Posted: 10/31/2010 6:26:18 AM EDT
|
Our divisive president, redux
We write in sadness as traditional liberal Democrats who believe in inclusion. Like many Americans, we had hoped that Obama would maintain the spirit in which he campaigned. Instead, since taking office, he has pitted group against group for short-term political gain that is exacerbating the divisions in our country and weakening our national identity.The culture of attack politics and demonization risks compromising our ability to address our most important issues - and the stature of our nation's highest office.
Requiem for the Pelosi Democrats. I ask Mr. Baird what he would tell the incoming class of freshmen Republicans if given the chance to address them before the new Congress convenes. He summarized his bottom line:
"Governing isn't as easy as you think. Many of you have taken pledges that are contradictory—to balance the budget and cut taxes, for example. You must be honest about the numbers, since our annual deficit now exceeds all discretionary spending combined. If you set as your goal to roll back the size of government, you have an obligation to answer the tough questions and show real courage, not just appeal to ideology. Treat the voters like adults." |
|
These peoplpe are so pitiful.
Governing is easy: 1. Follow the Constitution to the letter. This alone will fix the national debt. 2. Stop giving away money. But of course, step one already fixed this as no where in the Constitution is giving away my money provdided for as a power of the Congress. |
|
our annual deficit now exceeds all discretionary spending combined. I believe this to be a true statement. One of the few ways to cut the deficit by any significant amount is to start cutting into ENTITLEMENTS, and I'm all in favor of that. Start with welfare. Kill it. Completely. Replace it with a short term emergency assistance fund which is only good for at most a couple of months. Once you deplete your allotment, you can't get it again. If after that time you're still out of luck, .gov would provide you with a job that may not be a lot of fun but will meet your basic needs. You can choose not to do it...and get nothing in return. You can damned well starve. The whole medical/insurance system is an object lesson in fraud, waste, and abuse. It is encouraged, in large part, by our litigious society. Doctors are held to an inhuman standard of godlike perfection, and if they prove to in fact be mere fallible human beings, someone will try to sue their pants off over the imperfect outcome of a procedure. Doctors pay huge amounts of money to insurance companies for malpractice insurance. This raises doctor's fees immensely, which is in turn passed on to your insurance company, too. The insurance companies have to charge YOU high rates to compensate for YOUR own inclination to sue for millions over any little thing. We the people are our own worst enemy. When we are motivated by greed, we eventually end up being our own victim. Social security: This fund was initially set up to be a totally separate fund, completely disconnected from any other aspect of government spending. Later on, Congress agreed to raid the SS fund for other purposes, and that set the stage. Your SS payments have not been kept in the SS fund, but have gone to many purposes, including highly wasteful examples of government spending. It is THAt which has resulted in the impending insolvency of the social security system. Many of us may never see a social security check that doesn't bounce. Frankly I'm not even sure that the entire SS program is even worth keeping, with that little bit of information in mind. What would really help is to shrink the size of government. It has become a bloated, gluttonous pig that costs so much to feed and maintain that its own support is a major factor in the total budgetary situation. It needs to be slashed. Totally eliminate every agency and program that did not exist 20 or even 30 years ago, since if we didn't need them THEN, we don't NEED them NOW. And then cut the budget and staffing of virtually every remaining government office by 50 percent as a starting point. Implement austerity measures. .gov should buy nothing it doesn't absolutely need. No luxury items at all. No fancy marble floors or expensive furnishings for government offices. No all-expenses-paid flights in first class for government flunkies that have to go somewhere. Let them ride coach and enjoy the peanuts! When we are in such a crunch, one thing we need to do is agree that people on government retirements should accept a small reduction in their benefits. As little as possible, but any reduction, even a few dollars per person per month, adds up. Can we be brave enough to be a little less greedy and a little more interested in setting up a situation where our great grandkids may not be born in debt thanks to an out of control government that seems to think that balancing the budget is neither important nor desirable? There are lots of ways to save money without raising taxes. Mostly they involve putting our own government types on a short leash. I'm all in favor of that. CJ |
|
One of the few ways to cut the deficit by any significant amount is to start cutting into ENTITLEMENTS,
and I'm all in favor of that. Start with welfare. Kill it. Completely. Replace it with a short term emergency assistance fund which is only good for at most a couple of months. Technically speaking, I believe most welfare programs (ADC/WIC, Food Stamps, et al) are categorized as 'discretionary'. I also believe much welfare is actually paid for by the States as unfunded mandates. Entitlements are things like Social Security, Federal Employee Pensions and Retiree Healthcare, Medicare and Medicaid. |
|
How about slashing the number of federal employees - and congressional salaries & pensions, too??? (And booting long-time congressional staffers, also!)
And just get rid of useless & idiotic programs - and their accompanying idiotic staffs! Don't tell me we can't get spending under control (or, at least to reasonable levels) in almost no time at all! Repealing - or, perhaps more achievable: not funding - Obama-Care would be a good start, too - and demanding GM and other Co's/Corp's (banks, etc) we've taken over and/or bailed out to pay up what federal tax dollars they received, NOW (or be sold on the open market to satisfy their debts to we tax-payers)!!! On and on . . . Oh! And get rid of massive bureaucracies like the Dept of Education, EPA, FDA, DEA, ATF . . . ! Most of 'em are unconstitutional anyway! No to mention corrupt - and way outside their original intents, missions and mandates . . ! Man! I wish I could be dictator for a day! 
|
|
Quoted: Democrats always say they don't communicate their policies correctly, or that the people just too damn stupid to appreciate them. The real problem is that the people DO understand what the Democrats want, and they recoil in response. This has been my observation. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Democrats always say they don't communicate their policies correctly, or that the people just too damn stupid to appreciate them. The real problem is that the people DO understand what the Democrats want, and they recoil in response. This has been my observation. Too bad others are not as visuial as we are ... 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Democrats always say they don't communicate their policies correctly, or that the people just too damn stupid to appreciate them. The real problem is that the people DO understand what the Democrats want, and they recoil in response. This has been my observation. These are not the Dems of my childhood, These Dems are actively trying to destroy the country. Problem is they don't acknowledge that the electorate in general are intelligent and know quite well what they are trying to do. When did they develop the Hubris to even imagine they know best for us? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Democrats always say they don't communicate their policies correctly, or that the people just too damn stupid to appreciate them. The real problem is that the people DO understand what the Democrats want, and they recoil in response. This has been my observation. These are not the Dems of my childhood, These Dems are actively trying to destroy the country. Problem is they don't acknowledge that the electorate in general are intelligent and know quite well what they are trying to do. When did they develop the Hubris to even imagine they know best for us? No, they are not remotely the Dems of your childhood. These are outright divisive communists hellbent on destroying any remants of an America envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Quite simply, they are bigoted, racist, communists who, most definitely, believe in the collective over the individual. And they care little about honesty and integrity in gaining power. (Well, not that Dems ever really cared about honesty in voting. I went a little out in leftfield on that one.  )
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Democrats always say they don't communicate their policies correctly, or that the people just too damn stupid to appreciate them. The real problem is that the people DO understand what the Democrats want, and they recoil in response. This has been my observation. These are not the Dems of my childhood, These Dems are actively trying to destroy the country. Problem is they don't acknowledge that the electorate in general are intelligent and know quite well what they are trying to do. When did they develop the Hubris to even imagine they know best for us? The Dems of our Childhood were Americans like George Wallace ... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Democrats always say they don't communicate their policies correctly, or that the people just too damn stupid to appreciate them. The real problem is that the people DO understand what the Democrats want, and they recoil in response. This has been my observation. These are not the Dems of my childhood, These Dems are actively trying to destroy the country. Problem is they don't acknowledge that the electorate in general are intelligent and know quite well what they are trying to do. When did they develop the Hubris to even imagine they know best for us? The Dems of our Childhood were Americans like George Wallace ... And, I'll counter that with JFK who was a rabid pro-gunner and rabid capitalist who gained a bit more power than Wallace. And, of course, JFK was murdered by a communist. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Democrats always say they don't communicate their policies correctly, or that the people just too damn stupid to appreciate them. The real problem is that the people DO understand what the Democrats want, and they recoil in response. This has been my observation. These are not the Dems of my childhood, These Dems are actively trying to destroy the country. Problem is they don't acknowledge that the electorate in general are intelligent and know quite well what they are trying to do. When did they develop the Hubris to even imagine they know best for us? The Dems of our Childhood were Americans like George Wallace ... I despised everything that Ole George stood for but at least you knew where he stood and he was honest about it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Democrats always say they don't communicate their policies correctly, or that the people just too damn stupid to appreciate them. The real problem is that the people DO understand what the Democrats want, and they recoil in response. This has been my observation. These are not the Dems of my childhood, These Dems are actively trying to destroy the country. Problem is they don't acknowledge that the electorate in general are intelligent and know quite well what they are trying to do. When did they develop the Hubris to even imagine they know best for us? The Dems of our Childhood were Americans like George Wallace ... And, I'll counter that with JFK who was a rabid pro-gunner and rabid capitalist who gained a bit more power than Wallace. And, of course, JFK was murdered by a communist. After George Wallace won the Florida & Wisconsin Presidential primaries in 72 and Time Magazine had him on cover as "Our Next President" who was the man in Black who shot him ? 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Democrats always say they don't communicate their policies correctly, or that the people just too damn stupid to appreciate them. The real problem is that the people DO understand what the Democrats want, and they recoil in response. This has been my observation. These are not the Dems of my childhood, These Dems are actively trying to destroy the country. Problem is they don't acknowledge that the electorate in general are intelligent and know quite well what they are trying to do. When did they develop the Hubris to even imagine they know best for us? The Dems of our Childhood were Americans like George Wallace ... And, I'll counter that with JFK who was a rabid pro-gunner and rabid capitalist who gained a bit more power than Wallace. And, of course, JFK was murdered by a communist. After George Wallace won the Florida & Wisconsin Presidential primaries in 72 and Time Magazine had him on cover as "Our Next President" who was the man in Black who shot him ? He was a racist scumbag, I'll give you that. And, I'll counter again with Truman........who was an honest, decent man who would NEVER resort to the divisive, bigoted tactics of our current Democrats. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Democrats always say they don't communicate their policies correctly, or that the people just too damn stupid to appreciate them. The real problem is that the people DO understand what the Democrats want, and they recoil in response. This has been my observation. These are not the Dems of my childhood, These Dems are actively trying to destroy the country. Problem is they don't acknowledge that the electorate in general are intelligent and know quite well what they are trying to do. When did they develop the Hubris to even imagine they know best for us? The Dems of our Childhood were Americans like George Wallace ... And, I'll counter that with JFK who was a rabid pro-gunner and rabid capitalist who gained a bit more power than Wallace. And, of course, JFK was murdered by a communist. After George Wallace won the Florida & Wisconsin Presidential primaries in 72 and Time Magazine had him on cover as "Our Next President" who was the man in Black who shot him ? He was a racist scumbag, I'll give you that. He represented the Democrat Party (Party of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan from 1870 til it was litigated outta existence by the Southern Poverty Law Center ) but anyhoo who shot wallace was it a liberal scumbag socialist ??? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Democrats always say they don't communicate their policies correctly, or that the people just too damn stupid to appreciate them. The real problem is that the people DO understand what the Democrats want, and they recoil in response. This has been my observation. These are not the Dems of my childhood, These Dems are actively trying to destroy the country. Problem is they don't acknowledge that the electorate in general are intelligent and know quite well what they are trying to do. When did they develop the Hubris to even imagine they know best for us? The Dems of our Childhood were Americans like George Wallace ... And, I'll counter that with JFK who was a rabid pro-gunner and rabid capitalist who gained a bit more power than Wallace. And, of course, JFK was murdered by a communist. After George Wallace won the Florida & Wisconsin Presidential primaries in 72 and Time Magazine had him on cover as "Our Next President" who was the man in Black who shot him ? He was a racist scumbag, I'll give you that. And, I'll counter again with Truman........who was an honest, decent man who would NEVER resort to the divisive, bigoted tactics of our current Democrats. Truman courted the Dixiecrat / Democrat vote as much as any other aspiring Democrat politician of his era , to think otherwise is foolish ... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Democrats always say they don't communicate their policies correctly, or that the people just too damn stupid to appreciate them. The real problem is that the people DO understand what the Democrats want, and they recoil in response. This has been my observation. These are not the Dems of my childhood, These Dems are actively trying to destroy the country. Problem is they don't acknowledge that the electorate in general are intelligent and know quite well what they are trying to do. When did they develop the Hubris to even imagine they know best for us? I agree, that is assuming you're too young to have been around during the reign of FDR. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Democrats always say they don't communicate their policies correctly, or that the people just too damn stupid to appreciate them. The real problem is that the people DO understand what the Democrats want, and they recoil in response. This has been my observation. These are not the Dems of my childhood, These Dems are actively trying to destroy the country. Problem is they don't acknowledge that the electorate in general are intelligent and know quite well what they are trying to do. When did they develop the Hubris to even imagine they know best for us? I agree, that is assuming you're too young to have been around during the reign of FDR. Born in 53, so yeah. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Democrats always say they don't communicate their policies correctly, or that the people just too damn stupid to appreciate them. The real problem is that the people DO understand what the Democrats want, and they recoil in response. This has been my observation. These are not the Dems of my childhood, These Dems are actively trying to destroy the country. Problem is they don't acknowledge that the electorate in general are intelligent and know quite well what they are trying to do. When did they develop the Hubris to even imagine they know best for us? I agree, that is assuming you're too young to have been around during the reign of FDR. Born in 53, so yeah. Wow ,you remember when "Low Riders " were white guys and how great this country was befor Murry the K flew the Beatles over ... |
|
Thanks to the big government retards that have fucked us all in the ass for the last 50 fucking years, our nation can be compared to a cancer patient. If we don't do anything for the patient, our nation dies. We need to hit it with an aggressive chemo therapy in the form of slashing the Government dole, Government jobs that really shouldn't exist, and agencies and mandates that shouldn't exist. It is going to be very fucking painful as our unemployment rate is going to the fucking moon when it happens but thanks for the fuck sticks that put us where we are now because of their self serving short sightedness, we have no choice.
DEA needs to go away. The job of dealing with drugs needs to be put in FDA. BATFE needs to be eliminated. Tobacco and alcohol go to FDA and explosives to FBI. THERE IS NO FUCKING LEGITIMATE REASON FOR ANY FUCKING FIREARMS REGULATION YOU SELF SERVING FUCKSTICK ASSHOLES. Endowment of the Arts... GONE. Department of Education... GONE. Leave it to state level you asswipes. Now, the Government must be limited on spending. Mandate that they cannot spend anything over 50% of the incoming amount of money from taxes until the Obama debt train is paid off. Taxes may not be raised either. Reduce the bullshit criminal code. There are things that are illegal that are fucking bullshit. Example, who gives a fuck what kind of gun someone owns???? You fucking douche bags are wasting my money by incarcerating people for BULLSHIT. STOP IT! Our prisons are fucking overflowing now and you keep trying to find reasons to lock people up... Give it a fucking break will you?????/ Limit salaries to elected officials. No more raises. Take the mean national income rate, Congressmen, Senators, the President and VP get exactly 2/3rds of the national average salary. NO PENSIONS. This solves several problems. One being career politicians and reduces the odds of greedy self serving cock suckers from running. Also, 2 term limitation. Last thing. The UN is out of here. Disolve our relationship with the UN, kick them out of NY. Confiscate all assets of the UN to pay for their unpaid parking tickets and send those assholes packing. Since they love Africa so much, they can build a new UN headquarters in Somalia for all I care. Just get the FUCK OUT OF MY COUNTRY. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Democrats always say they don't communicate their policies correctly, or that the people just too damn stupid to appreciate them. The real problem is that the people DO understand what the Democrats want, and they recoil in response. This has been my observation. These are not the Dems of my childhood, These Dems are actively trying to destroy the country. Problem is they don't acknowledge that the electorate in general are intelligent and know quite well what they are trying to do. When did they develop the Hubris to even imagine they know best for us? I agree, that is assuming you're too young to have been around during the reign of FDR. Yes, now him, I don't likey!! |
|
Quoted:
Calgunner: Wasn't the guy who shot Wallace a conservative businessman type? Can't remember. But yes, it appears he went after a divisive, bigoted Democrat.....of days gone by. IIRC, didn't he also want to kill Nixon? George Wallace was well on his way to Winning ,it was not Days gone by til around 1977 (When they realized Carter had duped them and it was over . |
|
Quoted:
One of the few ways to cut the deficit by any significant amount is to start cutting into ENTITLEMENTS,
and I'm all in favor of that. Start with welfare. Kill it. Completely. Replace it with a short term emergency assistance fund which is only good for at most a couple of months. Technically speaking, I believe most welfare programs (ADC/WIC, Food Stamps, et al) are categorized as 'discretionary'. I also believe much welfare is actually paid for by the States as unfunded mandates. Entitlements are things like Social Security, Federal Employee Pensions and Retiree Healthcare, Medicare and Medicaid. Federal Employee Pensions What? Are you saying people that work for the .gov for 20 or 30 years should get no retirement from it? That's kind of foolish, don't you think? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Calgunner: Wasn't the guy who shot Wallace a conservative businessman type? Can't remember. But yes, it appears he went after a divisive, bigoted Democrat.....of days gone by. IIRC, didn't he also want to kill Nixon? George Wallace was well on his way to Winning ,it was not Days gone by til around 1977 (When they realized Carter had duped them and it was over . What??!! That's not how I remember it (could be wrong though). I thought he only won two State primaries before he was shot..........but he did get out of the primaries after that. I guess my memory might be failing me here? (I'm thinking the 1972 primaries?) |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
One of the few ways to cut the deficit by any significant amount is to start cutting into ENTITLEMENTS,
and I'm all in favor of that. Start with welfare. Kill it. Completely. Replace it with a short term emergency assistance fund which is only good for at most a couple of months. Technically speaking, I believe most welfare programs (ADC/WIC, Food Stamps, et al) are categorized as 'discretionary'. I also believe much welfare is actually paid for by the States as unfunded mandates. Entitlements are things like Social Security, Federal Employee Pensions and Retiree Healthcare, Medicare and Medicaid. Federal Employee Pensions What? Are you saying people that work for the .gov for 20 or 30 years should get no retirement from it? That's kind of foolish, don't you think? I think what he is saying is to change it for the future to make it more in line with current business practices? Didn't they do that with people hired after about 1983 when they set up a new pension system? (Can't remember that new plan name, might be "FERS"?) But, anyways, I think that plan was/is more in line with private pensions? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Calgunner: Wasn't the guy who shot Wallace a conservative businessman type? Can't remember. But yes, it appears he went after a divisive, bigoted Democrat.....of days gone by. IIRC, didn't he also want to kill Nixon? George Wallace was well on his way to Winning ,it was not Days gone by til around 1977 (When they realized Carter had duped them and it was over . What??!! That's not how I remember it (could be wrong though). I thought he only won two State primaries before he was shot..........but he did get out of the primaries after that. I guess my memory might be failing me here? I actuially have the Time mag , He was going to get more votes than Carter got in 76 easily , him winning up north locked him in as Media frontrunner (Which in those days was Ironclad ) |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Calgunner: Wasn't the guy who shot Wallace a conservative businessman type? Can't remember. But yes, it appears he went after a divisive, bigoted Democrat.....of days gone by. IIRC, didn't he also want to kill Nixon? George Wallace was well on his way to Winning ,it was not Days gone by til around 1977 (When they realized Carter had duped them and it was over . What??!! That's not how I remember it (could be wrong though). I thought he only won two State primaries before he was shot..........but he did get out of the primaries after that. I guess my memory might be failing me here? I actuially have the Time mag , He was going to get more votes than Carter got in 76 easily , him winning up north locked him in as Media frontrunner (Which in those days was Ironclad ) Ok, I gotta research this one..........I honestly thought all these years that he had no chance of getting the Democratic Party nod. And, I honestly remember, that no one was going to defeat Nixon in 1972. If you are correct, I gotta temper my opinion of older types of Democrats and those who voted for them in the main. Reason.........Wallace was a POS IMHO. ETA: I just did a quick search on the 1972 primaries and you are making a pretty big leap in saying he would have won over McGovern...........but I guess we'll never know. Because he did win the South, Michigan and one other Northern State before getting shot..........so, maybe? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
One of the few ways to cut the deficit by any significant amount is to start cutting into ENTITLEMENTS,
and I'm all in favor of that. Start with welfare. Kill it. Completely. Replace it with a short term emergency assistance fund which is only good for at most a couple of months. Technically speaking, I believe most welfare programs (ADC/WIC, Food Stamps, et al) are categorized as 'discretionary'. I also believe much welfare is actually paid for by the States as unfunded mandates. Entitlements are things like Social Security, Federal Employee Pensions and Retiree Healthcare, Medicare and Medicaid. Federal Employee Pensions What? Are you saying people that work for the .gov for 20 or 30 years should get no retirement from it? That's kind of foolish, don't you think? I can't even begin to see where you reached that conclusion.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One of the few ways to cut the deficit by any significant amount is to start cutting into ENTITLEMENTS,
and I'm all in favor of that. Start with welfare. Kill it. Completely. Replace it with a short term emergency assistance fund which is only good for at most a couple of months. Technically speaking, I believe most welfare programs (ADC/WIC, Food Stamps, et al) are categorized as 'discretionary'. I also believe much welfare is actually paid for by the States as unfunded mandates. Entitlements are things like Social Security, Federal Employee Pensions and Retiree Healthcare, Medicare and Medicaid. Federal Employee Pensions What? Are you saying people that work for the .gov for 20 or 30 years should get no retirement from it? That's kind of foolish, don't you think? I think what he is saying is to change it for the future to make it more in line with current business practices? Didn't they do that with people hired after about 1983 when they set up a new pension system? (Can't remember that new plan name, might be "FERS"?) But, anyways, I think that plan was/is more in line with private pensions? Yes, something along the lines of Defined Contribution v. Defined Benefit. And stop the gaming and double dipping that's rampant, especially in some of the more liberal states. Something along the lines of what Chris Christie is doing in NJ. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Calgunner: Wasn't the guy who shot Wallace a conservative businessman type? Can't remember. But yes, it appears he went after a divisive, bigoted Democrat.....of days gone by. IIRC, didn't he also want to kill Nixon? George Wallace was well on his way to Winning ,it was not Days gone by til around 1977 (When they realized Carter had duped them and it was over . What??!! That's not how I remember it (could be wrong though). I thought he only won two State primaries before he was shot..........but he did get out of the primaries after that. I guess my memory might be failing me here? I actuially have the Time mag , He was going to get more votes than Carter got in 76 easily , him winning up north locked him in as Media frontrunner (Which in those days was Ironclad ) Ok, I gotta research this one..........I honestly thought all these years that he had no chance of getting the Democratic Party nod. And, I honestly remember, that no one was going to defeat Nixon in 1972. If you are correct, I gotta temper my opinion of older types of Democrats and those who voted for them in the main. Reason.........Wallace was a POS IMHO. ETA: I just did a quick search on the 1972 primaries and you are making a pretty big leap in saying he would have won over McGovern...........but I guess we'll never know. Because he did win the South, Michigan and one other Northern State before getting shot..........so, maybe? I say your question should be "Would Wallace have done better in the Election .not primaries than McGovern " lol I say Hell Yes ! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One of the few ways to cut the deficit by any significant amount is to start cutting into ENTITLEMENTS,
and I'm all in favor of that. Start with welfare. Kill it. Completely. Replace it with a short term emergency assistance fund which is only good for at most a couple of months. Technically speaking, I believe most welfare programs (ADC/WIC, Food Stamps, et al) are categorized as 'discretionary'. I also believe much welfare is actually paid for by the States as unfunded mandates. Entitlements are things like Social Security, Federal Employee Pensions and Retiree Healthcare, Medicare and Medicaid. Federal Employee Pensions What? Are you saying people that work for the .gov for 20 or 30 years should get no retirement from it? That's kind of foolish, don't you think? I think what he is saying is to change it for the future to make it more in line with current business practices? Didn't they do that with people hired after about 1983 when they set up a new pension system? (Can't remember that new plan name, might be "FERS"?) But, anyways, I think that plan was/is more in line with private pensions? Yes, something along the lines of Defined Contribution v. Defined Benefit.And stop the gaming and double dipping that's rampant, especially in some of the more liberal states. Something along the lines of what Chris Christie is doing in NJ. I think they basically did that back in 1983 with their new plan from then on forward? Look up "FEHRS" or "FERS"........that might be the correct abbreviation? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Calgunner: Wasn't the guy who shot Wallace a conservative businessman type? Can't remember. But yes, it appears he went after a divisive, bigoted Democrat.....of days gone by. IIRC, didn't he also want to kill Nixon? George Wallace was well on his way to Winning ,it was not Days gone by til around 1977 (When they realized Carter had duped them and it was over . What??!! That's not how I remember it (could be wrong though). I thought he only won two State primaries before he was shot..........but he did get out of the primaries after that. I guess my memory might be failing me here? I actuially have the Time mag , He was going to get more votes than Carter got in 76 easily , him winning up north locked him in as Media frontrunner (Which in those days was Ironclad ) Ok, I gotta research this one..........I honestly thought all these years that he had no chance of getting the Democratic Party nod. And, I honestly remember, that no one was going to defeat Nixon in 1972. If you are correct, I gotta temper my opinion of older types of Democrats and those who voted for them in the main. Reason.........Wallace was a POS IMHO. ETA: I just did a quick search on the 1972 primaries and you are making a pretty big leap in saying he would have won over McGovern...........but I guess we'll never know. Because he did win the South, Michigan and one other Northern State before getting shot..........so, maybe? I say your question should be "Would Wallace have done better in the Election .not primaries than McGovern " lol I say Hell Yes ! From further research, I say you are probably correct. Of course, my big dog back then would have done better than McGovern. (And, rightfully so.) 
|
|
Our nation is between the proverbial "rock and hard place"... when we talk about 'slashing' .gov agencies we're talking about ending good paying jobs for hundreds of thousands of Americans involved in day to day bureaucratic operations.
The political leadership and political and social philosophies need to change in those agencies. As an example, the EPA is able to literally dictate regulations without oversight. That needs to stop immediately. Anonymous bureaucrats creating regulations with the effect of law has to stop. Strip the agencies of their ability to influence social change through regulations that bypass congressional scrutiny and we'll be on a path to correct some problems. When we talk about putting 'welfare' recipients to work for their benefits and expecting .gov to provide those jobs we're talking about giving .gov a functional authority over local economics that it should not have and creating a bureaucratic administration for the jobs program... can't think of any Unintended Consequences for that one! Locally, I'm sure a proposition will pass that will end a 1% earnings tax for our city... we're going to deprive our city of income that it uses to employ residents to provide community services like trash pick up, parks & recreation, street cleaning/maintenance and to some degree, police, ambulance/emergency and fire protection services. We're also going to limit our city's ability to levy taxes in the future and make it very difficult to strengthen city services at a time when our major metro areas are growing rapidly. The ballot initiative is clearly a backlash for the Democratic domination of city politics and a strike at Democratic party control and manipulation of city and county politics. Unless the city administrators, Democratic and Republican, can find ways to compensate for the loss of tax revenues, there will have to be curtailed services, delayed maintenance, forced reductions in agency size. Personally, I really like having the dumpsters emptied, yard waste removed, streets cleaned and paved, safe parks with organized activities and manicured grounds, summer programs for kids and adults alike, community education programs, etc., but like a simple majority of voters, really dislike Democratic hijinks, self enrichment with inflated salaries and benefits, cronyism, wasted education dollars on bloated administrations and the destructive power of union salaries/wages & luxury retirement benefits packages for city employees. Some very difficult and painful decisions are going to be made and the consequences will shape and influence this nation, hopefully in a positive way, for generations unborn. November 3rd is going to be a very interesting and exciting day across this great nation. God Speed America. Long Live The Republic. Fuck the kenyan and his usurper minions. |