IF THIS IS TRUE, I AGREE, VOTE THEM ALL OUT OF OFFICE!
THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION IS FUNDING TWENTY FOUR MILLION DOLLARS--LET ME REPEAT THAT AMOUNT ... SO YOU UNDERSTAND IT $ 24,000,000.00 DOLLARS FOR NEW ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS PROCESSING FOR OUR CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS !!
THEY ARE OBTAINING THESE FUNDS AndI QUOTE DIRECTLY FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY WEBSITE
"THIS MONEY WILL BE COMING FROM THE SAVINGS TO BE GENERATED FROM WITHHOLDING "
COST OF LIVING INCREASES FOR 2010 & 2011 In SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS FOR THE ELDERLY
AND A $2.00 INCREASE ON ALL MEDICARE RX BENEFIT CO-PAY"
Please pass this to ALL your friends and have them "PROTEST TO THE IDIOTS WE ELECTED TO CONGRESS" Who by the way, have just voted themselves ANOTHER 3% SALARY INCREASE!!!
We must put a stop to this outright thievery!
It is THE CONGRESS AND THE SENATE, BOTH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATS, WE CAN'T FIRE THEM, BUT WE SURE CAN NOT RE-ELECT THEM, And WE CAN IMPEACH THEM Or DEMAND RECALL ELECTIONS !!!
HOW ABOUT WE ALL GET TOGETHER AND DUMP THESE CLOWNS.
All I ask is that you consider the suggestion here.
The entire Congress of the United States is corrupt. And I mean both Houses and I mean both major parties.I realize that a few Members of each House are trustworthy,
But, As a group they are absolutely the most corrupt bunch To ever disgrace our Nation.
In November of 2010 The entire House of Representatives will stand for re-election;
All 435 of them. One third of the Senate, A total of 33 of them, will also stand for re-election. Vote every incumbent out. And I mean every one of them.
No matter their Party affiliation.
Let's start all over in the House of Representatives with 435 people
Who have absolutely no experience in running that body,
With no political favors owed to anyone but their own constituents.
Let's make them understand that they work for us... They are answerable to us
And they simply have to run that body with some common sense.
Two years later, in 2012, Vote the next third of the incumbents in the Senate out.
We can do the same thing in 2014 and, By that time we will have put all new people in that body as well.
We, the People,
Have got to take this Country back and we HAVE to do it peacefully.
That's what the Framers of our Constitution envisioned.
I am also suggesting term limits on the NEW BUNCH -
8 YEARS FOR REPRESENTATIVES AND 12 YEARS OF SENATORS. NO EXCEPTIONS.
THE LONGER THEY STAY IN OFFICE THE MORE POWER THEY GET AND THEY LOVE IT AND WILL DO ANYTHING TO GET RE-ELECTED.
WE HAVE TERM LIMITED THE PRESIDENT - NOW LET'S TERM LIMIT THE LEGISLATORS.
Please,
If you love this Country,
Send this (as I have done) to absolutely everyone
Whose email address appears in your address book..
This thing can permeate this Country in no time.
Let's make it happen.**
VOTE THE POWER ABUSERS OUT...
LET'S TAKE AMERICA BACK !!!
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Did You Know
Do your home work this November..................
DID YOU KNOW?
How many members of Congress are members of the Democratic Socialists of America?
A: 70 current members of the U.S. Congress are actually members of the Democratic Socialists of America!...70!
Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee?
...
A: Eleven:
There are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, almost half, are now members of the DSA.
John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee],
Tammy Baldwin
Jerrold Nadler
Luis Gutierrez
Melvin Watt
Maxine Waters
Hank Johnson
Steve Cohen
Barbara Lee
Robert Wexler
Linda Sanchez
Q: Who are the members of Congress who belong to the DSA?
A: See the listing below
Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)
House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William Lacy Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)
Q: What is the Socialist International?
A: It is the worldwide organization of socialist, social democratic and labor parties. It currently brings together 131 political parties and organizations from all continents. Its origins go back to the early international organizations of the labor movement of the last century.* It has existed in its present form since 1951, when it was re-established at the Frankfurt Congress. They are now headquartered in London, England.
* In 1864, representatives of English and French industrial workers founded the International Working men's Association in London. Karl Marx, who was living in London at the time, became the first internationals dominant figure. Marx's doctrines were revived in the 20th century by Russian revolutionary Vladimir Ilich Lenin, who developed and applied them – and we all know that what was started as a labor movement ended up as the biggest totalitarian/communist state, i.e., the USSR.
Q: What is the Democratic Socialists of America [DSA]?
A: It is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. Their website is
http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html
Q: What are seven principles behind what the DSA calls it's "Progressive Challenge?"
Dignified Work ( let the immigrants / Mexicans do the work but pay us for not working anyway)
Environmental Justice ( global warming another joke)
Economic Redistribution ( OH-bamas plan )
Democratic Participation ( Social programs)
Community Empowerment ( ACORN) (Black Panther Returns)
Global Non-Violence (Disarm everyone so governments rule)
Social Justice. ( Everyone lives the same, that is what got the USA where we are YEA RIGHT)
Never mind their soothing-sounding leftist doublespeak like 'Environmental Justice' (whatever that is supposed to mean) or the soft & fuzzy 'Global Non-Violence' (a euphemism for unilateral disarmament) — the DSA's self-declared principle of 'Economic Redistribution' clearly shows where these folks are coming from and exactly where they plan to take America.
DID YOU KNOW?
How many members of Congress are members of the Democratic Socialists of America?
A: 70 current members of the U.S. Congress are actually members of the Democratic Socialists of America!...70!
Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee?
...
A: Eleven:
There are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, almost half, are now members of the DSA.
John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee],
Tammy Baldwin
Jerrold Nadler
Luis Gutierrez
Melvin Watt
Maxine Waters
Hank Johnson
Steve Cohen
Barbara Lee
Robert Wexler
Linda Sanchez
Q: Who are the members of Congress who belong to the DSA?
A: See the listing below
Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)
House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William Lacy Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)
Q: What is the Socialist International?
A: It is the worldwide organization of socialist, social democratic and labor parties. It currently brings together 131 political parties and organizations from all continents. Its origins go back to the early international organizations of the labor movement of the last century.* It has existed in its present form since 1951, when it was re-established at the Frankfurt Congress. They are now headquartered in London, England.
* In 1864, representatives of English and French industrial workers founded the International Working men's Association in London. Karl Marx, who was living in London at the time, became the first internationals dominant figure. Marx's doctrines were revived in the 20th century by Russian revolutionary Vladimir Ilich Lenin, who developed and applied them – and we all know that what was started as a labor movement ended up as the biggest totalitarian/communist state, i.e., the USSR.
Q: What is the Democratic Socialists of America [DSA]?
A: It is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. Their website is
http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html
Q: What are seven principles behind what the DSA calls it's "Progressive Challenge?"
Dignified Work ( let the immigrants / Mexicans do the work but pay us for not working anyway)
Environmental Justice ( global warming another joke)
Economic Redistribution ( OH-bamas plan )
Democratic Participation ( Social programs)
Community Empowerment ( ACORN) (Black Panther Returns)
Global Non-Violence (Disarm everyone so governments rule)
Social Justice. ( Everyone lives the same, that is what got the USA where we are YEA RIGHT)
Never mind their soothing-sounding leftist doublespeak like 'Environmental Justice' (whatever that is supposed to mean) or the soft & fuzzy 'Global Non-Violence' (a euphemism for unilateral disarmament) — the DSA's self-declared principle of 'Economic Redistribution' clearly shows where these folks are coming from and exactly where they plan to take America.
Monday, July 19, 2010
The Games Have Started - Race Card Will Be Played Often
Remember what I said earlier they have a plan and will stop at nothing to achieve it.
This racial card will be played hard and often... It is all part of the plan.
We will need thousands of poll watchers come Nov 2 to make sure they do not repeat what they did in 08.
Read below
There is a very concerted effort being made by the left leaning media and certain other organizations to attempt to brand many conservative organizations or individuals as ‘racist’.
This is deliberately being made into a very high profile public issue by leftist and black organizations for they somehow still believe there is POWER in being able to castigate your opponents as racist.
That ‘old dog’ will no longer hunt for whites today know the intent of the blacks who attempt to employ this tactic is just to invoke a ‘guilt response’ and it serves to make the blacks and media appear weak and impotent.
They cannot employ discourse to resolve issues so they resort to ‘tactics’ that no longer have impetus or merit. It is a last gasp measure and we need to make it known as such.
Folks,
This is a pretty good article pointing out how far the left will go to turn people against a legitimate political movement in this country.
I've been to several tea party rallies and am yet to see any evidence of wild-eyed racism mentioned by the NAACP and others.
I've enjoyed the shared patriotism with a cross section of people, young, old and in-between. I've enjoyed the African-American speakers at the rallies.
They are very passionate when it comes to showing their love for this country and their concern for the direction the liberals are taking us.
We must all work to make sure, come November 2nd, that the people elected will change the course this country is moving and stop this dangerous move to more and bigger government. The "change" that has happened the last couple of years is making things worse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We’re drinking Tea, not Kool-Aid
By Bill O’Reilly | Sunday, July 18, 2010 | http://www.bostonherald.com |
According to NAACP President Ben Jealous, the Tea Party movement is chock full of racist people bent on harming African-Americans. Speaking at the organization’s annual convention this week, Jealous let loose on the tea folks: “Here comes the genetic descendent of the White Citizens Council, burst from its coffin, carrying signs and slogans like ‘Lynch Barack Hussein Obama’. . .”An exhaustive search of media reportage on tea parties turned up no mention of signs like that. And even if they existed, is it fair to demonize an entire movement because a few nuts are associated with it?
Does the NAACP want to be evaluated on that basis?
From the beginning of its ascent, the Tea Party has been targeted by the far left in America. They fear the populist movement because of its small-government philosophy and its successful activism. The cheapest, easiest way to attack any political opponent is to level accusations of bigotry. Almost every conservative broadcaster and columnist in America has been subjected to that.
The NAACP picked a bad time to brand the Tea Party with the racist label. Recently, the New Black Panther Party has been in the news because the Justice Department declined to prosecute a case in which three of its members apparently intimidated voters at a Philadelphia polling place. One DOJ lawyer even quit his job, saying he was ordered not to pursue the case because it involved race.
In response to the story, a number of New Black Panthers have been shown on TV saying incredibly bigoted things. NBPP member King Samir Shabazz even suggested that black Americans kill white babies. This is on tape. Obviously, racial bigotry cuts both ways.
It is true that there’s a big difference between the Tea Party and the NBPP. The tea people have quickly become a potent political force in America, while the NBPP is few in number and brain cells.
If it were just about the Panthers, the story would be meaningless. But because Attorney General Eric Holder is involved in the dismissal of the criminal charges, the situation takes on some importance.
One of the weaknesses of the NAACP is that it has rarely acknowledged black racism. The organization is silent on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan. Yet, it is outraged about the Tea Party. There might be something hypocritical about that.
It is long past time for all Americans to drop the skin color deal.
President Obama was smart and correct when he ran as an American, not as an African-American. The president made one misstep - involving himself in the Cambridge police-Harvard professor controversy - but otherwise has steered clear of racial politics.
The NAACP, however, is obviously not as astute as Obama. By saying the Tea Party members are sympathetic to racism when proof of that is scant, the organization has defined itself as irresponsible. America’s motto continues to be: Out of many, one.
Don’t tread on that.
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1268570
This racial card will be played hard and often... It is all part of the plan.
We will need thousands of poll watchers come Nov 2 to make sure they do not repeat what they did in 08.
Read below
There is a very concerted effort being made by the left leaning media and certain other organizations to attempt to brand many conservative organizations or individuals as ‘racist’.
This is deliberately being made into a very high profile public issue by leftist and black organizations for they somehow still believe there is POWER in being able to castigate your opponents as racist.
That ‘old dog’ will no longer hunt for whites today know the intent of the blacks who attempt to employ this tactic is just to invoke a ‘guilt response’ and it serves to make the blacks and media appear weak and impotent.
They cannot employ discourse to resolve issues so they resort to ‘tactics’ that no longer have impetus or merit. It is a last gasp measure and we need to make it known as such.
Folks,
This is a pretty good article pointing out how far the left will go to turn people against a legitimate political movement in this country.
I've been to several tea party rallies and am yet to see any evidence of wild-eyed racism mentioned by the NAACP and others.
I've enjoyed the shared patriotism with a cross section of people, young, old and in-between. I've enjoyed the African-American speakers at the rallies.
They are very passionate when it comes to showing their love for this country and their concern for the direction the liberals are taking us.
We must all work to make sure, come November 2nd, that the people elected will change the course this country is moving and stop this dangerous move to more and bigger government. The "change" that has happened the last couple of years is making things worse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We’re drinking Tea, not Kool-Aid
By Bill O’Reilly | Sunday, July 18, 2010 | http://www.bostonherald.com |
According to NAACP President Ben Jealous, the Tea Party movement is chock full of racist people bent on harming African-Americans. Speaking at the organization’s annual convention this week, Jealous let loose on the tea folks: “Here comes the genetic descendent of the White Citizens Council, burst from its coffin, carrying signs and slogans like ‘Lynch Barack Hussein Obama’. . .”An exhaustive search of media reportage on tea parties turned up no mention of signs like that. And even if they existed, is it fair to demonize an entire movement because a few nuts are associated with it?
Does the NAACP want to be evaluated on that basis?
From the beginning of its ascent, the Tea Party has been targeted by the far left in America. They fear the populist movement because of its small-government philosophy and its successful activism. The cheapest, easiest way to attack any political opponent is to level accusations of bigotry. Almost every conservative broadcaster and columnist in America has been subjected to that.
The NAACP picked a bad time to brand the Tea Party with the racist label. Recently, the New Black Panther Party has been in the news because the Justice Department declined to prosecute a case in which three of its members apparently intimidated voters at a Philadelphia polling place. One DOJ lawyer even quit his job, saying he was ordered not to pursue the case because it involved race.
In response to the story, a number of New Black Panthers have been shown on TV saying incredibly bigoted things. NBPP member King Samir Shabazz even suggested that black Americans kill white babies. This is on tape. Obviously, racial bigotry cuts both ways.
It is true that there’s a big difference between the Tea Party and the NBPP. The tea people have quickly become a potent political force in America, while the NBPP is few in number and brain cells.
If it were just about the Panthers, the story would be meaningless. But because Attorney General Eric Holder is involved in the dismissal of the criminal charges, the situation takes on some importance.
One of the weaknesses of the NAACP is that it has rarely acknowledged black racism. The organization is silent on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan. Yet, it is outraged about the Tea Party. There might be something hypocritical about that.
It is long past time for all Americans to drop the skin color deal.
President Obama was smart and correct when he ran as an American, not as an African-American. The president made one misstep - involving himself in the Cambridge police-Harvard professor controversy - but otherwise has steered clear of racial politics.
The NAACP, however, is obviously not as astute as Obama. By saying the Tea Party members are sympathetic to racism when proof of that is scant, the organization has defined itself as irresponsible. America’s motto continues to be: Out of many, one.
Don’t tread on that.
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1268570
Sunday, July 18, 2010
The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth
Another view of how the Deficit Level got to where they are:
The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth
President Obama and congressional Democrats are blaming their trillion-dollar budget deficits on the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Letting these tax cuts expire is their answer. Yet the data flatly contradict this "tax cuts caused the deficits" narrative. Consider the three most persistent myths:
• The Bush tax cuts wiped out last decade's budget surpluses. Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.), for example, has long blamed the tax cuts for having "taken a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into deficits as far as the eye can see." That $5.6 trillion surplus never existed. It was a projection by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in January 2001 to cover the next decade. It assumed that late-1990s economic growth and the stock-market bubble (which had already peaked) would continue forever and generate record-high tax revenues. It assumed no recessions, no terrorist attacks, no wars, no natural disasters, and that all discretionary spending would fall to 1930s levels.
The projected $5.6 trillion surplus between 2002 and 2011 will more likely be a $6.1 trillion deficit through September 2011. So what was the cause of this dizzying, $11.7 trillion swing? I've analyzed CBO's 28 subsequent budget baseline updates since January 2001. These updates reveal that the much-maligned Bush tax cuts, at $1.7 trillion, caused just 14% of the swing from projected surpluses to actual deficits (and that is according to a "static" analysis, excluding any revenues recovered from faster economic growth induced by the cuts).
The bulk of the swing resulted from economic and technical revisions (33%), other new spending (32%), net interest on the debt (12%), the 2009 stimulus (6%) and other tax cuts (3%). Specifically, the tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 are responsible for just 4% of the swing. If there were no Bush tax cuts, runaway spending and economic factors would have guaranteed more than $4 trillion in deficits over the decade and kept the budget in deficit every year except 2007.
• The next decade's deficits are the result of the previous administration's profligacy. Mr. Obama asserted in his January State of the Union Address that by the time he took office, "we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program."
In short, it's all President Bush's fault. But Mr. Obama's assertion fails on three grounds.
First, the wars, tax cuts and the prescription drug program were implemented in the early 2000s, yet by 2007 the deficit stood at only $161 billion. How could these stable policies have suddenly caused trillion-dollar deficits beginning in 2009? (Obviously what happened was collapsing revenues from the recession along with stimulus spending.)
Second, the president's $8 trillion figure minimizes the problem. Recent CBO data indicate a 10-year baseline deficit closer to $13 trillion if Washington maintains today's tax-and-spend policies—whereby discretionary spending grows with the economy, war spending winds down, ObamaCare is implemented, and Congress extends all the Bush tax cuts, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) patch, and the Medicare "doc fix" (i.e., no reimbursement cuts).
Under this realistic baseline, the 10-year cost of extending the Bush tax cuts ($3.2 trillion), the Medicare drug entitlement ($1 trillion), and Iraq and Afghanistan spending ($515 billion) add up to $4.7 trillion. That's approximately one-third of the $13 trillion in baseline deficits—far from the majority the president claims.
Third and most importantly, the White House methodology is arbitrary. With Washington set to tax $33 trillion and spend $46 trillion over the next decade, how does one determine which policies "caused" the $13 trillion deficit? Mr. Obama could have just as easily singled out Social Security ($9.2 trillion over 10 years), antipoverty programs ($7 trillion), other Medicare spending ($5.4 trillion), net interest on the debt ($6.1 trillion), or nondefense discretionary spending ($7.5 trillion).
There's no legitimate reason to single out the $4.7 trillion in tax cuts, war funding and the Medicare drug entitlement. A better methodology would focus on which programs are expanding and pushing the next decade's deficit up.
• Declining revenues are driving future deficits. The fact is that rapidly increasing spending will cause 100% of rising long-term deficits. Over the past 50 years, tax revenues have deviated little from their 18% of gross domestic product (GDP) average. Despite a temporary recession-induced dip, CBO projects that even if all Bush tax cuts are extended and the AMT is patched, tax revenues will rebound to 18.2% of GDP by 2020—slightly above the historical average. They will continue growing afterwards.
Spending—which has averaged 20.3% of GDP over the past 50 years—won't remain as stable. Using the budget baseline deficit of $13 trillion for the next decade as described above, CBO figures show spending surging to a peacetime record 26.5% of GDP by 2020 and also rising steeply thereafter.
Putting this together, the budget deficit, historically 2.3% of GDP, is projected to leap to 8.3% of GDP by 2020 under current policies. This will result from Washington taxing at 0.2% of GDP above the historical average but spending 6.2% above its historical average.
Entitlements and other obligations are driving the deficits. Specifically, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and net interest costs are projected to rise by 5.4% of GDP between 2008 and 2020. The Bush tax cuts are a convenient scapegoat for past and future budget woes. But it is the dramatic upward arc of federal spending that is the root of the problem.
Mr. Riedl is a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth
President Obama and congressional Democrats are blaming their trillion-dollar budget deficits on the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Letting these tax cuts expire is their answer. Yet the data flatly contradict this "tax cuts caused the deficits" narrative. Consider the three most persistent myths:
• The Bush tax cuts wiped out last decade's budget surpluses. Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.), for example, has long blamed the tax cuts for having "taken a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into deficits as far as the eye can see." That $5.6 trillion surplus never existed. It was a projection by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in January 2001 to cover the next decade. It assumed that late-1990s economic growth and the stock-market bubble (which had already peaked) would continue forever and generate record-high tax revenues. It assumed no recessions, no terrorist attacks, no wars, no natural disasters, and that all discretionary spending would fall to 1930s levels.
The projected $5.6 trillion surplus between 2002 and 2011 will more likely be a $6.1 trillion deficit through September 2011. So what was the cause of this dizzying, $11.7 trillion swing? I've analyzed CBO's 28 subsequent budget baseline updates since January 2001. These updates reveal that the much-maligned Bush tax cuts, at $1.7 trillion, caused just 14% of the swing from projected surpluses to actual deficits (and that is according to a "static" analysis, excluding any revenues recovered from faster economic growth induced by the cuts).
The bulk of the swing resulted from economic and technical revisions (33%), other new spending (32%), net interest on the debt (12%), the 2009 stimulus (6%) and other tax cuts (3%). Specifically, the tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 are responsible for just 4% of the swing. If there were no Bush tax cuts, runaway spending and economic factors would have guaranteed more than $4 trillion in deficits over the decade and kept the budget in deficit every year except 2007.
• The next decade's deficits are the result of the previous administration's profligacy. Mr. Obama asserted in his January State of the Union Address that by the time he took office, "we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program."
In short, it's all President Bush's fault. But Mr. Obama's assertion fails on three grounds.
First, the wars, tax cuts and the prescription drug program were implemented in the early 2000s, yet by 2007 the deficit stood at only $161 billion. How could these stable policies have suddenly caused trillion-dollar deficits beginning in 2009? (Obviously what happened was collapsing revenues from the recession along with stimulus spending.)
Second, the president's $8 trillion figure minimizes the problem. Recent CBO data indicate a 10-year baseline deficit closer to $13 trillion if Washington maintains today's tax-and-spend policies—whereby discretionary spending grows with the economy, war spending winds down, ObamaCare is implemented, and Congress extends all the Bush tax cuts, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) patch, and the Medicare "doc fix" (i.e., no reimbursement cuts).
Under this realistic baseline, the 10-year cost of extending the Bush tax cuts ($3.2 trillion), the Medicare drug entitlement ($1 trillion), and Iraq and Afghanistan spending ($515 billion) add up to $4.7 trillion. That's approximately one-third of the $13 trillion in baseline deficits—far from the majority the president claims.
Third and most importantly, the White House methodology is arbitrary. With Washington set to tax $33 trillion and spend $46 trillion over the next decade, how does one determine which policies "caused" the $13 trillion deficit? Mr. Obama could have just as easily singled out Social Security ($9.2 trillion over 10 years), antipoverty programs ($7 trillion), other Medicare spending ($5.4 trillion), net interest on the debt ($6.1 trillion), or nondefense discretionary spending ($7.5 trillion).
There's no legitimate reason to single out the $4.7 trillion in tax cuts, war funding and the Medicare drug entitlement. A better methodology would focus on which programs are expanding and pushing the next decade's deficit up.
• Declining revenues are driving future deficits. The fact is that rapidly increasing spending will cause 100% of rising long-term deficits. Over the past 50 years, tax revenues have deviated little from their 18% of gross domestic product (GDP) average. Despite a temporary recession-induced dip, CBO projects that even if all Bush tax cuts are extended and the AMT is patched, tax revenues will rebound to 18.2% of GDP by 2020—slightly above the historical average. They will continue growing afterwards.
Spending—which has averaged 20.3% of GDP over the past 50 years—won't remain as stable. Using the budget baseline deficit of $13 trillion for the next decade as described above, CBO figures show spending surging to a peacetime record 26.5% of GDP by 2020 and also rising steeply thereafter.
Putting this together, the budget deficit, historically 2.3% of GDP, is projected to leap to 8.3% of GDP by 2020 under current policies. This will result from Washington taxing at 0.2% of GDP above the historical average but spending 6.2% above its historical average.
Entitlements and other obligations are driving the deficits. Specifically, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and net interest costs are projected to rise by 5.4% of GDP between 2008 and 2020. The Bush tax cuts are a convenient scapegoat for past and future budget woes. But it is the dramatic upward arc of federal spending that is the root of the problem.
Mr. Riedl is a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
Non Political - KNEE PROBLEMS?? READ THIS
Painful arthritis of the knee is on the rise — as is the number of middle-aged people who refuse to let the condition interfere with their favorite sports or exercise. Active people in their 40s and 50s are challenging doctors to provide treatments that not only keep them walking but keep them running and jumping as well.
Joints rely on slippery caps of cartilage that allow bones to glide past each other with a minimum of friction. "It's the smoothest material known to man," says Dr. Andrew Spitzer, director of the joint replacement program at the Cedars-Sinai Orthopaedic Center in Los Angeles. But with age, that cartilage wears away. "As it becomes damaged, the bones essentially grind against each other," Spitzer says.
Osteoarthritis of the knee is happening more and more in the 40-to-60 age range, doctors say; even people in their late 30s are seeking medical attention. In a 2007 study, scientists at Exponent Inc., a scientific consulting firm, projected that the demand for replacement knee joints would more than sextuple by 2030, with 3.48 million people in need of a new knee.
» Don't miss a thing. Get breaking news alerts delivered to your inbox.
Spitzer suggests several explanations for the surge. For one, many people are keeping fit. All that physical activity is good, but it also adds to stress on the joints and risk of injury. In particular, young athletes who require knee surgery are more susceptible to osteoarthritis as they age.
On the flip side, many people are obese. The increased weight they carry adds to pressure on the knee.
It's important to see a doctor early if you experience lasting pain, says Dr. Brian Feeley, an orthopedic surgeon at UC San Francisco. Often people wait to come in until the arthritis has progressed beyond easy treatments, he says. There is no cure for osteoarthritis; once the cartilage is gone, the body is unable to regrow it. However, newer treatments attempt to replace lost tissue. Cartilage restoration is most appropriate for people younger than 40, Feeley says, who have plenty of cells left to fill in the gaps. For active middle-aged people, there still are many ways to manage or treat pain.
"The hard part is that patients have an expectation to remain active.... What do you do with the 45-year-old who still wants to play tennis and run?" Feeley says. "We need to be able to give people a variety of different treatment options."
In a review article published this month by the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Feeley and colleagues describe several kinds of treatment, ranging from pain medication to surgery. The goal, doctors say, is to offer a variety of options and put off knee replacement surgery for as long as possible.
Among the newer options are injections that help lubricate the joint and cartilage restoration. Those join many others:
• Physical therapy and strength training are first-line treatments. "By strengthening the muscles around the joint, you take the pressure off the joint itself," says Dr. Heather Gillespie, a sports medicine physician at UCLA.
• If you're overweight, try losing a few pounds. When you walk, your knee bears the pressure of five times your body weight, Gillespie says, so losing 5 pounds will take 25 pounds off your knee.
• Doctors recommend low-impact exercises, such as swimming or biking, to minimize pressure on the joint. If you must run, you might try running less or at a lower intensity, Feeley says.
• Painkillers and anti-inflammatories are a good option for early arthritis, Feeley says, if they relieve your pain and allow you to stay active.
• Glucosamine is a natural cartilage component and nutritional supplement thought to improve joint health, Gillespie says. According to a 2008 review published by the nonprofit Cochrane Collaboration, some studies suggested it's beneficial, but the highest-quality research found it made no difference.
• Sometimes doctors inject the knee with corticosteroids to reduce inflammation and pain. However, doctors are cautious about the treatment because of potential side effects. In a 2009 study in the journal Arthroscopy, researchers found that corticosteroids can be toxic to cartilage, particularly when combined with the lidocaine used to numb the injection site.
• Viscosupplementation is another injected treatment that is gaining in popularity. "It's an oil change for the knee," Gillespie says. Doctors inject hyaluronic acid, a natural component of the joint, to provide extra lubrication and shock absorption. In a 2006 Cochrane review of 76 studies, the authors found that viscosupplementation diminished pain, particularly five to 13 weeks after the injection. Overall, the effects were comparable to corticosteroid injections or other anti-inflammatories, the authors reported. According to a 2004 review in the Canadian Family Physician, viscosupplementation is slower to act but longer lasting than corticosteroids.
• Arthroscopy is a common treatment in which surgeons remove part of a torn or damaged meniscus, a component of the knee's shock-absorption tissues. It does not directly address the lost cartilage, and the effectiveness of this option is controversial. According to a 2003 study in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, fewer than half of patients with osteoarthritis reported less pain two years after the operation. Moreover, 15% needed a new knee within a year of surgery. And in a 2002 study of veterans, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, arthroscopy for osteoarthritis was no more effective than sham surgery. However, Feeley and co-authors suggest that it may help certain younger patients, such as those who have a meniscal tear but normal knee alignment.
• If only one part of the knee is arthritic, a knee brace can shift your weight so it rests on the healthy part, relieving pressure and pain. Braces relieved pain for 78% of patients in a 2006 study in the Journal of Arthroplasty.
• For people who find a brace helpful but don't want to wear one, a surgery called osteotomy works similarly. Surgeons realign the bone by removing a wedge of bone or adding a bone graft just below or above the knee. This shifts weight to the healthy part of the knee. Osteotomy is best for younger patients, because in those older than 65 there is a good chance all the cartilage is deteriorating, Feeley and co-authors write. Osteotomy can delay a knee replacement — sometimes for decades — but eventually you'll need a new joint. In multiple studies, researchers have found that 2% to 25% of people with osteotomy need a new knee within 10 years, and 10% to 34% require replacement within 15 years.
• The typical last resort is a knee replacement. Surgeons try to avoid this treatment in young people because the new joints only last for approximately 15 years, Feeley says, and "the more active you are, the more likely they will wear out," Switching out a mechanical joint is a more complex surgery than getting the first replacement, so doctors try to limit this treatment to older people unlikely to need multiple replacements. In addition, knee replacement limits activity in many of recipients, and surgeons advise switching to lower-impact exercises. Researchers found that, although 94% of patients participated in sports at some point before the surgery, only 34% did so afterward, according to a 2005 study in the Annals of Rheumatic Diseases.
• Cartilage restoration is appropriate for young people with early arthritis, when plenty of healthy tissue is still left. For small cartilage losses, surgeons use a technique called microfracture. They drill tiny holes in the bone, and the area naturally fills up with cartilage-like scar tissue. For larger gaps, surgeons can pull out a bit of healthy cartilage and send it off to a lab where it grows into a lot of healthy cartilage. Then they re-implant the new tissue. Not every orthopedic surgeon is experienced in these techniques, Feeley says, so you may need to search for a doctor who can provide these treatments.
Joints rely on slippery caps of cartilage that allow bones to glide past each other with a minimum of friction. "It's the smoothest material known to man," says Dr. Andrew Spitzer, director of the joint replacement program at the Cedars-Sinai Orthopaedic Center in Los Angeles. But with age, that cartilage wears away. "As it becomes damaged, the bones essentially grind against each other," Spitzer says.
Osteoarthritis of the knee is happening more and more in the 40-to-60 age range, doctors say; even people in their late 30s are seeking medical attention. In a 2007 study, scientists at Exponent Inc., a scientific consulting firm, projected that the demand for replacement knee joints would more than sextuple by 2030, with 3.48 million people in need of a new knee.
» Don't miss a thing. Get breaking news alerts delivered to your inbox.
Spitzer suggests several explanations for the surge. For one, many people are keeping fit. All that physical activity is good, but it also adds to stress on the joints and risk of injury. In particular, young athletes who require knee surgery are more susceptible to osteoarthritis as they age.
On the flip side, many people are obese. The increased weight they carry adds to pressure on the knee.
It's important to see a doctor early if you experience lasting pain, says Dr. Brian Feeley, an orthopedic surgeon at UC San Francisco. Often people wait to come in until the arthritis has progressed beyond easy treatments, he says. There is no cure for osteoarthritis; once the cartilage is gone, the body is unable to regrow it. However, newer treatments attempt to replace lost tissue. Cartilage restoration is most appropriate for people younger than 40, Feeley says, who have plenty of cells left to fill in the gaps. For active middle-aged people, there still are many ways to manage or treat pain.
"The hard part is that patients have an expectation to remain active.... What do you do with the 45-year-old who still wants to play tennis and run?" Feeley says. "We need to be able to give people a variety of different treatment options."
In a review article published this month by the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Feeley and colleagues describe several kinds of treatment, ranging from pain medication to surgery. The goal, doctors say, is to offer a variety of options and put off knee replacement surgery for as long as possible.
Among the newer options are injections that help lubricate the joint and cartilage restoration. Those join many others:
• Physical therapy and strength training are first-line treatments. "By strengthening the muscles around the joint, you take the pressure off the joint itself," says Dr. Heather Gillespie, a sports medicine physician at UCLA.
• If you're overweight, try losing a few pounds. When you walk, your knee bears the pressure of five times your body weight, Gillespie says, so losing 5 pounds will take 25 pounds off your knee.
• Doctors recommend low-impact exercises, such as swimming or biking, to minimize pressure on the joint. If you must run, you might try running less or at a lower intensity, Feeley says.
• Painkillers and anti-inflammatories are a good option for early arthritis, Feeley says, if they relieve your pain and allow you to stay active.
• Glucosamine is a natural cartilage component and nutritional supplement thought to improve joint health, Gillespie says. According to a 2008 review published by the nonprofit Cochrane Collaboration, some studies suggested it's beneficial, but the highest-quality research found it made no difference.
• Sometimes doctors inject the knee with corticosteroids to reduce inflammation and pain. However, doctors are cautious about the treatment because of potential side effects. In a 2009 study in the journal Arthroscopy, researchers found that corticosteroids can be toxic to cartilage, particularly when combined with the lidocaine used to numb the injection site.
• Viscosupplementation is another injected treatment that is gaining in popularity. "It's an oil change for the knee," Gillespie says. Doctors inject hyaluronic acid, a natural component of the joint, to provide extra lubrication and shock absorption. In a 2006 Cochrane review of 76 studies, the authors found that viscosupplementation diminished pain, particularly five to 13 weeks after the injection. Overall, the effects were comparable to corticosteroid injections or other anti-inflammatories, the authors reported. According to a 2004 review in the Canadian Family Physician, viscosupplementation is slower to act but longer lasting than corticosteroids.
• Arthroscopy is a common treatment in which surgeons remove part of a torn or damaged meniscus, a component of the knee's shock-absorption tissues. It does not directly address the lost cartilage, and the effectiveness of this option is controversial. According to a 2003 study in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, fewer than half of patients with osteoarthritis reported less pain two years after the operation. Moreover, 15% needed a new knee within a year of surgery. And in a 2002 study of veterans, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, arthroscopy for osteoarthritis was no more effective than sham surgery. However, Feeley and co-authors suggest that it may help certain younger patients, such as those who have a meniscal tear but normal knee alignment.
• If only one part of the knee is arthritic, a knee brace can shift your weight so it rests on the healthy part, relieving pressure and pain. Braces relieved pain for 78% of patients in a 2006 study in the Journal of Arthroplasty.
• For people who find a brace helpful but don't want to wear one, a surgery called osteotomy works similarly. Surgeons realign the bone by removing a wedge of bone or adding a bone graft just below or above the knee. This shifts weight to the healthy part of the knee. Osteotomy is best for younger patients, because in those older than 65 there is a good chance all the cartilage is deteriorating, Feeley and co-authors write. Osteotomy can delay a knee replacement — sometimes for decades — but eventually you'll need a new joint. In multiple studies, researchers have found that 2% to 25% of people with osteotomy need a new knee within 10 years, and 10% to 34% require replacement within 15 years.
• The typical last resort is a knee replacement. Surgeons try to avoid this treatment in young people because the new joints only last for approximately 15 years, Feeley says, and "the more active you are, the more likely they will wear out," Switching out a mechanical joint is a more complex surgery than getting the first replacement, so doctors try to limit this treatment to older people unlikely to need multiple replacements. In addition, knee replacement limits activity in many of recipients, and surgeons advise switching to lower-impact exercises. Researchers found that, although 94% of patients participated in sports at some point before the surgery, only 34% did so afterward, according to a 2005 study in the Annals of Rheumatic Diseases.
• Cartilage restoration is appropriate for young people with early arthritis, when plenty of healthy tissue is still left. For small cartilage losses, surgeons use a technique called microfracture. They drill tiny holes in the bone, and the area naturally fills up with cartilage-like scar tissue. For larger gaps, surgeons can pull out a bit of healthy cartilage and send it off to a lab where it grows into a lot of healthy cartilage. Then they re-implant the new tissue. Not every orthopedic surgeon is experienced in these techniques, Feeley says, so you may need to search for a doctor who can provide these treatments.
Some views the from the other side of the fence
Sadly as a conservative I agree that the Republicans failed to run our country in a conservative manner. Ans some of the below comments are correct.
Dirty Little Secrets the Republicans Don't Want You to Know
Robert Creamer
Political organizer, strategist and author
The Republicans have a set of dirty little (actually not so little) secrets they don't what you to know -- and certainly don't want you to think about when you go to the polls in November.
And the fact is that some of those secrets could provide Democrats with silver bullets this fall. But first let's recall the context.
Over the course of eight short years -- between 2000 and 2008 -- the Republicans methodically executed their plan to transform American society. They systematically transferred wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest two percent of Americans -- slashing taxes for the wealthy. They eviscerated the rules that held Wall Street, Big Oil and private insurance companies accountable to the public. They allowed and encouraged the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks that ultimately collapsed the economy and cost eight million Americans their jobs.
They ignored exploding health care costs, tried to privatize Social Security, gave the drug companies open season to gouge American consumers and presided over a decline in real incomes averaging $2,000 per family. They entangled America in an enormously costly, unnecessary war in Iraq, pursued a directionless policy that left Afghanistan to fester, and sullied America's good name throughout the world.
Their economic policy of cutting taxes for the wealthy and deregulating big Corporations failed to create jobs. In fact, over his eight year term, George Bush's administration created exactly zero net private sector jobs. They inherited a Federal budget with surpluses as far as the eye could see and rolled up more debt than all of the previous Presidents in the over 200 years of American history. And in the end they left the economy in collapse.
This was not a disaster that could be remedied overnight. By taking bold action at the beginning of his administration, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress prevented the financial crisis from morphing into a Great Depression -- but the Republicans, some Democrats, and the powerful special interests have done everything they can to throw sand into the gears of change. Most importantly, they have stood in the way of providing enough economic stimulus to launch a robust, widespread economic recovery.
But notwithstanding Republican opposition, Obama, the Democrats and their progressive allies have -- after a century of trying -- finally passed health care reform allowing America to end its status as the only industrialized nation that did not provide health care as a right. They are on the brink of reining in the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks. And they have set the stage for massive long-term investments in economic growth and clean energy.
But it has been hard to pull the car out of the deep economic ditch and Americans are angry at the slow pace of economic recovery -- and also at the special interests that profited from their economic pain.
So the Republicans now have the audacity to argue that President Obama and the Democrats are somehow responsible for the hardships that they themselves created. In effect they want the election to be a referendum on whether the Democrats have mopped and swept fast enough cleaning up the mess that they created.
They will do everything they can to prevent America from focusing on the real choice before them in the fall elections -- a choice between going backward to the failed policies of the past that caused this catastrophe and a new direction that will create sustainable, long-term, bottom-up, widely shared economic growth. The real question before the country is whether it is willing to hand over the keys to the economy once again to the same gang that just caused the most serious economic pile up in 60 years.
That's where the dirty little secrets come in. It turns out that the leaders of the Republican Party have learned nothing from the reckless escapade that caused so much economic pain, and came perilously close to inflicting mortal wounds on the American economy.
They still actually believe -- despite what we have all just experienced -- that by "freeing" big oil, the insurance companies and Wall Street banks of the "burdens" of government accountability, that the plutocrats and the "invisible hand" of the market will lead American into the promised land of economic prosperity.
Some of the things they believe are not only dangerous to the economy, luckily they are also politically radioactive. And quite remarkably, many key Republicans are actually willing to say them out loud. Here are a few:
• Meet Congressman Paul Ryan. Ryan is the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee. If the Republicans once again take control of the House, he will be the Chair of the Budget Committee. Ryan believes -- and says out loud -- that Medicare, one of the most popular Federal programs in history, should be abolished and replaced with vouchers for private insurance. Let's recall that one of the ways Republicans stirred up opposition to health insurance reform was by falsely accusing Democrats of wanting to cut Medicare. They convinced some unwitting seniors that "Government" should keep its hands off Medicare -- which is, of course, a "Government" program. Democrats need to make it crystal clear in this campaign that Republicans -- who opposed Medicare from its inception -- actually want to abolish the program and hand over control of health care for America's seniors to the same private insurance companies responsible for driving up rates three times faster than wages while their profits have exploded.
• Congressman John Boehner, the House Minority Leader, has endorsed another Ryan proposal to raise the retirement age of Social Security to 70 years old -- a proposal that might go over fine with a guy like Boehner who makes speeches for a living. But it won't be very popular at all with someone who has laid bricks, or run an earth mover, or waited tables for forty-five years.
• The whole Republican crew wants to resurrect the failed Bush proposal to "privatize" Social Security. The defeat of Bush's privatization plan was the turning point in the Bush Presidency. It was all downhill from there. Yet -- whether it's to pad the investment accounts of their friends on Wall Street or because they are "private markets uber alles true believers" -- the Republicans want to try it again. Only this time retirees won't have to work very hard to imagine what it would have been like if their Social Security checks had plummeted in value the way their 401K's did when the market collapsed just two years ago.
• The Republicans want to weaken and repeal the new law to rein in the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks. Most Republicans and Democrats voted to bail out the big banks to prevent a 1930's style market collapse. The difference is that Democrats supported legislation to rein in their recklessness -- that had cost 8 million Americans their jobs -- and assure that a bailout was never allowed to happen again. But with very few exceptions, the Republicans voted to a person against holding Wall Street accountable. Given a chance, they plan to team up with their pals on Wall Street to free them to return to their reckless ways at will. In fact, they told the titans of Wall Street as much in fundraising meetings, where those "masters of the Universe" were asked to ante up. Republicans claim to oppose more Wall Street bailouts, but they refuse to support legislation that would prevent one in the future and hold Wall Street accountable. That -- coupled with those big contributions from Wall Street -- is a position that is very difficult for average voters to swallow. In fact, the polling says it's down right toxic.
• Republicans have consistently voted against extending unemployment benefits to workers who have been laid off because of Bush-era policies and the recklessness of Wall Street. Remember, people who get unemployment benefits -- by definition -- are looking for jobs that the economy doesn't provide. In addition, many Republicans actually believe that the best way to spur employment is to lower the minimum wage.
• Finally, meet Congressman Joe Barton. If the Republicans win back control of Congress, he would once again most likely serve as the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee -- the Committee that oversees the oil industry. Congressman Barton has never met an oil company he doesn't like. In fact, he's the guy who actually apologized to BP when they were forced by the Obama Administration to take economic responsibility for the disastrous Gulf oil spill. As a political matter, that's like apologizing to Jack the Ripper.
These are politically radioactive positions that do, in fact, define the core of Republican policy if they were once again to control the gavel in either House of Congress.
We hear a lot about how Democrats have to "localize" the elections to have a chance of victory in November. And it is true that people vote for people in elections -- and the quality of Democratic candidates will give them a major edge in many races. So while it is a good idea to "personalize" the races for Congress, the last thing Democrats should do is to "localize" them, because the party that nationalizes a midterm -- and dominates the national dialogue -- almost always comes out ahead.
Instead, Democrats need to take the offensive and dominate the national conversation by talking about what the Republicans actually believe and what they would do if they win in November.
Voters must be offered a stark choice between Democratic and Republican policies in the fall.
If they are, "Conventional Wisdom" that keeps predicting a Democratic disaster will be proven wrong, the same way it was when it predicted that America would never elect a tall, skinny African American guy named Barack Obama.
The sad part is neither side is doing what is best for America
Hopefully come November we will sent some people in with a new direction... Do what is best for American not what is best for either party.
Dirty Little Secrets the Republicans Don't Want You to Know
Robert Creamer
Political organizer, strategist and author
The Republicans have a set of dirty little (actually not so little) secrets they don't what you to know -- and certainly don't want you to think about when you go to the polls in November.
And the fact is that some of those secrets could provide Democrats with silver bullets this fall. But first let's recall the context.
Over the course of eight short years -- between 2000 and 2008 -- the Republicans methodically executed their plan to transform American society. They systematically transferred wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest two percent of Americans -- slashing taxes for the wealthy. They eviscerated the rules that held Wall Street, Big Oil and private insurance companies accountable to the public. They allowed and encouraged the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks that ultimately collapsed the economy and cost eight million Americans their jobs.
They ignored exploding health care costs, tried to privatize Social Security, gave the drug companies open season to gouge American consumers and presided over a decline in real incomes averaging $2,000 per family. They entangled America in an enormously costly, unnecessary war in Iraq, pursued a directionless policy that left Afghanistan to fester, and sullied America's good name throughout the world.
Their economic policy of cutting taxes for the wealthy and deregulating big Corporations failed to create jobs. In fact, over his eight year term, George Bush's administration created exactly zero net private sector jobs. They inherited a Federal budget with surpluses as far as the eye could see and rolled up more debt than all of the previous Presidents in the over 200 years of American history. And in the end they left the economy in collapse.
This was not a disaster that could be remedied overnight. By taking bold action at the beginning of his administration, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress prevented the financial crisis from morphing into a Great Depression -- but the Republicans, some Democrats, and the powerful special interests have done everything they can to throw sand into the gears of change. Most importantly, they have stood in the way of providing enough economic stimulus to launch a robust, widespread economic recovery.
But notwithstanding Republican opposition, Obama, the Democrats and their progressive allies have -- after a century of trying -- finally passed health care reform allowing America to end its status as the only industrialized nation that did not provide health care as a right. They are on the brink of reining in the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks. And they have set the stage for massive long-term investments in economic growth and clean energy.
But it has been hard to pull the car out of the deep economic ditch and Americans are angry at the slow pace of economic recovery -- and also at the special interests that profited from their economic pain.
So the Republicans now have the audacity to argue that President Obama and the Democrats are somehow responsible for the hardships that they themselves created. In effect they want the election to be a referendum on whether the Democrats have mopped and swept fast enough cleaning up the mess that they created.
They will do everything they can to prevent America from focusing on the real choice before them in the fall elections -- a choice between going backward to the failed policies of the past that caused this catastrophe and a new direction that will create sustainable, long-term, bottom-up, widely shared economic growth. The real question before the country is whether it is willing to hand over the keys to the economy once again to the same gang that just caused the most serious economic pile up in 60 years.
That's where the dirty little secrets come in. It turns out that the leaders of the Republican Party have learned nothing from the reckless escapade that caused so much economic pain, and came perilously close to inflicting mortal wounds on the American economy.
They still actually believe -- despite what we have all just experienced -- that by "freeing" big oil, the insurance companies and Wall Street banks of the "burdens" of government accountability, that the plutocrats and the "invisible hand" of the market will lead American into the promised land of economic prosperity.
Some of the things they believe are not only dangerous to the economy, luckily they are also politically radioactive. And quite remarkably, many key Republicans are actually willing to say them out loud. Here are a few:
• Meet Congressman Paul Ryan. Ryan is the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee. If the Republicans once again take control of the House, he will be the Chair of the Budget Committee. Ryan believes -- and says out loud -- that Medicare, one of the most popular Federal programs in history, should be abolished and replaced with vouchers for private insurance. Let's recall that one of the ways Republicans stirred up opposition to health insurance reform was by falsely accusing Democrats of wanting to cut Medicare. They convinced some unwitting seniors that "Government" should keep its hands off Medicare -- which is, of course, a "Government" program. Democrats need to make it crystal clear in this campaign that Republicans -- who opposed Medicare from its inception -- actually want to abolish the program and hand over control of health care for America's seniors to the same private insurance companies responsible for driving up rates three times faster than wages while their profits have exploded.
• Congressman John Boehner, the House Minority Leader, has endorsed another Ryan proposal to raise the retirement age of Social Security to 70 years old -- a proposal that might go over fine with a guy like Boehner who makes speeches for a living. But it won't be very popular at all with someone who has laid bricks, or run an earth mover, or waited tables for forty-five years.
• The whole Republican crew wants to resurrect the failed Bush proposal to "privatize" Social Security. The defeat of Bush's privatization plan was the turning point in the Bush Presidency. It was all downhill from there. Yet -- whether it's to pad the investment accounts of their friends on Wall Street or because they are "private markets uber alles true believers" -- the Republicans want to try it again. Only this time retirees won't have to work very hard to imagine what it would have been like if their Social Security checks had plummeted in value the way their 401K's did when the market collapsed just two years ago.
• The Republicans want to weaken and repeal the new law to rein in the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks. Most Republicans and Democrats voted to bail out the big banks to prevent a 1930's style market collapse. The difference is that Democrats supported legislation to rein in their recklessness -- that had cost 8 million Americans their jobs -- and assure that a bailout was never allowed to happen again. But with very few exceptions, the Republicans voted to a person against holding Wall Street accountable. Given a chance, they plan to team up with their pals on Wall Street to free them to return to their reckless ways at will. In fact, they told the titans of Wall Street as much in fundraising meetings, where those "masters of the Universe" were asked to ante up. Republicans claim to oppose more Wall Street bailouts, but they refuse to support legislation that would prevent one in the future and hold Wall Street accountable. That -- coupled with those big contributions from Wall Street -- is a position that is very difficult for average voters to swallow. In fact, the polling says it's down right toxic.
• Republicans have consistently voted against extending unemployment benefits to workers who have been laid off because of Bush-era policies and the recklessness of Wall Street. Remember, people who get unemployment benefits -- by definition -- are looking for jobs that the economy doesn't provide. In addition, many Republicans actually believe that the best way to spur employment is to lower the minimum wage.
• Finally, meet Congressman Joe Barton. If the Republicans win back control of Congress, he would once again most likely serve as the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee -- the Committee that oversees the oil industry. Congressman Barton has never met an oil company he doesn't like. In fact, he's the guy who actually apologized to BP when they were forced by the Obama Administration to take economic responsibility for the disastrous Gulf oil spill. As a political matter, that's like apologizing to Jack the Ripper.
These are politically radioactive positions that do, in fact, define the core of Republican policy if they were once again to control the gavel in either House of Congress.
We hear a lot about how Democrats have to "localize" the elections to have a chance of victory in November. And it is true that people vote for people in elections -- and the quality of Democratic candidates will give them a major edge in many races. So while it is a good idea to "personalize" the races for Congress, the last thing Democrats should do is to "localize" them, because the party that nationalizes a midterm -- and dominates the national dialogue -- almost always comes out ahead.
Instead, Democrats need to take the offensive and dominate the national conversation by talking about what the Republicans actually believe and what they would do if they win in November.
Voters must be offered a stark choice between Democratic and Republican policies in the fall.
If they are, "Conventional Wisdom" that keeps predicting a Democratic disaster will be proven wrong, the same way it was when it predicted that America would never elect a tall, skinny African American guy named Barack Obama.
The sad part is neither side is doing what is best for America
Hopefully come November we will sent some people in with a new direction... Do what is best for American not what is best for either party.
Do Not Under Estimate Oh-bama
Obama's next act
By Charles Krauthammer
In the political marketplace, there's now a run on Obama shares. The left is disappointed with the president. Independents are abandoning him in droves. And the right is already dancing on his political grave, salivating about November when, his own press secretary admitted Sunday, Democrats might lose the House.
I have a warning for Republicans: Don't underestimate Barack Obama.
Consider what he has already achieved. Obamacare alone makes his presidency historic. It has irrevocably changed one-sixth of the economy, put the country inexorably on the road to national health care and, as acknowledged by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus but few others, begun one of the most massive wealth redistributions in U.S. history.
Second, there is major financial reform, which passed Congress on Thursday.
Economists argue whether it will prevent meltdowns and bailouts as promised. But there is no argument that it will give the government unprecedented power in the financial marketplace. Its 2,300 pages will create at least 243 new regulations that will affect not only, as many assume, the big banks but just about everyone, including, as noted in one summary (the Wall Street Journal), "storefront check cashiers, city governments, small manufacturers, home buyers and credit bureaus."
Third is the near $1 trillion stimulus, the largest spending bill in U.S. history. And that's not even counting nationalizing the student loan program, regulating carbon emissions by Environmental Protection Agency fiat, and still-fitful attempts to pass cap-and-trade through Congress.
But Obama's most far-reaching accomplishment is his structural alteration of the U.S. budget. The stimulus, the vast expansion of domestic spending, the creation of ruinous deficits as far as the eye can see are not easily reversed.
These are not mere temporary countercyclical measures. They are structural deficits because, as everyone from Obama on down admits, the real money is in entitlements, most specifically Medicare and Medicaid. But Obamacare freezes these out as a source of debt reduction. Obamacare's $500 billion in Medicare cuts and $600 billion in tax increases are siphoned away for a new entitlement -- and no longer available for deficit reduction.
The result? There just isn't enough to cut elsewhere to prevent national insolvency. That will require massive tax increases -- most likely a European-style value-added tax. Just as President Ronald Reagan cut taxes to starve the federal government and prevent massive growth in spending, Obama's wild spending -- and quarantining health-care costs from providing possible relief -- will necessitate huge tax increases.
The net effect of 18 months of Obamaism will be to undo much of Reaganism. Both presidencies were highly ideological, grandly ambitious and often underappreciated by their own side. In his early years, Reagan was bitterly attacked from his right. (Typical Washington Post headline: "For Reagan and the New Right, the Honeymoon Is Over" -- and that was six months into his presidency!) Obama is attacked from his left for insufficient zeal on gay rights, immigration reform, closing Guantanamo -- the list is long. The critics don't understand the big picture.
Obama's transformational agenda is a play in two acts.
Act One is over. The stimulus, Obamacare, financial reform have exhausted his first-term mandate. It will bear no more heavy lifting. And the Democrats will pay the price for ideological overreaching by losing one or both houses, whether de facto or de jure. The rest of the first term will be spent consolidating these gains (writing the regulations, for example) and preparing for Act Two.
The next burst of ideological energy -- massive regulation of the energy economy, federalizing higher education and "comprehensive" immigration reform (i.e., amnesty) -- will require a second mandate, meaning reelection in 2012.
That's why there's so much tension between Obama and congressional Democrats. For Obama, 2010 matters little. If Democrats lose control of one or both houses, Obama will probably have an easier time in 2012, just as Bill Clinton used Newt Gingrich and the Republicans as the foil for his 1996 reelection campaign.
Obama is down, but it's very early in the play. Like Reagan, he came here to do things. And he's done much in his first 500 days. What he has left to do he knows must await his next 500 days -- those that come after reelection.
The real prize is 2012. Obama sees far, farther than even his own partisans. Republicans underestimate him at their peril.
By Charles Krauthammer
In the political marketplace, there's now a run on Obama shares. The left is disappointed with the president. Independents are abandoning him in droves. And the right is already dancing on his political grave, salivating about November when, his own press secretary admitted Sunday, Democrats might lose the House.
I have a warning for Republicans: Don't underestimate Barack Obama.
Consider what he has already achieved. Obamacare alone makes his presidency historic. It has irrevocably changed one-sixth of the economy, put the country inexorably on the road to national health care and, as acknowledged by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus but few others, begun one of the most massive wealth redistributions in U.S. history.
Second, there is major financial reform, which passed Congress on Thursday.
Economists argue whether it will prevent meltdowns and bailouts as promised. But there is no argument that it will give the government unprecedented power in the financial marketplace. Its 2,300 pages will create at least 243 new regulations that will affect not only, as many assume, the big banks but just about everyone, including, as noted in one summary (the Wall Street Journal), "storefront check cashiers, city governments, small manufacturers, home buyers and credit bureaus."
Third is the near $1 trillion stimulus, the largest spending bill in U.S. history. And that's not even counting nationalizing the student loan program, regulating carbon emissions by Environmental Protection Agency fiat, and still-fitful attempts to pass cap-and-trade through Congress.
But Obama's most far-reaching accomplishment is his structural alteration of the U.S. budget. The stimulus, the vast expansion of domestic spending, the creation of ruinous deficits as far as the eye can see are not easily reversed.
These are not mere temporary countercyclical measures. They are structural deficits because, as everyone from Obama on down admits, the real money is in entitlements, most specifically Medicare and Medicaid. But Obamacare freezes these out as a source of debt reduction. Obamacare's $500 billion in Medicare cuts and $600 billion in tax increases are siphoned away for a new entitlement -- and no longer available for deficit reduction.
The result? There just isn't enough to cut elsewhere to prevent national insolvency. That will require massive tax increases -- most likely a European-style value-added tax. Just as President Ronald Reagan cut taxes to starve the federal government and prevent massive growth in spending, Obama's wild spending -- and quarantining health-care costs from providing possible relief -- will necessitate huge tax increases.
The net effect of 18 months of Obamaism will be to undo much of Reaganism. Both presidencies were highly ideological, grandly ambitious and often underappreciated by their own side. In his early years, Reagan was bitterly attacked from his right. (Typical Washington Post headline: "For Reagan and the New Right, the Honeymoon Is Over" -- and that was six months into his presidency!) Obama is attacked from his left for insufficient zeal on gay rights, immigration reform, closing Guantanamo -- the list is long. The critics don't understand the big picture.
Obama's transformational agenda is a play in two acts.
Act One is over. The stimulus, Obamacare, financial reform have exhausted his first-term mandate. It will bear no more heavy lifting. And the Democrats will pay the price for ideological overreaching by losing one or both houses, whether de facto or de jure. The rest of the first term will be spent consolidating these gains (writing the regulations, for example) and preparing for Act Two.
The next burst of ideological energy -- massive regulation of the energy economy, federalizing higher education and "comprehensive" immigration reform (i.e., amnesty) -- will require a second mandate, meaning reelection in 2012.
That's why there's so much tension between Obama and congressional Democrats. For Obama, 2010 matters little. If Democrats lose control of one or both houses, Obama will probably have an easier time in 2012, just as Bill Clinton used Newt Gingrich and the Republicans as the foil for his 1996 reelection campaign.
Obama is down, but it's very early in the play. Like Reagan, he came here to do things. And he's done much in his first 500 days. What he has left to do he knows must await his next 500 days -- those that come after reelection.
The real prize is 2012. Obama sees far, farther than even his own partisans. Republicans underestimate him at their peril.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
WHY I MIGHT CARRY A GUN
WHY?
*PEOPLE ASK WHY?*
*/Why I Might Carry a Gun /*
*My old grandpa said to me *
*"Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops
bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and *
*usually it's when he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin." *
*I don't carry a gun to kill people. *
*I carry a gun to keep from being killed. *
*I don't carry a gun to scare people. *
*I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary
place. *
*I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid. *
*I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.. *
*I don't carry a gun because I'm evil. *
*I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil
in the world. *
*I don't carry a gun because I hate the government. *
*I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of
government.. *
*I don't carry a gun because I'm angry. *
*I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life
hating myself for failing to be prepared. *
*I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. *
*I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my
bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon. *
*I don't carry a gun because I am a cowboy. *
*I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to
be a cowboy. *
*I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man. *
*I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves
and the ones they love. *
*I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate. *
*I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I
am inadequate. *
*I don't carry a gun because I love it. *
*I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it
meaningful to me. *
*Police protection is an oxymoron. *
*Free citizens must protect themselves. *
*Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just
investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in
to clean up the mess. *
*Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too
old to take an ass whoopin'.....*
*author unknown (/but obviously brilliant/)** *
************************** *
*A LITTLE GUN HISTORY *
*In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to
1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated. *
* ------------------------------ *
* *
*In 1911, Turkey established gun control. >From 1915 to 1917,
1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated. *
* ------------------------------ *
* *
*Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945,
a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend
themselves were rounded up and exterminated. *
* ------------------------------ *
* *
*China** established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20
million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated *
* ------------------------------ *
* *
*Guatemala** established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated. *
* ---- ------------- ------------- *
* *
*Uganda** established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979,
300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated. *
* ------------------------------ *
* *
*Cambodia** established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977,
one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated. *
* ----------------------------- *
* *
*Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th
Century because of gun control: 56 million. *
*------------------------------ *
* *
*You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear
politicians disseminating this information. *
* *
*Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property
and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding
citizens. *
* *
*Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! *
* *
*The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please
remind them of this history lesson. *
* *
*With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
*
* *
*During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because
they knew most Americans were ARMED! *
* *
*If you value your freedom, please spread this anti gun -
control message to all of your friends. *
* *
* *
*The purpose of fighting is to win. *
*There is no possible victory in defense. *
*The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more
important than either. *
*The final weapon is the brain. *
*All else is supplemental. *
*SWITZERLAND** ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! *
*SWITZERLAND** 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A
RIFLE. *
*SWITZERLAND** HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY
CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!! *
*IT'S A NO BRAINER! *
*DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN
AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET. *
*I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment! *
*If you are too, please forward. *
*PEOPLE ASK WHY?*
*/Why I Might Carry a Gun /*
*My old grandpa said to me *
*"Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops
bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and *
*usually it's when he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin." *
*I don't carry a gun to kill people. *
*I carry a gun to keep from being killed. *
*I don't carry a gun to scare people. *
*I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary
place. *
*I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid. *
*I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.. *
*I don't carry a gun because I'm evil. *
*I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil
in the world. *
*I don't carry a gun because I hate the government. *
*I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of
government.. *
*I don't carry a gun because I'm angry. *
*I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life
hating myself for failing to be prepared. *
*I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. *
*I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my
bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon. *
*I don't carry a gun because I am a cowboy. *
*I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to
be a cowboy. *
*I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man. *
*I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves
and the ones they love. *
*I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate. *
*I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I
am inadequate. *
*I don't carry a gun because I love it. *
*I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it
meaningful to me. *
*Police protection is an oxymoron. *
*Free citizens must protect themselves. *
*Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just
investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in
to clean up the mess. *
*Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too
old to take an ass whoopin'.....*
*author unknown (/but obviously brilliant/)** *
************************** *
*A LITTLE GUN HISTORY *
*In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to
1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated. *
* ------------------------------ *
* *
*In 1911, Turkey established gun control. >From 1915 to 1917,
1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated. *
* ------------------------------ *
* *
*Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945,
a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend
themselves were rounded up and exterminated. *
* ------------------------------ *
* *
*China** established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20
million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated *
* ------------------------------ *
* *
*Guatemala** established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated. *
* ---- ------------- ------------- *
* *
*Uganda** established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979,
300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated. *
* ------------------------------ *
* *
*Cambodia** established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977,
one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated. *
* ----------------------------- *
* *
*Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th
Century because of gun control: 56 million. *
*------------------------------ *
* *
*You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear
politicians disseminating this information. *
* *
*Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property
and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding
citizens. *
* *
*Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! *
* *
*The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please
remind them of this history lesson. *
* *
*With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
*
* *
*During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because
they knew most Americans were ARMED! *
* *
*If you value your freedom, please spread this anti gun -
control message to all of your friends. *
* *
* *
*The purpose of fighting is to win. *
*There is no possible victory in defense. *
*The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more
important than either. *
*The final weapon is the brain. *
*All else is supplemental. *
*SWITZERLAND** ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! *
*SWITZERLAND** 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A
RIFLE. *
*SWITZERLAND** HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY
CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!! *
*IT'S A NO BRAINER! *
*DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN
AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET. *
*I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment! *
*If you are too, please forward. *
Friday, July 9, 2010
What is Obama up to - Read this View
is time to cast aside all remaining doubt. President Obama is NOT trying to lead America forward to recovery, prosperity and growth. Quite the opposite in fact.
In September 2008, " American Thinker" published James Simpson's article "Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis." It connected then-presidential candidate Barack Obama to individuals and organizations practicing a malevolent strategy for destroying our economy and our system of government. The methodology is known as "The Cloward-Piven Strategy". The strategy is summarized as follows: "The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The 'Cloward-Piven Strategy' seeks to hasten the fall of Capitalism by overloading the government with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse".
Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were two lifelong members of the Democratic Socialists of America who taught sociology at Columbia University. In a May 1966 "Nation" magazine article titled "The Weight of The Poor", they outlined their strategy, proposing to use grassroots radical organizations to push ever more strident demands for public services at all levels of government. The result, they predicted, would be a "profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces - - - for major economic reform at the national level". Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer (and Hillary Clinton's mentor) Saul Alinsky.
In the '60s Cloward-Piven first targeted the welfare system. They enlisted radical black activist George Wiley, who created the National Welfare Reform Organization (NWRO) to implement the strategy. Wiley hired militant foot soldiers to storm welfare offices around the country, violently demanding their "rights". Welfare rolls increased from 4.3M to 10.8M by the '70s. In New York City alone, welfare caseloads climbed from 12% a year in the early '60s, to 50% a decade later (from 150,000 to over 1.5M). Cloward-Piven tactics sent the City of New York into bankruptcy in 1975. Mayor Rudy Guiliani cited Cloward-Piven by name as being responsible for "an effort at economic sabatoge".
Cloward-Piven crated ACORN, and many other radical organizations. The crowning achievement for ACORN was "The Motor Voter" act, signed into law in 1993. ACORN was one of the chief drivers of high-risk mortgage lending which led to the financial crisis. ACORN also created vast vulnerabilities in our electoral system, which ACORN then exploited. The Motor Voter law has also been used to open another vulnerability in the system; the registration of vast numbers of illegal aliens, who then reliably vote Democrat.
The Presicent and this Congress simply do not have our interests at heart. They are implementing the Cloward-Pivan strategy on an unprecedented scale by flooding America with a tidal wave of poisonous initiatives, orders, regulations and laws. As Rahm Emanuel said, "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste."
In addition to overwhelming the government with demands for services, Obama and the Democrats are overwhelming political opposition to their plans with a flood of apocalyptic legislation. Their ultimate goal is to leave us so discouraged, demoralized and exhausted that we throw our hands up in defeat. As Barney Frank said, "The middle class will be too distracted to fight."
These people ARE our enemies. They don't use guns, not yet, but they are just as dangerous, determined and deceitful as the Communists we faced in The Cold War, Korea and Vietnam. Just as dangerous and covert as the Nazis we faced in WWII. It is time we fully internalized and digested this fact, with all it's ugly ramifications. These people have violated countless laws and could be criminally prosecuted, had we the political power. Their policies are unconstitutional, and deliberately so. The goal is to make The Constitution irrelevent.
Their spending is off the charts and will drive America into hyper-inflation, but it could be rescinded, had we the political power.
These policies are toxic, but they could be stopped and reversed, had we the political power.
Their ideologies are poisonous, but they could be exposed for what they are, with long jail sentences as an object lesson, had we the political power.
Barack Obama is a total enigma. He won the 2008 Presidential election claiming to be a moderate and wanting to bring Americans together and govern from the center. But since he took office, his actions have been far from moderate. He has apologized to foreigh dictators abroad for "sins" he alleges America has committed. He has appointed a self proclaimed Communist (Van Jones) and an admirer of Mao Zedong to top administration posts. He has used the economic crisis to take over entire industries and is attempting to nationalize the health care system via "ObamaCare". In his first year in office he already made his Presidency the most polarizing in the nation's history.
The real goal of "health care" legislation, the real goal of "cap and trade" and the real goal of "economic stimulus" is to rip the guts out of our private economy and transfer wide swaths of it over to the government to control. Do not be deluded by the propaganda coming out of the White House. These initiates are vehicles for change. They are not goals in and of themselves except in their ability to deliver power. They WILL make matters MUCH worse, AND THAT IS BY DESIGN.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that President Obama's proposed budget will add more than $9.7T (TRILLIONS) to the national deby over the next decade. CBO says "Soaring deficits will force the Treasury to borrow at prodigious rates, sending the national debt soaring to an insane $22-24T by 2020". Most prudent Americans would think these numbers trouble the Democratic leadership and President Obama. THEY WOULD BE WRONG! ! ! They would be wrong not because the Democratic party or the President are economically illiterate or bad individuals, but because the Democratic party and the President are leftists.
Most Americans, including most Democrats, do not understand the left. They may understand liberalism, but President Obama, Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi and most Democratic Congressmen are not liberals, they are leftists, and most American people do not understand the difference between "liberal" and "left". They do not realize there is NO major differnece between the American Democratic Party and the leftist social democratic parties of Western Europe. From Karl Marx to Obama, the left ( as opposed to liberals) has never created wealth because it has NO interest in creating wealth. It is only interested in REDISTRIBUTION of wealth.
Unprecedented and unsustainable debt does not particularly disturb the left. They want a huge government overseeing a giant welfare state and a country with FAR fewer wealthy Americans.
The left mocks the three-bedroom home surrounded by a picket fence and a vehicle in the garage becasue they feel everybody should be traveling on public busses and trains, or riding a bicycle.
The left has a VERY different vision of America than those who believe in the founding values of America, most especially individualism and small government, and if the price of getting to a giant welfare state dominated by the left is America's steep financial decline, the left feels that is a price fully worth paying.
It took 213 years (1789 - 2002) for the USA to accrue $6T in national debt. It took only 7 years (2002-2009) to double the national debt to $12T. The national debt is slated to DOUBLE again in 10 years. This debt does NOT include $106.8T in unfunded liabilities mandated from Washington (Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security). THIS DEBT IS UNSUSTAINABLE.
In September 2008, " American Thinker" published James Simpson's article "Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis." It connected then-presidential candidate Barack Obama to individuals and organizations practicing a malevolent strategy for destroying our economy and our system of government. The methodology is known as "The Cloward-Piven Strategy". The strategy is summarized as follows: "The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The 'Cloward-Piven Strategy' seeks to hasten the fall of Capitalism by overloading the government with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse".
Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were two lifelong members of the Democratic Socialists of America who taught sociology at Columbia University. In a May 1966 "Nation" magazine article titled "The Weight of The Poor", they outlined their strategy, proposing to use grassroots radical organizations to push ever more strident demands for public services at all levels of government. The result, they predicted, would be a "profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces - - - for major economic reform at the national level". Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer (and Hillary Clinton's mentor) Saul Alinsky.
In the '60s Cloward-Piven first targeted the welfare system. They enlisted radical black activist George Wiley, who created the National Welfare Reform Organization (NWRO) to implement the strategy. Wiley hired militant foot soldiers to storm welfare offices around the country, violently demanding their "rights". Welfare rolls increased from 4.3M to 10.8M by the '70s. In New York City alone, welfare caseloads climbed from 12% a year in the early '60s, to 50% a decade later (from 150,000 to over 1.5M). Cloward-Piven tactics sent the City of New York into bankruptcy in 1975. Mayor Rudy Guiliani cited Cloward-Piven by name as being responsible for "an effort at economic sabatoge".
Cloward-Piven crated ACORN, and many other radical organizations. The crowning achievement for ACORN was "The Motor Voter" act, signed into law in 1993. ACORN was one of the chief drivers of high-risk mortgage lending which led to the financial crisis. ACORN also created vast vulnerabilities in our electoral system, which ACORN then exploited. The Motor Voter law has also been used to open another vulnerability in the system; the registration of vast numbers of illegal aliens, who then reliably vote Democrat.
The Presicent and this Congress simply do not have our interests at heart. They are implementing the Cloward-Pivan strategy on an unprecedented scale by flooding America with a tidal wave of poisonous initiatives, orders, regulations and laws. As Rahm Emanuel said, "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste."
In addition to overwhelming the government with demands for services, Obama and the Democrats are overwhelming political opposition to their plans with a flood of apocalyptic legislation. Their ultimate goal is to leave us so discouraged, demoralized and exhausted that we throw our hands up in defeat. As Barney Frank said, "The middle class will be too distracted to fight."
These people ARE our enemies. They don't use guns, not yet, but they are just as dangerous, determined and deceitful as the Communists we faced in The Cold War, Korea and Vietnam. Just as dangerous and covert as the Nazis we faced in WWII. It is time we fully internalized and digested this fact, with all it's ugly ramifications. These people have violated countless laws and could be criminally prosecuted, had we the political power. Their policies are unconstitutional, and deliberately so. The goal is to make The Constitution irrelevent.
Their spending is off the charts and will drive America into hyper-inflation, but it could be rescinded, had we the political power.
These policies are toxic, but they could be stopped and reversed, had we the political power.
Their ideologies are poisonous, but they could be exposed for what they are, with long jail sentences as an object lesson, had we the political power.
Barack Obama is a total enigma. He won the 2008 Presidential election claiming to be a moderate and wanting to bring Americans together and govern from the center. But since he took office, his actions have been far from moderate. He has apologized to foreigh dictators abroad for "sins" he alleges America has committed. He has appointed a self proclaimed Communist (Van Jones) and an admirer of Mao Zedong to top administration posts. He has used the economic crisis to take over entire industries and is attempting to nationalize the health care system via "ObamaCare". In his first year in office he already made his Presidency the most polarizing in the nation's history.
The real goal of "health care" legislation, the real goal of "cap and trade" and the real goal of "economic stimulus" is to rip the guts out of our private economy and transfer wide swaths of it over to the government to control. Do not be deluded by the propaganda coming out of the White House. These initiates are vehicles for change. They are not goals in and of themselves except in their ability to deliver power. They WILL make matters MUCH worse, AND THAT IS BY DESIGN.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that President Obama's proposed budget will add more than $9.7T (TRILLIONS) to the national deby over the next decade. CBO says "Soaring deficits will force the Treasury to borrow at prodigious rates, sending the national debt soaring to an insane $22-24T by 2020". Most prudent Americans would think these numbers trouble the Democratic leadership and President Obama. THEY WOULD BE WRONG! ! ! They would be wrong not because the Democratic party or the President are economically illiterate or bad individuals, but because the Democratic party and the President are leftists.
Most Americans, including most Democrats, do not understand the left. They may understand liberalism, but President Obama, Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi and most Democratic Congressmen are not liberals, they are leftists, and most American people do not understand the difference between "liberal" and "left". They do not realize there is NO major differnece between the American Democratic Party and the leftist social democratic parties of Western Europe. From Karl Marx to Obama, the left ( as opposed to liberals) has never created wealth because it has NO interest in creating wealth. It is only interested in REDISTRIBUTION of wealth.
Unprecedented and unsustainable debt does not particularly disturb the left. They want a huge government overseeing a giant welfare state and a country with FAR fewer wealthy Americans.
The left mocks the three-bedroom home surrounded by a picket fence and a vehicle in the garage becasue they feel everybody should be traveling on public busses and trains, or riding a bicycle.
The left has a VERY different vision of America than those who believe in the founding values of America, most especially individualism and small government, and if the price of getting to a giant welfare state dominated by the left is America's steep financial decline, the left feels that is a price fully worth paying.
It took 213 years (1789 - 2002) for the USA to accrue $6T in national debt. It took only 7 years (2002-2009) to double the national debt to $12T. The national debt is slated to DOUBLE again in 10 years. This debt does NOT include $106.8T in unfunded liabilities mandated from Washington (Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security). THIS DEBT IS UNSUSTAINABLE.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Be Aware Ladies Especially
BE ALERT: Wayne County Sheriff's Department - VERY IMPORTANT FOR WOMEN TO READ .
From: Ian Chapman
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 12:52 PM
To: EMI District
Subject: Please read
Importance: High
Team, Recently sent to me:
On the way to Canton , driving on Michigan Avenue , on Thursday morning, I saw an infant car seat on the side of the road with a blanket draped over it. I did not stop, even though I had all kinds of thoughts running through my head. But when I got to my destination, I called the Canton PD and they were going to check it out. This is what I was told...
"Several things to be aware of .. gangs and thieves, are now plotting different ways to get a person to "stop" their vehicle.
"There is a gang initiation reported by the local police department that gangs are placing a car seat by the road...with a fake baby in it...waiting for a woman, of course, to stop and check on the baby. Note that the location of this car seat will usually be beside a wooded or grassy (field) area ...and the person - woman - will be dragged into the woods- beaten and raped- usually left for dead. DO NOT STOP . DIAL 9-1-1 AND REPORT WHAT YOU SAW.
"IF YOU ARE DRIVING AT NIGHT AND EGGS ARE THROWN AT YOUR WINDSHIELD. DO NOT OPERATE THE WIPER AND DO NOT SPRAY ANY WATER BECAUSE EGGS MIXED WITH WATER BECOME MILKY AND BLOCK YOUR VISION UP TO 92.5% YOU ARE THEN FORCED TO STOP BESIDE THE ROAD AND BECOME A VICTIM OF THIEVES. THIS IS A NEW TECHNIQUE USED BY GANGS. PLEASE INFORM YOUR FRIENDS AND RELATIVES. THESE ARE DESPERATE TIMES AND THESE UNSAVORY INDIVIDUALS WILL TAKE DESPERATE MEASURES TO GET WHAT THEY WANT."
Please talk to your loved ones about this This is a new tactic used and I would hate for anyone to fall victim to this kind of crime.
Please be safe
From: Ian Chapman
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 12:52 PM
To: EMI District
Subject: Please read
Importance: High
Team, Recently sent to me:
On the way to Canton , driving on Michigan Avenue , on Thursday morning, I saw an infant car seat on the side of the road with a blanket draped over it. I did not stop, even though I had all kinds of thoughts running through my head. But when I got to my destination, I called the Canton PD and they were going to check it out. This is what I was told...
"Several things to be aware of .. gangs and thieves, are now plotting different ways to get a person to "stop" their vehicle.
"There is a gang initiation reported by the local police department that gangs are placing a car seat by the road...with a fake baby in it...waiting for a woman, of course, to stop and check on the baby. Note that the location of this car seat will usually be beside a wooded or grassy (field) area ...and the person - woman - will be dragged into the woods- beaten and raped- usually left for dead. DO NOT STOP . DIAL 9-1-1 AND REPORT WHAT YOU SAW.
"IF YOU ARE DRIVING AT NIGHT AND EGGS ARE THROWN AT YOUR WINDSHIELD. DO NOT OPERATE THE WIPER AND DO NOT SPRAY ANY WATER BECAUSE EGGS MIXED WITH WATER BECOME MILKY AND BLOCK YOUR VISION UP TO 92.5% YOU ARE THEN FORCED TO STOP BESIDE THE ROAD AND BECOME A VICTIM OF THIEVES. THIS IS A NEW TECHNIQUE USED BY GANGS. PLEASE INFORM YOUR FRIENDS AND RELATIVES. THESE ARE DESPERATE TIMES AND THESE UNSAVORY INDIVIDUALS WILL TAKE DESPERATE MEASURES TO GET WHAT THEY WANT."
Please talk to your loved ones about this This is a new tactic used and I would hate for anyone to fall victim to this kind of crime.
Please be safe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)