Followers

Total Pageviews

Monday, August 6, 2012

We need fresh ideas


Congratulations baby boomers, we're the first generation who can say that we will put more into Social Security than we received. Spare me; don’t tell me how much you could have earned if you would have had a chance to invest it. Number one, you don’t know and the other is, it’s a” you pay for others as others paid for you” retirement supplement Yep, if you're a baby boomer, we can say that we weren't as much of a socialist as our parents and grandparents were. However, that's only a comfort for those people who use that line of reasoning.

Every since I heard the word " misinformation" sometime last week , I just can't get that word out of my head. I agree that the media, in one form or another is the probable cause, but I think of it as replacing the roof shingles. It's best if you replace the old shingles and felt paper and start anew. We still have people trying to convince us what the founders meant, or they want to use philosophy from the 1900s. America was once an isolationist country and afraid of the military; we're now at a leader in the global economy and have the largest military known to man. The fundamentals are the same, such as spending less than what we bring in but today; we have to deal with huge budget and trade deficits and preventing our financial sectors from bringing down our country, with their predatory schemes.

I flipped on Fox News Sunday to hear what potential Texas senator to be, Ted Cruz, had to say, but I can't say I was surprised when I heard the boilerplate rhetoric. I was disappointed because, if elected, he'll be another obstructionist. When asked if he would compromise with the Democrats he said, "I am perfectly happy to compromise and work with anybody,” Cruz said. “Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians. I’ll work with Martians. If — and the if is critical — they’re willing to cut spending and reduce the debt."... That would sound reasonable except, he won't consider raising taxes. We're back to that," won't take $10.00 in spending cuts for $1.00 in revenues" deal. For the record, I am very anti- Ted Cruz and his ilk. I understand his line of thinking; he thinks that the government does not need any more money to spend, but he doesn't understand that we cannot cut our way to prosperity. Ted Cruz is bought and paid for by the Club for Growth and FreedomWorks.,so he 'll never understand that it's going to take a balanced approach.

Try going back to my " replacing the roof'" analogy'" where I said that we were going to have to start fresh. I think the partisan propaganda we've been fed throughout the years won't allow new ideas to penetrate. Chicago's Mayor Rahm Emanuel, realizes that our Federal government is tapped out but the infrastructure in Chicago is in a state of the decay. The mayor knows that the city of Chicago won't be able to grow unless they fix the infrastructure. What company would want to move to a city full of potholes, busted water mains, and inferior public transportation?

 The mayor will use conventional methods like raising utility bills and issuing bonds, but the city will negotiate a private-public trust fund with three banks to fund their needed repairs. For the record, the city of Chicago sold their parking meter rights to a private company, that is making 10 times more than what the city ever did, and they have also issued long-term leases on their parking garages, which amounts to the private sector owing that source of revenue for a long time. Chicago is not letting those two mistakes stand in the way of yet another risk taking proposition. On paper, it looks like a win- win proposition; the banks have been waiting for a safe investment to spend some of their low-interest money on. The city will use private contractors and make them pay for any cost overruns because, as we know; cost overruns and can run into millions. The city will install cost saving devices such as smart meters and use that savings to pay off their debt. If everything works well, the city will get their needed repairs without extra cost to taxpayers. Cities and states are copycats, so if this project works in Chicago other cities and states will adopt it. This is just a temporary measure until our country's economy recovers, and then we can go back to federal government grants and loans when it's more feasible.

I know that occasionally we will take an exit road to discuss some social issues and that's OK, as long as you understand that some will evolve and others won't. The economy doesn't work that way. The economy is like a baseball pitcher who has to make adjustments on every hitter, umpire, and his capability. I heard a great discussion about the Keystone XL project this morning. On one hand, the proponents of fossil fuels say the tar sands from Canada will provide $45 billion a year in revenue and 500,000 jobs by 2035. I think it's a bit exaggerated but on the other hand, what will it do to the natural gas and alternative fuels industry? We shouldn't let the lure of cheap fossil fuels make us forget the environmental impact that this project will have on greenhouse emissions. That's why I say we need to keep an open mind and not be persuaded by those who stand to benefit by our lack of interest.
 


Yet, another senseless shooting but again this is not the time to talk of measures to try and prevent those “impossible to stop” tragedies. If only one of those Sikhs were armed! I can hear the same old talking points.

10 comments:

Michael Gomez said...

I've read several articles on the Sikh shooting. There's a ridiculous amount of hate in the comments section. It's frightening to hear that some people actually believe that Obama is "oppressing" white Christians. I agree with you. The inflammatory rhetoric is to blame for such blatant ignorance.

Mike said...

You should see some remarks made (not about this shooting ) but the misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment in our local forum...Some think their little pee shooters can prevent what they think is government oppression...BTW I emphasize the words "what they think"...:-)

dale said...

We could say, it takes one to know one. Is there not more than enough of blame to come from your side too?

I speak of your use of word bites, those little words which inflame emotions. That word is " obstructionist". You used it on our Senator (to be) Cruz.


ob·struc·tion·ist uhb-struhk-shuh-nist] noun 1. a person who deliberately delays or prevents progress.

If any group has created obstruction to the free market it could be labeled the "progressive democrats". So what is progress?


prog·ress noun 1. a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage

And whose goal is it to provide for the general welfare? Before we pass around word bites... let us be reminded that the other four fingers are pointed to yourself.

I seriously believe Mr Cruz is not going to Washington to obstruct those ideas I believe. I would like him not to vote for many of those ideas you hold out as "progress" but which end up costing me money. Once you mentioned the word "compromise". I learned 30 years ago in democrat speak compromise means... conservatives give up their principles and liberals laugh all the way to the political bank. Nope, I think I will support Mr Cruz as he works to turn those tables for once.

Mike said...

dale

You're absolutely right that could very well be blame from my side and you are most welcome to point that out with verifiable examples.

I know very well with the word obstruction as means and I'm using it in a political context to describe all the record breaking filibusters the republicans have used in the last three years in order to derail this president and I can provide endless examples if you like.
For example, Senator Rand Paul tried to add an abortion amendment and to flood insurance bill ..." The Senate’s flood insurance program looked like it was headed toward smooth passage – but now, there appears to be an abortion-related wrinkle.

Yes, abortion.

That’s at least according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who said Tuesday that a Republican senator is insisting on a vote on an amendment defining “when life begins.” Reid didn’t name the senator, but it was Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) who had offered the amendment.
“I think some of this stuff is just – I have been very patient working with my Republican colleagues in allowing relevant amendments on issues, and sometimes we even do non-relevant amendments,” Reid said. “But really, on flood insurance?”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/06/flood-insurance-bill-snag-abortion-127303.html

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution has been used by both parties to provide our governing body empowered by the document, to enact laws to promote the general welfare of the people...BTW I am not afraid of the 4 fingers being pointed back at me because I think I am knowledgeable enough to defend my words and position. I look forward to the challenge because I could be wrong and I don't have an ego that large that I can't admit my error but I think long and hard before I hit the key. I don’t get out of my elements.

dale said
" I learned 30 years ago in democrat speak compromise means... conservatives give up their principles and liberals laugh all the way to the political bank. Nope, I think I will support Mr Cruz as he works to turn those tables for once."

This is another example of the cartoon I provide at the top of this blog.

I wish you luck and right now you have the upper hand in your support for Ted Cruz for Texas senator but that won't stop me from writing a truthful, yet negative analysis of Ted Cruz.

You have a good day and thanks for your good response.

I'll be more than happy to discuss the ins and outs of article one section eight “the general welfare clause" of the Constitution with you. It's been challenged many times in the courts and many times the legislation passed by Congress has withstood the challenge...Remember " general welfare" means the wishes of all the citizens of the United States not just the wishes of a few who despise paying taxes or have their own agenda.

Mike said...

dale
Sorry, I meant to say I know full well what the word obstruction means but this is the babble I typed"I know very well with the word obstruction as mean" ..lol

Mike said...

dale said

"If any group has created obstruction to the free market it could be labeled the "progressive democrats". So what is progress?

I just don't see where the free market has been obstructed. The Fortune 500 companies have two trillion dollars in cash surplus. Oil profits out the roof and CEO pay to employee pay is off the charts. Show me where the free market is being obstructed.

Today, U.S. stocks rose Tuesday, with the S&P 500 index surpassing 1,400 for the first time in three months, on market thinking global central banks were ready to act to bolster growth.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-climb-sp-500-tops-1400-2012-08-07?siteid=rss&rss=1

dale said...

The Tax Equity and Spending Responsibility Act of 1982. (The only proof I ever need. That was really a fressh idea.)

Thomas Tip O'Neill, Speaker of the House. Talk about a compromise. "Ron, you raise the taxes and we will cut spending... NOT." Fool me twice, Mike, shame on me. That is all the history I ever have to remember about my good ol progressive friends. Perhaps that is why "trust yet verify" is also remembered. You guys are really stuck on that word bite "compromise". But it has alsways been a one way street. I bet it was one of your boys who even came up with the title.. "Tax Equity and Spending Reponsibility."

http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL97-248.pdf

And really Mike, when you used the "obstructionist" title you were using it as one of your progressive slogans... I mean "word bites". Right?

Mike said...

dale

I am not ashamed of using slogans, word bites or talking points because I'm comfortable with my knowledge of both sides of the issues. I'm not using those words in lieu of facts. I meant to use obstructionist because I'm confident Ted Cruz (if elected) will use the all the tricks in the book to hold up meaningful legislation..A lone senator has the ability to do that.

1982? That was 30 years ago when we had moderate Republicans who were willing to compromise for the better good. Today we don't have any congressional Republicans even close of the middle and the country may be slightly center right but it's not far right like Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin,Rand and Ron Paul are. The votes bear that out.... I think the 1982 legislation is an excuse republicans use not to raise taxes. At some point they have to admit they are beholden to Grover Norquist and the country sees them unreasonable for not wanting to take $1.00 in revenue for $10.00 in spending cuts.

They have been an many republican legislative bodies that came after 1982, that could have corrected any discrepancies but then they would have to own up to the seven trillion dollar prescription drug bill they passed without paying for it in that's not even mentioning the two wars that were off budget. I know all about the "The Tax Equity and Spending Responsibility Act of 1982" talking points. For the record dale, I read a right wing blogs...:-)

We can use history but we must account for the differences in the time period. I'm not really stuck with the word" compromise" but the American people are.

'A majority of Americans would prefer that political leaders in Washington, D.C. compromise to get things done instead of ardently staking out a position and sticking with it, according to a new Gallup poll.

Just as Congress narrowly avoided yet another looming government shutdown for the second time this year, 51 percent of respondents said that politicians should compromise rather than to stick to their beliefs, up from 47 percent in November 2010. Only 28 percent of respondents said that politicians sticking to their beliefs was more important."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64499.html#ixzz22sYPmu12

You may have missed it somewhere down the line but let me lay out this disclaimer. I don't write as a democrat, liberal, or progressive, although I can see where people like you, take it that way. I don't mind it. I'm not a representative of those labels; I'm just an individual citizen expressing my views on what I've come to believe is true. I'm not denying that I may be influenced by those groups and I'm not ashamed of them but I don't carry the water for them in any capacity. I don't take offense if you talk negatively about President Obama, democrats, progressives or liberals. I'm not a spokesman for any of them but I will either correct the myths or present a contradicting viewpoint if appropriate.

dale said...

It is always the same. Conservatives compromise and Progressives gain another $1.3T to spend, that which they did not reap.

You say "that was 30 years ago". I remember the "Tax Equity" in that I was just entering my political awareness. At that time I realized that only Republicans are meant to compromise. They then and still fall into the left's word bites and bits. Tell a conservative "you are starving the elderly and the children." Immediately, these Republicans pee in their pants and say "no we aren't". The left says prove it... And you only thought "depends" were designed for elderly men. The first and primary clients were and still are Republican moderates and conservatives. Somewhere down the line they need to buy some big boy underwear. Maybe Cruz will break the cycle. I bet Cornyn wears KBs leftovers.

Mike said...

dale

Like there's no "crying in baseball" there's "no whining in politics" so I declined the invitation to a republican pity party. You have to do something about that, 2000-2008, amnesia republicans seem to suffer from.... Setting a record number of filibusters means that your party does not compromise.

Oh you're talking about when democrats said that republicans were going to cut off grandma's Social Security... Isn't that similar to republicans talk about death panels and saying that the democrats were a “cut and run" party for one into withdrawal from Iraq? Let's get beyond political games each party plays and get to know the numbers behind the issues... You can't deny FreedomWorks and the Koch Bros. have an agenda and I can't deny that the democrats will be the party to stick up for the entitlements.

Are you talking about a Tea Party stand where we lose our credit rating again? You are in the 28% group where compromise is a dirty word and “ideologue" is admired.

Sometimes it's more than money; sometimes it's about caring.