My top 5 favorite political cartoons this week are all about Obama from both the conservative and liberal perspective. Interestingly, sometimes it’s hard here to tell the difference.
by Eric Allie at Townhall.com…
by Henry Payne at Townhall.com…
by Jeff Danziger at GoComics.com…
by Ted Rall at GoComics.com…
by Walt Handelsman at GoComics.com…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Obama is too far left for the right wingers, and too far right for the left wingers. I think he’s right where he should be, and with the current group of 2012 hopefuls from the GOP…unless they can pull somebody out better, it looks like there’s a good chance that Obama will be around for a while more.
Plus, I think it is tough to dismiss the union bashing around the country – the big difference in Obama’s win, and again in the GOP taking control of the house – the big key in both elections was the enthusiasm levels (or gap). I expect that to be much more equal after the left got to see what the right’s leadership was all about.
Ex-RINO, I know you liberals consider the government to be your private industry but there is a real private world that is sick of your leaching and abuse. The days of forcing people to join unions in order to get government jobs is over in Wisconsin.
Truth – I’m not in a union, so your use of the word “your” in leaching and abuse is a bit misguided.
I’m fine with disagreement on the measure – that is cool – I’m just saying that if the left needed a boost to get to the polls, well, they got it! Decent chance our area will get a recall election before the next big round even comes around.
Ex-RINO, what will it take before you admit when issues are playing against your party. That is why this Sundays cartoon is so aprropriate for the time. Why do you suppose Obama didn’t put on his boots and march shoulder to shoulder with the Dem’s in Wisconsin. IMO it is because the national polls show the people siding with Republican’s who are reigning in out-of-control government.
Truth – you ask what will it take? How about some poll numbers? I mean, did you see the article running around the state today in regards to what this might cost Walker? Folks in the state were against the measure 2-1, and that was before how it ended up being passed. So not sure how it is playing against the Dems here:
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_7777e2b2-4d74-11e0-b000-001cc4c03286.html
Ex-RINO, you should give up the kool-aid and take a look outside your Madisonian bubble. Here is a poll from USA-today:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2011/02/25/poll-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-winning-labor-budget-fight
Okay Truth – how about real far outside that bubble? These polls include one done by Rasmussen, which is as far outside Madison’s politics as you can get:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/03/07/another-poll-brings-bad-news-for-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker
If you are seeing numbers I’m not, gladly post them – would love to read them.
EGV,
Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t the governor have to be in office one year for a recall? If so time is not on your side. That’s an eternity in politics.
Mary – you are correct – for Walker, he has time (and the articles I posted point to that – for both Walker and Obama, the key really is the economy – that is the number one factor that points to election success).
Some of the state level folks have been there for a year and are subject to recall campaigns at this point. Not many are ever successful (I think 2 in 85 years), but there’s a chance on a couple of them folks are saying.
ts, 3:28PM
Or else Obama was too busy playing golf or holding another concert in the White House. Last I read he was partying with some reporters.
Maybe Walker diplomatically telling Obama to go, you know, himself is another reason.
Apparently Walker is speaking in Green Bay today and according to the internet, local businesses and organizations located near where he is speaking have ordered protestors to keep their vehicles and bodies off of their property.
That poll asked wether people think the governor should compromise; which he obviously did when he emailed them concessions; it takes a lot of kool-aid or great liberal mind-bending to go AWOL and abandon your post by leaving the state and complain that the governor was unwilling to compromise.
Truth – one part of many polls was on the compromise – the poll I referred to from Rasmussen, which is far outside your requested “bubble of Madison” was about halfway down the article – not sure if you missed it:
“Last week Rasmussen, whose results are generally kinder to GOPers than other independent pollsters, found that 57 percent of Wisconsin voters disapprove of Walker, 48 percent strongly and that 56 percent of independent voters disapprove of him.”
Losing the independents isn’t a good thing.
Maybe you are right on the Dems who left the state – you asked what it would take – I said polls or numbers – you said i’m drinking the kool-aid…so I’m still waiting to see the polls, numbers, anything to disprove my basic premise that this is good for left wing enthusiasm.
Do you have anything?
Hi ts,
What fries them is the governor did give them a face saving compromise out of this situation and they blew it big time. He bested them and they look like the idiots they are.
Unlike Obama, the governor didn’t even have to pay any taxpayer funded bribes to get the legislation passed.
I am a public school employee and I support Governor Walker 100%. The system is broken and desperately needed some fresh air.
The Democrats were so busy looking at themselves in the mirror that they didn’t even realize that there was a silent majority working right next to them.
The recent behavior by the Democrats in Wisconsin has been reprehensible to say the least.
Praxedes – thanks for the work you do within schools. One of the best things about moving to Wisconsin has been the school systems and the teachers that my daughters have – top notch.
Ex-GOP,
So long as the Tea Party doesn’t run a third party candidate, I believe that a Mickey Mouse/Donald Duck Ticket could bury Obama. In the ’80’s Dems HATED Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy and union positions, but the nation elected him to two terms in the biggest electoral landslides ever.
Why? His policies produced good economic times. He also spoke well of the nation and her people when people needed to believe in the nation again.
Similarly, Bill Clinton rode in on bad economic times, and though he was despised by many, he was kept around because times were good (though without Reagan’s margins of victory).
Obama is a disaster. Like Jimmy Carter, he presides over bad economic times.
Like Carter, his policies poured napalm on a brush fire.
Like Carter, while people were suffering, he globe-trotted apologizing for America, surrendering our prestige as Carter did in giving away the Panama Canal.
Like Carter, his answer to parsimony is more parsimony.
And like Carter, he’ll be thrown onto the ash heap of history.
He differs from Carter in one significant manner:
While Carter was a good and well-intentioned man who was seriously misguided, Obama genuinely hates America and is the personification of all that is malignant in what has come to be called liberalism.
Gerard –
Maybe you are right – a lot will depend on the last two years. You talk about Reagan and Obama, and quite frankly, it is a decent comparison. Both came in after absolute train-wrecks. Both saw big increases in debt and unemployment over the first two years. Both saw low ratings (I think Reagan’s at about this point in his term was about 40%, but could check that). Everything you are saying now about Obama could have been said about Reagan after two years. Will the economy continue to get better? If so, then I don’t see a current GOP person who could tough him. Romney polls the closest at this point, but does the right lose enthusiasm if he is run?
If the economy does not continue to get better, then I think your assessment is pretty right on – anybody should be able to beat him.
Thanks for your assessment – I found it a decent read until the end, when your hate colors and pretty well erases any sort of rational thinking. I disagree with George Bush and much of what he did, but I would never say that he “hates” America. From my previous readings of your posts and blog, I would have said that sort of 10th grade level assessment was beneath you…but maybe I haven’t read enough of your posts.
Hope all else is well..
truthseeker
I haven’t really been following what’s going on in Wisconsin but don’t you think there should be some type of balance where unions don’t get out of hand but workers are still valued. I use to work at a state school and although I didn’t belong to the union I could see the difference they made in the job site. Are you completely against unions are do you believe there should just be less pressure put on workers to join unions?
Ex-GOP said, “Obama is too far left for the right wingers, and too far right for the left wingers. I think he’s right where he should be.” You’re not where you should be, Ex-GOP. How can a Christian praise this president? He’s not a strong leader, but where he does lead, he goes to hell. He’s the most pro-abortion president the United States has ever had. His administration’s protection of the institution of marriage has been said to be worse than none at all. He continues the Keynesian policy of eating and drinking as if there is no tomorrow. There is no fear of God before his eyes; in fact, he easily denounced a portion of the Bible (video of a Planned Parenthood promotion long ago).
Ex-GOP speaks of “union bashing.” The unions do all the bashing! And they’re mostly public-sector unions, i.e. unions for the government employees (broadly speaking) who collectively forcibly tax businesses and individuals. And in Wisconsin they were actually in a position to dictate to the government (and the tax-payers who support them) their salaries (or perks, at least). And it seems to me that only Walker, some other Republicans, and conservative teachers were actually getting bashed. Ex-GOP doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about.
Jon –
I don’t believe he’s “right where he should be” on every issue. However, overall I think he’s doing a pretty good job. I don’t define my Christian vote on just abortion and gay marriage. Very little seems to ever flip on the federal level – some funding initiatives back and forth. A vote for McCain certainly wasn’t a vote to end abortion forever – so I’m not going to vote for a law that isn’t going to come up for either candidate. Gay marriage? Sorry – just don’t feel like my marriage is threatened by gays and lesbians being able to marry. Quite frankly, I wish the government would stay out of marriage all-together. I like the cord of three – no need for a fourth (the government). I do support that Obama wants to expand healthcare (thus save lives) to more people. I do support that Obama is less enthralled by war as other recent Presidents. No President as of late has been a perfect Christian – I don’t know if it would be possible quite frankly – but I’ll take him a million times before McCain, Palin, Bachmann, or the other key names being thrown about.
On the union bashing comment – my point remains the same – I think it will be a factor in keeping the left more “enthused” (as the measurement is termed) heading into the next election. I am fine if you don’t like unions – I just think you’d have a hard time arguing that this debate has been good for the GOP (in regards to near term elections). I think it is a lot like health care reform – it is going to fire up people on the other side of the aisle.
I have never been more proud to be in the middle of my move to Wisconsin. I bought a “Walker 2012” tee the other day, and I’m thrilled to be wearing it on my flight back up through Chicago. ^_^
I’m glad SOMEONE finally busted up the money laundering scheme between the unions and democrat party, which was essentially stealing money from EVERY taxpayer, whether the taxpayers agree with them or not, to be funneled into the Rat’s coffers. You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. Unions give the Rats money, and Rats give teachers unions raises and obscene benefits. Then the teachers effectively brainwash our children to make more Rats. The cycle continues. Similar deal with NPR. I’m SICK of having the deck stacked against myself and my family, and everyone else with the slightest bit of social and economic common sense. One of the first things I do when I get back home next Tuesday is register to vote and sign the petitions to recall the Fleabaggers with my fiancée. My daughter didn’t need a union teacher to get a reading level 2.5 grades higher than hers and become a straight A student. I’m really thinking about homeschooling when her school year is over.
BTW, RINO, I thought the republican party didn’t DO anything for prenatal human rights, they just gave it lipservice. Have you seen the republican state legislatures moving pro-life bills in states all around the country?
“I don’t define my Christian vote on just abortion”
And that says it all. YOU criticized the republicans for actually DOING what it is you are doing right now. What do you do to end abortion?
X – is there a state banning abortion that I’ve missed? Or is it more of the “wait a couple of days”?
What do I do? Nothing massive – but my family doesn’t have abortions, I’ll teach my kids not to have abortions, I go to a church that has preached multiple times against abortion, and I vote for leaders who expand healthcare and who I believe are stronger economically for the lower and middle class.
How are the repeal votes in your neck of the woods? Kapanke is in this area – haven’t been able to find totals (nor have I decided if I would sign it if approached) – but it sounds like he could be one of the guys who ends up in a recall election.
EGV,
Just to be clear, what exactly are your personal thoughts on abortion? Don’t know that I’ve heard it clear from you…
This is not completely on topic but it’s something I’d like to say. I won’t vote for the Democrats because of their position on abortion but these are the things I like about the party. I like the fact that they realize that not everyone is well off I respect that. My mom was born in 1921 and choose to quit school in the 8th grade so she could help her mom pick cotton. My grandfather died of TB when my mom was 13. My grandfather was a saw mill worker. My father drove trucks for a living until he was crushed between a truck and a fence. All his ribs were broken and both of his shoulder blades. It was not expected that he would live. He was a very stubborn man and I believe he pulled through just to show his doctors that he could. I come from a long line of Democrats. I’ve voted twice in my life once for the then governor Edwin Edwards and for George Bush Sr.. Because my mom quit school in the 8th grade to help her mom her opportunities were limited, her love was not. Because of a democratic program (food stamps) I never went hungry. My mom always worked. I love the democratic party. The mercy that they believe in extending to people should include the unborn it doesn’t that’s why there in the trouble there in now. What I like about the Republicans is that they still fight for the unborn. This takes tremendous political courage because they’re facing some very big opposition. I hope the candidate whether Republican or Democrat that will truly support the unborn wins.
MaryRose – sure – I think abortion is a horrible sin and something I’d like to see vanished from society.
Legally, I never see it being banned outright. Because of that, I support measures that I believe will lessen abortion rates (education, healthcare coverage, etc…)
Yourself? Not sure if I’m familiar with your views.
Myrtle – can I just say that I really appreciate your presence on this forum, and like the various insights you contribute.
I thing there are good things in both parties, and bad things in both parties. What I fear is that both parties continue to polarize – and instead of coming together with common sense to solve issues, they take the farthest extremes, get little done, and what they do get done – seems to get done with their jobs in mind, not the American citizen in mind.
Ex-GOP,
Actually, what bothers you about the ending is the truth in it all. Remember the primary campaign video and photos in New Mexico when Hillary, Bill Richardson, and everyone on the stage held their right hand over their heart for the National Anthem? There was U.S. Senator Barak Hussein Obama with his hands clasped in front of his crotch in the ‘urinal position’.
His entire deportment in office can be summed up by that one photo. See the video of your guy showing us what he thinks of the nation and her flag.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU9iCANi02o
Or, how about B.O. profoundly bowing to foreign heads of state. I guess he doesn’t realize that he’s not representing his personal stature relative to foreign potentates, but the stature of his nation (which is why US presidents don’t bow that way). Or, perhaps he knows damned well what he’s doing.
The urinal position is his iconic image.
Ah Gerard, and let me guess…you are a “birther” as well.
If that is your summation of support for why Obama “hates” America…well, I think I’ll move on.
Yes, do move on ex-GOP, you have nothing to defend here.
I’m just saying Gerard – if you came across somebody who disliked a politician (let’s say Marco Rubio).
They told you that he “hates” America.
You asked “why?”
And their response was that he once didn’t put his hand on his heart during the national anthem…I think you’d have two responses – either the person is dumb, or the person is crazy.
I’ve read enough of your posts to know you aren’t dumb. I had never thought you to be one of the fringe crazies before. Who would have guessed?
“Are you completely against unions are do you believe there should just be less pressure put on workers to join unions?”
Myrtle, I am against public/government unions as a policy. There should be no such thing. And I am against requiring union membership to anybody.
EGV,
Vehemently opposed to abortion, and believe it will one day be viewed as intolerable & an egregious affront to human rights, much as we see the Holocaust today. In the meanwhile, I encourage as much education on the subject of life as possible, and am quite willing to support most incremental bills. I believe that the abortion issue is at its core connected with the contraception issue and I cannot condone the usage of hormonal birth control. I am unwilling to confidently state that it does abort but I am inclined to believe it very likely. If nothing else, I believe that the widespread availability of ‘protection’ of various sorts has led to an increased feeling of false security against pregnancy and a sense of self-righteous indignation at the concept of babies as a result of sex. I believe that we must emphasize the natural goodness of sex within a loving and monogamous married life and the dangers of sex outside of these incredibly important guidelines.
Long winded sorry :)
Ex GOP Voter
I think if they could agree on the santity of human life that would a good beginning to more agreement. I think it’s hard for them to get excited about their jobs when there battling people who find more glory in death than life. It limits not only their potential for true growth but it also limits us as a nation. I believe anything that affects the soul of a nation also affects it’s spirit and these are all essential for real and lasting growth. I’m believing though this will be a year of miracles for our nation, I’m hoping.
“Actually, what bothers you about the ending is the truth in it all. Remember the primary campaign video and photos in New Mexico when Hillary, Bill Richardson, and everyone on the stage held their right hand over their heart for the National Anthem? There was U.S. Senator Barak Hussein Obama with his hands clasped in front of his crotch in the ‘urinal position’.”
Give me a break. Some people will really use any and every excuse to attack the President and smear him as unpatriotic (as if declining to engage in an act of overt nationalism means you hate your country or something).
Ex-GOP,
Since you are putting intelligence on trial, be careful. You may get burned.
It’s all very wonky to sit and endlessly parse legislation and convince oneself that one is so intelligent by virtue of one’s verbosity. However, in philosophy and psychology (I double-majored in both, Science is a second career) one looks for sign and symbol as that which reveals character and ideology.
Could all of WWII be reduced to te raising of the flag at Iwo Jima? Yes, and no. But that one iconic image rallied a nation worn out by 11 years of grinding depression and 3 1/2 years of catastrophic war with all of its deprivations, and saw us through to the end.
One image, tapping into depths that couldn’t be adequately described in 10 volumes of books.
So it is with the urinal position assumed by a United States Senator, on a stage filled with other US Senators during the National Anthem. It has been substantiated by his entire tenure in office.
Sign and symbol, powerful realities, lost on dullards such as yourself. Remember who went ad hominem here.
Hi Joan,
Get well soon.
truthseeker
Making it public/ government unions as a policy doesn’t even seem legal to me. Hopefully though when the dust settles the teachers will have value placed on them and the jobs they do. If not they can always hire a lawyer. I think that would make it more about education and less about politics.
“Making it public/ government unions as a policy doesn’t even seem legal to me.”
You’d think so Myrtle. But before Walker’s new bill became law one was forced to join a ‘public’ union or you could not teach at a public school in Wisconsin.
Ex-GOP, the Democratic party is officially pro-abortion (or “pro-choice”). After the Obamacare debacle, I would have thought you would have at least admitted that the prolife Democrats didn’t accomplish anything in the end, and did, in fact, compromise their principles. Instead you say that “very little seems to ever flip on the federal level.” Well, those funding initiatives are a big deal. Planned Parenthood depends on them, as you well know. The end of Mexico City Policy was a big deal too. And so was the funding for additional lines of stem cells for embryonic stem cell research. It’s disingenuous of you to intimate that the presence or absence of funding won’t affect the number of abortions. Did the pro-aborts laugh off the Hyde Amendment? Maybe they did at the time Hyde proposed it, but they don’t now.
You’re even worse on “gay marriage.” There is no such thing as “gay marriage,” Ex-GOP. And when homosexuals “marry,” then marriage becomes meaningless. But that’s their goal, to do away with the institution of marriage. Government certainly does have a role to play in marriage because the family is the foundation of society. That family is already very weak in the United States because of divorce. If the government gives up and society resorts to whole-sale hedonism, America will be ripe for the pickings by the Muslims or maybe the Chinese. I find it very strange that you don’t want the government involved in marriage and yet you (if I remember correctly) won’t countenance the government lessening its role in education. According to the Bible, parents are responsible for the education of their children, not first of all the civil government.
Defense is a responsibility of government. Health care is not, at least not in the totalitarian Democrat way. Your big-government philosophy depends on a positive view of human nature which the writers of the American constitution did not have. Children in their time were taught, Biblically, that in “Adam’s fall we sinned all.” Human nature is flawed. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The form of government they devised was republican, not democratic. They wanted to keep government small and local as much as possible, limited by checks and balances. They had a tea party for the same reason.
That you would take Obama a million times before McCain, Palin, Bachmann, or the other key names being thrown about makes me question your priorities. I simply cannot believe that a well-informed Christian would vote as you do. Myrtle Miller mentions Democrat “mercy,” but whether or not the Democrats historically had some well-meant social programs, all they now do is encourage greed and laziness. Practically they believe in a right to a free lunch. Meanwhile the United States has nothing to give; as Michael Moore suggested, they would have to take more from rich people. There is no money, people! Don’t put your trust in the civil government, and especially not in the reckless Democrats.
On your “union bashing” comment, my point remains the same: you seem to think the unions are being “bashed.” Your world is out of proportion.
Hi myrtle miller, 8:54PM
Are you aware that some of the “mercy” extended by the Democrats involved founding the KuKluxKlan as its terrorist arm? Are you aware some of this “mercy” involved instituting segregation in the south? Are you aware it was Democrat senators who filibustered civil and voting rights legislation in 1964 and 1965 respectively?
Are you aware that George”segregation forever” Wallace and “Bull”Connor, nototrious for turning attack dogs and fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators were both Democrats?
Did you know that Democrat icon Robert Kennedy wiretapped Dr. ML King?
How about Democrat icon Franklin Roosevelt putting American citizens in concentration camps?
You were saying something about extending mercy??
I respect you as a woman with a kind heart, someone who is very much a lady. I can only assume you are not knowledgable of the true history of the Democrat Party.
ts 9:20PM
Interesting that both Democrat icon Franklin Roosevelt and former AFL-CIO President Georgy Meany agreed with you concerning public service unions.
Mary
I’m not sure what happened to my first comment. I guess I could do a little research and list a litany of Republican mistakes but what would that accomplish. If you insist though you’ll have to wait I have two exams coming up and shouldn’t even be posting. Would you like for me to research the Republican party. I can research like I done for you when you questioned my views on nuclear energy. You should have been a teacher! I will be happy to research both parties and maybe week after next give you my findings. I still don’t see what that will accomplish. This is what I’ll do I’ll find the positive attributes of each party and give you my findings week after next. Thoughts?
Hi myrtle miller,
Best of luck on your exams. You’re a very smart lady and I know you will do well.
The positive attributes of both parties? Hmmmm. We are talking politicians here but being the gracious lady you always are, I’m sure you will succeed! :)
Mary
Thanks. I was beginning to doubt my intellectual capacity or the lack therof. Will start with Johnson’s words after Kennedy’s assasination. “No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy’s memory than the earliest possible pass of the civil rights for which he fought.” There will be more but now I need to study. Have a blessed week.
Gerard – you took a crappy argument, pulled out your dictionary and looked up some big words, and now feel high and mighty about things. I don’t care how you spin it – if you boil your argument down to how a person stands, well, I feel that is pretty weak. I LIKE Obama, and I could make a ten times better argument for you – one that would be rational and make me seem less like a an old dude who watches too much fox political entertainment channel.
Jon – a couple of quick hits:
– If the GOP had a chance to pass one or the other – stricter abortion laws or a tax cut for the rich, what do you feel they would choose?
– Marriage thoughts? Somehow I don’t get the feeling that if the Government doesn’t “bless” my marriage and keep track of it, that the Muslims or Chinese will come and get me. I lock my windows at night.
– Your third paragraph – do you feel that American’s government goes hand in hand with Christianity – like, if you don’t believe fully in small government and democracy, you can’t be a Christian? At first glance, it seems like political/nation idol worship to me.
– There is no money? Seriously? Somebody should tell the Koch brothers – what is there inherited fortune – 40 billion? No money? NFL and the players are talking about 9 billion right now? We spent, what, a trillion on the wars? Since when do we have no money? This is shocking to me. I need to check my bank account…I think I do have some in there.
Ex-GOP Voter says: March 13, 2011 at 2:45 pm
“Obama is too far left for the right wingers, and too far right for the left wingers.”
==============================================================
Ex-RINO,
I will process that bit of mushy bovine scatulation thru the ‘transmogrifier’.
b o has not kept his promises to the leftists who supported him and they are mad.
b o has done nearly everything the conservatives said he would do and they are mad.
If the left had just listened to the right at least they wouldn’t be surprised that b o has not kept his promises to them.
Ex-GOP asked, “If the GOP had a chance to pass one or the other – stricter abortion laws or a tax cut for the rich, what do you feel they would choose?”
That’s a strange question. First, let me point out that the most recent GOP government, President Bush’s, was quite pro-life. They did, in fact, further abortion restrictions by passing legislation against partial-birth abortion. Secondly, let me point out that it’s not the job of the government to redistribute wealth. Tax cuts for the rich have historically been necessary to rectify Democrat taxes for the rich. That said, I’m of the opinion that the GOP should no longer be talking about tax cuts or tax increases but SPENDING cuts. Of course, working with reckless Democrats does make functional responsible government next to impossible. (And I don’t recall that the Democrats ever tried to keep President Bush’s spending under control when he was in office. And President Obama has been far, far worse.)
Thirdly, I get the feeling that the social conservatives are much more satisfied with John Boehner than the fiscal conservatives are. He really seems to be working for effective pro-life legislation (and a big part of that is an end to funding for Planned Parenthood, for example). On the other hand, he seems much to afraid to even touch entitlements, which MUST be heartlessly axed if the U.S. is to avoid going off the fiscal cliff. Paul Ryan had a good plan, but no other Republican seems to even want to talk about it.
Ex-GOP,
As I said…
EGV,
To be fair, the whole not holding his hand over his heart thing wasn’t exactly a one-time thing. He was caught the once, but he expressed that in his household he simply didn’t do it. Not that he didn’t respect the States (although I’m sure that others will agree with me that it seems like a fairly basic sign of respect within the US, something that MOST of us were raised with, but I will NOT make a judgment call based strictly on his hand placement in that case).
However, Dr. Nadal also brought up the subject of PBHO’s behavior towards foreign heads of state, and I don’t recall that you responded to the fact that PBHO’s behavior, and the statements and behaviors of those near to him, do NOT reflect, as a PATTERN, respect towards the United States. Rather, his behavior and the behaviors of those with whom he has chosen to align himself, express embarrassment and disgrace-hardly the mannerisms I would wish in my President.
Ex-GOP said, “Somehow I don’t get the feeling that if the Government doesn’t ‘bless’ my marriage and keep track of it, that the Muslims or Chinese will come and get me.”
In a democracy, the government reflects the condition of society. Do you deny that American society is going downhill? The chaos of the sexual revolution is all around us, and we’re now reaping the whirlwind. The reason that you can’t see any consequences to a government withdrawal from marriage licensing is that the institution of marriage has already been gutted. Divorce is easy. Child support doesn’t depend on matrimony. One doesn’t have to be actually married to receive the tax benefits of marriage. Homosexuals can live together and experience the benefits of marriage. You just want to take the final step but deny the reality of what’s already happened.
Ex-GOP asked, “If you don’t believe fully in small government and democracy, you can’t be a Christian?”
No, I certainly didn’t mean that. And, in fact, I don’t believe in democracy so much as I do in the notion of a republic–which, as the famous line goes, is very hard to keep. Many Christians who hold to the notion of a republic and small government do so precisely because they refuse to idolize the government. They realize that in this sinful world all human authority requires limits or it becomes totalitarian.
Ex-GOP said, “There is no money? Seriously? Somebody should tell the Koch brothers – what is there inherited fortune – 40 billion? No money? NFL and the players are talking about 9 billion right now? We spent, what, a trillion on the wars? Since when do we have no money? This is shocking to me. I need to check my bank account…I think I do have some in there.”
Ex-GOP, the Koch brothers do not have to give their money to the American government. And they should not; they would be irresponsible to do so. The American government would only waste it and demand more.
Neither does any NFL player have to give his money. The money is his, not yours or the government’s. You may give your money if you wish, but I think you would be foolish to do so.
And frankly, your donation wouldn’t help. With President Obama at the helm, the American ship requires not billions but trillions of dollars to keep it afloat. You’re mostly talking about the wrong order of magnitude.
On March 11, Allahpundit at Hot Air answered the question, “Why can’t we balance the budget by confiscating super-rich people’s money?”
Answer: Because, contrary to what certain class-warrior millionaires would have you believe, not only is America broke, we’re so broke that expropriating the personal wealth of the entire Forbes 400 wouldn’t get us out of the hole this year. Although, in light of fantastically depressing polls like this [link], I’m not sure if Moore is outright dissembling or merely confused about the extent of the problem. In a country where more people think large savings are to be had by cutting foreign aid than by reducing Medicare benefits, is it really surprising that this tool thinks Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and a few hundred other people could singlehandedly cure our broke-ness?
Jon,
To be fair, most NFL players are being about as responsible with their financial assets right now as the US Gov’t would be ;)
Gerard, you are always so refreshingly articulate. But your wit is as lost on Ex as my humor is lost on the family cat.
The “urinal pose” isn’t even what gets my dander up, instead its this: When Hussein spoke at Catholic institutions he was adamant about covering up the cross. When he speaks for his favorite campaign financier, he proudly stands, head held high, in front of a backdrop littered with the Planned Parenthood logo.
Birthers? Really, Ex, take off the tinfoil hat. Plenty of people who were NOT born here do have a love and admiration for our country. Hussein is not one of them.
from the blog of “6 Foot 2 In High Heel Shoes”:
Fiscal conservatives often don’t understand that easy credit and irresponsible debt burdens are not just accounting issues, said Steyn, “There’s nothing virtuous about caring, compassionate progressives demonstrating how caring and compassionate they are by spending money yet to be earned by generations yet to be born.” It’s a moral issue revolving around the relationship of trust and responsibility.
Steyn notes that the effect of shoveling money at people without burdening them with responsibility for their actions yields a culture devoid of self-reliance and liberty. He insisted that the issues of fiscal conservatism and morality cannot be separated, “Entire new categories of crime have arisen in the wake of familial collapse. Millions and millions of American children are raised in transient households and moral vacuums that make just not social mobility, but even elemental character formation all but impossible.”
I am a public school employee and I support Governor Walker 100%. The system is broken and desperately needed some fresh air.
I have mixed feelings about Walker, but the public school system does need reform. It seems that most big cities with strong teachers unions have failing school systems. Washington, Philly, Chicago — can anyone think of an exception? Even here, many public school teachers send their children to Catholic or private school. What kind of message does this give out?
“They realize that in this sinful world all human authority requires limits or it becomes totalitarian.”
Limits, of course, delineated entirely by your ideological cohorts. For all the hay made by social conservatives over any and every poll that can be interpreted in a certain way to show increasing or majority support for their political goals, comments such as yours reveal this populism to be largely fraudulent. People who see themselves as being on a mission from God to enforce His policy preferences with the power of civil government do not have much use for democratic consent. This is why I like the term “American Taliban” to describe certain sectors of the evangelical movement that would be disposed to saying things like “I don’t believe in democracy so much as I do in the notion of a republic”. Islamic extremists use bombs and other methods of violence to bring about their religious utopia, but Christian extremists, socialized in a western culture where using violence to achieve one’s (domestic) political goals tends to be frowned upon, would instead prefer to co-opt the enforcement power of the federal government, crank it to 11, and use an all-encompassing police state to achieve their ends. The core motivation, however, is the same across both groups, and an equal threat to ideological and political pluralism. Anyone dishonest enough to claim that America’s political heritage is republic and not democratic (it is, of course, in reality, both) has no use for either and instead desires some form of theocratic authoritarianism. Note well that most of the world’s autocratic regimes define themselves as “republics”: the People’s Republic of China, the Islamic Republic of Iran, etc.
Joan: Limits, of course, delineated entirely by your ideological cohorts.
Jon: No. In the U.S. the limits prescribed by the Constitution would do very well.
Joan: comments such as yours reveal this populism to be largely fraudulent
Jon: Huh? I’m certainly a Christian before I’m anything else. Whatever.
Joan: People who see themselves as being on a mission from God to enforce His policy preferences with the power of civil government do not have much use for democratic consent.
Jon: I’m a Christian and have no hope of perfect heaven on earth until the Christ returns. His kingdom is not of this world. If it were, His soldiers would be physically fighting. In fact, the Bible is His sword. This situation does not mean that I am not supposed to be salt and light in this world.
Joan: Christian extremists, socialized in a western culture where using violence to achieve one’s (domestic) political goals tends to be frowned upon, would instead prefer to co-opt the enforcement power of the federal government, crank it to 11, and use an all-encompassing police state to achieve their ends.
Jon: You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. You would have the tail wag the dog. The Western right to freedom of speech is essentially a Christian principle. The police state is a secular humanist tactic.
Joan: Anyone dishonest enough to claim that America’s political heritage is republic and not democratic (it is, of course, in reality, both)…
Jon: I might be mistaken. I had thought that the U.S. was set up mostly as a republic but has degraded more or less into the mob rule of democracy.
Joan: most of the world’s autocratic regimes define themselves as “republics”
Jon: but are they? President Obama has also claimed to be a Christian, I think.
“You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. You would have the tail wag the dog. The Western right to freedom of speech is essentially a Christian principle. The police state is a secular humanist tactic.”
Total nonsense. There is no aspect of Christian theology, taken in its raw form, that hints at freedom of speech whatsoever. There is not a single Christian culture prior to the secular Enlightenment that had any sort of meaningful protections of speech. And last I checked, it wasn’t secular humanists responsible for perpetrating the various Inquisitions undertaken by the Catholic Church.
“I might be mistaken. I had thought that the U.S. was set up mostly as a republic but has degraded more or less into the mob rule of democracy.”
You’re most certainly mistaken. The United States is, and always has been, a democratic republic, speaking literally. Of course, it’s redundant to even refer to it as a “republic” because there are no modern examples of a pure democracy anyway–every functional democratic government is representative in nature. The US is best described as a constitutional democracy.
As for how our political system has been “degraded” into “mob rule”, you’re going to have to be more specific. Was it giving women and blacks the right to vote that you have a problem with?
“but are they? President Obama has also claimed to be a Christian, I think.”
No, they’re not. That’s why I said that the regimes define themselves as “republics” rather than simply calling them “republics”. They are, of course, not republican in any way. They simply use the term “republic” as cover for their autocratic nature, which is the common ground shared by authoritarian governments and would-be authoritarians who find democracy distasteful but have an idealized, unrealistic and entirely novel concept of what republics are.
?
PROMISES, PROMISES: Little transparency progress
Associated Press
?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110314/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_sunshine_week_foia_2
?
WASHINGTON – Two years into its pledge to improve government transparency, the Obama administration took action on fewer requests for federal records from citizens, journalists, companies and others last year even as significantly more people asked for information. The administration disclosed at least some of what people wanted at about the same rate as the previous year.
The Obama administration censored 194 pages of internal e-mails about its Open Government Directive that the AP requested more than one year ago. The December 2009 directive requires every agency to take immediate, specific steps to open their operations up to the public. But the White House Office of Management and Budget blacked-out entire pages of some e-mails between federal employees discussing how to apply the new openness rules, and it blacked-out one e-mail discussing how to respond to AP’s request for information about the transparency directive.
The OMB invoked the “deliberative process” exemption — the one that Obama said to use more sparingly — at least 192 separate times in turning over the censored e-mails to the AP. Some blacked-out sections involved officials discussing changes the White House wanted and sections of the openness rules that were never made official.
==================================================================================================================================
?
Obama Approval Index History
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
[The numbers speak for themselves.]
Ninek,
Thanks for your kind words. I had to chuckle at Ex-GOP’s pea-shooter assault. I expect as much from B.O. supporters.
“There is no aspect of Christian theology, taken in its raw form, that hints at freedom of speech whatsoever.”
Again, Joan, you don’t know what you’re talking about. I tried to point out that aspect to you. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. He said so Himself (John 18:36), and there are many other verses to go to for your “raw form,” the spiritual nature of the kingdom of heaven. You should know that I’m a Protestant, not a Roman Catholic. I believe in one catholic church but not the Roman Catholic Church.
“Was it giving women and blacks the right to vote that you have a problem with?”
Yes, that’s one problem. Not even all white men had the right to vote originally but only those who owned land. There were good reasons for this set-up: only those who had an interest in ruling well could be counted to do so. They were also the educated ones who would not as easily be deceived by the easy promises and placebos of a populist. It was not a perfect system, obviously, but it was a better system than the one we have today, I think.
Ninek/Gerard –
Don’t knock each other out with your high fives for such strong, intellectual critique of an American President. While most of us are concerned about insurance rates, tax rates, and educational systems, your concerns boil down to how a person stands, or if they cover a podium during a speech. I’m quite dazzled by the assessment…really dazzled.
Jon – you have a few replies here, so I’ll knock them off one by one (and maybe over a couple of days – not sure).
Society going downhill? Sure, in areas – but I wouldn’t say overall. I mean, we’re better off than in the days of slavery. Better off than when kids were working in factories. We’re better off in a lot of ways than a lot of generations before us.
On all your issues with marriage – I just don’t see how anything suggested by congress would get rid of those things (divorce, child support laws). I think we’ve (assuming you are heterosexual) have made such a mess of marriage, I think it is tough for us to claim some exclusive “sanctity”. And if we’re rooting that sanctity in the scripture, well, let marriage reside in the church and leave the government out of it.
Jon – So you appear to be against taxes all together. Just gut the military? End social security?
Assuming you aren’t against taxes all together, what is the right level? Reagan levels? Clinton? Obama?
This whole “the government only wastes money” is a tired act. I know a lot of soldiers and former soldiers who aren’t a “waste of money”. I know teachers who “aren’t a waste of money”. I know community medical centers that aren’t a “waste of money”.
Ken –
You should read some polling insight before posting Rasmussen numbers – 538 does a pretty good breakdown of the leans of the various polls, and looks statistically at the long term trends to derive accuracy assessments.
Ex-GOP, we are well off, materially-speaking. Financially-speaking, the U.S. is broke, however, and future generations likely won’t have the same standard of living. And while our forefathers were poorer, they were stronger. They had the traits which the Bible calls fruits of the Spirit. The break-down of the family is one major reason for society’s downhill slide.
“Gay marriage” isn’t marriage. And if you think it is, you know nothing about marriage. Divorce isn’t marriage, either, but no Christian becomes a spiritual pacifist (as you seem to recommend) because he has the same faults as everyone else. Rather, he asks the Christ for forgiveness and repents.
Of course I’m not against taxes all together. The military and the police force should be the last to face spending cuts, of course. We’re talking about responsible government, here, and we’re talking about realistic plans like Paul Ryan’s. His plan is actually gentle on entitlements; at some point, they’re just going to have to be roughly axed, if the federal government continues to look forward no further than the end of its nose.
Regarding the urinal position: Actions speak louder than words.
Ex-RINO, the Democrats had control of the House and the Senate and the presidency and they didn’t even pass a budget. Why then aren’t you mad as hell at the Dumocratic fiscal irresponsibility? Instead you get mad at your governor for stopping the public unions from milking us. Explain yourself?
Well Jon – the US is broke for a reason – if you look at the last 30 years of Presidents, we have spent more than we’ve taxed (or generated revenue). This isn’t new to Obama’s time, and you are putting the blinders on if you believe it is. One of the big reasons the deficit is as extreme as it is now is because Bush whacked taxes and didn’t match the revenue drop with spending cuts. A massive financial meltdown further sacked revenues, and in the midst of a recession, the stupidest thing we could have done is cut spending.
Some of our forefathers had that – sure. Some people do now as well.
And I agree with you that the break-down of the family is one reason for society’s downhill slide. I think there are a lot of reasons for that breakdown, and I don’t think gays in society is one of them. I think I need to repeat it again – I don’t believe government should be in marriage at all – so not sure why you keep harping on a twisted view of “gay marriage” I don’t have. I’d like the government to recognize legal authority in decision making. I’d like my church to recognize a marriage.
Have you read much assessment of Paul Ryan’s plan? I think some of the concepts are find – but he has a long ways to go in regards to making the numbers work. Furthermore, I’ve seen some assessments that really seem to me he’s engaging in class warfare – simply shifting a lot of extra tax burden on the middle and lower class, while cutting taxes for the rich. Not a fan of that.
Also, I think it’s pretty soft to talk about big cuts that will hit people in a few generations. We need to start revamping the system now.
Truth – what are you talking about? In reference to what post?
House/Senate/Presidency – what years are you talking about?
I don’t quite get your whole argument or where you are coming from – please explain what posts you are reading.
Thanks
Ex-GOP,
Well, I guess if you’re dazzled by Obama, you’re probably dazzled by anything. Try raising the bar, and don’t get caught carrying that pea-shooter without a license.
You list a series of substantive issues that B.O. has not only not improved, but made worse. Perhaps a little less pedantic ad hominem assessment of the bloggers here, and more time spent thinking about the things you think about, and the train wreck that is Obama might come into sharper focus for you.
Don’t worry about the urinal pose, you’re years from that level of insight.
“Again, Joan, you don’t know what you’re talking about. I tried to point out that aspect to you. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. He said so Himself (John 18:36), and there are many other verses to go to for your “raw form,” the spiritual nature of the kingdom of heaven. You should know that I’m a Protestant, not a Roman Catholic. I believe in one catholic church but not the Roman Catholic Church.”
I don’t care what denomination you belong to, this is a cop-out. “Christ’s kingdom is not of this world” is not a biblical defense of free speech, which is to say a government hands-off approach to the regulation of personal expression. If it is, then it’s also a biblical defense of a similar laissez faire approach to social issues, among, theoretically, any number of other material, earthly matters. The concept of free speech does not have any biblical or theological origins whatsoever, period. In fact, it would be entirely counter-productive, even existentially dangerous, looking at the matter from a strictly religious perspective, to subject the putative eternal truth to competition in the marketplace of ideas, particularly when the souls of easily-deceived men are at stake. Of course, we’re looking at this in a philosophical context, but that’s only half the story. Considered empirically, there is nothing in the actual history of Christianity as a major cultural and religious force to suggest that anyone prior to the secular Enlightenment shared your interpretation of biblically-supported free speech.
“Yes, that’s one problem. Not even all white men had the right to vote originally but only those who owned land. There were good reasons for this set-up: only those who had an interest in ruling well could be counted to do so.”
I’m not one to call names, but this is as open an endorsement of bigotry as I’ve seen here, unless I’m reading you wrong. And everyone has an interest in “ruling well”–of course, each person defines that differently, based on their own perceived self-interests. Participatory government only functions properly when every member of society can reasonably advocate for themselves at the policy-making level, with the ensuing conflict of ideas and wills serving as the foundation for the government’s laws and actions. Restricting political access to landed white men means that only landed white men can hope to protect and promote their own interests. It’s nothing more than a slightly liberalized feudal system.
Sorry Ex-RINO, I thought it would be obvious; after all, I can think of no other time in the history of our Republic where one party had control of the House, the Senate and the presidency and failed to pass a budget. In case you still don’t get it; I am talking about the United States of America and our current years budget that the Dimbocrats were supposed to have passed last year.
“Participatory government only functions properly when every member of society can reasonably advocate for themselves at the policy-making level, with the ensuing conflict of ideas and wills serving as the foundation for the government’s laws and actions”
Joan, does that mean you are glad Scott Walker stood up and stripped public unions of the ability to force dues from people who wanted to work for the government? I mean that is a pretty blatant abuse of individuals right to participatory government when you force dues and promote only one political party. It doesn’t get any dirtier than that really. Kickbacks and bribes for political gain and union thuggery. I mean in Wisconsin right now the Democratic Secretary of State is delaying publishing the new law for 10 days while unions lean on local towns for contract extensions to line teachers pockets with the continued free pension and health care ride. They are knowingly damaging these school district’s budgets for the coming year at the expense of kids programs and the jobs of the non-tenured teachers. It is sad to see the corruption within the public sector. I used to only see it in politicians but this is an eye-opening exercise in just how little the other public sector employees really care about the people.
“Joan, does that mean you are against public unions?”
Am I against labor organizing in order to collectively advocate for the interests of the workers, who are inherently disadvantaged in any kind of one-on-one with their employer (even if that employer is the massive government bureaucracy itself)? No, and that doesn’t follow from what I said at all, but why let an opportunity, no matter how inappropriate, to take a shot at unions go to waste?
As to your slightly amended question, let me answer a question with a question and ask why public employees, who necessarily reap the benefits of having organized representation, should not shoulder their part of the financial burden of maintaining that representation? What would you propose as an equitable alternative for people who don’t want to pay for the untold benefits that they receive as a result of unions advocating on their behalf?
Ex-GOP, I’ll freely admit that President Bush wasn’t perfect; he certainly seemed to believe in big government. However, whether or not it was right or wrong, the tax-cutting strategy was an attempt by Republicans to force Democrats to deal with reality; the Republicans have always been more concerned with fiscal responsibility than the Democrats have. And if I’m wrong, then I’ll say that conservatives have always been more concerned with fiscal responsibility than liberals. The liberals follow Keynes, who said that in the end we’re all dead.
However, you make a mountain out of a molehill and ignore the elephant in the room. (It’s not the GOP.) Obama’s recklessness dwarfs Bush’s. But when I spoke of the strength of our forefathers, I was thinking much further back than Bush. Try another century. Certainly go before the sexual revolution of the 1960s.
It’s Christian for the government to recognize the fundamental institution of the family. The family goes all the way back to Creation (Gen. 2). The state is a necessary result of the Fall (Gen. 4; Gen. 9; Gen. 11). Remember, the civil government is essentially force (Rom. 13), but it is also God’s minister. It is supposed to uphold His standards, and His standards are always meant for our good as well as His glory. I do not mean that the civil government should attempt to judge spiritual matters, but in things that concern the stability of the state–in law and order–it has jurisdiction and responsibility.
If by engaging in class warfare, you mean attacking entitlements, then you’re right. I’m in favour of it. Nobody is entitled to another person’s services, except with some legitimate authority, whether as a spouse, parent, employer–or civil ruler. Communism is not Christian.
Joan said, “‘Christ’s kingdom is not of this world’ is not a biblical defense of free speech, which is to say a government hands-off approach to the regulation of personal expression.”
First change the words “personal expression” to “speech.”
The Christ was saying that His kingdom was spiritual. Spiritual battles get fought by spiritual means. In fact, another name for the Christ is the Word. So while the Church has jurisdiction over spiritual matters (speech), the civil government deals only with actions (there are a few exceptions, e.g. slander or treasonous speech). The Christ was speaking at the time to Pontius Pilate, a ruler in the civil realm. The charge against Him was that He claimed to be king (treason).
And rather than going to the secular Enlightenment, you should go to the Protestant Reformation. Actions speak louder than words. People then died for what they believed. The same was true in the days of the Roman emperors who demanded the worship of their subjects (going outside their jurisdiction and demanding what belongs only to God). The Christians refused and died in the coliseums. As the Christ had said, “They can kill the body, but they cannot kill the soul.” The Pilgrims left England to find a land where they would not be persecuted for their beliefs.
Joan also said, “Everyone has an interest in ‘ruling well’–of course, each person defines that differently, based on their own perceived self-interests.”
Exactly, every person defines that differently. So when the Roman republic degraded into populism and tyranny, they got the bread dole. Same thing today. The state of California is going out of business because too many people work for the government, and everybody votes for freebies. Maybe Wisconsin had the same problem, too, but at least Walker’s done something to halt the decline (for now).
“Participatory government only functions properly when every member of society can reasonably advocate for themselves at the policy-making level,”
Joan,
It disenfranchises people at the policy-making level when government employees bribe loyalty from a political party who rewards them with contracts that are way sweeter then the general public gets.
Correction in my 12:47am post:
“I used to only see it in politicians but this is an eye-opening exercise in just how SOME of the public sector employee union’s are able to milk the system by funding Democratic political campaigns.”
from Tom O’Gorman of the Iona Blog on March 3:
Former editor of the Sunday Telegraph, Dominic Lawson, in a review in the Sunday Times of Niall Ferguson’s new book, ‘Civilisation: The West and the Rest’, carries a quote from a member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in which he tries to account for the success of the West, to date.
He said: “One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world.
“We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had.
“Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system.
“But in the past twenty years, we have realised that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West is so powerful.
“The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.”
Note the source. It isn’t from a religious leader, or some religious think-tank. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences is an instrument of the Chinese Communist government which spends a not inconsiderable amount of time and money persecuting Christians and is officially atheistic.
Gerard –
“Don’t worry about the urinal pose, you’re years from that level of insight.”
Gerard, a Monday…
May I pray that I don’t get any older then. The only other urinal conversations lately I’ve heard is from rude kids on the street. They too, had nothing worth listening too, so I walked quickly by them.
Ex Gop Voter and Gerard
It might help if you’ll find a few things about the other that you actually admire.
I’ll get you started.
Dr.Nadal helps me to be a better pro-life advocate because his posts are sometimes educational.
Ex Gop Voter brings a very pragmatic view that is different from Dr.Nadal’s but one that’s valid because he speaks from his own life experience.
Hope this helps. Have a blessed week.
This is for Jill and Ashley
Jill does an awesome job of being a pro-life advocate, her consistency and dedication bring healing to the soul.
Ashley will debate you on just about anything and after filtering your words makes up her own mind. Ashley has a strong sense of self.
Have a blessed week.
Sorry Ex-RINO, I thought it would be obvious; after all, I can think of no other time in the history of our Republic where one party had control of the House, the Senate and the presidency and failed to pass a budget. In case you still don’t get it; I am talking about the United States of America and our current years budget that the Dimbocrats were supposed to have passed last year. Now let me ask again.
the Democrats had control of the House and the Senate and the presidency and they didn’t even pass a budget. Why then aren’t you mad as hell at the Dumocratic fiscal irresponsibility? Instead you get mad at your governor for stopping the public unions from milking us. Explain yourself?
Ex-RINO said:
” The only other urinal conversations lately I’ve heard is from rude kids on the street.”
You must avoid discussing Democratic politics then.
Hi Myrtle Miller,
May I say that you remind me a great deal of the Melanie Wilkes character in “Gone With the Wind”, one of my all time favorite movies. Always kind and gracious and never an unkind word, like you. One of my favorite scenes was when she extended a hand in gratitude and kindness to the town strumpet, Belle Watlin, who ran the local cathouse, even though the town would certainly have shunned and shamed Melanie for doing so.
This was of no concern to Melanie who felt kindness and gratitude came before all else.
I picture this as something you would do Myrtle and I hope you take this as the compliment it is meant to be.
mary
Thank you. My first comment is lost. I think it’s the Holy Spirit that helps me to see the good in people. I just have trouble seeing it in me. Have a blessed rest of the week.
Truth – my confusion was in that you were mixing federal level budgets and state level – which are pretty different from each other. Thanks for the clarification though – never like answering questions if I don’t know the question…
You are sort of correct on the budget issue – the GOP led congress didn’t pass a final resolution a few times in the last 15 years or so – I could get the dates if you want them.
Before I answer the second part – a quick reminder that in this post, I don’t think I’ve ever displayed being “mad as hell” about Walker – I simply stated that I think it will play a big part in closing the enthusiasm gap which existed in the last election. You questioned that – I offered several polls – you still questioned it and seemed to imply that you had better information – but never presented it.
Regardless – I was fine, as were the unions, in regards to the budgetary aspect of having the unions pay a portion of their pension and healthcare. I do hope that changes are made to the larger bill – I think the concept of “shared sacrifice” is lost on Walker, as just about all the cuts (all of them?) are on the middle and lower class. And I’ve lived in a state with LGA cuts – the result is nasty and not fun (hoping Wisconsin works differently – not sure).
I don’t like the process that happened, and I will continue to maintain the statement that I believe this will help the dems in this state in the 2012 elections.
Jon –
Thanks for the further thought. I’d agree that the Republicans are more fiscally conservative…but if you look at the numbers, the GOP is as big a friend of national debt as the Dems are.
So in regards to entitlements, do you favor massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare right now?
“I don’t think I’ve ever displayed being “mad as hell” about Walker”
I never said you did say that. I asked you why you are not mad as hell at the Democrats who were in charge of the house and the senate and the presidency and they did not even pass a budget for this year. Instead they chose to put stimulus level spending on cruise control and deem themselves funded. And I think you are mistaken if you think there was a time in the history of our Republic where that kind of incompetence has ever occurred before. I don’t think the Republicans have even had control of the house and the senate and the presidency in the past 15 years so your assertion that they have showed this kind of fiscal irresponsibility is simply not true.
Truth –
Found it – the House failed to pass final resolutions in 98, 04 and 06 (all GOP led congress)
Officially, they said they were waiting for the debt commission findings, which came out in December. Unofficially, no politician I’m sure wanted to put a stake in the ground on their position before the elections (like Walker not actually running on the union busting platform). Federal funding is much different than state funding though because of the ability to run a deficit. I don’t think it is anything to get real upset about quite frankly.
I don’t think it is anything to get real upset about quite frankly.
Ex-RINO,
That is exactly the problem. In 2010 the Democrats had not just control of the congress, but they had simultaneous control of the congress, the senate and the presidency and the Democratic leadership never even proposed a budget. The year 2010 is the first time in the history of our Republic that a single party controlled the house, the senate and the presidency and they failed to pass the following year’s budget (in this case 2011) prior to the start of said budget year. Most fiscally responsible people do get upset that our government deems itself funded without actually ever passing a budget. ESPECIALLY when there was single party control of the government at the time when the budget was supposed to be proposed and passed.
Ex-GOP claims that “if you look at the numbers, the GOP is as big a friend of national debt as the Dems are.” I don’t have the numbers, nor am I necessarily prepared to understand them, so I won’t say much more at this point than to say that I’ve heard that with regards to debt the Democrats are worse too. Anyway, being less fiscally responsible would in itself make one a bigger friend of national debt.
Ex-GOP asked, “So in regards to entitlements, do you favor massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare right now?” How about just beginning to TALK about ways to cut them? However you want to disagree with Paul Ryan’s approach, you’ve got to credit the guy for facing the problem head-on. Still, Ex-GOP, it’s IMMORAL to continue spending money we don’t have, especially when the trend will only get worse (and drastically so). Shifting the pain to future generations will only make their day of reckoning more horrible. It’s in line with the selfish Keynesian thinking that in the long run we’re all dead.
“The Damage Obama Has Done” by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann on Feb. 15
The mainstream media does not cover the full extent of the damage the Obama Administration has inflicted on this country. Even FoxNews often doesn’t have the time to go into sufficient depth to explain what is happening.
From our friend Ruth S. King comes a chart which all of us should read and absorb, sobering though it may be: [too hard to reproduce here]
Just take this last item: In the last two years we have accumulated national debt at a rate more than 27 times as fast as during the rest of our entire nation’s history. Over 27 times as fast! Metaphorically, speaking, if you are driving in the right lane doing 65 MPH and a car rockets past you in the left lane 27 times faster . . . it would be doing 1,755 MPH!
Truth –
Nope – still not enraged. I’m sure you are happier that the GOP got to be involved anyways.
Not a big issue though – federal level different than the states because of the requirement for a balanced budget.
Jon –
Don’t you think it is a bit odd to keep lobbing grenades while then saying that you aren’t prepared to understand the numbers? Take a few moments…:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
I do given credit to Ryan and the debt commission for actual deficit reduction talk. It takes a smarter approach then the tea party path of just hacking away spending in a few programs.
Ex-GOP, I said that I wasn’t NECESSARILY prepared to understand YOUR numbers. As you know, it’s easy to lie with statistics. The fact is that I trust conservatives rather than liberals. And some of the numbers are very easy to understand. I can understand that when a government is sending out more than it takes in, something is wrong. That’s especially the case when the amount it sends out will only increase, and that not a little. That’s even more the case when the government has been stealing from Peter to pay Paul. I remember a businessman years ago complaining that the federal government had known about the problem for years, but nobody dared to talk about it.
I agree that more is needed than just hacking away spending in a few programs. Entitlements need to be dealt with. And Obamacare needs to be repealed.
All I’m saying is, if you go by your rhetoric, at least in the past 30 or so years – Bill Clinton should be your favorite President of all time, and Reagan would be towards the bottom of the list.
Here’s the issue. Both parties spend a ton. The Democrats just tax higher as they spend, so the revenue is typically higher, thus, things balance out better. The Republicans cut taxes, but don’t balance it with spending restraint – so the end result is big deficits.
If you really want to get rid of the deficit (at least on a yearly basis), we could have just let all of the Bush tax cuts expire – in 2009, the US took in pretty close to the same amount of revenue as was taken in in 2000. Unfortunately, between then we launched two wars, passed the Medicare huge expansion, and expanded other federal spending. I mean, take a look at the basic receipts and outlays over the years and tell me which party is more responsible?
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
Ex-GOP, I’m suspicious. I think you’re misleading.
You say that “both parties spend a ton.” Certainly President Bush was bad (though he also had to contend with a Democrat Congress in his second term, I think). However, you seemed to acknowledge that the Republicans generally exercise more fiscal restraint. Who is always asking for more programs, more entitlements? The Democrats, of course! What is Obamacare, after all? the idea that there is a (political) right to health care.
Secondly, as you yourself have acknowledged, budgets indicate priorities. What do the Republicans want to spend money on? Core government responsibilities, such as defense. What do the Democrats want to do? They waste money on ever bigger government, government unions, trial lawyers, and welfare. (I believe Clinton’s reform of the last was actually an initiative of the Republican Congress at the time.) And if you want to know our future under Democrat control, just look at Europe: a struggling economy, no real defense, social disintegration (multiculturalism, entitlement mentality), and loss of freedom.
You say that the “revenue is typically higher” when the Democrats tax higher. Really? I don’t think so, not in the long run. Businesses leave and go to some place where the government doesn’t plunder them. That’s happened in places like New Jersey and California, and I think I’ve read that it’s also happening in Germany. As Mark Steyn says, these businessmen “vote with their feet.” They leave.
The table you referred to at the end of your comment doesn’t say which party was “responsible”–nor does it define what is meant by “responsible.” It seems to me that in the end the Republicans do a better job of providing financial “checks” (limits, not cheques) and budget “balances” (though I admit their budgeting imbalance strategy, only tax cuts, hasn’t worked to make the Democrats more responsible. It’s only helped the Republican public image. Some pragmatic people figure that the only way to help their country in the long run is to stay in power. Then a top priority is public opinion. Party over country. But that’s a fault of democracy, mob rule, which leads to dictatorship.)
Jon – not misleading in the bit. Let’s iron out a couple of definitions here of at least how I see it.
GOP shows more fiscal restraint in that, I believe if both parties introduced a budget bill, the GOP would have lower spending.
I think the Dems shows more fiscal responsibility in that, I believe if both parties put out tax and spending plans, the Dems do a better job of actually balancing a budget.
Again, I’m going by the numbers. You say too much taxation and people will flee…sure, maybe they will. I’ve read articles that said if the GOP gets their budget cuts (that the house is pushing for) it will send us into another big recession as we’d be axing hundreds of thousands of jobs in a fragile recovery. Looking at the last 30 years or so, based on that criteria as I understand it – what you see as important (economically), Clinton should, hands down, be your favorite. Without question.
Now, let me make sure this is clear. Neither party is good at finances. We have a deficit of this size because neither party can control a budget. If one was great, and one was awful – we’d have a real small debt because they would meet in the middle and the deficits would be controllable. It is clear that both parties need a massive scolding of the last 30 years of governing.
Your last paragraph is important as well – Presidents inherit economies and spending that can’t be turned on a dime overnight – we saw that when both Reagan and Obama came in.
Jon – one other question, and I wanted to put it in a separate post because I think it is important.
Several times you’ve said “health care is not a right”.
What do you mean by that?
A couple clarifying questions to help:
– If an uninsured person gets in a massive auto accident, should they get emergency care? If so, who pays for it?
– If an uninsured person in that massive auto accident needs ongoing care, should they get it? Who pays for it?
– If a kid in a family has no insurance, and the get gets the flu, should they get access to a clinic? If so, who pays for it?
– If that kid does not get care and gets pneumonia, should that kid get emergency care, and if so, who pays for it?
Ex-GOP, you think that “if both parties put out tax and spending plans, the Dems do a better job of actually balancing a budget.” That’s only true if you accept their numbers, isn’t it? They fantasize! Consider Obamacare: the CBO had to work with the scenarios the Democrats submitted, unrealistic though they were. Recently, however, the Democrats weren’t even able to come up with a budget, let alone balance it!
You also said that if “one [party] was great, and one was awful – we’d have a real small debt because they would meet in the middle .” Are you sure? It’s much easier to destroy than to build. I agree with your larger claim that both parties are bad. However, I would state the situation as Mark Steyn recently did: the Democrats are rocketing over the financial cliff whereas the Republicans are content to go over at 50 mph.
Regarding the car accident, Ex-GOP, I’d have to know more. In Canada car insurance pays for emergency and long-term care as far as I know. Car insurance is different than health insurance, and it’s certainly very expensive.
Regarding the sick child, he should ask his parents for help. If they are godly they will also teach him to pray. Thankfully children usually recover from the flu, and in part they do so because of the common sense and resourceful love of their parents. (Certainly also God hears and answers His children.) They also do so because of the personal giving of others, e.g. the family doctor. One of my brothers certainly did: he frequently got the flu as a child but my mother rarely took him to the clinic.
Some people speak of the emergency care as “an ounce of prevention.” (Pneumonia would require more costly care.) However, anything provided “free of charge” is really passed on by one tax-payer (or non-tax-payer) to the other tax-payers. He’s more likely then to visit the doctor for even a common cold, I would think. Whereas formerly the doctor might have quickly dispatched a nuisance patient with a quick piece of advice (and absorbed the cost of the visit himself, because of his personal relationship with the patient), now he dutifully fills out the paperwork, the civil government overseeing it dutifully increases it tenfold, and the tax-payer dutifully pays for everything (because he is forced to. He doesn’t have a right to make his own health care decisions. Canadians have this kind of “health care” system, and the right name for it is “government expansion strategy.”)
Anyway, nobody has a right to health care. The civil government has very little, if any, responsiblity in the area of health care. The church can and maybe should help. Christians acknowledge that they become sick and die because their father Adam was a sinner and because they are sinners. However, God’s curse on them is removed by the second Adam. Now they will live forever!
By the way, I’m not living in Canada, and I haven’t had health insurance for a number of years already. One year ago my mother-in-law died from cancer. My wife’s family couldn’t afford expensive treatment (and didn’t do much until the advanced stages). That was a tragedy, and I think everybody should get health insurance if they can. Still, there’s no right to health insurance. Before God, the sinner only has a right to death.
I don’t think I’ll be adding anything more to this thread, ex-GOP. Thanks for the discussion. In terms of budgeting time, I’m already robbing Peter to pay Paul!
Jon – You say “that’s only true if you accept the numbers” – again, I’m looking at the historical numbers. Take a look at the last 30 years…
Jon – I think it is good that you are bowing out of this conversation – i believe your last rambling was that, if somebody desperately needed care because of an accident or pneumonia, they should pray or go to a church and ask for money. Yes, I hope they pray as well. But to deny people life-saving coverage? Not much of a “pro-life” position there buddy.
Ex-GOP, why do you make baseless accusations? You may not rob Peter to pay Paul. Robin Hood was not Christian. You know that. And if you don’t want to deny people life-saving coverage, then put YOUR money where your mouth is! As for me, I do my best to love my children and my general neighbour. However, I don’t have much money.
As for numbers, consider “The two-trillion-dollar mistake, Take 2.” Ed Morrissey of Hot Air wrote the following on March 19.
Christine Romer and Peter Orszaq have been gone for months, but in some ways it’s as if they never left … especially in math. For the second time in eighteen months, the Obama administration has been caught making a $2-trillion error in its deficit projections, this time attached to its latest budget proposal. The CBO yesterday released a report showing that the White House far overstated economic growth and blew the whistle yet again on ObamaCare projections:
The administration’s nominee for deputy director of its budget office, Heather Higginbottom, tried defending the White House budget even with these projections and ended up admitting that the White House notion that their budget “stabilizes” deficits was false after a classic cross-examination from Senator Jeff Sessions. If she has to return to the Senate to defend the budget again, Jacob Lew will probably need to look for a new deputy.
The findings in this puncture two myths perpetrated by Barack Obama. First, ObamaCare is not “deficit neutral” in the first ten years, let alone constitutes a savings over the decade. That was true even before the “doctor fix,” but the suspension of reductions in payments that came later sends ObamaCare well into red ink. Next, the White House is inflating future revenue projections in order to protect its plans for expanded federal spending. The difference in this case comes to $400 billion in year 10 of the projections, a difference that almost equals the worst total budget deficit under George W. Bush.
The first $2 trillion math error in the summer of 2009 was extraordinary enough. No administration in my recollection has ever had to issue a $2 trillion correction to its fiscal projections, and that should have resulted in resignations at the time from Obama’s economic team. A second such “error” in less than two years either indicates extraordinary incompetence, or something more deliberate in action at the White House.
Rovin has more thoughts on Obama’s “fuzzy math” in our Green Room.
So wait, now you are basically arguing that we shouldn’t try to save people because it might cost us too much money?
If you’re okay with people dying because of finances, then lets just get euthanasia really rolling – I mean, you seem to be most concerned about money (above the lives of people).
On the article you posted from – the bulk of the difference is that Obama has a rosier economic projection than the CBO, and therefore predicts higher tax revenues – it is from the MSNBC article that hot air links to.
Big first step will come in a couple of years when the Bush taxes expire.
Get real, Ex-GOP! Waking you up to reality–to a fallen world and a sovereign, good God–will be a monumental accomplishment.
No, I’m not saying that financial cost should prevent me personally from trying to save people (though that might be true). If you read any of my previous comments you would know that. Much of what I’ve written in the past year on this site, especially to you, has already dealt with this straw man that liberals frequently raise. As you should know by now, conservatives are much more generous than liberals are.
I’m also not saying that churches and community service clubs shouldn’t try to save people from dying. They should–if they can–and if they can remain true to their mission. In the case of a true church, the mission is to go into all the world, teaching people to observe all that Christ commanded the church (Matt. 1:28). As the Christ said (Matt. 5:30), saving the soul is more important than saving the body. And if a church or group doesn’t have enough money–well–perhaps they CAN’T. As the Christ said (Matt. 26:11), the poor will always be with us.
The American government CAN’T and SHOULDN’T provide health care. Read carefully because now we’re back on topic. The American government CAN’T provide health care because it doesn’t have the funds. The United States owes money, and will only owe more money in the future. The children, whom you implied on March 28 at 5:26 p.m. are being hurt by lack of health care, are actually the ones you want to charge for their grandparents’ costly health care. The American government SHOULDN’T provide health care because health care is not its responsibility. Civil government is force, and the sword (Rom. 13) wasn’t meant to dispense compassion, at least not in a positive sense. If the civil government talks about providing health care, what’s really at root is a thoroughly pagan philosophy of human goodness and a thoroughly pragmatic (and Democrat) strategy to big government.
Also, parents should take care of their children. What a radical notion! Deadbeat dads, care for your kids. Women, don’t spread your legs except to your own husband. Planned parenthood is Biblically a man and a woman getting married before engaging in sex. The family is the foundation to society, and the state is only doing its job when it requires marriage licenses. Obviously, two homosexuals and a dog cannot marry (with or without another homosexual or the dog).
Yes, Obama’s economic projection is rosier than the CBO’s. What that means in practical terms is that the United States will be mired in unprecedented debt and future generations of Americans will have a lower “standard of living.” However, you seem to prefer the new method of not making any budget at all. Why let lack of money get in the way of anything, huh?
I guess I’m confused then – I’ll ask for a second time then:
– Individual comes to the hospital in dire need of care – without it, they will die. The care will cost a couple hundred thousand dollars. They have no church they go to…they have no insurance.
What do you do with that person?
What do I do with that person, or what does the hospital do with him? Those are two very different questions. I may not be able to do anything physically for that person; however, as he is still dead in his sins, I may be able to find an opening to present the gospel of Jesus Christ to him. Of course, then his physical death will merely be a crossing of the Jordan River and an entrance into Paradise.
Where is his family? Are they not trying to help him? Or are they, like mine, simply unable? My mother-in-law died because the cancer had already entered the bones, but even if it had been caught early enough, the family likely would not have had sufficient money for treatment. Such deaths are quite common in the country where I live. My first cousin once removed, an American, got a blocked artery while visiting here a month ago. He didn’t have nitroglycerin and almost died while being taken to the hospital. Here’s a piece from his section about payment:
“I look once more at my fellow patients. I had been able to get the several thousand dollars necessary with a few clicks on my netbook. But these? How many of them have the resources? The doc had said they add ‘a little bit’ because I’m a foreigner. I suspect it’s more than a little, but still…. They need to pay in full first, Marlene persists? Well, if they have 20% we do it, says the doc. I try to wrap my mind around the pristine million dollar machine in the next room, the docs in their scrubs, and the bare feet and dark faces that look back with a mix of anxiety and hope. I will not forget.”
My goodness…is this Jon or Bill Clinton?
Should a hospital pay for somebody near death that has no other means – and should the hospital then raise rates on other people, or should the taxpayers pick it up? Or do you believe the hospital should just let the person die?
Who controls the hospital, Ex-GOP? Hospitals were originally run by churches and missionaries, and some still are, at least in some parts of the world. In these, it is quite possible, even probable, that some of the staff donate their own time to help people unable to pay. Maybe some hospitals are business enterprises (I don’t know), but even if they want to make money, the staff may be willing to donate time. And when they raise rates, tax-payers don’t pay; users do. When I didn’t have health insurance in Canada (except the very limited coverage of the provincial government plan), my dentist charged me a lower rate for work on my teeth. Municipal hospitals would be run by the municipal government.
Certainly local government is better than centralized government, which always becomes moribund in paperwork and passing the buck. The most local government of all would be parents, wouldn’t it? They govern the family. Actually, conservatives say that government begins with self-control. It’s a principle found in many of the Proverbs, e.g. 16:32, “He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, And he who rules his spirit, than he who captures a city.”
Do I believe the hospital should let a person die? What a strange question! What is their responsibility to him? Actually, I believe that on this site we are trying to persuade hospitals not to actively kill a person. In fact, rather than talk about PASSIVELY LETTING a person die, I believe we are actually trying to pressure civil government to forbid hospitals from ACTIVELY KILLING millions of people. Or do you believe that the civil government should just let hospitals actively kill people? Believe it or not, that’s the present situation, not just in the U.S. but in much of the world. But what can you expect with a president like President Obama?
“At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” Obama responded with a now-famous comment that was remarkable only in its evasiveness. He said, “Well, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”