Just to let you know, I've been doing odd jobs for the last six years. Estate detailing, tree work, tuning up friends cars and bikes, photo jobs, etc. The last two real jobs I have had, both well established businesses closed because of no customers.
My rod company is stagnant and has no sales, even though it is a great product, which I have marketed to the best of my ability.
I have been offered government jobs here in Sacramento, because one of my friends is an "insider". He doesn't understand why I don't apply...
So, besides always 'voting out the incumbent congresspersons' (which I have always done, but my vote is usually minority), what can I do to curb this government-run-amok?
How do we hit the reset button without violent revolution?
Johnnymceldoo, That was a depressing video about my home town. I don't go back there often anymore, but when I do it is hard to believe that I have fond memories of growing up in that area. Most of my cousins have fled the area. The ones that are still there are very liberal though. It's sad that they can't seem to connect the dots as to how they got there.
Port Authority (yes, government) got into it and dragged it down to snail's pace is my fairly ignorant understanding. The owner was ready to rock and roll, but was waylayed by memorial activism and the port authority. I don't really know though. I just know it's a despicable commentary on the state of affairs in the nation right now.
Both original towers were built in just six years time.
How do we hit the reset button without violent revolution?
Good question. What exactly is it you want reset though. BO is trying to reset who has wealth. This will fail miserably and is likely to lead to bloodshed if allowed to continue for any extended period of time.
King George didn't listen when the 13 colonies complained of the tyranny. BO isn't listening now. People complained about the Bush administration monitoring phone calls overseas. Somehow they twisted this into "domestic" phone calls. Have you seen what BO is talking about? Feds push for tracking cell phones! "the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy"". Seriously??? There should be outrage over this idea. Where's the media that was upset about listening for terrorist's phone calls?
Thomas Jefferson's quote about the tree of liberty was simply acknowledgment that there will be leaders that will become tyrannical. When allowed to go too far violence becomes the last resort. I'm hopeful that the next election will restore some of the checks and balances. If not it may become an ugly ride.
Entitlement programs and income redistribution are an assault on peoples liberties. I'm confused why so many people don't see that. You can only push so far before you see a push back and people have had about enough. It is time for a reset.
I miss the link... Obama and socialism and the current government have nothing to do with the shit we're in...
See the chart Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 05:34 pm:
Notice when the debt starts getting bigger? 2008? Who was in charge? ( hint... who was in charge of spending your money? ) Now I'm certainly willing to blame bush for not vetoing the Dem Congress overspending, just as he didn't veto the Rep overspending. Bad Bush, Bad!
Bush isn't the Congress, and it's mostly the same a--holes in there now as were there before.
Notice on the same chart that spending DOUBLED when the Dem's took Congress back....which they did because the Reps spent too much! Isn't that Ironic?
Notice that the spending DOUBLED the next year?
Want to bet that it won't again? I'll bet you $5 that it will be twice as much on the same chart for '10 this time next year.
That's either horrible judgment, or deliberate destruction of our economy. I'm not ready to believe the right wingers that it's deliberate. You could change my mind on that if you'd like to try.
Why did the real estate market crash? Bad regulation... the Community reinvestment act. CDO's. ( if you don't know what a CDO is, go look it up ) Not "deregulation" but bad laws. bad laws that reward buddies of the people in power. See Goldman----AIG...
Oh! almost forgot! years of really bad energy policy raised the cost of gas over 4 bucks, that really wrecked the economy. Look frward to even higher prices as Iran retaliates for sanctions this year.
Like I said earlier I don't care who is running it as long as they get America working again.We don't make anything anymore in comparrison to when I was young.When I was a kid I would watch the progress on the twin towers at night from the Jersey side you could see nothing but lights, lights from factories and smelting plants and accetelyne and just Industry 24/7. That is completely gone the breyers ice cream plant sign down kneck Newark could be seen for 20 miles in either direction.Now there are empty plants home depots and empty strip malls. We need people in charge who have not lost touch with our reality. And they need to bring back working for a living.
What if BO comes through on some of his campaign promises? Bankrupt the coal industry? Energy prices will necessarily skyrocket? Most businesses run on energy! Painting a business as evil for showing a profit? WTF!
Who's going to invest in growth with that kind of crap hanging over your head? It's time to hunker down and just try to survive.
There is a reason we don't make anything HERE any more.
It isn't "corporate" greed.
The single largest expenditure of EVERY corporation, above materials, labor, equipment, property, R&D, insurance, etc., is taxes and the effort spent in the attempt to reduce or minimize taxes.
There is a direct relationship between the marginal tax rate and the expense an individual or corporation is willing to expend in an effort to mitigate those taxes.
If your taxes were 5% of your income, how much time would you spend calculating deductions in an effort to reduce your tax burden?
How much would you spend if your tax rate were 50%?
Quite a bit more, right?
Would you be willing to relocate your plant over seas if it saved you 5% in taxes? Probably not.
Would you be willing to relocate your plant over seas if it save you 50% in taxes? Oh, yeah. Every day and twice on Sunday.
Additionally, the living wages of the individuals you employ are directly affected by local, state, and federal taxes. How much more per hour do companies in New York State have to pay their employees than do companies in Tennessee? Much of that is due to the Federal and State taxes. Labor costs go up. Foreign employees don't have this problem.
The problem is that unions backed the horse they felt least sympathetic to corporations. Unfortunately, this same horse is also least friendly to American workers and most interested in raising taxes.
If you want to keep jobs here in the United States, you MUST stop treating US companies as both the tax base cash cow and enemy of employment. We must also stop viewing employment as a moral imperative. Employers don't hire employees because they have a desire to provide a social good. Employers hire employees because they have more work than they can have completed by the current work force.
This plan to provide a $6000 tax credit to create a $106,000 job is silly. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how jobs are created.
I appreciate the gesture and sentiment by Senator Bayh, but even in his press speech, he misses the mark, and demonstrates perfectly the great divide in American politics and the great corruption of our constitution and our federated union.
quote:
To put it in words most people can understand: I love working for the people of Indiana, I love helping our citizens make the most of their lives...
The job of our federal government is NOT to "help (citizens) make the most of their lives"!
That in a nutshell is THE biggest problem in Washington, DC. Busy-body, meddling, elitists thinking they need to be all about "helping Americans make the most of their lives." Short of upholding our explicitly defined constitutional rights and our national security, stay the @#$^ out of our lives!
I would stand up and applaud and support any politician, no matter the party affiliation, who sincerely states that he/she loves working for the people of his state/district and that he/she loves helping to ensure the freedom, liberty, and security of Americans as our nation's founders intended.
I live in Indiana and I have sent many emails to Senator Bayh concerning his support of the big Democratic initiatives. His voting record on the key recent issues were on party lines. In my opinion, he is getting out before he is voted out.
Speech before the House of Representatives by David (Davy) Crockett
Not Yours to Give
One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Mr. Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker --- I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this house, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.
"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and, if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.
"He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and of course, was lost.
"Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be one for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.
"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and--'
" 'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'
"This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
" 'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intended by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest....But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'
"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any Constitutional question.
" 'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some suffers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'
"Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'
" 'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any thing and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the suffers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditable; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitu- tion, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch it's power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you..'
"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, for the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him: Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I did not have sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.
"He laughingly replied: 'Yes Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around this district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied that it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert a little influence in that way.'
"If I don't [said I] I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.
" 'No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute to a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting up on Saturday week.. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.'
"Well, I will be here. but one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.
" 'My name is Bunce.'
"Not Horatio Bunce?
" 'Yes.'
"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.
"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before. Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before. I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him --- no, that is not the word --- I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times a year; and I will tell you sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian, lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted --- at least, they all knew me. In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
"Fellow-citizens --- I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.
"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.
"He came upon the stand and said: " 'Fellow-citizens --- It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'
"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.
"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the reputation I have ever made, or shall ever make, as a member of Congress.
"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. There is one thing now to which I wish to call to your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men --- men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased --- a debt which could not be paid by money --- and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificance a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it." David Crockett was born August 17, 1786 at Limestone (Greene County), Tennessee. He died March 06, 1836 as one of the brave Southerners defending the Alamo.
Crockett had settled in Franklin County, Tennessee in 1811. He served in the Creek War under Andrew Jackson. In 1821 and 1823 he was elected to the Tennessee legislature. In 1826 and 1828 he was elected to Congress. He was defeated in 1830 for his outspoken opposition to President Jackson's Indian Bill - but was elected again in 1832.
In Washington, although his eccentricities of dress and manner excited comment, he was always popular on account of his shrewd common sense and homely wit; although generally favoring Jackson's policy, he was entirely independent and refused to vote to please any party leader.
At the end of the congressional term, he joined the Texans in the war against Mexico, and in 1836 was one of the roughly 180 men who died defending the Alamo. Tradition has it that Crockett was one of only six survivors after the Mexicans took the fort, and that he and the others were taken out and executed by firing squad.
Conchop Posted on Tuesday, February 16, 2010 - 03:51 pm:
That certainly was a good read..... especially when compared to the right wing conservative BS that has been posted on this thread!!!!
One should be able to travel in time - It was a far different world in Crocket's time.
Here's a dram of shine to your flatlander dreamworld - perhaps the pretty people on TV and radio will convince you the up is really down.
A bitter insulting commentary lacking any substance and only aimed at belittling those whose views the author opposes says much, much more about the author than anything else.
"... this backward-looking version of Americanism, rooted in early modern British fantasies about the ancient constitution and true religion, progressives must deploy a counter-narrative that is equally rooted in American values. The ideas of natural rights and popular sovereignty are, if anything, more fundamental to American political culture than the idea of political or religious golden ages in an idealized past. But natural rights and popular sovereignty can be invoked on behalf of reform. The history of basing civil rights on natural rights is one of improvement over time, not one of decline. The abolition of slavery by the 13th Amendment and the nationalization of civil rights by the 14th improved the U.S. Constitution, and Franklin Roosevelt's notion of economic rights marks a further advance. ..." http://www.salon.com/news/tea_parties/index.html?s tory=/opinion/feature/2010/02/15/american_politica l_culture
