[Masthead] Overcast ~ 72°F  
High: 85°F ~ Low: 66°F
Thursday, July 24, 2014

How do you feel about the Presidents speech??

Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009, at 3:26 PM

Did you watch the Presidental Speech last night? How do you feel about what he has said?


Comments
Showing most recent comments first
[Show in chronological order instead]

up north,

I just do not see anything racial about Uncle Sammy Obammy.

You may, but I do not.

I will agree though that he (Obammy) has a tough job in front of him.

I also have to say that I do not think he was the man for this job. Neither was Sarah Palin but John would have had to die before we would of had to suffer inexperience in a position that needs much experience just for starters.

I would love to have Obama for a neighbor, just do think he is the correct man for the position of president. Neither am I.

But irregardless of what I think, he is our president and let's all wish him well and pray he handles all the many burdens placed upon him in the best way.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Wed, Mar 4, 2009, at 12:18 PM

Good way to cover parkerbrothers. Sorry but trying to reverse a Fruedian slip doesn't impress me.

Why not explain why you used the word Obammy in the first place. "President Obama" too much for ya?

Like him or not, support him or not, he is the President. To get through the enormous mess the Bush adminstration left us, it will take ALL of us, black/white, southerner/northerner, democrat or Republican to stop the insults and name calling that get us nowhere and get on with what we have and that is HOPE. Something we haven't had in a very long time.

If you had read correctly, you can see that I did not call you a racist but referred to what you said as a racist remark. Calling me a "Northern Racist" is really quite comical. I'm from Tennessee.

-- Posted by up north on Wed, Mar 4, 2009, at 11:20 AM

What does Obammy have to do with being a racist remark?

Unless somehow you are associating the word Obammy with Mammy?

Is that how a Northern racist mind works when it does?

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Wed, Mar 4, 2009, at 8:17 AM

Not me buddy boy. BUT "me thinks thou doest protest too much".

All you ever do is cut down the new administration which by all accounts was not backed by your state in the election. As far as the Uncle Sammy reference, adding the Obammy did indeed give the impression of a racist remark. Take it or leave it, we do not talk like that "UP HERE". Offensive, very..ignorant, even more so.

-- Posted by up north on Wed, Mar 4, 2009, at 7:59 AM

up north,

Uncle Sam?

Uncle Sammy?

Only a racist could possibly view it as racist.

Thanks for disclosing your view.

I thought those days were over down here and up there?

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Tue, Mar 3, 2009, at 12:01 PM

parkerbrothers: Uncle Sammy Obammy?????

Sounds alittle racist. BAD choice of words for someone who spouts off as trying to sound "intellectual". I thought those days were over down there.

-- Posted by up north on Tue, Mar 3, 2009, at 10:31 AM

Oh boy $13 whole dollars a week.

Posted by greasemonkey on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, at 12:02 PM

greasemonkey,

Something to think about.....if it cost 2,000,000,000,000 for the bail outs and interest is 5% resulting in 100,000,000,000 needed to service the debt and there is approximately 100,000,000 workers in the U.S. then you can easily assume it is going to cost every worker 1,000 per year just to service this "new" debt which is approximately $20.00 per week.

Therefore keep the $13.00 per week Uncle Sammy Obammy is providing and scrounge up another $7.00 more per week to cover his ignorance.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Tue, Mar 3, 2009, at 9:43 AM

Also, wasn't it the Republican party who said there was no way he would cut taxes for 95% of Americans??-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, at 10:54 AM

A brief glance at the IRS figures show it to be an impossibility for anyone to cut taxes for 95% of Americans, because the bottom 50% of wage earners pay no taxes.

I am no bush cheerleader, but to your claim of folks giving him four years of support.....you've already forgotten about the "stolen" election claims form the Goracle supporters?

-- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, at 12:09 PM

Also, wasn't it the Republican party who said there was no way he would cut taxes for 95% of Americans?? Starting in April you can add that to a list of your monumental lies.

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, at 10:54 AM

Oh boy $13 whole dollars a week. That should combat all the other tax increases which will make our skyrocketing utility bills continue to rise oh and gas prices also. Yeah, we should just sit back and let him keep spending money like hes got it to burn while the country is bankrupt. Just because Bush gave us 8 horrible years is no excuse to continue in bad behaviour. I would rather the govt keep my $13 a week than for them to keep passing these outragous spending bills.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, at 12:02 PM

in the garden,

I could not even hold the light on you.

Actually nobody can.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, at 11:35 AM

It is funny how the Republican party was talking about unification and how we all needed to support Bush.. well, the majority of us did for a short time as indicated by opinion polls, but after we gave him 4 more years to fix the crap he started and he failed then we turned against him. I do not understand this mentality not allowing someone to try to invest in the American people.. Why is so easy to watch tax dollars be wasted on no-bid contracts in Iraq and the destruction of sovereign nations yet a minuscule thought such as putting people back to work in this country drives you bananas? I am just glad he is trying to put people BACK TO WORK instead of simply handing them money for not trying. Also, wasn't it the Republican party who said there was no way he would cut taxes for 95% of Americans?? Starting in April you can add that to a list of your monumental lies.

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, at 10:54 AM

in the garden,

I am quite well aware of the cost of living in Massachusetts.

Actually my post served little more than an attempt at needed humor and revelation of your arrogance.

Hopefully you can see the mission accomplished.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, at 7:16 AM

Well, I guess I got one of them 401k's.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sun, Mar 1, 2009, at 6:56 PM

What's a 401K?

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sun, Mar 1, 2009, at 6:00

Ghost from Finances Past :>)

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sun, Mar 1, 2009, at 6:47 PM

What's a 401K?

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sun, Mar 1, 2009, at 6:00 PM

Anyone on here heard of the plans for our 401K's? It will make even some Lieberals flinch.

-- Posted by cherokee2 on Sun, Mar 1, 2009, at 2:16 PM

And don't you think that name is a much better fit for a budding politico. Gargen kinda clears the sinues. Hak, pitooey, spit.

-- Posted by cherokee2 on Sun, Mar 1, 2009, at 2:14 PM

In The Gargen, since you are head and shouders brilliant above us Tennessee yokels, why don't you run for Occupant of 1600 P. Avenue and show us how its done. Obviously this other character does not know. And I know I made your day by lumping you with the ONE, or Occupant as I fondly call him. But if you do, dont count on my vote.

-- Posted by cherokee2 on Sun, Mar 1, 2009, at 2:11 PM

Maybe the amount of un-employment you receive depends on who you put in office in your state.

Could it be that those elected in TN don't fight as hard for the people that voted them in? Something to check out????

-- Posted by up north on Sat, Feb 28, 2009, at 9:21 PM

Dianatn,

Great link.

I wish I was laid off in Massachusetts.

$900.00 a week! I could lay up while laid off with that kind of money. Even room service would not be out of question in Massachusetts. Could you bring me a little lobster and steak up for a mid day snack?

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sat, Feb 28, 2009, at 4:43 PM

Personally I have never had much use for Lamar Alexander anyway so nothing he does surprises me.

Phil Bredesen is talking out both sides of his mouth about the stimulus package saying he is going to refuse the part it extends unemployment benefits and raises the amount by $25.00. I bet if a member of his family was collecting unemployment he would have never considered that.Max unemployment benefits are just $275 a week in Tennessee we are way down at the bottom of the list on how much the unemployed receive.

I think if he takes any of the stimulus money he should have to take it all, after all waste is waste and at least the unemployment benefit part will help ease a little of the unemployed bills.

If you want to see where we stand on unemployment benefits here is a chart that list max amounts by state:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sat, Feb 28, 2009, at 10:55 AM

describes the efforts of her community and the welfare institution to "keep her down".

Posted by quietmike on Sat, Feb 28, 2009, at 6:23 AM

I have long thought that the institution knows very well how to "keep her down"

What better way to "keep some up" is there than to "keep some down".

Almost like giving the guy cocaine to make him feel better.

The addicting effects of socialism and its programs are little more than the same drug sale.

It is just packaged by a diifferent company in prettier rose colored paper.

Once they snort the programs they are hooked and will remain on the farm in a disguised freedom but still in essence "chopping the cotton".

Not a pretty picture and I am against it but indeed it is a sad reality that has been cleverly disguised for few eyes to see.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sat, Feb 28, 2009, at 7:15 AM

Momof3&3step&1gran

I agree that it is a mental condition and said so in an earlier post.

BTW-you might enjoy the book "Uncle Sam's Plantation" by Starr Parker which is available at our library. It was written by a woman who lived on welfare for a while and decides to make a better life for herself and describes the efforts of her community and the welfare institution to "keep her down".

-- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Feb 28, 2009, at 6:23 AM

The thing is quietmike who gets to decide what wasteful squandering by the government is? -- Posted by Dianatn on Fri, Feb 27, 2009, at 5:29 PM

I would agree that every issue you posted is a fine example of waste.

To answer your question, we the voters are supposed to decide, unfortunately our elitist politicians believe that they know what is best for us despite us telling them differently.

Our own Lamar Alexander is on record as saying 80-90% of calls his office received were opposed to TARP but he voted for it anyway, saying we were unable to understand all the complexities of such an issue.

-- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Feb 28, 2009, at 6:16 AM

Give us at least 3 examples of this exact thing you are claiming happens.

-- Posted by in the garden on Fri, Feb 27, 2009, at 5:14 PM

Every single politician who voted for TARP, the big three bailouts, the Porkulus plan, those who support our progressive income tax, etc.,etc, etc.

If you really want to know what the issue is with America's poor I'd suggest you listen to Bill Cosby's pound cake speech.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches...

-- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Feb 28, 2009, at 6:11 AM

Although Obama claims he is only taxing those that make $250,000.00 and up more on taxes (and no I do not think that is right), quite honestly I believe the middle class and lower class will be paying more in taxes on items that they buy or purchase, possibly some new tax laws created as well for children, pets, number of vehicles or homes one has, etc. I believe food, gas, and nonfood items are going to go up along with the cost of living.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Fri, Feb 27, 2009, at 11:45 PM

When I pointed out the example of immigrants who often times start with much less than our native poor, it was to show that the "victimhood thinking" was an American condition.

There are too many politicians who tell the poor it's not their fault for the position they are in, and that it is pointless to try to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when they can blame someone else.

I too have no issue with helping out folks who need help, but as others have pointed out, this is a job best done by local churches, civic groups, and individuals.

Local help could better determine who needed help and who was basically a bum and could better monitor the progress of those receiving help. There are far too many people who have been on government "help" programs for decades.Posted by quietmike on Fri, Feb 27, 2009, at 2:47 PM

You sound just like Parker Brothers. I can understand exactly what you are saying, and yes it is partly true what you are saying also. And I hate to bring this into the picture but I am going to have to in order to make a point. It is not a "PHYSICAL SITUATION" of just finding a better job and living a middle class or higher life. It is more of a "MENTAL SITUATION or MENTAL LIMITATIONS" of what a person feels he can do and achieve. High Achievers, and Low achievers in school may play a role in this situation. Some people settle for "just making it", while others strive for higher and better things. If kids or adults are motivated to stop setteling for "just making it", and strive for "making well" or "making good" then their is a better chance of them pulling out of the poverty and welfare life style. It is a reverse psychology approach. And it has to be taught and told on a constant basis, until it is actually realized that "Staying on Govt. help programs" are actually keeping them from living a better and independent life. It is not expressed enough, nor in a way for people to see "The real picture" of what it is doing to their lives and possibly their childrens. Some people that has depended on govt. help programs have been able to get off of it and are now living a much better and independent life. It is a "NEEDED PROGRAM" no doubt, but something "MORE" needs to be involved in helping people find ways of becoming independent instead of just keeping them on the programs. Job or career evaluations, along with help for the training, and help in getting the job. May be a good way to start.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Fri, Feb 27, 2009, at 11:20 PM

You guys need to read this

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12356155...

Cut and paste the address if the link isn't highlighted.

We can banter about philosophy all day long. In the end, numbers are the numbers.

They'll be coming for you next.

-- Posted by Tim Baker on Fri, Feb 27, 2009, at 8:17 PM

Dianatn,

Maybe if the federal government focused on nothing but providing a national defence they could better manage things.

Perhaps being everybody's good ole Uncle Sam detracts from the job they really need to focus on. Playing mommy and daddy to a nation is too much of a burden to anyone, even our federal government.

They need to get out of the social business.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Feb 27, 2009, at 5:37 PM

The thing is quietmike who gets to decide what wasteful squandering by the government is?

What I deem as wasteful, you may not. That's were we all seem to disagree here...None of us want wasteful spending, my ideas of waste are just different than yours:

To Me this is some examples of wasteful spending:

IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION

-$142 million wasted on reconstruction projects that were either terminated or canceled. [Special Inspector General for Iraq, 7/28/08]

-"Significant" amount of U.S. funds for Iraq funneled to Sunni and Shiite militias. [GAO Comptroller, 3/11/08]

-$180 million payed to construction company Bechtel for projects it never finished. [Federal audit, 7/25/07]

-$5.1 billion in expenses for Iraq reconstruction charged without documentation. [Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction report, 3/19/07]

-$10 billion in spending on Iraq reconstruction was wasteful or poorly tracked. [GAO, 2/15/07]

-Halliburton overcharged the government $100 million for one day's work in 2004. [Project on Government Oversight, 10/8/04]

KATRINA

Millions wasted on four no-bid contracts, including paying $20 million for an unusable camp for evacuees. [Homeland Security Department Inspector General, 9/10/08]

-$2.4 billion in contracts doled out by FEMA that guaranteed profits for big companies. [Center for Public Integrity investigation, 6/25/07]

-An estimated $2 billion in fraud and waste -- nearly 11 percent of the $19 billion spent by FEMA on Hurricanes Katrina and Rita as of mid-June. [New York Times tally, 6/27/06]

-"Widespread" waste and mismanagement on millions for Katrina recovery, including at least $3 million for 4,000 beds that were never used. [GAO, 3/16/06]

DEFENSE CONTRACTS

-A $50 million Air Force contract awarded to a company with close ties to senior Air Force officers, in a process "fraught with improper influence, irregular procedures, glaring conflicts of interest." [Project on Government Oversight, 4/18/08]

-$1.7 billion in excessive fees and waste paid by the Pentagon to the Interior Department to manage federal lands. [Defense Department and Interior Department Inspectors General audit, 12/25/06]

-$1 trillion unaccounted for by the Pentagon, including 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units. [GAO, 5/18/03]

And we won't even talk about the 700 Billion Dollar TARP fund waste.

To me it is much worse to waste my tax payer dollars on things that does not help anyone except the rich big businesses.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/21/bush...

-- Posted by Dianatn on Fri, Feb 27, 2009, at 5:29 PM

Lazarus

I think either I have misrepresented my position (most likely) or you have misunderstood me.

When I say work harder, I also mean making wise decisions. For example everyone should realise that dropping out of school, using drugs, or having out-of wedlock children while themselves almost still a child will severely limit their chances of success.

Yet some will say we are being too harsh by pointing out these "truths" saying it is the persons "right" to live as they see fit.

I agree it is their right, but it is also their responsibility to accept the consequences of their shortcuts.

When I pointed out the example of immigrants who often times start with much less than our native poor, it was to show that the "victimhood thinking" was an American condition.

There are too many politicians who tell the poor it's not their fault for the position they are in, and that it is pointless to try to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when they can blame someone else.

I too have no issue with helping out folks who need help, but as others have pointed out, this is a job best done by local churches, civic groups, and individuals.

Local help could better determine who needed help and who was basically a bum and could better monitor the progress of those receiving help. There are far too many people who have been on government "help" programs for decades.

I know I come across as a complete hardcase, but I'm really not that bad.

I am just sick of the wasteful squandering by the government.

-- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Feb 27, 2009, at 2:47 PM

Sharon22,

I also can not personally remember the time when the church let go and government took hold.

I am fortunate though to have been born in a time when I did get to have conversation with several people who experienced a completely different time era and it was fascinating to listen to them. I actually worked for a few of them mowing their grass and watering their flowers when I was young (6-14 years old). Two of them were born in the 1880's and could vividly recall a time of great difference.

I wish I would have spent more time with them but as they would say to me..."you could worry the horns off a billy goat". I am just grateful for the time they did spend with me and the insight they provided.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Feb 27, 2009, at 2:18 PM

lazarus,

I will agree with you on the gift of time being a very valuable donation. I think it is commendable to teach people to discover their talents and use them to better themselves and perhaps even better the next person themselves. I think a lot more positive and beneficial pride can also be created by helping people discover the many talents they have and their application of their own talent to become all they can be. There is so much talent in people that never gets discovered or used.

However, that still just reminds me that the "crutch" of government prevents a lot of people from discovering they can walk on their own as good if not better than anyone.

I still firmly believe that the church should be the determiner of when the leg looks good enough to walk on.

The government is too busy trying to determine if paying a company 492 billion dollars for a new crutch will solve the case of the limp.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Feb 27, 2009, at 1:20 PM

parkerb,

the bible is a marvelous instrument. we can use it to show us what we should do, or we can use it to justify what we want to do. either way, it is not my place to judge which path you have chosen. only you know what is in your heart.

as for the government or the church, i have no real opinion. neither one will use their resources the way i think they should be used. i happen to believe that monetary support is of lower value than helping the less fortunate to learn how to use the gifts they have, so that they might also realize the opportunities and potential that exist. rather than wait on the government or the churches to do what i think needs to be done, i find it preferable to do what i am able to do to make the world a better place.

-- Posted by lazarus on Fri, Feb 27, 2009, at 12:57 PM

PB,

I would say that for the most part it was a gradual case of role switching. I was not alive or just very young when many of these programs were in their infancy and to many people they most likely looked good at that time. Hindsight is often 20/20 and that's what has happened here. I have always believed that you get your best "investments" off of donations (either taxes or voluntary giving) when it remains local. It requires less people to take care of the money here then sending it to Washington, but then again if we quit sending it to Washington someone up there might be out of a job.

-- Posted by Sharon22 on Fri, Feb 27, 2009, at 12:26 PM

lazarus,

Although your comments were admirable you seem to miss a key point.

While it is true that all of your acheivements and any of ours or anybody's acheivments are indeed nothing but God given, it should be a same God given love in each of us that "gives" as our hearts desire.

The government has removed the essence of the gift of love and replaced it with duty. If it is of duty it can not be of love. Duty will smother love. Satan always uses the invoking of "duty" to effectively remove love. He brilliantly knows he can tarnish love with a dose of duty.

And speaking of God, let's not forget what his loving apostle Paul had to say.

2 Thessalonians 3

10For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

11For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.

12Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

13But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.

14And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

15Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

16Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord be with you all.

17The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.

18The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

The first century church was very precious.

Acts 4

34Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

I think a key point I see in the above verses of Acts that I would like to point out is the words "distribution was made unto every man according as he had need". In particular is the use of the word "need". Luke did not say "want" but instead used the word translated "need".

My whole point is to say again that things headed downhill when the government started taking the roles the church originally properly administered according to need.

Many times on here I have asked if the real issue is that the church just let these responsibilities be taken over by the government or did the government aggressively take the roles from the church.

In other words did the church give or did the government take. Or was it a gradual case of one giving and the other taking in full consent and with knowledge of the change coming.

Don't you at least think the church would be the best administrator of caring for the "needy".

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Feb 27, 2009, at 12:09 PM

greasemonkey,

I like what you said. As always you seem to have a very level head on most issues.

I would like to say that I feel the real problem with assistance is when the government starting taking the role given to the churches.

The churches were a much better administrator of funding the "needs".

The government became an ineffective administrator of the "wants".

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Feb 27, 2009, at 11:26 AM

lazarus, Nice...

-- Posted by memyselfi on Fri, Feb 27, 2009, at 10:20 AM

Lazarus,

I would have to agree with almost everything you said. I am not wealthy, I would probably be considered below average, fiscally speaking. The only person I have to blame is myself and poor decision making. I also feel pity for those who cannot help themselves and see there are lots of people in need, especially now. The problem I have is that it is not the governments place to force charity on someone. Most wealthy people are also the ones who give the most, look at the many many charitable orginazations put together by the wealthy. By the government stealing our money and spending it how they see fit, basically takes away the freedom of allowing us to choose which charities to donate to.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Fri, Feb 27, 2009, at 9:54 AM

"If they had to admit the truth, that "rich"people work harder"

i am going to have to reject that "truth". i dont think i am exactly wealthy, but i am comfortable. however, as self-satisfying as it might be to believe that makes me superior, it simply isnt true.

i am in the situation i am in because god was good to me. i was born into a family where collecting government assistance was not taught as a life skill. that wasnt something i earned, i was born to my family by the grace of god. i went to college and graduated with a degree that allows me to make an above average income. frankly, it wasnt that hard. by the grace of god, i was gifted with abilities that made college easy. when i tutored other students to help pay my way thru, i found that most of them had to work a lot harder than i did, just to get by. many were unable to make it at all. when i started my career, i was able to advance thanks to the ability that was given me. i was able to convert my income into savings, and "wealth" because i was able to manage my money better than others with lesser gifts.

every time i sign paychecks, i see the hardships of the working poor. i see the names of people who work their butts off, but without the good fortune that i have enjoyed, they lack the skills to make more than a survival wage. i see garnishments on checks for people who lack the skills and abilities to make their income meet their needs.

yes, i consider myself a conservative, but i reject the new "conservative values" of arrogance, greed/selfishness, and self-aggrandizement that i see people use "conservatism" to excuse. i do a lot of volunteer work, because i believe it is my duty to god to use the gifts i was given to benefit others. i happen to believe that monetary support is of less value than helping the less fortunate to learn how to use the gifts they have to realize the opportunities and potential that exist. i would like to see sweeping changes to the way we assist the poor, but none of those changes include allowing children to go hungry while i eat steak or lobster every night. none of those changes include allowing the working poor to die without medical treatment, since i can afford the best medical care in the world. i am not going to begrudge a poor kid being able to buy a used coat, while my kid is touring europe on spring break. i am not going to lie awake at night, angry at the thought that lazy people might be receiving more than they deserve, when god has given me so much more than i need or deserve.

now, i have certainly been around people whom i consider to be wealthy. the "truth" i see is that few of them have achieved that status by hard work and enterprise. they might prefer to imagine it that way, but most wealthy people were born to money, raised on money, and have done no more to deserve their status than the lowest wage earners in my employ. even those whose wealth is self-earned do not need to break their arms patting themselves on the back. it was the gifts from god that allowed them to achieve their position.

in the bible (leviticus) the wealthy of the day are forbidden to harvest the corners of their fields, so that that produce might be harvested by the poor and needy. the tone of the new testament leaves no doubt in my mind that it is my duty to share the blessings i have received. to not even be willing to see a dime of my money go to the hands of the less fortunate would make me the least deserving of all. to grudgingly concede assistance, while looking down upon the less fortunate with scorn and contempt would make me little better.

you can color your world however you like, but in my world money cannot make you better than another man. your attitude about it can, however, make you less. if todays "conservatives" were worth the flesh they are made of, they would worry more about how use their blessings to help others, and less about how to make sure no one else gains one iota of benefit from their blessings.

just one man's opinion.

-- Posted by lazarus on Fri, Feb 27, 2009, at 8:59 AM

By the same token, the dogs are nothing but dogs, and they too are parasitical. They just do their leeching in a slightly different way, and receive a much better meal in the process.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 10:26 PM

memyselfi,

Let the fleas have to much free reign and watch the dog if you want to see the real lesson.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Feb 27, 2009, at 7:13 AM

Lesa.

You seem to have hit a nerve!!

-- Posted by bear on Fri, Feb 27, 2009, at 5:44 AM

Poor people have very little to do with making a rich person rich. Sure the rich guy might have invented something or might sell something that poor people buy, but you make it sound as if Bill Gates made his fortune by sneaking through the windows of poor people and stealing their stuff.

Over 80% of millionaires (and above) in this country are first generation rich.(google it if you don't believe me) That means they started as regular folk and worked hard to build up their fortunes. Most are not trust fund brats as some would have us believe.

One question for you though. If you believe the poor are so mistreated here, why is it only applicable to native born poor?

Lots of immigrants (legal and otherwise) come here and have no problem being successful. I could point out a doughnut shop and several gas stations among some local examples.

I would offer that immigrants know what real poverty and deprivation is like and they are not afraid to work hard.

At one time I have been out of work, with no money, having to decide if I will pay this months bills or buy groceries. But I have never been poor! Poor is a state of mind.

Hopelessness, desperation, and poverty can be roughly compared to mental disorders. There are wealthy people whom everything could be taken away from them, and they would just buckle down and make their fortunes again. There are poor people who could be given everything, and within a short time they would have squandered it and be poor again.

You can believe your congresscritter that the next social progam will solve all you problems, but it is a lie. The answers lie within yourself, it's all in your attitude.

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 10:38 PM

By the same token, the dogs are nothing but dogs, and they too are parasitical. They just do their leeching in a slightly different way, and receive a much better meal in the process.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 10:26 PM

It is very easy to point to the fleas on the dog and cry about their unconstitutional drain upon the poor hard working dog,but when we consider where the dog's food comes from in the first instance, it gets a little cloudier.

Posted by memyselfi on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 8:04 PM

memyselfi,

If you think the dog's food comes from the fleas only your imagination is cloudy. The fleas are nothing but the fleas and the fleas are parisitical.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 9:04 PM

This part is very good: "create a class of victims". It is very easy to point to the fleas on the dog and cry about their unconstitutional drain upon the poor hard working dog, but when we consider where the dog's food comes from in the first instance, it gets a little cloudier. We do not necessarily have to have fleas on the dog, but we do not really have to have dogs either. If you are lucky enough to currently be a dog with fleas, be happy, not resentful. We really could "create" a society with mostly only fleas. I personally believe that is the objective of either political party, and to criticize one while defending another, makes absolutely no sense to me.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 8:04 PM

So, create a class of victims, pander to them, steal money from working folks to give to them, and then claim the dogs need the fleas instead of the other way around?

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 6:54 PM

Now that's good.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 7:27 PM

In the garden

As for your red/blue map of who pays/receives the most taxes, It took a while for me to find the information again but here goes.

First, states are only dirt with imaginary geographic lines drawn to separate them. My point being, states don't pay or receive taxes people do.

Almost everyone will admit the rich pay the VAST majority of all taxes in our country.

For those who choose not to believe this, Check out this site that compiled the information from the IRS.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archive...

That leaves the question of how rich people are likely to vote.

Rich states are likely to vote democrat, rich people republican, and since people are paying the taxes...

http://iserp.columbia.edu/news/articles/...

So, create a class of victims, pander to them, steal money from working folks to give to them, and then claim the dogs need the fleas instead of the other way around?

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 6:54 PM

It is not really worth my effort...

-- Posted by in the garden on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 5:59 PM

Typical liberal thinking.

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 6:15 PM

Yep.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 6:35 PM

It is not really worth my effort...

-- Posted by in the garden on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 5:59 PM

Typical liberal thinking.

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 6:15 PM

It's vote buying plain and simple. It's just dressed up with fancy words.

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 5:40 PM

I also don't understand why its right to raise taxes on a group of individuals to pay for health insurance for others. I definitely do not believe in this redistribution of wealth . . . it rewards many for not really trying and punishes those that really did work hard to where they got. We really are rewarding bad behavior but I do agree many have tried hard and done what they could and still are struggling but why are you punishing the next person for that person's misfortune.

What is next?

-- Posted by jaxspike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 5:37 PM

Kinda like my 401K, right? I invested in that also so it would be there when I retire. After looking at it recently I am hoping I do not have to retire in the next 50 years.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 5:30 PM

And which party has been in control of spending during the entire market downturn?

***Hint- It's the party that controls congress***

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 5:34 PM

....Privatization would have allowed people to invest a portion of their money into something that would actually be there when they retire, while also continuing to pay benefits to those already collecting social security payments.

Kinda like my 401K, right? I invested in that also so it would be there when I retire. After looking at it recently I am hoping I do not have to retire in the next 50 years.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 5:30 PM

The republicans of course, no one would believe a democrat would consider shrinking the size of government.

The average rate of return for mutual funds for the past 80 years has been 10-12%. The average return for Social security is around 2% which is below the average inflation rate.

Privatization would have allowed people to invest a portion of their money into something that would actually be there when they retire, while also continuing to pay benefits to those already collecting social security payments. Eventually a failing government program could have then been phased out, which is an anathema to liberal.

I know you are a little slow on the uptake, but for the fifth or sixth time I am not a republican. :-)

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 5:24 PM

It's a neat trick how you can blame with someone other than the democrats as well. Care to share why?

My problem with all entitlement programs is that they are unconstitutional. If individual states wanted to start them, fine. If the feds had on that was VOLUNTARY, fine.

And no I don't agree with FDIC deposit insurance either. Whether it's an entitlement or not is irrelevant, it's unconstitutional.

I am perfectly able to plan and save for my own retirement without government help, thank you.

BTW, when Bush tried to privatize Social Security, which party rolled out the homeless granny eating cat food ads?

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 5:15 PM

And what part of that makes Social Security an entitlement when we continue to pay into the program?

All your quiz tells me is Our Government has been spending our payments to Social Security for other things besides what it was set aside for many many years.(now tell us all something we didn't know) I blame both Republicans and Democrats for that.

If your bank folds and the FDIC pays you the amount you had in your bank account (because it is insured by the Feds) Does that make your money an entitlement?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 5:05 PM

Funny you picked Social security, since I have a little quiz for ya.

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social

Security (FICA) Program. Originally participation in the Program was to be

completely voluntary and any participants only had to pay

1% of the first $1,400 of their annual

incomes into FICA. Money put into FICA would be deductible from

their income for tax purposes each year and money put into the

Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General Operating Fund, would

only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other ;

Government program, and, one key thing was that any annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Q: Which political party took Social Security from the

Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it in to the

General Fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-

controlled House and Senate.

----------------------------------------------------

Q: Which political party eliminated the income tax

deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

------------------------- ---------------------------

Q: Which political party started taxing Social

Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the

'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the

Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

----------------------------------------------------

Q: Which political party decided to start giving

annuity payments to immigrants?

A:Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.

Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,

they began to receive Social Security payments! The

Democratic Party gave these payments to them

even though they never paid a dime into it!

----------------------------------------------------

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),

the Democrats turn around and tell you that the

Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 4:55 PM

Gee, then I need to stop paying into Social Security if it is indeed an entitlement. Do you think they will send me back all I have paid into Social Security over the past 40 years? No sense in me paying if it is an entitlement.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 4:53 PM

Because liberals like to claim "rich" people got that way by either luck or by stealing it from someone else.

If they had to admit the truth, that "rich"people work harder and make wiser decisions than the poor, they would have a crisis of conscience when they proposed all the wealth "redistribution" schemes.

Instead, they play word games for the same reason a robber wears a mask.

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 4:39 PM

The dictionary definition is:

Federal programs, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, that disburse money according to fixed formulas to citizens who fall into designated categories.

My definition is:

Programs designed to appease people who believe they deserve what other people have without having to go to all the trouble to do the same work as the other folks.

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 12:22 PM

Both definitions are correct. Wonder why people can not accept these definitions. "Entitlements" are entitlements. The very thought of them destroys the proper work ethic.

Unacceptable work ethics cause companies to seek countries with acceptable work ethics to produce their product.

The problem is so simple we stumble all over it.

Companies that produce....seek productive employees. Where are the jobs going?

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 4:24 PM

Typical, lets blame conservatives (so called anyway, I still argue Bush to be a socialist) for Obamas ridiculous spending. LOL.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 4:17 PM

I would list all the "targets" that have turned me off of liberalism but I am positive you would tire of reading it.

-- Posted by devan on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 4:17 PM

In the Garden

If you are trying to say that the Bush years bore ANY resemblance libertarianism or even conservatism, then I have given you too much credit.

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 4:16 PM

WOW, what a budget, it should be criminal. So much for helping the economy. Oh yeah and BTW if you think your electric bill is high now, wait till the effects of the tax on fossil fuel users sinks in. Glad we are getting $13 a week.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 1:59 PM

I love the comment that the Democratic Representative from Mississippi gave in regards to Obama's spending plans. I agree with him!

(CNN) -- Mississippi Democratic Rep. Gene Taylor blasted the budget outline President Obama submitted to Capitol Hill today, saying "I don't like it...change is not running up even bigger deficits that George Bush did."

"That's what George Bush did very well. Apparently that's what President Obama is doing."

Taylor, a conservative "blue dog" who voted against the stimulus bill, noted he was still reviewing the plan but was troubled by the additional amount of spending for many government programs on top of the recent increased funding many agencies received in the economic stimulus bill.

As a member of the Armed Service Committee, Taylor noted the budget only gives the Defense Department a "small increase," which he said would barely cover the cost of living adjustments for the military.

Taylor pointed to President Obama's inaugural address that called for Americans to make sacrifices, saying "It's certainly not reflected in his budget."

-- Posted by jaxspike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 1:54 PM

President Barack Obama is proposing the first tax increase on high-income earners in 16 years to help pay for sweeping health-care reforms, asking the U.S. Congress to cap the tax deductions for affluent Americans. Obama proposes spending $634 billion to overhaul the U.S. health-care system, partly paid for by limiting tax deductions for couples making more than $250,000 a year.

Problem with that though is that roughly half of Americans earning $250,000 or more are small-business owners and the proposed increase will help stifle the troubled economy even more. When you raise taxes on businesses, guess what they do? That is right . . . they charge more for their goods and services so we wind up paying for it in the end. So yeah, that extra $13 in tax cuts isn't going to get us anywhere.

I really have to shake my head in disbelief that such stupidity is running amuck.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 1:42 PM

One other thing, I am not sure if it could be considered a "promise", but Obama also removed one of the only good things from the stimulus the "buy american" provision. The one part of the stimulus that could have created some jobs he let it go, what a stand up guy!

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 12:49 PM

Sorry, Mike, you can move the goalposts all you want, but the fact of the matter is that liberal-voting states contribute more to the national coffers than do conservative-voting states.

I can give you an electoral vote breakdown, if you would like, to drive the point home even further.

Regardless, your argument about it being too simplistic is irrelevant. It is not. We are talking about net in vs. net out.

-- Posted by in the garden on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 12:15 PM

If you truly believe that, then why does your party rail against tax cuts claiming they favor "rich conservatives"?

I agree they do favor the rich, but with good reason. I would also concede that most rich folks tend towards conservatism.

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 12:27 PM

The dictionary definition is:

Federal programs, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, that disburse money according to fixed formulas to citizens who fall into designated categories.

My definition is:

Programs designed to appease people who believe they deserve what other people have without having to go to all the trouble to do the same work as the other folks.

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 12:22 PM

Define entitlement?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 12:00 PM

um, without taking time to look it up, i believe the federal government has the POWER TO REGULATE interstate commerce, which would seem to be an entirely different animal than the RESPONSIBILITY TO SUBSIDIZE a state's economy. a "gimmie" program is a "gimmie" program, no matter who is on the receiving end.

-- Posted by lazarus on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 11:07 AM

Yep, you are correct. Sorry. The interstates would correctly fall under the "provide for the common defense" constitutional authority, which is why they were originally called the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.

I would have no problem with the feds letting the interstates go, as they are no longer as large a necessity for national defense.

I would certainly trade giving them up for doing away with "entitlement" programs such as welfare, social security, and medicare.

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 11:33 AM

dont you mean the map 'does not support my pre-determined conclusion, and is therefore of no use in making my argument.'

-- Posted by lazarus on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 11:07 AM

If I showed you that global warming increased after the inception of the EPA, and said we should disband the EPA to save the planet, you would tell me I was insane because I didn't include all the factors.

That is what I'm saying about the map.

Correlation is not the same as causation.

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 11:23 AM

"I was pointing out the map is too simplistic to be useful, and needs more information to give an accurate picture."

dont you mean the map 'does not support my pre-determined conclusion, and is therefore of no use in making my argument.'

"Interstate commerce is an area that is a constitutionally mandated responsibility of the federal government and so is different than a "gimmie" program."

um, without taking time to look it up, i believe the federal government has the POWER TO REGULATE interstate commerce, which would seem to be an entirely different animal than the RESPONSIBILITY TO SUBSIDIZE a state's economy. a "gimmie" program is a "gimmie" program, no matter who is on the receiving end.

-- Posted by lazarus on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 11:07 AM

I was pointing out the map is too simplistic to be useful, and needs more information to give an accurate picture.

For instance, with the states that are the "net receivers", does most of the tax money go to a couple of large cities where there are lots of welfare recipients (who will undoubtedly vote liberal).

Why use the same map that has been floating around since 2004?

Why didn't they break the map down to county levels to give a more accurate representation of who is paying/receiving?

Interstate commerce is an area that is a constitutionally mandated responsibility of the federal government and so is different than a "gimmie" program.

I have no problem with programs to help people out or even with paying them to sit on the couch and do nothing if that's what the people of the local community want to do.

BUT-that is a decision that should be made on a local/state level and not by the federal government.

That way if Bell Buckle (no offense intended, just needed an example city) wanted to pay dead beats, all of them could move there to get their checks, and those that didn't want to subsidise that type of lifestyle could move to Wartrace.

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 10:59 AM

Sure Obama is a good speaker and he had some dang pretty words comin' out of his mouth but can mere words turn the economy around?

-- Posted by daisy mae on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 10:53 AM

quitemike,

in regard to the net-receiver/net-payer states,what is the significance of the money being spent on public land or federal transportation systems? it would seem that dependency is dependency, whether it is a federal subsidy of state transportation systems (i traveled/lived out west before the interstates. these highways are what makes their current economy possible) or a federal subsidy of their public lands (which is the basis of tourism and resource exploitation revenues). you post as if this funding somehow is irrelevant to these states, when it is the foundation of their entire economies. is it somehow not welfare if the recipient labels themself a conservative?

-- Posted by lazarus on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 10:22 AM

A couple of folks ask why we don't "wait and see what happens" or "give something a chance to work or fail".

Personally, I see no reason to give it a chance because Obama's plan is no different than the economic plan of Carter. You might realise the MSM tells us this is the worst economy in 30+ years, without saying it was during the Carter years.

Increasing taxes to take money away from small businesspeople so government can try to solve problems that it created in the first place will stretch out and deepen this recession.

The market really didn't start to tank until Bush passed the bank bailout, and has dropped lower with every new "spending plan".

The U.S. became an economic powerhouse without a bloated federal government and all it needs to regain its footing is for the feds to get out of the way and let American entrepreneurs do what they do best.

Listen to the ideas of the man that brought us out of the Carter recession contrasted against Obama's plan and you'll see what I mean.

http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2009/02/12...

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 10:15 AM

Why don't we all just wait and see what happens before we get all worked up about anything?

Obama just passed this bill this week, give it a while let's see if it is going to work. If this bill actually does what he thinks it will do and turn the economy around and puts jobs back out there, I think it will be a small price to pay to save our country. If it doesn't work and puts us further in the hole more than we are already then please by all means slam him about it and I will be right there with you.

Maybe I am just grasping at straws praying and hoping for some signs of recovery.

As far as Pork spending goes I think we all have become accustom to that in Washington. Do I like it? NO But for some reason it seems to be a necessary evil. And the Dow is loking up this morning :>)

And about his speech..I personally thought it was a very good speech. He didn't dwell on the gloom and doom. If there is one thing you can say for certain, Obama is a wonderful speaker. Whether you believe anything he says or not.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 9:51 AM

Speaking of current administration and the comment from Darrick_04 . . . I was willing to give Obama and Congress a chance but unfortunately bills like the one mentioned in the following article shows nothing has changed and the stimulus package was no different.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02262009/new...

Please tell me how all these earmarks are still getting through and Obama justifying it when he said he would stop such things from happening. I kind of get tired of hearing the justification that since Republicans made so many mistakes, it is ok for Obama and the Democrats to make just as many new mistakes just as long as they are the one making it. That seems like silly reasoning to me but so many seem to cater to that way of thinking.

It is kind of hard to give someone a chance when they keep breaking promises and lying about change. It looks like business as usual in Washington DC.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 9:05 AM

Good halftime talk. Let's hope it is really halftime and not early in the first quarter.

-- Posted by bomelson on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 8:25 AM

Whoops! That little Freudian slip could be construed as an admission that Obama's appeal is based on envy and class warfare...but that's no secret is it? ;-)

-- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 9:55 PM

Well when the rich get richer the poor get poorer and we know who caused that to happen didn't we. The largest concentration of wealth into the fewest amount of hands. But Obama has admitted folks like HIM, and most Congressman can afford new taxes. The fact is those who make that much money per year are a minority so if there is no incentive to jump into a higher tax bracket then we should at least be able to survive in our respective brackets now.

jaxspike,

The difference is we complained after EIGHT YEARS, you and others complain after two months.... While nothing has a had a chance to work or fail.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 8:14 AM

I didn't vote for McCain or Obama nor did I vote for Bush but I still don't believe in some of the ideas and programs that Obama is pushing or promoting. That is not whining . . . that is having a belief system and knowing the facts and believing in what you feel is right. Maybe some of you don't understand that because you lack the intelligence to have an original thought yourself and need someone to give you eloquent speeches and lead you along like sheep. I like to form my own opinion based on facts . . . and facts are pretty scarce in the stimulus package (I also laughed when he said it had no earmarks and smiled . . . I wish I could lie that good). A true American always questions the actions of their president if they feel it's the wrong direction whether it's Bush or Obama or whoever. Those that voted for Obama never seem to hesitate to question and degrade Bush when he was president so why should Obama get a free pass . . . that is part of the job.

BTW . . . some people seem to be at the bottom 5% when it comes to intelligent remarks. It's easy to make snide remarks or resort to the usual political rhetoric (oh you must be a Republican if you question Obama's plans). I remember certain Republicans doing the same kind of thing when they labeled people unpatriotic if they didn't support the war. Shouldn't Democrats be above that? I guess not . . .

In regards to the actual question of this entry, Obama's speech was typical of all of his others. It was a speech of optimism which was filled with the usual vague references and ideology and no real discussion or transparency of his plans. Many people are right when they compare it to the typical campaign speech in which you try and motivate people without informing too much in case those words come back to haunt you.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 7:37 AM

To directly answer your queston, he was charismatic, simplistic,idealistic, and aimed at the lower and middle classes, where he enjoys a wide band of support.

Once again he let "off/failed to point" out the problem with real estate brokers/appraisers and lay the blame at the funding sources.

Once again he failed to point out the real thieves the CEO's and Board Members of the troubled banks and institutions, who have bonus incentive programs to booster the pay packages that they quiet frankly don't earn. The profits should go into the bank assets and depositors accounts not to CEO's or Board Members whose salary come of the profits from the depositors assets. Bonus packages for management and employees are an insult to free enterprise and cost the customers/clients big time. I am tired of the cost to this country that these packages cost us in taxes/earnings/product costs.

Bonus systems should be banned and the excess profits/earning returned to clients in the form of lower product cost and in the case of banks increased earnings on our accounts.

It appears to me the have nots are systematically being robbed across the board by those who are suppose to be watching out for the real estate/ bank/institutions instead of themselves. Now, of course, they have your money and they are not about to give it back.

This means government of the people will make the have nots repay in long term plans that result from mis-management. Why don't they instead place effect laws to control these manager/thieves and increase taxes on all bonuses given to employees/management in a separate tax line item.

-- Posted by dipperdan on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 6:58 AM

Just like algore jumping to conclusions when presented with a bit of information instead of waiting to see the full picture.

One thing your blogger failed to take into account that pushes a lot of states to becoming net receivers is the amount of Federal Land in the state. The Feds own a lot of land primarily in western states and they have to spend money to take care of it and pay salaries for the employees of the BLM, USFS, NPS, BIA, etc. that work there. Obviously that doesn't apply to every state that's a net receiver but it is something to consider.

Another example would be the Federal Highway system that stretches through all the western states, most of which are very large with tiny comparative populations. This would also skew the results.

nice try though.

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 2:25 AM

I feel that we heard a lot more of the same, a lot of promises that can only be paid for by raising the taxes on everyone. Point of reference, in his speech last night he stated that he was going to cut farm subsidies to large farms. What is the definition of a large farm? If he does so, how are the farms going to make up the difference in the loss of revenue? By increasing prices on farm products that everyone uses, so that loaf of bread price goes up, the produce that we buy increases in price, the milk that your children drink goes up, the meat that we buy for use at home and when we take our families out to that Mac place increases in price. So in essence it is a tax increase on everyone. He also stated that he was going to increase the carbon emissions tax in order to fund alternative energy research. Which means an increase on the taxes that the petroleum companies pay, where will they make up the loss in revenue? It only stands to reason that the price will continue to rise at the gas pumps, which would be another tax on everyone. The bill, in which he proclaimed such pride in last night, the child health care act. Which will pay for child health care for people making as much as $75,000 dollars a year, including children of non documented aliens (a nice way to say illegal). How is he paying for that? If you look at the SCAP bill on the congressional web site, they are paying for it by adding an additional tax on tobacco, as much as an additional $3.00 dollars per pack. Which, will affect all smokers, not just the ones making over $250,000 a year. My point is that if you think he is only raising the taxes on the top 5% of the wage earners in this country, you are sadly mistaken. These grandiose visions that Obama has for America are going to be paid for by all of us. Not only from our pockets but I fear in privacy and freedom as well.

-- Posted by docudrama on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 1:27 AM

In the Garden

Something I find even more funny. For all the hatred you have of conservatives, liberals couldn't survive without them. You need conservatives to fund all of your socialist utopian wet dreams. On the other hand if all liberals disappeared what would conservatives miss out on?

Algore whining about CO2 while riding aboard his appropriately named BS-1 houseboat. Modern "art". The ACLU. Millions of leeches on welfare. Illogical explanations of why nothing is your fault.

Funny indeed.

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 1:20 AM

i'm witcha "in the garden" totally right on!!!!

-- Posted by slingshot on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 11:53 PM

Tim

I have heard my entire life, You must spend money, to make money. In a lot of ways that statement couldn't be more true, unfortunately none of us have the money to spend..and the ones who do have some money are afraid to let go of it. I hope he is not going overboard with the spending but you may very well be right. But the man has to do something to try and get credit flowing again or that to will be a utter disaster. It almost sounds like a lose- lose situation, doesn't it? I can't imagine being in his shoes right now. I honestly do not see how he can sleep at night, with all he has on his plate.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 11:35 PM

Diana I just filed my taxes yesterday. No I didn't like having Bush's hand on my wallet either. But when I crunched the numbers to calculate how my taxes would be affected (with good old Alabama state taxes) it comes to half my income. They had to talk me down from the roof of the accountant's office.

Darrick your innocent comment (and yes I do think it was made innocently) brings up a good point. What incentive does anyone have to go to a higher tax bracket? The current tax structure is punitive, how does making it more punitive improve it? What do you think of the flat tax or consumption tax?

ClarkDV, weak brother, weak. From my comment you assumed that I was a "Bushie". I don't agree with much of what the Bush administration did. Instead of just "doing something about it" how about doing something right? Obama is falling into the trap of "mandate" in that he feels he has free reign to get anything through Congress and he may be right. But at some point down the road, the bills are gonna come due. If my taxes were going up coupled with cuts in spending, I'd have no problem with it short term. But this level of spending coupled with tax increases is a recipe for utter disaster.

-- Posted by Tim Baker on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 10:15 PM

Must be nice to be in the top 5% ;)

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 8:54 PM

Whoops! That little Freudian slip could be construed as an admission that Obama's appeal is based on envy and class warfare...but that's no secret is it? ;-)

-- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 9:55 PM

Tim, ask Bush to do it.

-- Posted by ClarkDV on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 9:34 PM

ClarkDV, while I'm putting my head down and working, will you reach over and pull Obama's hand off my wallet?

-- Posted by Tim Baker on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 7:00 PM

Must be nice to be in the top 5% ;)

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 8:54 PM

Whata mean Tim? You didn't get use to a hand in your Wallet for the past 8 years?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 7:22 PM

I watched about about 2/3 of it. I stopped when I felt solar rays being projected into my colon.

ClarkDV, while I'm putting my head down and working, will you reach over and pull Obama's hand off my wallet?

-- Posted by Tim Baker on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 7:00 PM

I can't believe someone has to ask what promises he has broken?!?!

Just the lobbyists he has tried to hire so far.

Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm.

Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.

William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.

William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.

David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.

Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.

Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.

Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.

Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.

Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.

Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president's assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

Cassandra Butts, deputy counsel (2005-2006, registered to lobby for Center for American Progress)

Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to senior adviser (2005, American Association for Justice)

Cecilia Munoz, director of intergovernmental affairs, (2008, National Council of La Raza)

Patrick Gaspard, White House political director (2007-2008, SEIU)

Dan Turton, deputy director of legislative affairs (2003-2008, Timmons & Co.)

Emmett Beliveau, director of advance (2007, Patton Boggs)

Thomas Donilon, deputy at the National Security Council (2004, Fannie Mae)

David Medina, deputy chief of staff to Michelle Obama (2008, US Global Leadership Campaign)

Jocelyn Frye, deputy assistant to Michelle Obama (2008, National Partnership for Women & Families)

Jay Heimbach, legislative affairs (2001-2006, Ricchetti Inc.)

Denise Wilson, legislative affairs (manager of government relations at Motorola, but not in lobbying database)

Sean Kennedy, legislative affairs (2005-2006, SBC Communications -- now AT&T)

-- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 5:45 PM

Well just a couple off the top of my head, and I am paraphrasing.

1. NO ex or current lobbyists in the white house.

2. NO earmarks in the stimulus, and he stood in front of the american people last nite and flat out lied to our faces and still denying there are earmarks in the stimulus.

3. The public would get 48hrs to look at stimulus bill before passed into law.

4.Then he said somewhere else the public would have 5 days to look over the stimulus bill online.

5. "Buy American" he sure folded on that one.

6. "Honesty and Transparency" not really seeing that either.

7."will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the public 5 days to view it online" lets see schip...nope, lily ledbetter...nope.

I guess he had his fingers crossed when he said it so it doesnt count. Like I said those are just the ones from the top of my head I am confident there are several hundred others when you look at the enormous amount of promises he has made.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 5:33 PM

Strong speech and he said what we Americans needed to hear, that the economy WILL turn around, but it's going to take some time and it won't be pretty.

What we don't need is for some people to grouse and whine while the man tries to put things right. No matter who won the White House, Republican, Democrat, or Independent, the job is going to be hard and NO ONE has all the answers.

Also, let's not forget who was in office the last 8 years and contributed to this mess we're in. Something to think about before you go pointing fingers across the aisle.

The banks, the government, and the cyclical nature of a large economy are largely to blame for this recession, but most Americans are at least partially to blame too. There was a time not so long ago that the only thing we bought on credit was a house and maybe a car (on a 36-month note!)

Bottom line? Get to work, put your head down and dig in. And for goodness sake, stop spending money you don't have just so you can have a huge HD TV, drive a shiny new car or live in a house entirely too big for your income bracket.

-- Posted by ClarkDV on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 5:33 PM

Hey Greasemonkey,

What promises has the President broken in the last 30 days of office?????

-- Posted by up north on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 4:45 PM

I felt like it was alot of pretty words, and more promises he intends to break. I am sure it fooled alot of people though, and thats all that matters. All in all it felt like he was still on the campaign trail, and is still going to exponentially grow govt.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 3:40 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Clutter, Cats and Kids
Lesa Cox
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Lesa Cox has owned a cleaning service and a bookstore; now, she repairs and maintains computers for the elderly and others on a fixed income. She enjoys animals, gardening, books and fixing old cars. She and her husband have one son, who suffers from Asperger's syndrome.