one way or another, divorce puts stress on family and social circles in an ever-widening circle, placing demands on social structures that affect even those with no connection to the relationship. Educational resources, employment opportunities, and economical institutions all feel the effects of divorce, and those effects are passed out along nearly all social interactions (Tischler, 2007), affecting all of society as a whole, even as those affects are generally overlooked as a social problem stemming from divorce and are usually dismissed as a problem of an individual.
Statistically, the occurrence of divorces can be confusing. Because states no longer formally collect statistics reflecting marriages and divorces as they once have, the information is now gathered by outside sources, which sometimes do not include pertinent information. With the passage of no-fault divorce laws in the 1970’s, the actual reasons for divorce are usually difficult to discern. In fact, the reasons that directly contribute to divorce usually begin two to three years before the actual divorce and are rarely listed as the reason for the divorce. Before no-fault divorce laws were passed in all fifty states of the country, it was necessary to have a just cause for divorce, which was usually limited to infidelity or abuse, though reasons such as incarceration, inability to financially support a spouse, and mental illness were sometimes accepted as justifiable reasons for divorce. The passage of no-fault divorce laws was not meant to promote divorce, but to help regulate the instances of deception some spouses committed in order to gain a divorce and to free the court system of long and messy cases where agreements to terms was difficult to accomplish (O’Connell-Corcoran, 1997). As divorce became easier and less expensive to acquire, the divorce rate quickly skyrocketed. It seems that the divorce rate has lessened over the last decade, but this may also be a product of non-standard collection of data and the reluctance of divorcing spouses to participate in studies. Current statistics are non-committed to exact numbers and often are confusing because of different criteria used to arrive at any number, but the oft-quoted percentage is between forty and fifty percent of marriages will end in divorce. Age brackets, gender, economic standing, education, whether first marriage or beyond, and parental history are some of the criteria used in figuring out the divorce rate for the United States, each additional attribute making the raw numbers all the more baffling.
Unfortunately, forty to fifty percent is considered a low number (Hoover, 2009), and little is done to dissuade the population from seeking divorce, or to better regulate marriage laws so to help prevent the chances of divorce even before the risk becomes apparent. In fact, there seem to be more incentive towards divorce than to keep a marriage together, both monetarily and socially. The stigma of broken homes has been replaced, in the community and by the media, by the general attitude that divorce and single-parent households are instead the norm.
Divorce is not a new concept, nor is it a solely American issue. History shows that divorces have been granted nearly as long as history has been recorded, though it has never reached the proportion it currently sits at now. The Church of England split from the Catholic Church in 1534 because King Henry the VIII was unable to acquire a divorce from the Pope of the Catholic Church (Robinson, 2000). Nearly every culture of the world, throughout history, allows for some variation of divorce, though its popularity has only skyrocketed since the middle of the Twentieth Century, and the United States holds the highest divorce rate across the globe. That it is all the easier to obtain a divorce in current society may also contribute to a flippant attitude in entering into marriage, even though the marriage rate has decreased over the years and couples are generally marrying later in life, after education and career goals are pursued.
It is estimated that it costs society thirty thousand dollars a year for every divorce that is reached. This includes court costs, including time spent of the courts to finalize divorces, welfare programs and collection costs of child support and alimony (Eleoff, 2008), not to mention possible jailing costs for those that do not pay for child support or alimony. These are costs that are usually absorbed by taxpayers. There are virtually no public programs funded that work towards preventing divorces, through counseling or pre-marriage programs. For those couples that wish to work towards keeping their marriage together, those costs are left to them to cover.
Aside from monetary costs to society, the impact of divorce affects our nation at different levels. Obviously, the individuals that divorce are directly affected, but so are any children which are borne of any relationship, as they are children and later into their adult lives. Social programs have been established for the sole purpose to deal directly with the aftermath concerns of broken homes. Economical welfare is threatened by the impact of divorce; the number of families receiving government assistance or living below the poverty line is staggering (Borden, 2010). It can even be surmised that personal security in the consideration of marriage has been broken down because of the number of divorces and the chance that any new union runs such a high risk of ending within the first eight years of marriage.
Often, the topic that comes under greatest consideration in relation to marital divorce is how a couple’s children are affected by the divorce. Generally, any change in a child’s usual habits becomes considered an affect of the divorce, whether it be a drop in school grades, or promiscuity, or drug and alcohol use, or just depressive moodiness (Addotta, 2006). For many years, any straying from contemporary acceptable behavior that had the slightest correlation to a broken marriage was considered a result of divorce, of children’s response to the splitting up of their family. To be sure, a divorce certainly does change the life of a child and throws his or her emotions into turmoil, but it is more often than not the behavior of the parents and how they, as adults, handle the situation that most strongly negatively affects children’s reactions. Too often, the parents, dealing with a frustrating situation as it is, neglect to emotionally support their children through the difficult time. The time following a divorce is often harder for the children, especially those that grow up exclusively with a single parent, which is where many of the worrisome troubles for children are generally found. In the majority of instances where children’s reactions are destructive in some way, it’s found that the parents’ divorce was drawn-out and complicated, and that one or both parents were not as supportive of the child’s needs as necessary.
Children, when cared for through the divorce process, generally come to accept that their parents are not splitting up to hurt them and that the divorce’s intention is to bring an end to unhappiness. However, children do not come from a divorced family without its effects making an imprint on their lives. Perhaps even more important than the immediate effects of divorce on children is the long-lasting repercussions that it leaves with children as they grow into adulthood (Eleoff, 2008). It’s unfortunate that having grown up with divorced parents increases the odds that a couple now will turn to divorce, but current statistical information shows that these couples are at a much higher risk for their marriage ending than those couples which did not live with their parents’ divorce as children. One reason why some sociologists speculate that children of divorced parents face such a higher risk is that divorce is seen as a viable option to marriage problems, for both those children that endured a complicated divorce and those whose parents’ divorce run smoothly with compassion and understanding. Children, even before divorce became such a social issue, have always looked to their parents firstly as models for future relationships. Whether it is the good traits of a family’s relationship or the troubling mistakes parents make, these all leave their mark on the children and are carried forth into their adult years.
The impact broken marriages have on society may seem to be a less concern than many of the other factions that weaken society’s structure, especially as society takes a more liberal attitude towards family affairs. Still, it is understood that there is a sort of correlation between those that live through divorce and many of the problems that contemporary society faces (Schaefer, 2006). An end of divorce would certainly not bring about an end to crime, or to alcoholism, or to unemployment or war, but it may be a better support system for society to look towards a way towards suggesting a path other than divorce, instead of making it all the easier to end a marriage. It’s been suggested that to lower the current divorce rate means presenting a new approach to marriage, that pre-marital counseling may be a helpful tool in readying individuals for entrance into a serious, healthy relationship. As marriage is a lawfully-recognized union and divorce is a legal dissolution of that union, the country’s courts should exert more effort in programs which promote healing at-risk marriages, instead of making it easier and easier for troubled spouses to divorce. This is the idea set by many individuals who see marriage as more than just a foundation for the family unit, and therefore society, but as a holy union that is more than a legal bond, and there may be merit in such idealism. Sociologists theorize that marriages which hold together produce healthier, happier individuals, even those which weather bad times, and these marriages tend to promote a healthier attitude in those individuals involved in such families, individuals which pursue cooperative and compromise to find solutions, rather than bring things to an end. The products of divorce become fault lines of the community, of society, and more energy is expended towards damage control, rather than investing in services that would counsel against dissolution, despite the costs to society that broken families brings. As citizens demand less intrusion by government into personal issues, courts back off from involvement in divorce cases, in some cases turning the whole affair over to mediators who work with the divorcing spouses towards an easier split, and this has definitely contributed to the higher number of divorces in the United States. The flip side of this lessened involvement is that, after divorces, citizens and communities demand that the government pay for and resolve the issues that develop from these divorces, such as a rising poverty rate, child care, and social services. The responsibility of consequences becomes the problem of society to deal with, even though it is the unwillingness of the responsible individuals to handle those issues that they have brought into being. This trend of demanding that the government fix the problems and mistakes created by individuals is certainly not a new thing, but has increased over the last few decades as previous standards and morals are tweaked to changing ideologies that lend more favor to a society demanding more and more from the government and undertaking less accountability for their own actions, all the while claiming personal rights for that which was once earned (Robinson, 2000). Obviously, this opinion does not describe society as a whole, but has been a growing response to many of the issues the government is now charged with resolving. Those that have not lived with the direct impact of divorce in their lives argue that it is doubtful its repercussions can undermine social structure as much as some social scientists say, but there are too many instances of social troubles which hold divorce in the background for such impact to be overlooked.
In years before the divorce laws were changes, sociologists theorize that the troubled families that stayed together and worked through the troubling issues were more apt to produce children who grew into adults which did not turn to divorce in their own marriages, granting that the initial issues were not of abuse of any kind. The children of these marriages were also more apt to choose marriage partners with greater care, as opposed to the flippancy which occurred once divorces were of a greater ease to obtain. Once an easier way out of marriage was available, more marriages ended for no other reason than the two spouses no longer wished to be together. Knowing that such dissolution was within easy reach allows for individuals to turn away from problems, from dealing with issues towards a resolution (O’Connell-Corcoran, 1997). It isn’t only this weakening of marital structure that suffers from a refusal to work towards solutions, rather than let society handle the consequences, but it may be said that numerous social issues stem from this weakening of the family unit. The family is the basic building block of the community, of society. While the traditional nuclear family may be rare in today’s society, it should not be as difficult to maintain a healthy family structure, yet this hope is hindered by the attitude that troubles should be abandoned, rather than resolved. Sociologists continue to note that numerous social issues hold this same refusal to face problems and this may be another aspect of divorce that is overlooked in its impact (Schaefer, 2006), as children grow up with the decisions their parents make shaping the decisions they make themselves. This consistent circle becomes more of a spiral, of a downward spiral, as individuals incorporate this attitude into more aspects of life. Society becomes overwhelmed with the consequences of troubles, with the aftermath of issues, and energies which would have better effect concentrated at the root of society’s issues are expended on the results of those issues.
For whatever social structure marriage and the family unit is set to become in contemporary America, it is not left to the country’s government to provide a crutch for the individuals who decide to shuffle aside the problems they set into place. As social issues grow in their impact and become problems on a national scale, the consideration that the social troubles created by divorce lead towards much more damaging effects needs to be realized and understood that waiting till those effects occur before dealing with them has been greatly unsuccessful. While divorce is most likely never going to be abolished, and forcing people who are unhappy together to stay together can lead to disastrous results, to not take action towards supporting healthier marriages can only lead to society merely providing damage control after the fact, a situation that will not approve until society, and its citizens, work towards building stronger relationships instead of simply making it easier to cast aside troubles when one is unhappy.
Resources
Addotta, K. (2006). Divorce! Kip Addotta Encyclopedia of People, Products, Services, Health & Entertainment. Retrieved October 2, 2010 from http://www.kipaddotta.com/legal/divorce.html
Borden, L. (2010). Divorce statistics. Divorceinfo. Retrieved October 02, 2010 from http://www.divorceinfo.com/statistics.htm
Eleoff, S. (2008). Divorce effects on children: An Exploration of the ramifications of divorce on children and adolescents. The Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine. Retrieved October 2, 2010 from http://www.childadvocate.net/divorce_effects_on_children.htm
Hoover, A. (2009). Divorce rates. Divorce. Retrieved October 2, 2010 from http://divorce.lovetoknow.com/Divorce_Rates
O’Connell-Corcoran, K. (1997). Psychological and emotional aspects of divorce. Retrieved October 2, 2010 from http://www.mediate.com/articles/psych.cfm
Robinson, B.A. (2000). Divorce and remarriage: U.S. divorce rates for various faith groups, age groups, & geographic areas. Retrieved October 2, 2010 from http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
Schaefer, R.T. (2006). Sociology: a brief introduction, 6th ed. McGraw-Hill. NY.
Tischler, H.L. (2007). Introduction to Sociology, 9th ed. Thompson Wadsworth; Thompson Learning, Inc. Belmont, CA.
What the hell happened -
545 people vs. 300 million people
This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be – read it!!
The article below is completely neutral …not anti republican or democrat.
Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel has hit the nail
directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must
assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day.
It’s a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!
545 vs. 300,000,000
EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE.
Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.
545 PEOPLE–By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them..
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits….. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red ..
If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it’s because they want them in IRAQ
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power..
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees…
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
What you do with this article now that you have read it……… Is up to you.
This might be funny if it weren’t so darned true.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What in the hell happened? Can you spell ‘politicians?’
Ten Thoughts to Ponder 2010
Number 10
Life is sexually transmitted.
Number 9
Good health is merely the slowest possible
rate at which one can die.
Number 8
Men have two emotions: Hungry and Horny.
If you see him without an erection,
make him a sandwich .
Number 7
Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day,
teach a person to use the Internet and
they won’t bother you for weeks.
Number 6
Some people are like a Slinky …
Not really good for anything, but you
still can’t help but smile when
you shove them down the stairs.
Number 5
Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday,
lying in hospitals, dying of nothing.
Number 4
All of us could take a lesson from the weather.
It pays no attention to Criticism.
Number 3
Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200.00,
and a substantial tax cut saves you $30.00?
Number 2
In the 60′s, people took acid to make the world weird.
Now the world is Weird and people take Prozac to make it normal.
And The Number 1 Thought For 2010
“Life is like a jar of Jalapeno peppers;
What you do today, might Burn Your Butt Tomorrow”
In a piece of irresponsible journalism passed off as Op-Ed, Maureen Dowd puts forth the argument that Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” outburst during the Presidential Address Wednesday night, 9/9/09, is nothing but racist-fueled fear that has nothing to do with the Address itself, but a desperate attempt for American Bigots to keep their clenching fists on an America which is growing and spreading beyond the confines of color. Ms. Dowd pooped out her piece Saturday the 12th in the pages of The New York Times.
And she is a good writer. Don’t get me wrong. Unlike me, she is a professional in her field and gets paid for it. She did put in the piece facts on Wilson and the South that, put in the right place, supports her claim that Wilson did not shout out out of emotional frustration to what Obama was mouthing, but only out of his deep-rooted hatred for the idea that a black man is in the White House.
How is this even an issue? How does this line of thinking actually consider the issues on the table? Is it nothing but a clouding of the mind, a distraction put out there to keep people from demanding truth and transparency? How many times has this race issue been pulled out without any follow-through on the facts being questioned?
They are, in fact, two different issues. Whether Joe Wilson puts on clean sheets and burns badly-made crosses, whether the majority of the GOP resents a black man as Commander-in-Chief, these ideas have nothing to do with whether Obama is being entirely truthful in the presentation of his Plan. These ideas have nothing to do whether or not Wilson considered Obama’s words to be blatant lies. No matter how much it is argued, racial tension has nothing to do with the questionable validity of Obama’s health plan. To insist it does is irresponsible and criminaly misleading, especially for a professional journalist. No problem if you want to swear you seen these guys throwing homemade bombs in the basement windows of churchs, that is part of that Free Speech thing. But there needs to be actual responsibility taken by journalists, Right and Left alike, who have the power to influence public thought with their words. Expression of personal opinion is part of our American Life, but it should not be used to detract from actual facts, especially when such an issue is at the forefront of every American’s concern.
As exhaustive as Joe’s two words would seem, it seems important to look at what might prompt him to such an emotional outburst which is completely disrespectful to the Office of the President (though it seems that booing, from either side, has always been permissable).
1. The Democrats did veto a proposed amendment to a plan which would tighten verification processes for citizenship in hospital care. That is a fact. However, it was the Democrats who shot it down, not Obama himself.
a. the same could be said of preventing abortions from being covered under the plan as well, another amendment was put on the table by Republicans and shot down by Democrats.
2. Obama has been in works to quicken citizenship processes, which could give truth to his statement because, by 2013, when the Plan would be in effect, illegal aliens would no longer be illegal aliens.
a. which raises the question as to how wording is so important. Might there be agreement if the term “illegal aliens” is struck from the Plan and replaced with “those who’ve entered the country illegally“?
The debate on this issue has been running full-force now for months. Obama is right: the status quo is not acceptable. But he is wrong in forcing his sole plan down on top of the American people. His plan is not the only idea on the table, a fact that he ignores to mention. And he does not consider the ideas and how they might be implemented into his own ideas. Instead, he makes his plan and himself indivisible. Those who oppose his plan oppose him, not exactly the way Democracy works. He declares that his door is always open and he will listen to “a serious set of proposals” but, it seems, that means very little in the concept of consideration.
Like all Americans – Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, black, white, or any other label that is needed – I am concerned with how health care reform is going to affect me and how health care is in dire need for actual reform. But I don’t see much getting accomplished. Obama shoots down those that don’t agree with his plan and those who look towards its realistic flaws as points that need ironed out as opponents that are only trying to undermine him. What consideration has he given to the ideas which have contrasted with his ideas? How can he bemoan the attitudes of his opposition if he portrays those same attitudes?
He has advertised his plan without giving clear, understandable explanations of its workings. He’s used quotes and numbers out of context as scare tactics to overwhelm those that depend on health coverage. He touts his “no time to accept the status quo” as though that is the only alternative to his plan, a very misleading implication. He wants his Plan passed this fall without clear understanding, but it doesn’t take effect for four years; if it is so wonderful, why wait so long? Trying to get a clear view of what his plan is is not an easy thing; the rhetoric put out on numerous websites make it all sound very attractive, but this is the government: how is the fine print going to bend us over? where is that fine print? He claims that already-established health insurance coverage will not suffer in competition with a government insurance program (or, if it does suffer, it deservedly does so because of a better plan running it out of business), but does he consider how current health insurance will be negatively affected while doling out benefits? Is his plan going to step up to plate halfway through chemotherapy treatment because the initial insurance had no choice but to fold? He claims “cutting waste in Medicare” will help fund the Plan with hundreds of millions of dollars while at the same time saying Medicare recipients will not lose any benefits. If there is so much waste there, why wait to deal with that? Why have they waited this long? Obama claims that no additional taxes will be charged to fund his Plan and it will not raise our deficit one iota, but that is also untrue, as shown by numerous agencies which actually deal with the sort of thing.
Is it a terrible thing, government-run health insurance? I don’t know. The present model is a poor thing, for sure, but why hasn’t there been stricter reigns put on health insurance companies which do not act in the interests of the paying American people? Again, why wait four years to do something about that? Why has such abuse, both in the private sector and in government-run programs such as Medicare, been allowed to continue for so long if their acts are criminal? Is the government program going to be accepted everywhere, unlike present insurance companies, which are accepted only at certain providers, decisions made outside of the insurance and within state government agencies? Why is the health insurance market, already controlled by government in who gets to sell what where, so restrictive if Obama thinks an open market would be a great idea? Again, why wait?
What was my point here?
Ah, yes, Ms. Dowd’s irresponsibility in her article. While vehement in calling Joe a racist, she does nothing to show that Joe was wrong in calling Barry a liar. She does nothing to defend Obama’s truthfullness, pushing forth her idea of racism as a blanket to cover the real issue. She may be a hot-looking mamma, but her journalistic irresponsibility only serves to take attention away from actual issues and the pursuit of truth, thereby harming those Americans who need to know facts more than they need to listen to racial opinion. Whether Joe is a card-carrying Brother of the Klan and stores pre-made noose knots in his briefcase, does that clearly prove Obama is presenting the whole truth, and the whole Plan, to the American People? Or is the presentation of Wilson’s racial handicap necessary to pull attention away from actual facts and the misreprestation of those facts?
I stand behind Op-Ed presentations. It represents various ways to look at issues, it represents different views on topics that might have been overlooked. But it should not be used in place of real journalism, nor should it be touted as truth. The inclusion of facts does not displace the danger of Ms. Dowd’s opinions, but only strengthens it in the minds of readers who are not given any indication as to what are hard facts and what are ideas out of her pretty, little head. That is more damaging than any outburst in an already-stained public setting.
