President Obama's Speech to our School Children

I am not sure what all of the hubbub is about the President's speech to our nation's school children. I listened to it with the children in a class that I was a substitute for. I also read the speech. I have to say that the speech was one of the best and most encouraging-along with putting responsibility where it belongs-that I have heard in a long time. I am glad that we seem to be past the rhetoric that said we need to not make children feel bad by giving them bad grades for bad work. (Are you kidding me??) Americans need what they were taught a long time ago--times like when this country was founded. They need to know that there is such a thing as morals and that having morals is what makes this country a great country and a better place to be. Without morals, our country would sink to a lower place than it ever knew. The Founding Fathers knew that morals were something, along with religion, that would be the foundation that kept this country free. They said so in their writings. Part of being a moral people is being responsible for yourself. And I mean responsible in a positive way. This country is still around because of the great people in it who are responsible, moral, freedom-loving people. I am one of them. I hope you are too.

The Power of Debt

I am reading a book about Andrew Jackson. It is called American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House. The author is John Meacham. Although it may be obvious, I am quite concerned about the tremendous debt that we are in as a nation. We are in debt to China, apparently. We are also in debt to other nations. This is not only a worry because we may never pay it off, but because it could render us to a critical position if our creditors ever decided to call all of our debts due. This was brought to my mind by a small part that I read in this book. This is how it was stated in the book:

"Related, in Jackon's mind, was the issue of the national debt (the money owed by the federal government). To him debt was dangerous, for debt put power in the hands of creditors--and if power was in the hands of creditors, it could not be in the hands of the people, where Jackson believed it belonged."

I concur. As I mentioned briefly before, one of the ideals that was important to the founding fathers was balancing the need for something with our ability to pay for it. Seeing our indebtedness and the height that it will be raised to if we fund a national health care program makes me tremble. The debt will never be paid in our lifetime and that is a lousy legacy to leave to our children. Don't you agree?

What happened to Prudence and Transparency?

Well, it has happened again. Congress is using stimulus money to fund pet projects. Today an article by the Associated Press pointed to several projects that had been a much lower priority on the list of border upgrades. The process is secretive and therefore not "transparent" as Obama suggested it would be. I am tired of being treated like this by my government. This is not government of the people for the people. This is government by those who are rich enough to fund a campaign for their pet projects. Originally, the Founding Fathers had intended to have a balance in government that would limit amounts spent balanced with need. A question that needed to be answered in this equation was "Can we afford it?" Another question was "What will the program for which money will be spent do to the rights and individual freedom of the people?" (These two questions come from Leon Skousen's book The 5000 Year Leap) I see nothing like this happening. Our government can't afford to do anything with this trillion dollar budget deficit - thanks to Obama. I cannot believe that our leaders think that they can just strap the next generation of Americans with our debt because they refuse to act prudently.

France Can't Afford National Health Care

Well what do you know--France can't afford its nationalized health care! I am reading an article in today's Wall Street Journal that explains how the French cannot afford their universal health care. They are going in the hole each successive year and forecast that it will continue this way. Part of the reason that the French can't pay for their public health insurance is from the aging population and SOARING health care costs.  France recently decided to institute co-pays to try to help cover the costs. They also tried to cut services, especially where there are less efficient services. Guess what happened? Patients, doctors and nurses all complained that health care is being rationed. Does anyone remember that this is one of President Obama's pledges--to not ration health care? The Wall Street Journal article (David Gauthier-Villars) states "The French system's fragile solvency shows how tough it is to provide universal coverage while controlling costs, the professed twin goals of President Barack Obama's proposed overhaul.

"Financial pain has long dogged the French plan.  As in the U.S., demand for care is growing faster than the economy as people take better care of themselves and  new treatments become available."

I'm just saying, this universal healthcare thing is looking more desirable all the time.  

Paying for Socialized Health Care

I am very concerned about socialized health care on two different fronts.

First of all, I am concerned about paying for a socialized health care system and the ramifications of trying to pay for it. I am not at all sure that the government has the money to pay for a socialized medical system. Today, Associated Press writer Tom Raum wrote an article that stated many sources are concerned about paying for health care and they are not seeing that the numbers add up to pay for the system. The Congressional Budget Office is just one of those who are concerned that paying for this system would put us another trillion dollars in debt over the next ten years.

This concern of mine over paying for a health care plan for all Americans leads to my second concern. If this plan cannot be funded properly, will health care suffer? What will be cut out so that the administration can pay for socialized health care and say that they won?

An organization called Citizens Against Government Waste cautions that "the real goal of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid legislation is to force all Americans into a one-size-fits-all, government-run and rationed healthcare system, look no further than page 16 of the House bill. Under "Limitation On New Enrollment," the bill states: "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

In other words, once the Obama/Pelosi/Reid healthcare regime takes effect, you can keep your existing plan, but if your employer stops offering healthcare coverage or if you are privately insured and your insurer cancels your coverage, you are no longer free to buy new coverage from a private insurance company on the open market."

Is anyone aware of this small bit included in the bill? Are most Americans willing to let this happen?  I am not!  I have e-mailed my congressmen to let them know of my disapproval of the healthcare bill.  I keep hearing words like "all people are entitled to healthcare coverage."  Our founding fathers did not feel like we were "entitled" to anything like that. That is why they didn't provide for that in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Keep that in mind.

Please, we don't understand your position.

One of the things that makes me not trust President Obama are things like I just read in an AP story. Take a gander:

Associated Press Writer Andrew Taylor –
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama asked Congress on Thursday for $83.4 billion for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressing for special troop funding that he opposed two years ago when he was senator and George W. Bush was president.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, acknowledged that Obama has been critical of Bush's use of similar special legislation to pay for the wars. He said it was needed this time because the money will be required by summer, before Congress is likely to complete its normal appropriations process.

Obama was a harsh critic of the Iraq war as a presidential candidate, a stance that attracted support from the Democratic Party's liberal base and helped him secure his party's nomination. He opposed an infusion of war funding in 2007 after Bush used a veto to force Congress to remove a withdrawal timeline from the $99 billion measure.

But he supported a war funding bill last year that also included about $25 billion for domestic programs. Obama also voted for war funding in 2006, before he announced his candidacy for president.

Obama warned lawmakers not to succumb to the temptation to use the must-pass war funding bill as a vehicle for other spending.

"I want the Congress to send me a focused bill, and to do so quickly," he wrote.

Why the back-and-forth? Why the criticism of President Bush when he (Obama) is doing the same thing? Why insist on no pork spending this time? Why did he not insist on no pork in the stimulus bill? Makes one wonder if everything he said was just to get elected. I have mentioned before that I am concerned that Obama is one of those "false and designing men who would cheat us out of our liberties by artifice" (Samuel Adams). I am happy that the people of the United States are happy to finally have a black President. I just don't think this was the best choice. I think he is too inexperienced. I think he isn't sure of his positions. We need someone to run this country who is sure of his positions. Hopefully those positions are moral, conservative, ethical, fair, just, and honest.

Bonuses, anyone?

I can't BELIEVE it. First, I read in the Wall Street Journal that Merrill Lynch intended to and made the decision to pay their employees outrageous bonuses at the end of December and then lied about that decision to Congress. They usually pay bonuses in January for the previous quarter, but they paid them early. Now why do you think they did that? Because they knew they were going under and they knew that they shouldn't get any bonuses because their profits were going to be negative, in the toilet, and suck!!! GREED! Now we hear about AIG planning to pay their employees some huge, outrageous bonuses as well. And what does my evening news tell me about that? They say that the government can't do anything about it. I can't stand it. I really can't stand it. These people are EVIL! (Sometimes I just want to hit them over the head with a crow bar.)

Are We Slaves?

I would like to just start out by saying: Good job, President Obama. Closing Guantanamo Bay has resulted in many of the prisoners going back to the terrorist groups that they formerly belonged to. Way to fight the war on terror.

I would like to comment again on the government policy of handouts and welfare. The Reader's Digest once published the following story:

"In our friendly neighbor city of St. Augustine great flocks of sea gulls are starving amid plenty. Fishing is still good, but the gulls don't know how to fish. For generations they have depended on the shrimp fleet to toss them scraps from the nets. Now the fleet has moved. . . .

The shrimpers had created a Welfare State for the . . . sea gulls. The big birds never bothered to learn how to fish for themselves and they never taught their children to fish. Instead they led their little ones to the shrimp nets.

Now the sea gulls, the fine free birds that almost symbolize liberty itself, are starving to death because they gave in to the 'something for nothing' lure! They sacrificed their independence for a handout.

A lot of people are like that, too. They see nothing wrong in picking delectable scraps from the tax nets of the U.S. Government's 'shrimp fleet.' But what will happen when the Government runs out of goods? What about our children of generations to come?

Let's not be gullible gulls. We . . . must preserve our talents of self-sufficiency, our genius for creating things for ourselves, our sense of thrift and our true love of independence."

A gentleman named Marion G. Romney stated the following: "The practice of coveting and receiving unearned benefits has now become so fixed in our society that even men of wealth, possessing the means to produce more wealth, are expecting the government to guarantee them a profit. Elections often turn on what the candidates promise to do for voters from government funds. This practice, if universally accepted and implemented in any society, will make slaves of its citizens." He made this statement in 1982. I think that no truer statement could be made. The government is now guaranteeing funds to companies who should be able to make their own money. The government wants to expand the already hefty amount of handouts being given out currently. How soon before we become slaves?

Our Lives Should Not Be Dominated By Our Government

I would like to point out the quotation on the right by Patrick Henry. I am worried that our government is coming to dominate our lives and our interests. Can anyone doubt by watching what is happening with the bailout of AIG and others? What about universal health coverage? That is pretty dominating. The problem with domination? This is what the Communists had in mind and employed. Can anyone think this a right way to govern or to be governed? Our Founding Fathers didn't think so either. The reason given for this and many other dominating programs is that it helps the poor and "mainstreet America." Now I would like to insert another quote from the right:

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
~Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766

I believe in what Ben Franklin had to say here. And the truth is that his assertion has been proved.

Another bother to me: earmarks. Yes I know, I just barely addressed those. However, they just keep coming. As I was listening to the news this morning, it was reported that the Congress has passed an interim spending bill. Guess what is included? ... Earmarks! Of course. I think that somehow the public should be allowed a period of time to review any earmarks added to a bill before it can be signed into law. I know that there are groups out there who monitor this sort of thing, but I don't think the job is getting done. It must not be because we still have earmarks.

The Stimulus Bill/Spending Package

At the outset, I would like to point out that during the debates and before the election, President Obama stated that he would like "a $175 billion plan with tax-rebate checks for consumers as well as spending on school repairs, roads and bridges, aid to states, and tax credits for job creation.” Now this "plan" has become a huge spending extravaganza--we are not getting tax-rebate checks, tax credits are going down, and money is being spent on a whole bunch of things that don't have anything to do with getting the economy going or job creation. I have been waiting a long time to write this. I get angrier every day that I hear what money is being spent on and hear the price tag go up.

I went online to read the Bill. Of course you have to wade through a lot of S_ _t to get to any substance. but I did notice a few puzzling spending proposals. One spending item was to help out places that had been flooded and get them back in to better, usable condition (presumably so stupid people can build there again). I don't see economic stimulus or job creation. (Maybe a few jobs temporarily.) Sean Hannity also noticed spending on fish hatcheries (and I looked it up). Job creation? Economic stimulus? I think NOT!! Oh, and here is Aunt Pelosi's little "earmark":
"Lawmakers and administration officials divulged Wednesday that the $789 billion economic stimulus bill being finalized behind closed doors in Congress includes $30 million for wetlands restoration that the Obama administration intends to spend in the San Francisco Bay Area to protect, among other things, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi represents the city of San Francisco and has previously championed preserving the mouse's habitat in the Bay Area." This is from S.A. Miller in the Washington Times.

Every day that goes by I grow more leary of President Obama. He seems very slick--he will slide through any lie or exaggeration. I would like to make a note of his stance on earmarks. He stated that they need to be eliminated, that "we're going to ban all earmarks." However, he has not eliminated or asked for elimination of any earmark in this bill and it is going to kill us as taxpayers. In fact, he has become quite sharp in his tone and is making very pointed remarks about who won in November. . . Charles Babington, an Associated Press writer noted: "Stopping just short of a take-it-or-leave-it stand, Obama has mocked the notion that a stimulus bill shouldn't include huge spending. He's also defended earmarks as inevitable in such a package. And he's pointedly reminded Republicans about who won the November election." The President had this to say: "So then you get the argument, 'well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill.' What do you think a stimulus is?" Every day I see more power being wielded by the President, saying, I was elected, I have the power. I am sick in my stomach over the attitude of the President and members of Congress who are claiming the right to do this because they were elected. And I am also sick in my stomach over the high price tag on this bill. It will come back to haunt us.

If anyone has any questions over what the founding fathers would have to say, they would be horrified. They never intended for the federal government to be this involved in our lives. They never intended for the federal government to spend this kind of money on things other than war. They intended for the states to govern themselves and for the federal government to smooth the way for states to interact.

Shame on Thain

What the h_ _ _ were/are you thinking?
$87,000 rug?
$25,000 pedestal table?
$68,000 credenza?
$19,000 pendant light?
$28,000 for four curtains?
$87,000 pair of guest chairs?
$18,000 George IV chair? (One recently sold at Christie's for $2210!!!)
$2,700 for six wall sconces?
$1,400 parchment waste can? (Are you serious???-thanks SNL!)
$18,282 Roman shade?
$5,852 coffee table?
$35,115 antique commode?
An article on CNBC.com listed these items and the price Thain paid for them. Then they showed comparable articles for faaaaar less than these items. John Thain (Merrill Lynch)--shame on you!!! whether or not your company was losing money, which it was!

A Word from David Horowitz

How Conservatives Should Celebrate the Inauguration
By David Horowitz FrontPageMagazine.com Tuesday, January 20, 2009
"If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer."
- Barack Obama, Victory Speech, November 4, 2008
Yesterday was Martin Luther King's birthday, which is America's only national holiday to honor an American citizen. The day before, which was Sunday, the incoming Obama administration staged an Inauguration Celebration at the Lincoln Memorial around the theme "We Are One," which was also the theme of his presidential campaign. As several of the speakers -- including the president-elect -- noted, the Lincoln Memorial was the site of Martin Luther King's historic civil rights march and his famous dream for the American future. The president-elect reiterated that dream -- that Americans would judge each other by the content of their character and not their racial or ethnic identity. Today America welcomes Barack Obama as the first black president in its 232-year history.
How should conservatives think about these events?
First we have to recognize and then understand that whatever happens in the Obama presidency, this Inauguration Day is a watershed moment in the history of America and a remarkable event in the history of nations, and thus a cause for all of us who love this country, conservative and liberal, Democrat and Republican, to celebrate.
Second, in order to do this as conservatives -- as conservatives who have been through the culture wars -- we need to get past the mixed feelings we will inevitably have as the nation marks its progress in moving away from the racial divisions and divisiveness of the past. These feelings come not from resistance to the change, but from the knowledge that this celebration should have taken place decades ago and that its delay was not least because our opponents saw political advantage in playing the race card against us and making us its slandered targets.
If we celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday at a time of presidential inaugurals, this is thanks to Ronald Reagan who created the holiday, and not to the Democratic Congress of the Carter years, which rejected it. If Americans now have accepted an African American to lead their country in war and peace that is in part because an hysterically maligned Republican made two African Americans his secretaries of state. And if, after the passage of the Civil Rights Acts, race has continued to be a divisive factor in our politics over the last 40 years that is because the generation of Sharpton and Jackson and their liberal supporters have made it so. What conservatives need to recognize in getting past these feelings (and therefore to celebrate) is that because of this political reality, it is only they themselves who could end it.
Third, as conservatives who embrace the institutions our founders created we need to separate the two roles of the presidency -- symbolic and political. Today the symbolic role takes precedence and we need to appreciate the specific aspects of that symbolism in the new presidency of Barack Obama, and put aside our anticipations of the policies he may later put in place. There will be time enough for that.
The Inaugural Celebration at the Lincoln memorial was given the theme "We Are One," which continued the unity theme of Obama's presidential campaign. This theme has a special resonance for this moment in our history, when we are more divided as a nation than at any time since the Civil War. In his victory speech on November 4th, Obama said that his victory was "the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled -- Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America!"
Rich and poor, black and white, we are one -- the Inauguration Celebration at the Lincoln Memorial was designed to dramatize this idea. In his own speech at Celebration the president-elect paid specific tribute to Lincoln for saving the union, and to Martin Luther King Jr. for dreaming of a nation united beyond race. There were more black faces on the stage of this celebration and more black faces in the hundreds of thousands who attended it than at any time for any inauguration-related event in the nation's history. This was already a testament to Obama's success in advancing his vision.
Barack Obama is the head of a party whose leaders have accused the outgoing president and his Republican Party of betraying their own country by waging an illegal, aggressive, and unnecessary war and in the process destroying its Constitution and the liberties it guarantees. By contrast, in his victory speech in November, Barack Obama repeated his pledge to be president of all Americans, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, and thanked the American troops whom a Republican president had sent to Afghanistan and Iraq in these words: “Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us.”
In the speech announcing his economic stimulus package, Obama deliberately passed up the golden opportunity it presented to blame the biggest financial disaster in the nation's history on Republicans, as Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders would inevitably have done.
At the "We Are One" celebration, orchestrated by his team, the script that was given to liberal actress Marisa Tomei included a passage from Ronald Reagan’s inaugural, a gesture that paid tribute to him as a leader who preached tolerance and compassion and a united nation. Another actor read similar sentiments from Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address without so much as mentioning its famous admonitions about the "military-industrial complex," as a Democrat invariably would. Liberal actor Jack Black then paid tribute to another Republican hero, Teddy Roosevelt, as America's pioneer environmentalist, and Tiger Woods presented himself as the proud scion of a military family, praising his family's service and paying tribute to America's armed forces. Even the music was inclusive, with country singer Garth Brooks playing an extended set.
In his appointments, Obama has also pursued the national unity theme, ceding to Republicans vital positions as heads of his National Security team, and to conservatives and centrists the key positions on his economic team. As his Secretary of State and his chief of staff, he has appointed two Democrats prominently identified with support for the Iraq war, the most divisive national issue since Vietnam, and one over which much of the leadership of the Democratic Party, including its standard bearers in the last two presidential elections, played disgraceful roles.
These appointments are not merely symbolic gestures but solid commitments to policies that are at least centrist and do not take America’s world leadership lightly. Naturally, Obama has made appointments -- and policy commitments -- to the left as well. Conservatives should and will be watching these, opposing those which are destructive to the national interest. Conservatives will also recognize that having lost the election, these battles will not be easily won.
But on this Inauguration Day, before the onset of these political battles, it is important for conservatives to focus on what has already been gained in political terms by symbolism of Obama's election and the decisions he has made.
It is conservatives who should be especially appreciative of the dual nature of the American presidency, as conceived by the Founders, which differs from parliamentary systems, where the Prime Minister is the political head of his party and the political ruler of nation. In parliamentary systems such as England’s, it is the Crown which is the nation embodied, and whose wearer is the figure around whom its citizens rally, and whom they serve in time of war.
It is the Crown function of the American presidency which the Inauguration Ceremony celebrates. Only time will tell how successfully Obama manages to unite the nation in the face of the crises and enemies which confront it. But right now with 78 percent approval ratings -- and thus even the majority support of conservatives and Republicans -- he has made an important start. Symbolically, America is united around his ascension to the White House. This ascension has political implications, whose implications -- for the moment at least -- are quite large.
All over the country Americans have invested their hopes in Obama's ability to pull his country together to face its challenges. Among these Americans are millions -- most likely tens of millions -- who have never identified with their government before, who felt "outside" the system they regarded as run by elites, who ascribed its economic troubles to the greedy rich, who bought the Jackson-Sharpton canard that America was a racist society and they were locked out, who would have scorned the term "patriot" as a compromise with such evils, and who turned their backs on America's wars.
But today celebrating their new president are millions of Americans who never would have dreamed of celebrating their president before. Millions of Americans -- visible in all their racial and ethnic variety at the Lincoln Memorial on Sunday -- have begun to feel a patriotic stirring because they see in this First Family a reflection of themselves.
The change is still symbolic and may not last. A lot depends on what President Obama will do, which is not a small question given how little is still known about this man and how little tested he remains. Some of this patriotism may be of the sunshine variety -- in for a day or a season, when the costs are not great. Or more cynically: in to show that their hatred for America is really just another form of political “dissent.” Yet whatever the nature of these changes they cannot for now be discounted. Consider: When President Obama commits this nation to war against the Islamic terrorists, as he already has in Afghanistan, he will take millions of previously alienated and disaffected Americans with him, and they will support our troops in a way that most of his party has refused to support them until now. When another liberal, Bill Clinton went to war from the air, there was no anti-war movement in the streets or in his party’s ranks to oppose him. That is an encouraging fact for us in the dangerous world we confront.
If it seems unfair that Barack Obama should be the source of a new patriotism -- albeit of untested mettle -- life is unfair. If the Obama future is uncertain and fraught with unseen perils, conservatives can deal with those perils as they come. What matters today is that many Americans have begun to join their country's cause, and conservatives should celebrate that fact and encourage it. What matters now is that the American dream with its enormous power to inspire at home and abroad is back in business. What it means is that the race card has been played out and America can once again see itself -- and be seen -- for what it is: a land of incomparable opportunity, incomparable tolerance, and justice for all. Conservative values -- individual responsibility, equal opportunity, racial and ethnic pluralism, and family -- are now symbolically embedded in the American White House. As a result, a great dimension of American power has been restored. Will these values be supported, strengthened, put into practice? It is up to us to see that they are.

Detroit Bets Its Future On Washington

This title is the title of an article in the Wall Street Journal in the weekend edition (Jan 24-25, 2009). Here we go again. As if I already couldn't stand GM and its attitude, here comes another article that just disgusts me. The article refers to the close of the International Auto Show in Detroit. The author, Shikha Dalmia and Henry Payne, suggest that this might be a "watershed year" in Detroit because the auto industry is going to have to craft its central plan in a way to serve the governmental agenda instead of their own agenda, the agenda of ordinary car buyers, and, of course, the unions.

The article states now that GM is taking government welfare that it must redo its business plans to include the "environmental and industrial policies priority" of the federal government. One funny part of this is that GM was recently protesting the green mandates from the federal government and "Vice Chairman Bob Lutz (GM) called global warming a 'total crock' and declared that hybrids make 'no economic sense.'" Wow--what a change of heart all in order to remain viable. I guess it is easier to accept welfare than it is to fight unions, go into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, or get rid of dealerships.

When I hear of situations like this I just want to throw up. GM can't or won't help themselves, so the taxpayer is going to foot the bill. Damn!

Hopes For The Obama Presidency

The Wall Street Journal ran an opinion page the day after the inauguration in which they published commentary from various contributors. One of the articles was written by Katrina vanden Heuvel who is the editor and publisher of The Nation. In the article she encourages President Obama to "act swiftly and invest political capital... in a sustained recovery program." She explains that if we only give a partial effort that the groundwork will not be laid "for a new economy that is more just and fair."

In the first place, I have a problem with money being indiscriminately used to help our economy. A large part of the problem is that the American people have no say over if the money should be used much less how and where it should be used. And about the if part - we have no guarantee that throwing money at various entities will have the desired effect, and the last time I checked, the United States is in a crap load of debt. Indeed, wasn't it Mr. Obama himself who was decrying the amount of debt this country was in because of the war in Iraq?

In the second place, I have a huge problem with "a new economy that is more just and fair." I agree that financial institutions have preyed on people, but it seems to me that they are now reaping what they sowed. And what do you mean by "just and fair?" If you are referring to the taxes that are paid, I would like to explore that with you, gentle readers. According to the National Taxpayers Union the top 1% of people, with incomes over $364,000, pay 40% of the taxes. The top 5% of people, with incomes over$145,000, pay 60% of the taxes. The top 10% of people, with incomes over $103,000, pay 70% of the taxes. The top 50% of people, with incomes over $30,000, pay 96.93% of taxes!!! The bottom 50% of people pay just 3% of the taxes collected in these United States. May I reiterate that 10% of the population of this country pay for 70% of the taxes collected? So how should we make it more "fair and just?"

I would also like to remind Ms. vanden Heuvel and others who think that we should pay for everyones' health care that this is called socialism. This is the type of health programs that they have in Canada, England, etc. I would like to cite a personal story in regard to this. I have a friend whose daughter resides in Canada. When she needed an MRI concerning her seizure condition, the wait was 4 months.

Ms. vanden Heuval's suggestion that we "cut billions from wasteful defense budgets that empty our treasury without making us more secure," made me wonder if her letter was even serious. (Are you serious??? - thanks SNL) Countries without militaries to protect them quickly become victims of the ambitions of other countries, victims of rebellion, victims of lawlessness... need I go on? Well, I won't tonight. I'm tired. I'll continue my shouting and yelling (jk) another day.

Oh the fun of receiving government money! Can I have some?

Okay, so Detroit got some of what they were looking for. Lucky Dogs. Looks like Obama has decided that increasing taxes isn't viable at this juncture. So now, we too may get "something" in the form of tax cuts, etc. But what brings me to write this particular post is an article I am reading in the Readers Digest. It is in the November 2008 issue and is authored by Michael Crowley. I am beginning to think that some of the biggest winners of government money (money that is paid for by the taxed) are the people who pay meager sums for flood insurance (through the national flood insurance program) while living in places prone to flooding. Yes, this insurance program is paid for by the people for the people--the people who live in flood zones. These people then promptly rebuild on the same spot that they were just flooded out of. The real darling thing about this program isn't just that the program is deeply in debt now what with Katrina, Rita, etc. recently, it isn't the low premiums paid for this program (which regular insurance companies won't touch), but it is probably that some of these people make multiple claims over the years. Yes, multiple floods, multiple claims. One example from the article (and this one is a gem) is of a house owner in Houston whose house has flooded 16 times and has made claims of over $807,000. (The title of this regular feature in Readers Digest?: Outrageous! Pertinent, don't you think?)

And now Obama is going about the country trying to get support for his new $800 billion or so for bailout/relief.  What happened to Obama's cry that we are in debt so bad because of the war that we cannot possibly think of spending more money (while at the same time saying that we need to make sure that everyone has access to affordable healthcare).  So if we are so badly in debt as a nation, then why would we spend money on subsidizing healthcare and bailing out companies who may not be viable? The federal government was not founded to provide its citizens with money. Now, certainly there are things that need to be done by a federal government such as providing for a military with which to protect our country as a whole. But my point is that the federal government was not meant to be a mommy-type who would wash and bandage our owies and take care of our every need. Even if this was what the federal government was for, this type of action does not lead to the development of responsible, independent, self-confident individuals. It leads to needy individuals who think that they need a handout when they don't have what the responsible individuals have (who "have" because they worked for it).