A lot of Americans --- those with two left feet -- have never understood the male need to fine tune everything into a team sports model. As the saying goes, it is what it is. We must be team players with grand slam ideas for which we choose a leader to coach us all to victory. But, then the very times when we need a sports model, the teams are sadly lacking. They forget to be good sports when they lose.
Oh my goodness, get over your losses with at least a modicum of good grace. Mitt Romney, this message is for you. C'mon now, you don't really believe "they" voted President Obama into office because he promised them everything free? Whom do you identify as "they"? Are you talking about poor black people? Seems like a lot of poor whites, middle class black and whites and even a few rich people must have voted for him, too. From this author's perspective, you didn't win because you wouldn't tell the truth. You presented yourself as highly conservative to get the nomination, but then tried to pull a turn around to win the election. Contrary to elitist opinion, the American people are not stupid. It didn't help your case that you wrote off 47 per cent of us either. Even the poor get to vote (even the black, the Hispanic, the women.) We are no longer a chauvinistic nation.
This means you, Senator McCain. What exactly do you think you are doing? Thank God you did not win the election! If you had, we would have been in war with every Tom, Dick, and Harry around. Have you listened to yourself? You're so busy trying to make the American people think you would have been a better President, that you're becoming a chronic dissident. If we liked your stand on issues we would have elected you when you ran.
This means you, disappointed Republicans in Congress -- well, everywhere. You lost the election; two of them. In America, the majority vote rules. You were the minority this time. You lost.
And if all this chest beating, rationalization and contrary behavior is to discredit Mrs. Clinton (check out This Week on May 12, 2013) could you give us all a few months break from election era politics? At least wait until she decides to run. She may decide she's too old and wants to bake cookies LOL.
OMG, get over it.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Monday, April 29, 2013
Explanation of Absence
It was my original intention to publish a couple of further politically based articles in January and February and then say farewell to this blog. I was going to begin a blog of religious devotions as well as a blog of general opinion pieces.
I began following the procedures I had used to open the political blog on blogspot. I keyed in lousissues@blogspot.com and was told immediately that it was unavailable. It has been a hard day and I signed off the spot in frustration. A few days later, I tried again only to find that another service had taken possession of my potential blog and named it lousissues at their service. In the meantime I had checked and found that there was already a louissues online and wanted to change the name of my blog. I could not get the offending service to permit me to change anything and they held my entire blog capacity under their house arrest for several months. Suddenly, one day they set me free.
I'm trying again. I have posted a new article to my original blog spot. It is entitled Overcorrections. I hope you will read it. It directly follows this explanation.
I began following the procedures I had used to open the political blog on blogspot. I keyed in lousissues@blogspot.com and was told immediately that it was unavailable. It has been a hard day and I signed off the spot in frustration. A few days later, I tried again only to find that another service had taken possession of my potential blog and named it lousissues at their service. In the meantime I had checked and found that there was already a louissues online and wanted to change the name of my blog. I could not get the offending service to permit me to change anything and they held my entire blog capacity under their house arrest for several months. Suddenly, one day they set me free.
I'm trying again. I have posted a new article to my original blog spot. It is entitled Overcorrections. I hope you will read it. It directly follows this explanation.
Overcorrection
I've written several drafts of this article, but am finally settling on this version because it evolved from my personal experience as much as from news events.
In the early eighties, I purchased and rehabed a nine room house in the northeast section of Kansas City, MO. It was in a section north of St. John Avenue and was supposed to be safer than areas south of that line. Although we came home two or three times to find our door open and a trail of match sticks littering the floor, the thefts had been inconsequential and we made the best of things. For the most part, I felt safe there.
There was a three-room mother-in-law's suite in the house. I turned this area into my private get away. I used the kitchen as my office where I did my writing. I quilted and did other crafts while watching television in the living room. Of necessity, I placed two bookcases, loaded with books, in front of the kitchen door. The living room door had a safety lock. Nights when my teenage boys were at their father's, I pulled the headboard of the bed in front of the bedroom door, thus blocking entry. As you can tell already, I am your basic coward. Thank God for that.
One night I heard someone slam against an entry over and over again. I told myself I was being paranoid until I heard someone running up the stairs and trying to enter my bedroom. There were at least two of them, because one said to the other, "this is where she is." I rushed to the phone, but could get no dial tone, because they had taken the receiver off the phone downstairs. I screamed out the window calling my neighbors over and over until one of them hesitantly stepped out on the porch. He called the police for me and then began checking the perimeter. The intruders had entered by removing a wooden cover of a basement window. The body slams had been them breaking through the locked trap door to the basement. They exited through the front door, leaving it wide open. By the time the police arrived, they were long gone. I gave my statement, but they left little hope of finding who had done it. I still don't know.
A couple of weeks later a third officer stopped by to discuss a potential suspect. While there, he encouraged me to buy a gun for protection. He said his wife would still be shaking if this had happened to her. I told him I couldn't use a gun, because I would be afraid I would mistakenly shoot one of my sons if they let themselves in during the night.
I'd like to be able to tell you this was my only close call, but I can't. I've been stalked. Two individuals have tried to strangle me and another held a gun in my face, demanding my purse. Such is the way of city life, at least city life on a budget. I'm in smaller, less appealing digs now, and the old neighborhood has been taken over by Hispanic gangs. My home here also has a revolving door with people -- including staff members -- helping themselves to my food, trinkets and especially my books. So far they haven't walked off with the mother-lode, but they have taken a place setting of silverplate, a wedding gift long ago as well as other sentimental items. If ever a citizen needed to be licensed to carry concealed-- now possible in both Missouri and Kansas -- I know I am the one. What I saw as overcorrection in the beginning, I now know to be basic common sense.
Despite this knowledge, when news about the Sandy Hook tragedy began to hit the airwaves, I was so sure a single mother did not need automatic weapons, that I assumed the son had used her credit card and name to purchase them through the mail. By the time the truth was known, I experienced the same knee-jerk reaction as the parents and many other Americans did -- "let's get gun ownership under control." But I was wrong and so are they. Here are reasons why.
Most "bad guys" don't buy their guns legally. They prefer street and under the table purchases of untraceable weapons. This slows the possibility of being caught. Since they do not purchase legal weapons, criminal background checks are unworkable.
Most serial killers are not deranged in a manner that causes them to use their mother's guns. Supposedly, the mentally ill who are considered a danger to themselves or others are the only behavior disordered people in mental institutions. If they are locked up, they cannot purchase guns anyway. So, what good are mental health background checks if the illnesses have not been diagnosed?
Most of us are not paranoid enough to believe our federal government is out to get us, causing us to need an arsenal of weapons to protect ourselves from them. It was my first thought to dismiss such militants as disturbed fringe. Then I remembered the This Week town hall meeting some months back where an extremely radical Muslim from the Middle East said he was looking forward to the day when the Muslim flag would fly above the White House. Now that would be a lunatic with arms and that would be government to fear. But by then it would be too late to arm ourselves for protection against the government.
It is an admirable characteristic Americans have that they want to turn unbelievable tragedy into learning experiences and ways to jumpstart good for others. Trying to squeeze a drop of meaning from utterly meaningless disaster is their way to cope. How much better it would be if they focused their efforts toward getting better mental health treatment for the disturbed -- for training individuals in self defense methods -- for fighting drugs and crime -- and for making contributions to research. These funds could be used to research methods to control or cure alcoholism, drug addiction and to heal mental health issues. We could attempt from Kindergarten on to make our citizens all feel accepted and to train and encourage them to be contributing members of society. At this point, we are failing massively in these endeavors.
Let's not continue to let our knee-jerk reactions be overcorrections. As parents we know that moving back and forth from too much negligence to overcorrection is ineffective. We need to find ways to eliminate the issues that cause the dysfunction rather than controling guns and making it easier for the bad guys to eliminate the good.
In the early eighties, I purchased and rehabed a nine room house in the northeast section of Kansas City, MO. It was in a section north of St. John Avenue and was supposed to be safer than areas south of that line. Although we came home two or three times to find our door open and a trail of match sticks littering the floor, the thefts had been inconsequential and we made the best of things. For the most part, I felt safe there.
There was a three-room mother-in-law's suite in the house. I turned this area into my private get away. I used the kitchen as my office where I did my writing. I quilted and did other crafts while watching television in the living room. Of necessity, I placed two bookcases, loaded with books, in front of the kitchen door. The living room door had a safety lock. Nights when my teenage boys were at their father's, I pulled the headboard of the bed in front of the bedroom door, thus blocking entry. As you can tell already, I am your basic coward. Thank God for that.
One night I heard someone slam against an entry over and over again. I told myself I was being paranoid until I heard someone running up the stairs and trying to enter my bedroom. There were at least two of them, because one said to the other, "this is where she is." I rushed to the phone, but could get no dial tone, because they had taken the receiver off the phone downstairs. I screamed out the window calling my neighbors over and over until one of them hesitantly stepped out on the porch. He called the police for me and then began checking the perimeter. The intruders had entered by removing a wooden cover of a basement window. The body slams had been them breaking through the locked trap door to the basement. They exited through the front door, leaving it wide open. By the time the police arrived, they were long gone. I gave my statement, but they left little hope of finding who had done it. I still don't know.
A couple of weeks later a third officer stopped by to discuss a potential suspect. While there, he encouraged me to buy a gun for protection. He said his wife would still be shaking if this had happened to her. I told him I couldn't use a gun, because I would be afraid I would mistakenly shoot one of my sons if they let themselves in during the night.
I'd like to be able to tell you this was my only close call, but I can't. I've been stalked. Two individuals have tried to strangle me and another held a gun in my face, demanding my purse. Such is the way of city life, at least city life on a budget. I'm in smaller, less appealing digs now, and the old neighborhood has been taken over by Hispanic gangs. My home here also has a revolving door with people -- including staff members -- helping themselves to my food, trinkets and especially my books. So far they haven't walked off with the mother-lode, but they have taken a place setting of silverplate, a wedding gift long ago as well as other sentimental items. If ever a citizen needed to be licensed to carry concealed-- now possible in both Missouri and Kansas -- I know I am the one. What I saw as overcorrection in the beginning, I now know to be basic common sense.
Despite this knowledge, when news about the Sandy Hook tragedy began to hit the airwaves, I was so sure a single mother did not need automatic weapons, that I assumed the son had used her credit card and name to purchase them through the mail. By the time the truth was known, I experienced the same knee-jerk reaction as the parents and many other Americans did -- "let's get gun ownership under control." But I was wrong and so are they. Here are reasons why.
Most "bad guys" don't buy their guns legally. They prefer street and under the table purchases of untraceable weapons. This slows the possibility of being caught. Since they do not purchase legal weapons, criminal background checks are unworkable.
Most serial killers are not deranged in a manner that causes them to use their mother's guns. Supposedly, the mentally ill who are considered a danger to themselves or others are the only behavior disordered people in mental institutions. If they are locked up, they cannot purchase guns anyway. So, what good are mental health background checks if the illnesses have not been diagnosed?
Most of us are not paranoid enough to believe our federal government is out to get us, causing us to need an arsenal of weapons to protect ourselves from them. It was my first thought to dismiss such militants as disturbed fringe. Then I remembered the This Week town hall meeting some months back where an extremely radical Muslim from the Middle East said he was looking forward to the day when the Muslim flag would fly above the White House. Now that would be a lunatic with arms and that would be government to fear. But by then it would be too late to arm ourselves for protection against the government.
It is an admirable characteristic Americans have that they want to turn unbelievable tragedy into learning experiences and ways to jumpstart good for others. Trying to squeeze a drop of meaning from utterly meaningless disaster is their way to cope. How much better it would be if they focused their efforts toward getting better mental health treatment for the disturbed -- for training individuals in self defense methods -- for fighting drugs and crime -- and for making contributions to research. These funds could be used to research methods to control or cure alcoholism, drug addiction and to heal mental health issues. We could attempt from Kindergarten on to make our citizens all feel accepted and to train and encourage them to be contributing members of society. At this point, we are failing massively in these endeavors.
Let's not continue to let our knee-jerk reactions be overcorrections. As parents we know that moving back and forth from too much negligence to overcorrection is ineffective. We need to find ways to eliminate the issues that cause the dysfunction rather than controling guns and making it easier for the bad guys to eliminate the good.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Social Security and Medicare Are Not Welfare Programs
The members of Congress have called Social Security and Medicare "entitlements" so long they seem to have forgotten both the origin and purpose of the two programs.
Webster's definition of the word entitle which most closely defines this usage of entitlements is: "to give (a person or thing) a title, right or claim to something: furnish with rights for laying claim. . ."
There is nothing in this definition to define or explain entitlements as nasty little four letter words. Yet, judging from the verbal behavior of many conservative congressmen, that is how they view both Social Security and Medicare.
Let's focus attention, once more, on some of the Congressmen, past and present, who have vilified these and other "entitlements". There are those like the former Congressman from Missouri who announced that he never liked Social Security and that he had not designed it. But that is mild compared with the Congressman who said we "are a nation of whiners expecting to receive something just because we were promised it -- in the same conversation where he rejoiced that there had been no cost of living increase that year, so there would be no increase in C O L A.
It is exactly this attitude of company officials and their compadres in government that caused the need for social programs in the first place.
It is kind of a fad these days for Americans to get bent out of shape over sweat shops in foreign countries, but people tend to forget about the sweat shops in Europe and the United States in the early years of the industrial revolution. They were, in fact, a reason that our "social programs" exist today -- these entitlements that are anathema to a good many company owners.
Social Security and Medicare are frequently viewed as handouts by Congress and Conservative business owners, when they are better termed insurance programs. In order to insure our old age financial security, most American workers have paid compulsory insurance premiums throughout their work histories. Just as we were forced involuntarily to pay those fees, our leaders are supposed to see we receive the "insurance" when we reach the appropriate age. Does Congress understand the word compulsory? This compulsory program is required from both participants and government officials. A previous Congress and Administration made a covenant with Americans to provide payouts to retired seniors and another previous Congress and Administration set Cost of Living Adjustments based on the Cost of Living Increase. Remember the word Covenant.
As this author has stated repeatedly in these blog articles, if company owners had done their jobs right morally and ethically, such programs would never have been necessary. But greedy and selfish people have, throughout history, worked employees, including women and underage children, in sweat shop conditions. They have overworked and underpaid them, thinking only of how to fill their own pockets. They have ignored basic safety standards. Then they have used up and cast out workers as so much garbage when they got old, injured, sick or frail. What Americans among us do not know about these conditions and the steps that were taken to remedy them? We studied them in history in public schools. Did your private educations leave you underprivileged in knowledge?
Social Security laws cover much more than just the aged. They are also for survivors, the disabled and Medicare (which falls under a separate fee). They offer an employment security benefit which includes unemployment and worker's compensation benefits. Employees and their employers both contribute to the funding of these programs.
So, yes, we are entitled to the payout from them because we paid our insurance premiums and it is the law! They differ radically from the social programs for the poor which are paid from our collective income taxes. The latter programs include food stamps, HUD housing, energy assistance and Medicaid. Too many of your former hard-working employees have suffered the humiliation of having to ask for public assistance due to inadequate Social Security payouts already.
Social Security and Medicare are supposed to be separate funds left untouched until needed and allowed to earn money in sound investment programs.
The pity is that members of Congress did not have "x-ray" foresight so that our leaders could accurately predict future funding needs. But that is not going to wash as an excuse not to meet the requirements for the programs. The baby boomer excuse is also wearing thin. Lawmakers have known about them for many decades now. Congress is going to have to increase premiums on current workers just as they have done in the past on other generations. They are going to have to stop "forgiving" current workers from paying their full premiums. They will need that money much more sorely once they retire.
The law required us to pay the premiums and now the law should require Congress to see we get the "lawful" Cost of Living Adjustment based on inflationary increases.
Perhaps if everyone replaces the term "entitlements" with the word insurance, Congress and businessmen will begin to have a proper understanding of the programs. They would know that an insurance company that collected premiums without honoring agreed upon payouts would be committing crimes -- fraud. Such companies would probably be dissolved or replaced and their owners imprisoned. If Congress reneges on this covenant, should they be prosecuted, too? Who would be whining then?
Webster's definition of the word entitle which most closely defines this usage of entitlements is: "to give (a person or thing) a title, right or claim to something: furnish with rights for laying claim. . ."
There is nothing in this definition to define or explain entitlements as nasty little four letter words. Yet, judging from the verbal behavior of many conservative congressmen, that is how they view both Social Security and Medicare.
Let's focus attention, once more, on some of the Congressmen, past and present, who have vilified these and other "entitlements". There are those like the former Congressman from Missouri who announced that he never liked Social Security and that he had not designed it. But that is mild compared with the Congressman who said we "are a nation of whiners expecting to receive something just because we were promised it -- in the same conversation where he rejoiced that there had been no cost of living increase that year, so there would be no increase in C O L A.
It is exactly this attitude of company officials and their compadres in government that caused the need for social programs in the first place.
It is kind of a fad these days for Americans to get bent out of shape over sweat shops in foreign countries, but people tend to forget about the sweat shops in Europe and the United States in the early years of the industrial revolution. They were, in fact, a reason that our "social programs" exist today -- these entitlements that are anathema to a good many company owners.
Social Security and Medicare are frequently viewed as handouts by Congress and Conservative business owners, when they are better termed insurance programs. In order to insure our old age financial security, most American workers have paid compulsory insurance premiums throughout their work histories. Just as we were forced involuntarily to pay those fees, our leaders are supposed to see we receive the "insurance" when we reach the appropriate age. Does Congress understand the word compulsory? This compulsory program is required from both participants and government officials. A previous Congress and Administration made a covenant with Americans to provide payouts to retired seniors and another previous Congress and Administration set Cost of Living Adjustments based on the Cost of Living Increase. Remember the word Covenant.
As this author has stated repeatedly in these blog articles, if company owners had done their jobs right morally and ethically, such programs would never have been necessary. But greedy and selfish people have, throughout history, worked employees, including women and underage children, in sweat shop conditions. They have overworked and underpaid them, thinking only of how to fill their own pockets. They have ignored basic safety standards. Then they have used up and cast out workers as so much garbage when they got old, injured, sick or frail. What Americans among us do not know about these conditions and the steps that were taken to remedy them? We studied them in history in public schools. Did your private educations leave you underprivileged in knowledge?
Social Security laws cover much more than just the aged. They are also for survivors, the disabled and Medicare (which falls under a separate fee). They offer an employment security benefit which includes unemployment and worker's compensation benefits. Employees and their employers both contribute to the funding of these programs.
So, yes, we are entitled to the payout from them because we paid our insurance premiums and it is the law! They differ radically from the social programs for the poor which are paid from our collective income taxes. The latter programs include food stamps, HUD housing, energy assistance and Medicaid. Too many of your former hard-working employees have suffered the humiliation of having to ask for public assistance due to inadequate Social Security payouts already.
Social Security and Medicare are supposed to be separate funds left untouched until needed and allowed to earn money in sound investment programs.
The pity is that members of Congress did not have "x-ray" foresight so that our leaders could accurately predict future funding needs. But that is not going to wash as an excuse not to meet the requirements for the programs. The baby boomer excuse is also wearing thin. Lawmakers have known about them for many decades now. Congress is going to have to increase premiums on current workers just as they have done in the past on other generations. They are going to have to stop "forgiving" current workers from paying their full premiums. They will need that money much more sorely once they retire.
The law required us to pay the premiums and now the law should require Congress to see we get the "lawful" Cost of Living Adjustment based on inflationary increases.
Perhaps if everyone replaces the term "entitlements" with the word insurance, Congress and businessmen will begin to have a proper understanding of the programs. They would know that an insurance company that collected premiums without honoring agreed upon payouts would be committing crimes -- fraud. Such companies would probably be dissolved or replaced and their owners imprisoned. If Congress reneges on this covenant, should they be prosecuted, too? Who would be whining then?
Thursday, November 15, 2012
How Dare you?!!!
Who in this universe authorized you to speak for your entire state? How dare a small minority of people request that my state be allowed to secede from the union? Even if it were constitutionally possible to do so, for a state to request secession for all Texans or Missourians or Kansans, it would be necessary to hold an election to see what the majority of the state's citizens want. So, you want to secede for the entire population of the state, you hold a legal election. Then if the majority wants to seek secession, I'll move to a state where sanity rules the day.
But majority rule is the problem here, right? For the tantruming minority out there, majority rule is only good if the majority votes your way. Instead of ruling that people can vote at 18, 21, or whatever, we need to develop a litmus test for maturity.
I am a citizen of these United States of America. What states I have lived in are coincidental to my citizenship in the greatest country ever formed. In fact, I've lived in Illinois, Indiana, Florida, Missouri and Kansas. Comprendez-vous? A state is a small part of a great big wonderful piece of real estate that goes from sea to shining sea.
But I have a good idea for all of you malcontents. You don't like the land I love, then leave it. Whether you were born here, are naturalized or illegal, you may feel free to take a hike at any time! We grownups even have a word for it. It's called emigration. No, I didn't spell it wrong, it means the act of moving from one country to another and settling there. Get packing. You'll then be referred to as an expatriot. You won't pledge our flag or sing our songs anymore.
Let me make some suggestions. All you in the upper one per cent that don't like paying taxes here, just move to China, India and anywhere else you have found outsourcing helpful to your bottom line.
All you radical right religious creatures -- for you I suggest Afghanistan or some of the other Middle Eastern Countries. You might even want to help the Taliban stone people and kill their rebellious daughters for uncovering their heads, wearing makeup or for wanting to choose their own husbands. Your thinking hasn't evolved that far past them.
You who don't like the welfare programs here can move to a country where hoards of homeless and hungry surround you and impede your every step. I would suggest India for this, but they seem to be doing better than we are now that they have so many of our jobs.
Perhaps your major beef with majority rule would be quelled if you moved to China or North Korea. Do you fancy a dictatorship or Communism?
There's a reason masses of people risk their lives coming to our shores. It's because it's better here. We all have a vote, a say in our government. And just sometimes in a democracy, the other side wins.
You sports lovers out there use sports models for everything else, so use them here. Throwing a temper tantrum because the majority that won wasn't your team is called poor sportsmanship. That's bad business. Now pull yourselves together and let's work as a team. Your side won for eight straight years. Now it's time for the other side to have eight straight.
Just as in team sports, sportsmanship is the rule of the day, so in majority rule, maturity holds the sway!
Now remember -- don't secede, emigrate. Whatever you do, never again speak for me.
But majority rule is the problem here, right? For the tantruming minority out there, majority rule is only good if the majority votes your way. Instead of ruling that people can vote at 18, 21, or whatever, we need to develop a litmus test for maturity.
I am a citizen of these United States of America. What states I have lived in are coincidental to my citizenship in the greatest country ever formed. In fact, I've lived in Illinois, Indiana, Florida, Missouri and Kansas. Comprendez-vous? A state is a small part of a great big wonderful piece of real estate that goes from sea to shining sea.
But I have a good idea for all of you malcontents. You don't like the land I love, then leave it. Whether you were born here, are naturalized or illegal, you may feel free to take a hike at any time! We grownups even have a word for it. It's called emigration. No, I didn't spell it wrong, it means the act of moving from one country to another and settling there. Get packing. You'll then be referred to as an expatriot. You won't pledge our flag or sing our songs anymore.
Let me make some suggestions. All you in the upper one per cent that don't like paying taxes here, just move to China, India and anywhere else you have found outsourcing helpful to your bottom line.
All you radical right religious creatures -- for you I suggest Afghanistan or some of the other Middle Eastern Countries. You might even want to help the Taliban stone people and kill their rebellious daughters for uncovering their heads, wearing makeup or for wanting to choose their own husbands. Your thinking hasn't evolved that far past them.
You who don't like the welfare programs here can move to a country where hoards of homeless and hungry surround you and impede your every step. I would suggest India for this, but they seem to be doing better than we are now that they have so many of our jobs.
Perhaps your major beef with majority rule would be quelled if you moved to China or North Korea. Do you fancy a dictatorship or Communism?
There's a reason masses of people risk their lives coming to our shores. It's because it's better here. We all have a vote, a say in our government. And just sometimes in a democracy, the other side wins.
You sports lovers out there use sports models for everything else, so use them here. Throwing a temper tantrum because the majority that won wasn't your team is called poor sportsmanship. That's bad business. Now pull yourselves together and let's work as a team. Your side won for eight straight years. Now it's time for the other side to have eight straight.
Just as in team sports, sportsmanship is the rule of the day, so in majority rule, maturity holds the sway!
Now remember -- don't secede, emigrate. Whatever you do, never again speak for me.
The Folly of Lines Drawn in the Sand
A number of years ago, a Republican who ran for and won the Presidency, kept saying "Read my lips, no new taxes." It seems a lifetime ago.
Several members of the House (read my paper) signed pledges they would not raise taxes under any circumstances.
Representative John Boehner is now saying the people want us to cooperate and work together, but he won't raise taxes just on the rich.
The twice-elected President of the United States agrees that the two branches must cooperate and work out an agreement, but he won't raise taxes on the middle class, seniors and students -- at least without a raise for the upper class.
Lines in the sand lead to -- do not pass go, go directly to -- a standoff. No wonder we have gridlock in Washington, D. C.
Now, the man who drew the line in the sand with Iraq eventually went to war with Sadaam Hussein because he would not produce and destroy the weapons of mass destruction it was assumed he had. After a huge shock and awe campaign, a lengthy occupation and efforts to rebuild the nation we had willfully destroyed -- surprise, they had no weapons of mass destruction! But, once the line had been drawn in the sand, war was unavoidable. It has been eleven years now during which time we have lost precious lives, limbs and minds, just because of the foolishness of drawing lines in the sand. All this and the line drawer has lost face anyway.
Those paper signing congressmen have boxed themselves in with their line drawing. Either they cannot vote for any compromise that includes a tax on anyone, or they will have to tell their constituents that they were lied to earlier. The alternative is to let the whole country continue in debt for generations or go bankrupt. And, by the way, adjusting COLA downward isn't taxing?
John Boehner, Mr. Bluster himself, is once again saying we must work together and compromise, but it won't be conservative Republicans who will do it.
And you, too, Mr. President? You'll tax the rich, but not the middle class even though taxing just the rich won't bring sufficient funds to reduce the debt enough?
All of you might need to take a leaf from President George H. W. Bush's book. Learn from the folly of making unwise promises and erase the lines at once. Then go back to the drawing board with everything truly on the table and everything negotiable.
And remember the lesson of Iraq -- a person can't produce and destroy something he doesn't have. The line drawing was a foolish act for which we are all still paying. The American public should not have to suffer more because our leaders act like school children angling for a fight.
Several members of the House (read my paper) signed pledges they would not raise taxes under any circumstances.
Representative John Boehner is now saying the people want us to cooperate and work together, but he won't raise taxes just on the rich.
The twice-elected President of the United States agrees that the two branches must cooperate and work out an agreement, but he won't raise taxes on the middle class, seniors and students -- at least without a raise for the upper class.
Lines in the sand lead to -- do not pass go, go directly to -- a standoff. No wonder we have gridlock in Washington, D. C.
Now, the man who drew the line in the sand with Iraq eventually went to war with Sadaam Hussein because he would not produce and destroy the weapons of mass destruction it was assumed he had. After a huge shock and awe campaign, a lengthy occupation and efforts to rebuild the nation we had willfully destroyed -- surprise, they had no weapons of mass destruction! But, once the line had been drawn in the sand, war was unavoidable. It has been eleven years now during which time we have lost precious lives, limbs and minds, just because of the foolishness of drawing lines in the sand. All this and the line drawer has lost face anyway.
Those paper signing congressmen have boxed themselves in with their line drawing. Either they cannot vote for any compromise that includes a tax on anyone, or they will have to tell their constituents that they were lied to earlier. The alternative is to let the whole country continue in debt for generations or go bankrupt. And, by the way, adjusting COLA downward isn't taxing?
John Boehner, Mr. Bluster himself, is once again saying we must work together and compromise, but it won't be conservative Republicans who will do it.
And you, too, Mr. President? You'll tax the rich, but not the middle class even though taxing just the rich won't bring sufficient funds to reduce the debt enough?
All of you might need to take a leaf from President George H. W. Bush's book. Learn from the folly of making unwise promises and erase the lines at once. Then go back to the drawing board with everything truly on the table and everything negotiable.
And remember the lesson of Iraq -- a person can't produce and destroy something he doesn't have. The line drawing was a foolish act for which we are all still paying. The American public should not have to suffer more because our leaders act like school children angling for a fight.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
The Morning After
Try reading the mind of God! Is it possible to understand why, after the expenditure of six billion dollars in advertising, hours upon hours of American prayer and enough negative commercials to drive a Saint to drink, we wound up with almost the same situation we had before the election? I'd like to try to help figure it out.
Some of the world's religions teach that we are sent to this planet to learn particular lessons. Some even present that we pick our families ahead of coming here so that we maximize our opportunities to improve. Others teach that whatever the reason we came in the first place, we are put into the same negative situations over and over until we finally learn correct and healthy responses to them. An example might be always getting mean and hateful supervisors at work until such time as we learn how to cope and thrive in spite of them.
So, keeping these thoughts in mind, how can we view our election results?
President Barack Obama gets another opportunity to defuse an obstinate House of Representatives and to motivate a recalcitrant Senate and to show the hope and change he promised as he moves us forward. He gets to overcome his deer-in-the-headlights response to this dysfunctional Congress and assume the leadership role that We the People have twice given him the opportunity to command.
The Senate of these United States has one more chance to produce a sound budget that cuts wasteful spending while preserving worthwhile causes as they pay down the national debt.
The House of Representatives gets to forget ridiculous austerity and put on their thinking caps in an effort to devise sensible methods of paying down the afforementioned debt, including increasing taxes -- that five-letter, four-letter word.
All of the above absolutely must cooperate and compromise. You are not playing games. This is the real world and we are real people who need you to do what you were elected to do -- construct, tweek and pass laws to make our country better and stronger.
Mr. Mitch McConnell's lesson is that we want to give him one more chance to effect meaningful change for us. We did not send him to congress to make sure Barack Obama was a one-term President or to waste an entire term in doing so. We sent him to cooperate and use his mind for worthwhile things. Besides he failed at his number one priority as well as on our behalf.
Mr. John Boehner needs this second chance to learn that the American right to go from a bar owner's son to one of the most powerful jobs in the land comes with a huge responsibility -- not just self aggrandizement. He must play nice with others and get some good work done -- real work, not just rhetoric.
Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and others of their ilk must realize the folly of politicians -- themselves, especially -- making political promises that cannot or should not be kept. You are going to have to tax! Again, that four-letter word, but in it's three-letter form.
And our President, whom some of us see as too willing to cooperate and compromise, is going to have to have more starch. He will need it to stand up to the bullies in the other branch.
Karl Rove, The Koch brothers and the Super Pac big spenders get to learn that they can find more influential and responsible ways to spend their dollars. How about using it to pay down the debt? You obviously didn't buy our votes, did you? And, oh yes, lying doesn't really work either, does it?
Mr. George Will, perhaps you are correct to some degree. It may be necessary to have a Republican majority in the House to slow things down long enough to think and work together. But, I am right as well. This much gridlock is dysfunctional.
You all have a new opportunity to get this right and save our country from debt and bancruptcy. Don't screw it up this time.
Some of the world's religions teach that we are sent to this planet to learn particular lessons. Some even present that we pick our families ahead of coming here so that we maximize our opportunities to improve. Others teach that whatever the reason we came in the first place, we are put into the same negative situations over and over until we finally learn correct and healthy responses to them. An example might be always getting mean and hateful supervisors at work until such time as we learn how to cope and thrive in spite of them.
So, keeping these thoughts in mind, how can we view our election results?
President Barack Obama gets another opportunity to defuse an obstinate House of Representatives and to motivate a recalcitrant Senate and to show the hope and change he promised as he moves us forward. He gets to overcome his deer-in-the-headlights response to this dysfunctional Congress and assume the leadership role that We the People have twice given him the opportunity to command.
The Senate of these United States has one more chance to produce a sound budget that cuts wasteful spending while preserving worthwhile causes as they pay down the national debt.
The House of Representatives gets to forget ridiculous austerity and put on their thinking caps in an effort to devise sensible methods of paying down the afforementioned debt, including increasing taxes -- that five-letter, four-letter word.
All of the above absolutely must cooperate and compromise. You are not playing games. This is the real world and we are real people who need you to do what you were elected to do -- construct, tweek and pass laws to make our country better and stronger.
Mr. Mitch McConnell's lesson is that we want to give him one more chance to effect meaningful change for us. We did not send him to congress to make sure Barack Obama was a one-term President or to waste an entire term in doing so. We sent him to cooperate and use his mind for worthwhile things. Besides he failed at his number one priority as well as on our behalf.
Mr. John Boehner needs this second chance to learn that the American right to go from a bar owner's son to one of the most powerful jobs in the land comes with a huge responsibility -- not just self aggrandizement. He must play nice with others and get some good work done -- real work, not just rhetoric.
Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and others of their ilk must realize the folly of politicians -- themselves, especially -- making political promises that cannot or should not be kept. You are going to have to tax! Again, that four-letter word, but in it's three-letter form.
And our President, whom some of us see as too willing to cooperate and compromise, is going to have to have more starch. He will need it to stand up to the bullies in the other branch.
Karl Rove, The Koch brothers and the Super Pac big spenders get to learn that they can find more influential and responsible ways to spend their dollars. How about using it to pay down the debt? You obviously didn't buy our votes, did you? And, oh yes, lying doesn't really work either, does it?
Mr. George Will, perhaps you are correct to some degree. It may be necessary to have a Republican majority in the House to slow things down long enough to think and work together. But, I am right as well. This much gridlock is dysfunctional.
You all have a new opportunity to get this right and save our country from debt and bancruptcy. Don't screw it up this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)