God's Love: Don't leave home without it!
I don't like commercializing products at FDW, so I blanked out the name of the Tea company, though it's the same as Rashida Jones' mom.
If you've bought the 'pyramid tea bags' you've probably discovered that the taste remains the same: Good!
Annie is as Annie does:
http://www.anncoulter.com/
Michelle Malkin:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/0...-tea-party-usa/
Just like every day, I'm proud of my country, and it does my heart good to see so many of our fellow citizens standing up to be heard.
May God continue to Bless the United States of America!
If you're like most Americans, you'll find that you're technically paying LESS in taxes than you were under Shrub. I have a friend who's a first-time home-owner who's actually paying $8,000 less this year due to the credits.
Also, may I ask why these protests weren't held when Bush was in office and he approved the first $850 billion bailout? Sure, there were some mutterings, but nothing on the level of organized protests or even letter-writing campaigns. Wouldn't it have made more sense to actually protest when Republicans held the reigns?
As far as Obama doing things "his way", didn't he meet with military commanders and agree to not immediately withdraw troops from Iraq but rather pull them out slowly, in phases, at their request? At least that was my impression.
It just seems that I'm seeing in this Tea Party thing more loyalty to people who pretend to uphold principles than the principles themselves.
Thanks, James-I needed a good laugh.
Have a good night.
James,obfuscate much? Or has President Obama actually fooled you?
The tea parties weren't brought about in reaction to the first bail out, or any bailout. The tax tea parties show opposition to the Obama admin/Dems plans for raising taxes, growing the Federal government, creating a socialist welfare state on our dime.
If you think that President Bush was in error for spending too much, how can you think so highly of President Obama?
Pay attention, James. The taxes haven't hit yet, as I stated here:"I earned a days wage, which, by this time next year, will be somewhat diminished, as the taxes now threatened will come to pass."
Your friend paying less taxes on his house means nothing-ask him next year at this time how he's doing.
In terms of spending, we unfortunately had the choice of TOTAL economic collapse due to a freeze in the credit markets or a increasing government spending. I think Bush was correct when he stated this. Neither is a pleasant option, but it seems to me that the economy is rebounding in some areas. If we had let nature take its course, all those small-business owners and entrepreneurs would have seen their futures dry up as they would have had no ability to finance.
Ideally, the government shouldn't be artificially inflating the free markets. Once the markets rebound, the government should pull back while retaining sufficient regulation to reduce the risk of free market abuses.
What taxes is Obama going to raise, though? The tax cuts set by Bush were set to expire anyhow, were they not? Are you referring to Obama's increase on those making over $250,000 from 36 to 39%? If that makes him a "communist socialist", what does that make FDR who raised the top income tax levels to above 70%?
Discussions about taxation are not a black/white matter. No, government is NOT the answer to everything, and I think most people agree that the able-bodied should not be living on the government dime. To that extent, any discussion of assistance should include reforms that prevent such abuses.
However, I think reasonable people may disagree over whether health care should be solely a privilege of the rich and whether providing some sense of dignity to the elderly should fall on the shoulders of the productive.
To label any government assistance (or the rejection of it) as some form of gross and malignant evil don't really further the discussion and make compromise rather difficult.
Congrats, James-your comment sounds quite professorial...even if your ideas are wrong, assumptions consumptive and conclusions ridiculous.
Just a few rebuff points:
"In terms of spending, we unfortunately had the choice of TOTAL economic collapse due to a freeze in the credit markets or a increasing government spending."
Wrong-before any freeze,go back to the source: Democrats made it law, in the name of fairness, that lending institutions had to make loans to people who couldn't afford to buy homes.
When the warnings started to be made, those same Dems stonewalled and said everything was fine...until Fanny/Freddie crumbled under the pressure, and the financial fiasco came to full fruition. Democrats caused the financial mess.
"If we had let nature take its course, all those small-business owners and entrepreneurs would have seen their futures dry up as they would have had no ability to finance."
Forget nature-if common sense had killed the Dem 'redlining' bill-the one which forced the aforementioned bad loans...we would never have had a financial mess to fix.
"However, I think reasonable people may disagree over whether health care should be solely a privilege of the rich and
Poor definition of an argument, James. Never in your lifetime has 'health care been solely a privilege of the rich'.
" whether providing some sense of dignity to the elderly should fall on the shoulders of the productive."
The Dems provide nothing. No dignity to the elderly-nothing. Their destruction of the economy in the name of 'fairness' will harm more seniors, make them poor, make the families who care for them poorer.
James, forcing bigger nanny state government on a populace which is self sufficient takes dignity away from every citizen.
"To label any government assistance (or the rejection of it) as some form of gross and malignant evil don't really further the discussion and make compromise rather difficult."
Conflating again, James. Depends on the meaning of 'government assistance'. Keeping the infrastructure of the country secure is the government's job. Keeping the borders secure, keeping our citizens free-those are the jobs of the government.
Creating an impoverished class of citizens who do not work, contribute nothing, keeping those people as social program chattel, generation after generation...is to demean them and rob them of their dignity.
The best way to improve the life of every American is to drive as much government interference out of their lives as possible. Fix the roads and bridges. Guard our citizens. Get out of our way.
"Creating an impoverished class of citizens who do not work, contribute nothing, keeping those people as social program chattel, generation after generation...is to demean them and rob them of their dignity."
I'm not sure I understand. I know more than a few people who would like to work but because of extremely poor health are unable to. Some were blessed with positions that offered long-term disability and thus never had to resort to government assistance. A friend of mine suffered with a terminal illness and worked for as long as he could (even after he could have taken leave) until he spent most of the day either vomiting or suffering extreme fatigue and physical pain that required powerful painkillers like morphine and Dilaudid.
Again, he had LTD. There are others who are in similar situations who don't have that (and they say millions of Americans are uninsured).
Should such people like this be expected to hold full-time positions and find some way to pay for their medical care?
I'm just not sure what you're proposing here. Are you suggesting such people are a rarity or that they, too, are a drain on the system and should be left to either fend for themselves or hope that the community will provide some form of aid?
Forcing one group to support another is no way to govern. Compassion is a wonderful thing in personal relationships; it is a lousy value for governance. It will invariably end up being uncompassionate to others. It takes what seems unfair to some and makes it unfair to all. That is tyranny.
Hi Allan-I think James is being obtuse just for the fun of it. Look for a new post soon~
So, okay, let's scrap government assistance for the sick and elderly ENTIRELY. Churches and decent, charitable folks and enterprises are going to be solely responsible for getting assistance out to the folks who really need it.
How's that going to happen, exactly? Is you or your church going to have the time and man-hours (not to mention the funds) to weed out the real needy from the cranks, fill out hospital forms and billing submissions, deal with physician billing departments, determine what covered limits should be on any particular medical expense?
Surely, you're not just going to hand out money to anyone who asks, right?
Who's going to handle the administrative aspects of this?
See, I don't think the government is infallible by any stretch (there's certainly government waste), but there are things it does right. The military comes to mind, as does the post office, the dept of transportation, the FAA, the FDA that makes sure those chicken farmers have SOME standards when killing your next dinner.
On the other hand, I've worked for Fortune 500 companies that have invested MILLIONS of dollars on projects just to later scrap them. (One of those banks later got bought out.)
I don't completely disagree with you: I don't think we should be enforcing some "standard income" for every person in America, and I realize that universal health care may come with some trade offs. I just don't think this needs be an all-or-nothing issue: "the government does everything or nothing" is for ideologues, and I'm not one of those.
James,not to be mean, but you aren't making any sense. Your straw men tip over if someone coughs. Your 'evidence' is hardly worthy of the word.
No one is suggesting scrapping needed government assistance. Straw man #1-poof!
You almost sound half reasonable until you suggest that the postal service is doing well. It's hemorrhaging money, and is a doomed enterprise in this new world of information.
Here-put this is your head and shake it around: what I and many other Americans oppose is the Obama Administration overreaching it's authority; also raising taxes/spending money in such a way as to make more Americans dependent on the Government, slaves of the Government. As others have said, our children and grandchildren will be born into poverty because of the spending now about to be implemented.
That is unfair, and that is not right.
Commenting by HaloScan
