A Brief Apology

This was the point Ive been trying to make since I showed up at TMV a couple months ago and everyone scoffed at me and called me a loon here.

Im telling you. I see it. In my travels and at the university where I work. There is anger that is akin to pre civil war. There is unabated animosities that have not been seen since pre civil war. This does not even compare to Vietnam protests.

I have seen the enemy and he is US. We are pre French Revolution. It is class warfare declared by the left and being met by the right. This is scary stuff folks. Scary stuff.

BD, I repeat my challenge. Here is the summary of the Obama budget. Where would YOU cut.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/sum...

Cool, only nine more states to go...

I guess Dems might be sore losers sometimes.... but it doesn't last long. At least the Dems put a plan in place and make a comeback. The Dems are men when it comes to being sore losers :) and don't make panty-waisted, ineffectual, never-gonna-happen drama queen threats about seceding from the US. I guess the Dems just love the US too much to leave it, even when it seems things are down. :) I guess the Dems are also realists.

Greendreams

I looked at that budget and Ill say the same thing now that I said when it was proposed. Barak Obama projects 3.0 percent growth and 4.9 percent unemployment. Thats a lot of growth and low unemployment in the face of what we are staring at right now.

The average recession lasts 15 months. We are almost there right now and things are not looking up. This budget is so off base that it really cant be defended. However lets look at it.

He is projecting 167 billion Deficit in 2010. Thats a far cry from the 1.7 trillion that he speaks of and the rest of the world knows is true. According to his budget projections he is planning on spending 5.5 trillion dollars on Medicare, Medicaide and National health care. If that is so then where is that money going to come from?

Taxing the rich? Okay right now we get 1.2 trillion in taxes from Income taxes. All Sources. If we raise the rate on the rich by the 5-7 percent proposed that is going to amount to about 60-100 billion a year in increased revenue. Taxing the rich is not going to make up for the huge deficits.

Take away all Corporate tax breaks and raise their rates by 5 percent. You get maybe another 50 billion doing that. So now rosie projections have us garnering 150 billion more in revenue. Super...Great...awesome. We are still a bazillion miles from 1.7 trillion which is predicted based upon the rosiest of estimates.

So that leaves us with a way to curb these deficits. I present cap and trade. Fine. Charge corporations for emmiting carbon. They care claiming 1. 5 trillion dollars in government income....super.....great...no problem. Does any corporation pay that out of the goodness of their heart? Any Business? NO. You and I pay it. Hence a 1.5 trillion dollar tax on every man woman and child in America and the rich are still rich and getting off with only about a 7 percent increase in taxes.

I know you love Obama. You think he is the bomb but this whole budget thing is nothing but smoking mirrors. He is after all a POLITICAN.

1.5 trillion removed from the economy in the form of higher prices will cause the economy to trickle along at an anemic 1 percent growth as well as insuring about a 6.3-6-7 percent unemployment rate which will cause those gross tax receipts to shrink even farther.

WHEN A POLITICAN PREDICTS A DEFICIT OF 1 DOLLAR YOU CAN BET IT WILL END UP BEING 2 DOLLARS. Barak Obama predicts 1.7 trillion. You can bet it will be 3 trillion by the time its all done with.

Cap and Trade.......Obama's promise: 95 percent of Americans will not see their income tax raise ONE DIME.....NOT ONE DIME.!! Hes right. Hes going to tax the crap outta them with Cap and Trade.

It is class warfare declared by the left and being met by the right. This is scary stuff folks. Scary stuff.

Class Warfare? Yeah' it's been class warfare by the right and they have been winning nonstop for the last thirty years which is why the poverty rates keeps going up, wages keep going down and the number of hours worked keeps going up despite the fat that productivity improves every year.


Now the fine people of Texas & Georgia seem to be of the opinion that our "Socialist" blue state values are not for them, they are far too good Christians and Capitalists to live in the same country than the rest of us. I do not want to stand between them and their values, so to them I say please go, get lost and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

PS. can you talk to Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to see if they are of the same opinion as you are?

Sore losers?

Looks to me like there are people in government who are actually starting to work to abide by the limitations of the US Constitution. That supreme law of our land that was created to protect the people from a domineering central government.

Kudos to Rick Perry, to the Georgia Senate, and to the Oklahoma legislature that passed today a resolution that claims the state's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0409/613607.html

Its about time that the States reasserted their rights and made the federal government realize that we are The United STATES of American and not The United State of America, and that each State is a sovereign entity held together under the US Constitution by agreement and not by being compelled by force of the federal government, and that the holding together of the union on anyother terms than voluntary ones offends the reasons that this nation was founded upon.

Yes Don. Everyone knows its class warfare. It has been since the 30's. Declared by the left or the right depending on which side of the road the chicken has been standing on to cross.

Perhaps Don all the rich people could pull out of the union. Then YOU could have all the poor people and all the illegal immigrants and all the people that need handouts and welfare and then you can tax each other to death.

Oh but wait!!....If the rich pulled out and formed their own rich country who would mow their lawns and clean their house and do their plumbing.........and...and who would the poor tax for their handouts? Dont you just hate it when we all have to depend on each other to make it thru life??

Better add Idaho to the list:

http://www.fox12idaho.com/Global/story.asp?S=10...

and South Dakota

http://shepardpolitics.blogspot.com/2009/03/sou...

Looks like 33 states have or had such resolutions all, Arkansas and New hampshire have defeated such measures, but South Dakota, Idaho, and Oklahoma have passed these resolutions in both houses.

Here is a site that tracks this

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/23/...

My real take on states rights.

"Suddenly, there are state laws on everything from global warming to same-sex marriage, and states routinely challenge Uncle Sam's authority in court ... Can we really have 50 state global warming policies or 50 different definitions of marriage? We are a long way from that academic question posing any kind of real problem. [But] why not allow for more state, regional, and local differences on social issues? If Oregon wants to be more flexible about the use of medical marijuana, for example, and Kansas does not, why should that become a federal issue?"

The left to me seems to be angry because all the big liberal states where their power resides are broke or going broke fast. So to find a way to justify their socialist programs they have started this hogwash about the red states being social welfare states and that its really the Red states that are causing the blue states to be poor, broke and destitute.

The left finds ingenious ways to spin anything. California cant balance its budget because they pay more Federal Income tax money into the coffers then they get back as a federal hand out. What the hell does paying income tax have to do with balancing the state budget. But if you lef them they can spin a watermellon and turn it into a peach.

So in conclusion. States are asserting their rights against a multi headed hydra that needs to be reined in and get their noses out of states businesses. They wont but thats what the states rights affirmations are all about. Its our business Idaho or Montana what we do. If we dont want to let Gays get married then thats our business. No where in the constitution does it guarantee even hetrosexuals the constitutional right to marry. Thus that right is reserverd for the states. Thats what the 10th amendment is all about.

So Braindead, I still wasn't clear on what you would cut. I find your thoughts here interesting because I talk a lot about cutting, but haven't taken the time to make any concrete proposals. Therefore, I'm piggybacking off others. Anyway, I got from your comment that you think many of the projects are inaccurate and that you think cap and trade costs will be passed on to consumers. But where would you cut the proposed budget? I'm guessing no cap and trade... If so, what are your thoughts on controlling the environmental impact of carbon emissions which will eventually amount into the trillions if nothing is done. Also, anything else? No health care changes, no amounts towards alternative energy, further cuts in military?

GreenDreams, I forgot to say earlier (I got caught up in my own comment)... THANKS for the link to the budget!

Braindead, "The left finds ingenious ways to spin anything. California cant balance its budget because they pay more Federal Income tax money into the coffers then they get back as a federal hand out. What the hell does paying income tax have to do with balancing the state budget."

California can't balance its budget because most Republican legislators won't agree to ANY tax increase. Even with the support of Arnold, the Republican governor and a few more moderate Republicans in Sacto.

And as far as CA paying more in federal income taxes than it receives back... we've been over this before (though not specific to CA). I understand the needs for transportation and I'm not against some disparity in how the federal government doles out it's money. And I'm not whining about this... but am going to use this as the perfect example.... Clearly CA and many other blue states pay more to the federal government than they get back. The federal government then spends more money in ALL red states (except for TX, which actually pays a little more than it gets back). What this means is that the federal government is providing more stimulus to all the red states (except TX) because of its greater spending, which creates more jobs in those red states, and more revenue for those red states.

Again, I understand there will probably be some disparity in federal money distribution but the Republicans are stupid to claim that the taxes in this country are unfair to them when they benefit more than the blue states. The money earned in blue states goes to job creation and more revenue in red states via federal government spending. Even if the disparity is necessary (due to building and maintaining highways, for instance) it is still a fact. The red states benefit more from federal tax dollars than the blue states.

So where in the constitution does it guarantee even hetrosexuals the constitutional right to marry. Thus that right is reserverd for the states. Thats what the 10th amendment is all about.

Really funny how this State's Right thing works...

Funny way back when, when Shrub was President, the Federal government ruled and no one on right complained, for example when California wanted to put in effect strict pollution regulation, all of sudden Pollution was a federal matter, when Andrew Cuomo in New York wanted to enforce Trading and Banking State Laws, all of sudden it was a Federal matter.

So in conclusion we can say that right-wingers are in favor of which ever level of government has the lightest regulatory burden, damn the consequences. To argue Federalism with them is the ultimate game of "heads I win, tails You lose".

So Braindead, I still wasn't clear on what you would cut.

To take a wild guess here,

Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Social Security, VA and anything that could be construed as damaging to the moral character of the middle-class, working-class and the poor, in other works anything that may resemble welfare.

To take a wild guess here,

Actually has anyone looked at the budget. Nowhere have I advocated cutting this budget. I continually preach paying for it.

That is why I pointed out the specifics of the budget that are grossly misapplied and thus.........line one, two and three are all incorrect. The rest of the budget is bogus government double speak.

I dont advocate cutting anything except the massive and bloated defense budget. I advocate getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I have stated before and will state again that I am not opposed to health care, green and education. IM all for getting our polution under control and raising up a new 21st century industry that is sustainable.

IM ALL FOR THAT.

What I am opposed to is the incessant and constant lies of politicans that in the future....just give me a few years and if you just do what I say, pass my policies and give me a chance we will balance the budget, everyone will live in nirvana and all will be right with the world.

Thats bogus LIES......OBAMA IS A LIAR. BUSH WAS A LIAR, REAGAN WAS A LIAR. Clinton ran budget surpluses.....hes my hero.

So you all are wrong about me. I dont advocate cutting anything except defense spending. What I have always advocated is paying for it.........and more importantly making people understand that Obama is lying to us............10 trillion in deficits will be 20 trillion.......they always are and hes base assumptions are wrong because we all know that raising taxes, Cap and trade are going to stymie the economy.....not help it to expand.

the government is not and never has been the answer......nevah. The answer is states. If the government didnt take so much from the states and the people the states would be able to live in their means. If the states didnt come to rely upon the FEDS then they would start being fiscally responsible. That is and always will be my point.

DQ, you're right to call out the disingenuousness but the Dems have a trick coin too- they'll support whichever way results in the most regulation, whether done by feds or states.

The trouble is that there are people on both sides who are consistent in their views of what the role of the federal govt vs. the states should be, but the party leaders use whichever tack is best suited to their current needs.

Me, I do lean toward state's rights and limited federal government, and I point to some pretty substantial arguments made by the founders in the Federalist papers. So yeah, I do criticize the Bush administration for claiming federal authority to usurp powers of the states- not only because I think they were wrong in that rationale, but because those actions undermine the central principles and destroy credibility when the states' rights arguments need to be made.

Re: the main post- the GA thing is an embarrassment but not for the reasons people would think. Instead of representing any real sentiment toward secession, it represents a typical debacle of legislators failing to even read a bill. This thing passed in the middle of a bunch of other legislation and a bunch of guys saw the title of it and thought it sounded good.

CS: "This thing passed in the middle of a bunch of other legislation and a bunch of guys saw the title of it and thought it sounded good."

heh, this sounds familiar