Jump to content
Here's something you should not need to "fact check," because you could have heard it right from Obama's mouth in 2008. He told Joe the plumber, that he would raise taxes on people making more that $250,000. In 2009 and 2010 Obama was President and he had a Democratic House and Senate, but he lied, he did not raise taxes on the rich like he said. However, Obama did borrow $6 trillion dollars, like all politicians, and redistribute the money to the people he liked. To truth is Obama leans toward socialism, but bank profits are greater now than under Bush, and the rich still have low effective tax rates. Furthermore, the divide between rich and poor has gotten bigger under Obama. Even with a far-left President, the rich have managed to get richer and the elites more powerful. It looks like the wealthy and the elites get what they want no matter who is in the White House, and with all the bickering back and forth between the Liberals and the Conservatives, it gives everyone the illusion of choice when they go to the polls. But, the end results is always the same: the rich get richer and the elites more powerful.
The part in this editorial that really matters is the $6 trillion in new debt. Rather you support the Left or Right, how much brains does it take to spend $6 trillion like Obama has? Yes, if Obama would have have put into place policies that would grow businesses and create wealth producing jobs, and the people who ran those businesses, and worked at those businesses, spent the money, great. But, that is clearly not what happened. Obama borrowed the money and literally gave away the money to the people and businesses he liked the most (which is why he will win the election). When Obama took office in Jan of 2009, the national debt per the U.S. Treasury's website was $10.6 trillion, right now it is $16.2 trillion. The children, who we claim to care so much about, are going to have to pay back that $16 trillion in some way or another. And how are they going to pay it back with no decent jobs? Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Republicans will do, if they are elected, borrow and spend. Just as an example. When Reagan took office in Jan of 1981 the national debt was $1 trillion, when he left office 8 years latter it was $2.5 trillion, Reagan and Congress grew the economy, but they borrowed $1.5 trillion to do it, and that was 30 years ago. The only thing the politicians know how to do is to borrow and spend. And if you look at the history of the national debt in this country in the last 40 years, you can't help, but see it. You are all hoping that this debt will never have to be paid back, but unfortunately, at some point, it will be paid back like with all debt, either by hard work or bankruptcy. And it looks like bankruptcy is the track we are on and have been for a very long time.
First, just a little history lesson. Did you know that in the 18th and 19th centuries that almost every American coin minted had "Miss Liberty" on one side of the coin? However, in the last 70 years, virtually every coin has had a person's image on it instead of Miss Liberty. Meaning, those who want less personal freedom, and more government control are clearly winning. The government is now 44% of the GDP. Once it crosses 50%, would mean that there will be an equal amount of government workers and private sector workers, which is unsustainable once the credit dries up. I would ask Mr. Westneat one question, like I said he is winning, he is getting more and more government control, but Mr. Westneat, what happens when America's credit dries up? We have borrowed over $6 trillion in just the last 4 years? What happens to all the people who are insured by the government, who receive a monthly government check, or work for the government? What happens when the U.S. can no longer borrow any more money? What do you suggest we do with all those people? Tax the rich? I don't know how old you are, but maybe you remember the song, "I'd Love to Change the World" from back in the Seventies? A line from the song went like this, "Tax the Rich, feed the poor, till there are no rich no more." Well, it's been 40 years and the rich have not been taxed more yet, in fact, just the opposite, the rich are even richer. Forbes 400 says that the richest 400 Americans are worth $1.7 trillion, even if we took every nickel from them, even if we ignored what that would do to the stock market and economy, the government would burn through the $1.7 trillion in 5 months. What would you suggest we do with the 56 million Americans on Social Security or disability then, what would you suggest we do with the 45 million on food stamps, those receiving vet benefits, those on welfare, those on Medicare and Medicaid? I look forward reading about your realistic plan, or is your plan, to vote for either a Republican or Democrat, the same ones we have been electing for the last 50 years? The same ones who got us into this mess to begin with.
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?
Last login: Thursday, September 26, 2013
2014 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 2014 Union-Bulletin, 112 S. First Ave., Walla Walla, WA 99362/509-525-3300. All rights reserved.