John Kerry and his Soros propaganda machine said the Tea Party was so insignificant it wasn't worth paying attention to. Only a day later they said the Tea Party was so influential it is to blame for the country's credit rating downgrade.
Will the Socialist Left please make up their minds who they're going to blame for this one? Even the numbest of brains beg the question, "Gee, since the Tea Party is only 20% of the population, how can they be responsible for so much bad stuff?"
The truth is, if the Tea Party had its' way in the Debt Ceiling crisis that Obama created, we would've cut the $4-trillion in spending that S&P* said it needed to see to Not downgrade our credit rating. A-hem.
This is how the Democrats and Socialist Left will play Obama's 2012 re-election. Because they have nothing better. They sure can't re-elect Obama on his performance. You're going to hear a lot of ugly stuff about Republicans and Tea Party candidates, because conjuring ugly stuff is all they have.
The Left's only hope is to try to make an opposing candidate look so bad that Obama looks better. You have to admit, that's a lot of ugly.
Obama and his Democrat Congress made all of the decisions that brought us to where we are. They rammed through costly taxpayer legislations like Obamacare and Cap & Trade, as only two costly examples. You've probably seen your utility bills rise already as a direct result of Cap & Trade.
Obama signed all of those Executive Orders because Obama wanted what Obama wanted, not what the American People wanted. Obama wanted to be a dictator and now he has his Super Congress to do just that.
Obama is this country's "leader." The buck starts and it stops with the "leader." Sorry, Mr. Obama, that just goes with the territory. If Obama couldn't run with the big dogs he should've stayed on the porch three years ago. It is that simple.
So now you've hung your hat on the Socialist Left's "let's blame the Tea Party for Obama's S&P credit downgrade." And that would be ... why?
If your bank warned months ago they would lower your credit rating if you didn't pay off credit cards and you really didn't want your credit rating lowered, would you charge against five more credit cards then blame the neighbors' kids for misbehaving? "The neighbors' kids made me do it." Is that your argument?
Is the Socialist Left so feeble-minded? Do they read, listen to or watch anything but their own propaganda? Do they have any idea where their own Socialist Left is heading them, heading US, the United States of America? Do they think they're somehow exempt from the agonies of just where the US is being headed; or are they so short sighted they just don't care?
If you've jumped into this Tea Party storybook you should be ashamed for demonstrating yourselves so ill-informed. They are using you and they're laughing at you all the way to their political banks.
Somewhere in between the Socialist Left's own propaganda remains the unspoken truth.
That truth is, in 2010, by a majority of the American People's votes, Conservative candidates were elected to our Congress. You either respect the majority or you do not. If you don't respect the will of the majority voters you've certainly no right to expect them to respect you. Being a minority does not make anyone special. After all, the Tea Party is a minority and the Left keeps insisting how "not special" they are.
The truth is, by virture of those 2010 elections the Congressmen that were elected because of their Conservative principles did uphold their promises to the majority of Americans that voted for them. Maybe you can explain how that was somehow so bad? Imagine, Congressmen who actually kept their word and that's the Socialist Left's biggest and best complaint?
The truth is, because the Congressmen elected by a majority of the American People lived up to their campaign promises, they voted against incurring more debt ... because, guess what, the other truth is that the majority of American People did not want - and America cannot survive - incurring more debt.
Now aren't those Tea Party people just awful to want us to live within our country's means? How dare they be so such barbarians.
The truth is, Obama and his Democrat Congress created this mess. Let's review just a few real facts of the credit rating downgrade:
The Debt Ceiling debate was created by Obama and his Democrats as the eleventh hour crisis that it was. They had three-years to take responsible action against it and they did not.
Obama and his Democrat Congress had three years and was obligated to prepare and present a Budget to the American People and it still has not.
The trillions in debt now and to come, our lousy economy, our failing markets, our joblessness, and the eleventh hour Debt Ceiling chaos is exactly what caused downgrading of the U.S.' credit rating.
Only Obama and his Demcoract Congress can take credit for all of that.
So when you malign the Tea Party, thus the American People's wishes, with foolish nonsense that is nothing but foolish nonsense, all you are doing is proving how unscrupled the Socialist Left is and how easily manipulated your principles are.
* DAVID BEERS, STANDARD & POOR'S CHIEF:
In this country Congress and the administration are responsible for the conduct of fiscal policy ... it doesn't change the fact that [modifications were made because] the underlying debt burden of the U.S. government is rising and will continue to rise most likely over the next decade.
If the Left can't even get that right, how could we possibly expect them to get something as commplicated as debt and budgets and jobs and markets ... or meeting a simple deadline for any of them in three-years time ... right?
"For if a man has not his own house in order how shall he take care of [other men] ... ? Beware of false prophets that come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly they are ravening wolves. You will know them by their fruits, do they gather grapes of thorns?"
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 137
That's it in a nutshell, folks!
The only thing keeping the left so bold, is the money that backs them. They are cowards, and if they had no money backing them, would run and hide in the corner. Patriots have guts. We have courage to do what is right. In the face of opposition, it isn't money thta keeps us going. It is sheer determination and our faith in God.
Is the Socialist Left so feeble-minded? Yes
Do they read, listen to or watch anything but their own propaganda? No
Do they have any idea where their own Socialist Left is heading them, heading US, the United States of America? No
Do they think they're somehow exempt from the agonies of just where the US is being headed; or are they so short sighted they just don't care? Ignorance is bliss until it hits the fan, like the guy falling from a tall building who just keeps repeating: so far, so good.
As for the Socialist Left, here's my take: There are many who simply believe and repeat what they hear; there are some who use their heads and digest what they hear before believing it; there is an upper echelon with middle managers that announce the nonsense and give it validity, because they think it's just so slick; then there is the brainchild who actually comes up with the nonsense at some brain storming meeting.
Everyone from middle managers up know exactly what they're doing and how wrong it is, they simply don't care as long as they get what they want from it. Unfortunately, the innumerable masses outside of their "elite" loop are who they're selling it to.
We need every vote we can get.
In 2010 they were going through nursing homes signing up people who barely knew their own name, with absentee ballots and helping them to fill those out. There is no scruples or integrity with these people. They've proven it repeatedly.
I think you are absolutely correct. Remember when the news kept reporting that Obamacare was dead, there was no way he could get that through after it'd already failed, yada, yada, yada. Within a matter of just a few days he had all of those closed door meetings and sell-outs and private plane rides to buy votes. Then late on a Sunday night, whammy, he rammed it through despite what the majority of Americans wanted.
I've not under-estimated this guy since. Though his ploys always manage to disgust me on an even lower level than what I've seen before, it does not surprise me that he always finds a lower level to attach himself to. Everyone needs to vote in 2012. EVERYONE.
Every year, more and more Blacks are choosing the conservative way. I love it. Also, another reason I want the illegals returned is they will vote liberal for years if liberals get them in. If we send the illegals home and bring up the Mexicans that have patiently, legally and honorably waited on the list, I believe their tendency will be to be conservative. They are a very family oriented people.
The current situation is President Obama's responsibility, absolutely. But it's the TEA party's fault. That may sound like a fine line, but President Obama wasn't given an option to sign a law that included the $3T in cuts and $1T in revenue that he wanted, either. This is a situation where he has the responsibility but not the power. The Republican party had the power, but chose to abrogate its responsibility.
Nor has this Democrat controlled Congress passed one Budget in almost three years. That further fueled the fire of the Debt Ceiling Crisis. Even Obama's Democrat controlled Senate wouldn't pass his budget, all of them voted against it, that's how irresponsibly Defitic Happy Obama's Budget was.
The Democrats could have avoided the whole thing and they chose not to. They chose, instead, to make things worse. How convenient for them to blame that on the Tea Party now.
To make a leap in judgment that the Senate's inexcuseable procrastination -- and their denying the House's passed Bill any reasonable due process in the Senate, before they even saw it -- was somehow the responsinbility of the Tea Party, is pure, irrationally-spun poppycock.
All the "Gang Of Six" accomplished was to inordinately divert and interrupt due process with a Bill that had not been seen nor passed in either House. That was to appease Obama, which it did, and appeasing Obama was not the issue for very good reasons. That's why we have elections, to be represented by the people we elect to represent us. God fobid they do a good job of that, right?
If I recall, the Gang's Bill slated at least three things that were blatantly unacceptable to Conservatives, not just to the Tea Party: It almost doubled "revenues" in new tax increases; it spread out a reduction in debt increases (not existing debt) over 10-years, making that an almost meaningless figure; and when scored by the CBO its' supposed $3.7 trillion reduction became more like $1.5 trillion - to debt increase reductions - over 10-years. Not to mention a number of other undesirable attributes I'm sure I've forgotten to mention, like being shy of a Balanced Budget Amendment.
So by your standards, Ajat, the Democrats should be calling this Downgrade "The Gang Of Six Downgrade." They had as much if not more responsibility in derailing things as the meager Tea Party did. But that doesn't serve Leftists nearly as well politically, does it? Obama "didn't have the power" to do most of what he's done, but that hasn't stopped him before.
"The Republican party had the power," is blatantly false. Controlling one-third of One House in Congress does NOT, by any stretch of sane imagination, constitute "power." The Democrats DID control both Houses for two solid years and they still didn't getting anything done. But somehow that's different for you?
Trying to blame the Tea Party is like killing the messenger because you don't like the message; it's like blaming firemen who've come to put out a fire, because the house burnt down. That does not fly, I don't care how you try to spin it.
People can't fix what's wrong if they can't admit what is wrong. The Tea Party is one of the most "right" things with this country.
The president's "cuts" are over 10-years and see no end to a deficit. The Tea Party wants cuts that go to a balance the budget. A good example is the MACK PENNY PLAN.
S&P's "primary" concern is not our political system. The debt we already have and where we're headed with more is their primary concern. Political game-playing doesn't help. But it does fall on the president to make that work and he isn't because he wants spending that only Dems will give to him. To say it's primarily the dysfunctional politics is like saying you have cancer and the doctor wants to cut out the lump but not treat the cancer that's growing inside. This debt is the cancer inside.
So you are absolutely incorrect. Conservatives (not just TP) want to stop over-spending. They are the only ones that have a plan to put this country back in an economic environment that will create jobs again. THEN we can raise taxes. He's killing us with higher and higher costs and no jobs and an economy that is as close to failed as it can get without total mahem.
No, Ajat. You regulate future spending by establishing a Budget. (The president hasn't done that in 2-1/2 years.) Then you live within that Budget. If you don't have money for something, you don't buy it. Are you trying to say there is NO place, in ALL of our government spending, that cannot be cut? We both know that is not true. There is plenty of waste to cut.
"Conservatives have made a power play to stop all governance before the next Presidential elections."
What? What governance are they stopping, let alone "all" governance? Our government was set up to work this way, Ajat. There's never a time when one party makes all of the decisions because that does not represent all of The People. Our U.S. Constitution puts The People in charge of government, not the other way around. That is the beauty of it. The government is obligated to represent The People. All of The People, not just part of them.
"Conservatives don't have a plan to put people back to work other than cutting taxes. And historically, cutting taxes hasn't improved the economy."
Clearly you do not listen to Conservatives or you'd know exactly what their plan is. It's a simple one: Make the environment business friendly. It is brutally obvious Obama doesn't know how to do that. He's had three years and it just keeps getting worse. Conservatives have a sound history of creating jobs.
"And historically, cutting taxes hasn't improved the economy."
Oh contrare, that is blatantly false. All one need do is to look into Reagan's history of creating jobs. Cutting taxes is exactly what he did (before he raised taxes after the economy grew healthy again). It's an indisputable, historical fact that cutting taxes produces a business environment that does grow jobs.
"What's improved the economy is investment. Investment means government spending ... ."
Where did you get the idea that "government spending" is the equivalent of "investing?" Investing is done by private investors with big money to invest; and/or by individuals who invest their livlihoods and talents into starting a new business, Ajat. That is what creates jobs. Government spends taxpayer money. Private businesses pay the monies that pay the taxes to government.
"But we also need to increase revenues that are at their lowest levels in over sixty years."
By virtue of jobs, by putting people to work, more taxes are paid. Putting people to work accompishes a whole slew of economic benefits. If we have a Budget and live within a Baduget, there doesn't need to be a bunch of tax increases until that Budget is legitimately in need of increases. But, yes, at some point tax increases are necessary. In this economy, though, not before growing jobs first.
The business environment you refer to is being poisoned by fear that is generated by conservatives. Not the other way around. Uncertainty is a feeling. It's not created by legislation unless someone touts how bad the legislation will be for business. Who's doing that? Oh, that's right. Conservatives.
I did not say that government spending equals investment. I said that government investment requires government spending. The private sector will not build ports or roads or infrastructure. That public sector has to do those things.
I don't disagree about job creation's importance. My argument is that there is literally no historical evidence showing that tax decreases do that. There's too much going on between point a and b and there are too many examples to the contrary (like the 90s wherein taxes increased and GDP increased).
The budget doesn't cover long range policy. The budget doesn't even really cover the next two years (because of debt ceiling increase votes and the like). You have to set policy. Once you have policy, the policy guides the budget. The budget can then manage the short term. So we can do this all day, but the upshot is, you don't start with immediate cuts to services now.
On a side note, the people who need the tax increases aren't job creators. The job creators, generally speaking, claim middle class income (since most of their business monies are claimed either on capital gains or are offset by business expenses).
Were you not there when the discussion took place about not paying for things? It's out there on the interweb somewhere.
Similarly the article I just posted documents the positive effects of tax reductions on both, jobs and the economy. I'm only interested in "things I don't want to know" if they relate to this discussion, not simply for purposes of trying to discredit a deceased Repub president?
Ajat, of course the "rate of Bill passage" has dropped since Republicans were elected to the House. That is expected because the Democrats don't have control of both Houses of Congress anymore. I expalined earlier, that's not an injustice, that is how the American system is supposed to work. Apparently you are objecting now because the Left is not getting everything it wants as they did for two years. Why do you think that is, Ajat? It's because The People, as a majority, wanted to be represented by Repubs instead of Dems, because of how irresponsibly Dems were spending, so they voted in Repubs instead. Wouldn't you object even more if you weren't represented at all, as Repubs were not for two years? What gives you right to complain now that Repubcs are being represented by 1/2 of only one House of Congress? Do you not see the ridiculousness of your complaint?
You speak to the unfairness of "fear" and "touting" by one party as you indulge the very same act in denegrating the TP. It makes no sense that you complain about the very things you are doing. A "feeling" does not run a government. People are responsible for their own feelings. What you may "fear" is not what I may "fear" and visa versa. I am not responsible for your feelings nor you for mine.
As for gvoernment spending and speaking to your "infrastructure" argument, I again urge you to view the economists who speak to this very issue. You are incorrect, Ajet, economists (not just me) have determined it so. And, again, there is "historical evidence," I've provided that, please read it.
You have the "policy" angle in reverse, Ajat. I realize what you describe is how Obama does it :), but he's got the cart before the horse. The whole purpose of a budget is to live within in. It is the guide that policy should follow. Policy shouldn't be implemented that cannot fit into the budget, until an revised budget is approved to provide for that policy. A revision can be taking from one area and putting it in another, not always an increase simply because there is a new policy. That is how it's supposed to work.
So is what you're saying, "the people who need tax increases" do not necessarily contribute to paying taxes? I don't know what or how you define "middle class," but your idea of middle class and mine are definitely different. As a level of middle class outrselves, we pay what I regard as a lot of taxes for what little income we have and we certainly are not what you describe in hidden capital gains or the benefit of write offs, not at all. You're repeating incorrect information that you've merely heard but know nothing about personally.
I don't know what you're talking about, "discussion about not paying for things?"
"Capitalism and freedom, two things that have made this country great."
After all, that is exactly why immigrants risk life and limb to come here form their own homelands.
I agree, the forces fighting against the very clear and obvious successes of America's past want nothing more than to banish America into just another Socialist nation abused by its' dictators. If they think they detest "the wealthy" now, they've no idea what they'll be up against then. The personal greed being displayed as astonishing.
That said, I don't disagree that government, like everyone, should live within their means. I doubt if that's ever been argued against, and I wouldn't argue against it, either.
Your article is from the perspective of economists who have a vested interest in it being true. An economists view of our current state of taxation is here. I do dispute the claims of anyone who believes that there is an identifiable historical example of taxation impacting GDP. President Reagan's proposed cuts (which were never fully implemented) did not result in the tremendous GDP growth expected. In point of fact, they never caught up with his increases in defense spending. Additionally, during the whole period after his great tax cuts, he raised taxes thereafter and the economic growth coming out of the stagflation recession did not stop until deregulation resulted in the S&L crisis.
And don't give me the line about how irresponsibly Democrats were spending when $12 Trillion of our current debt has been accrued by GW Bush in one way or another (when calculating both wars and the tax cuts over time).
I'm not objecting because I think Democrats should get everything they want. I'm objecting because they can't compromise. They can't allow any revenue increases, even when they are generated by tax-base broadening initiatives! That's Reaganomics 101 (which has been debunked, but I digress).
And no. My point was that most small business owners do not claim the small business under personal tax returns that are over the $250,000 tax bracket. Meaning that small businesses benefit from a progressive tax system and that tax increases on 'the wealthiest American's' wouldn't target most small businesses.
I am seeing that you don't know what I'm talking about. Here's an example of the discussion that TEA party obstructionism required. Once a compromise that included a balanced approach was arrived at (like the gang of six approach), a simple approval by the House could have forestalled this downgrade. But rather than compromise, the Republicans, led by the TEA party, said no and threw us all into having to have these discussions about what obligations the government wouldn't pay.
Fren, you're approaching this argument like I want the government to be in a big hole. I don't. I just want the government to take a balanced approach. Don't throw out the baby with the bath-water. Take reasonable steps and act in all of our best interests. Don't put the politics of the next election ahead of the needs of the country. All of these politicking since the mid-terms has been aimed solely at getting President Obama out of office. Speaker Boehner said as much. The whole goal of his Speakership, or of his House or something like that. That isn't what I want our elected government to be thinking about.
The big government we have now is a result of decades of primarily Republican administrations using deficit spending for defense while throwing bones at Democrats. I want that reversed. Let's get budget surpluses back (like when we had a Democrat for President and a Republican Congress that compromised and worked toward the peoples' good - even if Speaker Gingrich is a philanderer). I'm not a proponent of big government. I like the idea of cutting spending toward entitlement programs and defense. I think our money should be aimed, instead, at much lower levels of spending and toward long term infrastructure that will make us economically competitive and foster small business. I know that sounds crazy coming from a Liberal. But it's true. I just think we need to take a reasoned approach to the process rather than screaming that we have to cut cut cut now now now.
This isn't all about 'You'. I will not debate a fool's nonsense. If foolishness is all you have take it somewhere else.
Ooooo, I'm shakin' now, you're keeping your questions and your answers to them as a note. Oh no. And just when I thought it couldn't get any worse.
Leave it to the Socialist Left to spin, errrr, I mean spell "No" from "Pffffffft." The ignorance some of them display with these ruses is as pathetic as it is annoying.
1) The left says the S&P downgrade had to do with the Tea Party not wanting to raise taxes. They hope you don’t read this:
- Standard & Poor’s takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.’s finances on a sustainable footing.
2) It’s not all about taxes. S&P prominently criticizes the political impossibilities of containing growth in public spending and reforming entitlements. Is that the tea party’s fault too?
- We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process.
3) They note that the debt ceiling deal didn’t go far enough. You might recognize that as the Tea Party position.
- We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.
4) Along with the deepness of the recession, the sluggishly terrible Obama “recovery†was another reason for their negative position. Is the Tea Party responsible for the Obama’s failed economic policies too?
- First, the revisions show that the recent recession was deeper than previously assumed, so the GDP this year is lower than previously thought in both nominal and real terms. Consequently, the debt burden is slightly higher. Second, the revised data highlight the sub-par path of the current economic recovery when compared with rebounds following previous post-war recessions. We believe the sluggish pace of the current economic recovery could be consistent with the experiences of countries that have had financial crises in which the slow process of debt deleveraging in the private sector leads to a persistent drag on demand. As a result, our downside case scenario assumes relatively modest real trend GDP growth of 2.5% and inflation of near 1.5% annually going forward.
5) They might downgrade us again if they see “less reduction in spending†than was agreed to. Is the Tea Party also responsible for not cutting spending enough?
- The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to ‘AA’ within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.
Stu Burguiere
You are being intellectually disingenuous if you fail to read this downgrade as a direct reflection on a lack of compromise in our government. And everyone but the far right Republicans have been talking compromise for some time.
I can save you the time ... S&P did not say that. You are the only one saying it. There is no present tense anymore, Ajat. The Deal is done. Are you pasting from Socialist Left propaganda?
Based on one poll, "58 percent of Americans would rather see a partial government shutdown than keep spending at 2010 levels. Only 33 percent would prefer to keep spending at current levels." Then there's this one, "more Americans want their member of Congress to vote against a [Debt Ceiling] bill than for it, 42% vs. 22%.
Since the Tea Party is only about 20% of Americans, clearly their Congressmen were not the only influence. You can name call and distort facts all you want, Ajat, that doesn't change what is. Blaming the Tea Party is as lame as it comes.
If you don't like Americans being represented by their Congressmen ... who were elected at demise of a good number of Dems in 2010 because of their spending, I might add ... then one is compelled to ask just why that is?
What's your interest in all of this uncontrolled spending, Ajat?
To reply to your contention that I'm making this stuff up:
"further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process"
They pretty much say it right there in what you quoted. "A contentious and fitful process". Because of a lack of compromise and consensus. And the only people who aren't compromising? Far right conservatives. That 20% of the party wagged the dog by pulling the entire party with them. Arguing that they are the only "true" conservatives and forcing the rest of the party to either go with them or be branded a RINO.
Your one-sided perspective is becoming too nonsensical, Ajat. If you aren't capable of comprehending the most basic of all understandings - that it takes two to tango and to compromise - then there is no point to these discussions. You are merely intent to blame anyone but those you do not want to blame and THAT is what you call "touting" "no compromise."
You are proving yourself a living example of which side is not willing to compromise.
In these two preceding concepts I have just outlined two sides on the given story (the debt and deficit). Where are your two sides, Fren? All I've heard from you is how bad Obama is (and I agree that during his time in office, things have been bad, for which he is responsible), and how much you believe cutting is necessary.
If you believe revenue increases are also necessary, then we agree. That's not a hard leap.
Their creepy and their spooky, altogether Kookie, the Addams Family...
Da da da da...click, click.... The Addams Famileeeeeee...
I think thats right.. If not , please ignore... Blood sugar is dropping so I have an excuse...lol
Every time I hear something that is said that 'needs' to be passed ie; the healthcare bill... etc... What pops into my head is the line from the movie "Demolition Man"---- Salt is bad for you, hence it is illegal. I felt and still feel that SHOULD this bill pass, and the Gov't then become responsible for our well being (since they provide, we MUST do as we are told) that at one point we will be told what to eat, drink or do that is ONLY beneficial for our health... If we do otherwise, then we will be considered 'law breakers' and be arrested....
Can you imagine going to the Dr. confiding (very sheepishly) that "well, no I have not quit smoking as of yet, BUT I'M WORKING ON IT".... only to be arrested as you walk out the door.... for disregarding Dr's orders.... Or standing on the scale, not losing the 10 lbs that was suggested to, but gaining 2 lbs... being arrested as you walk out the door for failing to follow Dr's orders. Or better yet, going to the ER for an issue, when blood tests are done it has been revealed that you failed to take the proper dosage of your medication. BAM!! Arrested on your way out the door, for failing to follow Dr's orders...
I see this as a VERY real threat....
When the Healthcare Bill was passed into Law I read some of that Law. It was indeed frightening and I believe what you've described goes directly to the way that Law is set up.
I view the 'punishment' part slightly differently, in that I think whatever punishmt is doled out it will be in ways that serve more nefarious and selective means, not necessarily simple "arrests" as we know those today.
From what I've read of the Healthcare law, no less than five levels of government oversight exist. They go from our local health departments (our friends and neighbors) and hospice organizations through counties and states, up to top levels in Washington. I was shocked to see this outlined so concisely in exactly how easy it would be to implement federal control over the most basic essentials of people's personal lives. Such as home visits to check what food is in your refrigerator to whether or not you're taking an aspirin without a doctor's prescription.
If we are not very cautious in allowing these "good for you" controls to be taken from us, we will find ourselves exactly there (if we aren't already unless this law is repealed). And not because any of it is "good for US."
I think you're being very vigilant as to just exactly what is unfolding.
For reasons too complicated to go into, from how our insurance transition was handled after Obamacare, it is clear to me that an Obama-type plan was in its' preparatory stages back when Bush was president.
All of her children (6) performed a bedside vigil during her last days, each taking turns. My Dad who is 73, and the oldest was the one who said her eulogy, difficult as it was for him, he did a great job.
I have never doubted our Gov't's attempt to gain control of our lives... But really, why? Is having puppets or slaves that important to the rich? How much money is enough? So many questions, so few answers...
I've wondered about that answer myself, Susan. I suppose those types look at others in terms of masses rather than individuals. Masses of money they could have if others didn't; masses of people that could take away powers they have if not controlled; masses of individuals they see as being so much less worthy than themselves? Probably a combination of all the above. It seems after amasting money comes amasting power, like it's a natural progression. Those become as drugs, they don't have to "make sense."
The other day I watched a video, a far away shot of all these people scurring around in tiny form, because it was shot from so far away. We looked just like what we'd see of (what we'd regard as) an insignificant ant colony. But they were people. I suppose that is how some people view others?
Then there is the playing out on earth that earth itself is so well known for: Good -vs- Evil. That pretty much explains everything we're seeing today, doesn't it? I've never felt that was in such clear focus as it is now. It was always more like a fairly tale of sorts, didn't touch my life much, or so I thought. Now it seems like it's lurking around every corner in about as crystal clear of a picture as it can get.
For many years Dr. K was an hour away from me. He was housed in a prison in/near Coldwater, Michigan. He was released in 2006, with MANY stipulations one of them being he wasn't allowed to associate with the elderly... Odd really since he was among the elderly at the time. He died recently.
Maybe they felt he had the right idea, but couldn't say it out loud, so they did what the Gov't does best... Prosecutes for a crime, then implements that crime as law. I'll have to think on it, but I am certain that there are many other laws that have been punished then signed into law... Hmmm thinking back, I was really too young but wasn't 'Roe vs Wade' one of those cases... jailed first then a law made?
I can understand why they didn't provide her with a new hip. I am sure they made her comfortable as possible in pain management.
I just find it strange that we spend all this money and efforts of keeping people alive longer, yet when they do become elderly and live past the 'designated' age they no longer become useful. When they become sick or injured they are disregarded. We are living much longer than anticipated, now are they in a panic?
Good vs Evil... Yes, that one is tough to decide... Which side is good, which side is evil, they all come with smiles and pretty words.
On my letter to the President Hub someone stopped by and threw a wrench into the cog by mentioning a name.... Murdoch media. Of course I had to look it up... Now... UGH!! Now that he has responded to who and what it was... well that is what threw me off.... But is all about the dishonesty that abounds... all around.
I think if we were told more, we'd feel less inclined to disbelieve 'them' and what 'they' were up to. Maybe feel less like we are being shafted.
For a while now I've felt as though we were being shafted within the media. They dangle a carrot for us to look at "Oooo, look at Charlie Sheen over here..." while our pockets are being picked....
I recall a story about the elder Kennedy who came over from Ireland. He bootlegged whiskey into America real cheap and made a fortune doing it then passed a law that made it illegal for others.
It is awful that our elderly, the wisest among us, are treated that way. And perhaps because they are the wisest is why this administration treats them that way. The family unit has fallen apart, too, not taking care of their own as they used to. Much of that stuff is our own undoing.
I've often said this administration's biggest flaw in trying to implement Socialiam now is that they didn't wait until our generation was dead and gone. Too many of us remember the principles of America, or our forefathers. But the generators of this Socialism movement being of our era, they wanted to see their own names in lights before they died, so here we are. Their own egos undermined them.
As for good-vs-evil, there is a sure sign: "You will know them by their fruits." I am no longer the least bit confused by it.
There is a reason when chaos takes over. That reason is to camoflauge the truth. And there is only one reason to camoflauge truth.
What 'they' are failing to realize (as are most of the American people) "we the People" are the legs or building blocks of which those who are sitting on top are being supported by. Should we decided to take our backs, hard work, efforts and ideas elsewhere they will be left sitting on a crumbling pile of ruin scrambling to stay at the top.
Well the evil - You are correct... their fruits are shriveling and falling off the tree as we speak....
I am so surprised at the family unit... I would have never imagined that people would choose NOT to marry. Now it's more of having children first, then if they get along... maybe someday get married.. It makes no sense to me. My own children are guilty of having this thought. My daughters do not come from a broken home (an oddity for sure when they were going to school), yet none of them are married, 2 of them have given me 6 grand children... The youngest insists on getting married before having children (YAY!)