Oh, the Irony
So, for those of you who aren't watching President Obama as he talks about how good his stimulus package would be, there are a few things that I find interesting about it.
First, we the people don't have access to it to see what is in it. This become interesting when you think about why it is that they are trying so hard to court Republicans when the Democrats can easily pass the bill on their own. It seems like a prudent political move to just try to pass the bill and take all the credit, not try to show the bipartisan spirit, which only comes into play when something is controversial. Don't believe me on that? Look at the new rules that Pelosi has set up for the House.
He then begins to talk about how he is unwilling to compromise with the GOP, When the GOP tried to voice their opinion in a meeting, he countered by saying tht he didn't have to listen to them and then, when they tried again to state why they were opposed, he simply said "I won."
So, despite the fact that we have apparently elected a 12 year old, where is the bipartisan spirit he told the country that he would foster? What happened to being able and open to taking criticism and listen to the opposing view point?
This is then countered by his sending of a letter to the GOP leaders saying that he was willing to compromise on a few issues. So, which is it? Are you or are you not willing to compromise? There is no middle ground to a yes or no question. I can understand that you are willing to compromise on a few issues, but then don't say to the public that you aren't willing to compromise! Show them that you are the bigger man by displaying your willingness to help the other side.
Still, probably the greatest insult in the events as they are unfolding is his invocation of Ronald Reagan to get the bill passed. He claimed that this bill is what Reagan would have done, specifically the Social Security Tax relief.
Okay, here is the problem with it. While it is true that Reagan was in favor of tax relief, especially when it came to government programs, he was also in favor of government accountability and cutting spending whenever possible. While it is true that the national debt went up during Reagan's tenure, this was, at the time, a necessary issue. The reason being that his predecessor, Carter (who I will admit is a good person, just a bad leader), had not only destroyed the economy, but had decimated our military.
They were in dire need of new equipment, and updates, items which Carter had denied them. Overall, spending under him by the government went down, while the economy rebounded almost immediately (only three years) from a recession so bad that it actually broke some of the laws of economics (see stagflation).
To end this, I want to point something out. I believe strongly in free speech, it is the First Amendment, and arguably the most important one. This does not translate into freedom of the press necessarily, but that depends on how the press presents itself. If they are claiming to be a non biased news organization, then they should actually try to live up to this (even thought they are human and this is therefore impossible). If they claim bias, then that is allowable. The fact Americans forget is that just as they have the right to broadcast when they wish, so too do you have the right not to listen.
No one is forcing you to watch CNN or listen to Rush Limbaugh. I bring this up because the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee has started a petition to shut up Rush Limbaugh. On this site, you can put your name, and personal information for them to send to Rush. After reading some of the comments, I am mildly amused. There are just as many for Rush as against him, and even some of those against him are merely ignorant, mindless spouting of rhetoric, and show that they either A) have never listened to the show, or B) are incapable of coming up with anything original.
Personally, I don't listen much to Rush, although I do tend to agree with him more often than not on economic issues, being an actual fiscal conservative myself. I just find it ironic that this group who has claimed to be for the rights of the people is trying to stifle the most important right that we the people have. If you don't like his show, don't listen to him. But, if you want him to shut up, then I want to stop hearing all about how evil Bush is, because I put that on the same level.
Again, not that I like Bush, I don't, but I can at least respect him. Unlike so many people that I see in the world and especially the media, I can differentiate between disagreement and hatred. Just as I don't like Obama, but I am not going to demonize him, merely call him out. He is the president, and I will support him, but I will also disagree with him, as is my right.
I am not going into the stimulus just yet, but look up something called Keynesian Economics if you want to understand why I as a Capitalist am opposed to it. Alright, I have ranted enough for one night, so I will talk to all later.
First, we the people don't have access to it to see what is in it. This become interesting when you think about why it is that they are trying so hard to court Republicans when the Democrats can easily pass the bill on their own. It seems like a prudent political move to just try to pass the bill and take all the credit, not try to show the bipartisan spirit, which only comes into play when something is controversial. Don't believe me on that? Look at the new rules that Pelosi has set up for the House.
He then begins to talk about how he is unwilling to compromise with the GOP, When the GOP tried to voice their opinion in a meeting, he countered by saying tht he didn't have to listen to them and then, when they tried again to state why they were opposed, he simply said "I won."
So, despite the fact that we have apparently elected a 12 year old, where is the bipartisan spirit he told the country that he would foster? What happened to being able and open to taking criticism and listen to the opposing view point?
This is then countered by his sending of a letter to the GOP leaders saying that he was willing to compromise on a few issues. So, which is it? Are you or are you not willing to compromise? There is no middle ground to a yes or no question. I can understand that you are willing to compromise on a few issues, but then don't say to the public that you aren't willing to compromise! Show them that you are the bigger man by displaying your willingness to help the other side.
Still, probably the greatest insult in the events as they are unfolding is his invocation of Ronald Reagan to get the bill passed. He claimed that this bill is what Reagan would have done, specifically the Social Security Tax relief.
Okay, here is the problem with it. While it is true that Reagan was in favor of tax relief, especially when it came to government programs, he was also in favor of government accountability and cutting spending whenever possible. While it is true that the national debt went up during Reagan's tenure, this was, at the time, a necessary issue. The reason being that his predecessor, Carter (who I will admit is a good person, just a bad leader), had not only destroyed the economy, but had decimated our military.
They were in dire need of new equipment, and updates, items which Carter had denied them. Overall, spending under him by the government went down, while the economy rebounded almost immediately (only three years) from a recession so bad that it actually broke some of the laws of economics (see stagflation).
To end this, I want to point something out. I believe strongly in free speech, it is the First Amendment, and arguably the most important one. This does not translate into freedom of the press necessarily, but that depends on how the press presents itself. If they are claiming to be a non biased news organization, then they should actually try to live up to this (even thought they are human and this is therefore impossible). If they claim bias, then that is allowable. The fact Americans forget is that just as they have the right to broadcast when they wish, so too do you have the right not to listen.
No one is forcing you to watch CNN or listen to Rush Limbaugh. I bring this up because the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee has started a petition to shut up Rush Limbaugh. On this site, you can put your name, and personal information for them to send to Rush. After reading some of the comments, I am mildly amused. There are just as many for Rush as against him, and even some of those against him are merely ignorant, mindless spouting of rhetoric, and show that they either A) have never listened to the show, or B) are incapable of coming up with anything original.
Personally, I don't listen much to Rush, although I do tend to agree with him more often than not on economic issues, being an actual fiscal conservative myself. I just find it ironic that this group who has claimed to be for the rights of the people is trying to stifle the most important right that we the people have. If you don't like his show, don't listen to him. But, if you want him to shut up, then I want to stop hearing all about how evil Bush is, because I put that on the same level.
Again, not that I like Bush, I don't, but I can at least respect him. Unlike so many people that I see in the world and especially the media, I can differentiate between disagreement and hatred. Just as I don't like Obama, but I am not going to demonize him, merely call him out. He is the president, and I will support him, but I will also disagree with him, as is my right.
I am not going into the stimulus just yet, but look up something called Keynesian Economics if you want to understand why I as a Capitalist am opposed to it. Alright, I have ranted enough for one night, so I will talk to all later.