Jump to content
In your editorial you use the word "entitlement." Just to let you know even if I am the majority of one. The reason I consider Social Security and Medicare "entitlements" is because I have been paying into them since I graduated from Wa-Hi in 1973. Twenty years ago I realized that the politicians were looting the Social Security trust fund. I wrote my Congressman and said I would sign anything and be responsible for myself in my old age, to let me invest my Social Security contributions myself, I was turned down. Now the politicians and media expect me to take cuts because the country and politicians have been completely irresponsible. Many American may be gullible enough to fall for it, but not me. I feel I am entitled to my benefits because I paid into them for 37 years. Obviously, the cuts should come to programs that recipients don't pay into. Does it not make sense? And just incase someone can't figure it out, you can pay into something like Veterans do with service, it does not have to be money. However, getting something for absolutely nothing, is where the cuts should be made first. And there are lots of them. When you ask me to accept reduced benefits, that is like asking me to pay car insurance for 37 years, and then when my car is stolen and I put in a claim, that if the care insurance company doesn't pay, and they tell me it's because that have been stupid with their investments for the last 37 years, I'm just suppose to forget about it?
In your editorial you use the term "fiscal cliff." When you search google news for "fiscal cliff," 74,000 news stories pop up. Do you know that the economy is the most important thing to voters this election. Do you know that, overwhelmingly, economists believe that the biggest risk to the economy is the fiscal cliff, not Europe, Europe is number two. How come news sources do not challenge CNN and the politicians for not asking both candidates what they plan on doing to avoid the fiscal cliff? The question was not asked during the debate on Tuesday. There is freedom of the press so you can inform the electorate. Aren't you curious to know why the question was not asked? Could it be that they all know there is nothing they can do? We have kicked the can as you say for way to long.
You said, "Once again, the problem gets kicked down the road. Strong leadership would not have let this happen." I'll take the Republican's favorite president, Reagan. Reagan was president from 1981-88. When Reagan took office in 1981 the national debt was $1 trillion, when he left in 1988 it was $2.5 trillion, which was a huge increase in national debt. Reagan ran deficits of 6% of GDP, he was the only president, at the time, to run deficits above 4% except for two president who had WWI and WWII to deal with. Strong Republican leadership let this happen. The Democrats favorite president in the last 30 years is Clinton, when Clinton took office in 1993 the national debt was $4 trillion, when he left it was $5.7 trillion. A huge increase when you look at the fact that when he came into office the country was over the 1991-92 recession, and he had no recession to deal with during his entire presidency, furthermore, he had a very strong stock market, a good housing market, and the best invention, the internet all on his side, but he still managed to run the debt up another $1.7 trillion. The small budget surpluses he gets credit for are simply accounting tricks: off budget items are not included in the final deficit number giving out by the government, for example, they are able to loot from the Social Security trust fund, and spend the money, but they don't have to count it when calculating the deficit. Strong Democratic leadership let this happen. You are misleading your readers when you say strong leadership does not let huge increases in national debt occur. Try something new, do research, check out my numbers, you will find them to be true. Or does the truth scare you because you are a small paper, I know, going against the New York Times takes guts, even if it is the truth.
Obama said he would tax the rich to Joe the plumber in 2008, Americans gave him the White House, and both the House and the Senate in 2009 and 2010. He did not raise taxes on the rich. A lie, is a lie is a lie. Right now there is a presidential debate going on, each candidate is spitting out lie after lie. Get use to it America. You have allowed politicians to get away with lying so much that it's become the norm. If a candidate does not lie and promise you everything you won't elect them.
So if my mother would have been attacked when I was inside her womb, and my mother was okay, but that "thing" inside my mother's womb, cease to exist, your commonsense says that the attacker's defense attorney should say that "the accused simply halted the biological process?" Sounds like the commonsense thing to do. But, frankly, I hope that my mother would have been a little bit pissed off. You're right, all this misinformation being put out there is really getting old.
The author's main point seems to come from the first three sentences in the editorial:
"What does it mean to be a congressional representative? It should mean that you represent all your constituents, not just a narrow segment of your district. Reviewing U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers' voting record, you can clearly see she definitely does not represent everyone." How can a politician represent everyone in a country as divided as America? How could a politician represent all of their constituents? It seems the author is like most Americans, their opinion is the one that should be heard and acted on. The author also has a preference for issues facing women. I just searched google for breast cancer, the total was 734,000,000. For prostate cancer 187,000,000. I know, women don't have sons, brothers, or fathers. I know men live longer than women. And my favorite one, "even though the shutdown was averted the debacle caused the downgrading of the U.S. credit rating." There are 140 million workers in the U.S., even though the boomers have just started retiring, there are already 56 million on Social Security or disability. When you factor in those on Medicare and Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, just to name a few, you would be lucky to have one worker per recipient. The U.S. was downgraded because we are broke and did absolutely no preparation for the onslaught of retirees. It is amazing how a country can be so irresponsible and for such a long time, and then think that all they need to do is to go to the polls and elect some magical person who is going to come in and save everyone. The fact is, both the Republicans and Democrats borrow the money on the backs of those children who you claim to care so much about. Just incase you don't know, just in the last 4 years this country has borrowed $6 trillion dollars, and it won't make a difference how old you are, your religion, your race, or your sex, when the credit dries up, if you have saved no money, good luck depending on the government.
I was wondering where you work, it must be nice being able to monitor traffic conditions from your office and then to have time to comment about it while at work. I know, you're just on your lunch break. Do they have any openings where you work?
According to the annual report sent out to taxpayers by school district 140, they want $10,000 per student, per year. For a family of four with two kids that is $20,000 per year. In a city where the average family makes $45,000, the city only wants $20,000 of it for K-12 education, that seems fair. That leaves the average family $25,000 for everything else: food, shelter, medical, college, not to mention all the other costs for all the other government services like military, police, fire, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, roads, and it goes on and on. No wonder 1 in 7 Americans are on food stamps, and half the families in WW say they cannot afford to pay the full amount for a lunch at school for their kids. Now add that with the fact that most community colleges are complaining that the students they get from K-12 are not even able to take college level classes, that the students must do 1-2 years, or even more, of remedial classes, just to get up to college level classes. Add that to the fact that even the young adults who now make it out of college, only about half of them, can find a decent job. This all means that when a teacher retires at say 55, they will need a retirement check for about 30 years, which means they will need those young adults turning into high paying taxpayers, which obviously is not the case. Even the powerful teacher unions will not be able to get blood from turnips. The blood being money, and the turnips being a younger generation without any skills and even if they have the skills, they will not be able to find a high paying job, they will be lucky to just find a low paying job and collect food stamps themselves or yes, if they live with their parents, maybe they will be able to buy an Iphone (or grow pot with regards to another story in the U-B today). If you are a teacher who is planning on retiring, you had better retire now and get grandfather into a pension system that is in not in any better long-term shape than Social Security. I almost forgot, I know the solution, tax the rich, but just to let you know there was a great song back in the 70s called, "I'd Love to Change the World." A line from the song went like this, "Tax the Rich, Feed the poor, till there are no rich no more." Well, it has been over 40 years and the Boomers still have not been able to tax the rich, in fact, quite the opposite, the rich have never been so rich.
In Walla Walla over half of car drivers speed, tailgate or talk on their cell phones. Over half the bicyclists don't stop at stop signs and when there are more than one bicyclist they, more likely, will ride next to each other so they can talk and socialize, versus riding the safest way, which is one behind the other. Pedestrians will jaywalk, moreover, they will jaywalk without even looking both ways. When I was a kid with a unlicensed minibike, I couldn't get a block on public streets without being stop by a policeman, unlike now, where unlicensed motorized vehicles are ubiquitous, which means they do not have the proper training for safely controlling the vehicle they are suppose to be in control of. You had better get used to the new America where the vast majority do what they want, when they want and to heck with everyone else. Rules, politeness, and law have no meaning in today's new America.
Just to let the author know, your so-called professional umpires are the reason coaches can now challenge a ref's call...your so-called professional umpires have been, and continue to blow calls. You infer that if the pro refs were back, blown calls would be a thing of the past...hardly (have you been watching pro football for more than a week?). You would think at $10,000 per pro ref, per came your so-called pro refs would do a much better job. But, not in the U.S. anymore, where exorbitant pay does not mean a fan gets a better ref''d game, but simply means the so-called pro ref gets to go home with a $10 grand for three hours of work, when most of the fans are getting about 10 bucks an hour.
Last login: Wednesday, February 13, 2013
2013 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Union-Bulletin. All rights reserved.