(2008-01-28) — In his final State of the Union address tonight, President George Bush plans to announce that the U.S. economy has become such a quagmire that the federal government will begin a phased withdrawal.
The nationâs chief executive will reportedly tell the American people that the government got involved in the U.S. economy under false pretenses, has mismanaged the effort from the beginning, and the president believes now that “the only way forward is backward.”
The president will propose immediate reductions in taxes, regulation, government spending and federal bureaucracies.
“The people, and their businesses, will have to make it on their own,” the president will reportedly say. “If we keep bailing them out, theyâre never going to learn to live with the consequences of their actions. Risk, reward and failure are the lifeblood of capitalism. We canât keep rapping the knuckles of the invisible hand. The federal government will stand down so American ingenuity, initiative and persistence can stand up.”
Democrats in Congress have already signaled opposition to the pull-out plan, advocating instead a surge of government involvement in business and in the finances of every citizen.
57 responses so far ↓
1 camojack // Jan 28, 2008 at 6:35 am
If only!!!
2 Libby Gone // Jan 28, 2008 at 6:46 am
Itâs about time President Bush admitted his part in this illegal ” War on Personal Income”.
3 onlineanalyst // Jan 28, 2008 at 6:58 am
I love it! Turn those Dem weenie words back at them for a better purpose: freedom from the imperialist redistributionists.
4 Hawkeye // Jan 28, 2008 at 8:22 am
The Federal Government should redeploy to Okinawa where they can be ready to return to Washington, D.C. if and when needed…
5 Anonymous // Jan 28, 2008 at 8:59 am
Great move by President Bush, just in time to thwart the Demos plan to use WMDâs (Weapons of Mass Distraction) in November.
6 upnorthlurkin // Jan 28, 2008 at 9:10 am
Brilliant! Scott, your skill at turning a phrase is surely a gift from God! Thank you for sharing it with us!
If the president actually gave either of the speeches you wrote (last yearâs was a masterpiece too) I believe youâd hear a roar of approval across the country.
7 conserve-a-tips // Jan 28, 2008 at 9:33 am
Ahhhh…one can dream…one can dream!
And since Congress holds the purse strings - and since Congress has the approval rating of a case of herpes, could someone please explain to me how the great hope for this country comes for 4 senators (McCain, Edwards, Obama and Shrillary) who just a few months ago were the scum of the earth????????
wv But coaxing Republicans to show the establishment that they ‘ve had enough of the RINOâs.
8 boberinyetagain // Jan 28, 2008 at 10:01 am
Excellent work Scott! So, George is finally turning libertarian. That would indeed be sweet!
“bassoon man”, a true classic WV
9 gafisher // Jan 28, 2008 at 10:09 am
“And then the economy awoke with a start.” I doubt even a lame-duck President would have the courage to right the inverted U.S. economic system to that extent, but at least some of the Republican candidates could get us closer.
The Romney-Stallone ticket promises a one-two punch of preserving the Bush tax cuts while “bringing together leaders” to <a href=”restore jobs weâve lost to countries with a better business climate.
The closest approach could be the Huckabee-Hunter ticket, encouraging free but balanced free trade and with taxes no longer levied against the “good” behaviors of hard work and diligent saving but collected instead from a portion of personal discretionary spending. (Both tickets would work to stop illegal immigration, something the Bush plan seems to overlook.)
Unfortunately, this is the ticket weâre more likely to get …
10 Fred Sinclair // Jan 28, 2008 at 10:27 am
camojack re:#1 AMEN! Fonely; Fonely; Fonely.
Heirborn Ranger
11 conserve-a-tips // Jan 28, 2008 at 10:35 am
GaFisher: re # 9 - which one is president and which one is vice president?
wv developing flew : a poor speller coming down with the sniffles
12 Maggie // Jan 28, 2008 at 10:36 am
“You can take it to the bank(rupt).
13 da Bunny // Jan 28, 2008 at 10:38 am
Once again, Scott, youâve proven to have your finger on the pulse of the situation. Bailouts, handouts, and give-aways DONâT work, because they continue to enable bad behavior and disable personal responsibility.
Did anyone else here happen to read yesterdayâs article on “Drudge,” about the “mortgage crisis” in the Cleveland area that, apparently, has only affected blacks? The article blames Bush [naturally] and Congress for the fact that the people quoted in the article took out loans they couldnât afford to pay, and are now being foreclosed on. Darn those “racist” sub-prime loans…
14 JQ // Jan 28, 2008 at 11:07 am
Bravo, Scott. Bravo.
“Risk, reward and failure are the lifeblood of capitalism.”
EXACTLY! This is why capitalism in the United States doesnât appear to work anymore; the U.S. is no longer a capitalist nation.
Whereâs the risk? Why not take out a variable rate mortgage with the chance of skyrocketing rates in the future? Why not rack up horrendous credit card balances? Somebody will bail you out. Worst case, you can declare bankruptcy, hop on the welfare wagon, and start over (assuming you ever feel the conscientious nudge to climb back out of the wagon).
Whereâs the reward? When you prosper, you pay more taxes. When the surplus taxes are refunded (or rebated), you get the short end of the stick (if any end at all). Why take the risk when the reward will be snatched from you anyway?
And failure? Well, we donât like to hear that word. Letâs try “victory-deficient.” There, that feels better, doesnât it?
15 da Bunny // Jan 28, 2008 at 11:21 am
“And failure? Well, we donât like to hear that word. Letâs try âvictory-deficient.â There, that feels better, doesnât it?”
Yes, I feel better already!! The next time something doesnât work out in my life, Iâll have to remember that itâs only a deficiency in my victory quotient, and NOT a “failure.” Semantics are SO important at such times…
16 everthink // Jan 28, 2008 at 11:43 am
Jesus Counsels the Rich Young Ruler
Luke 18:18-23 (NKJV)
18 Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, âGood Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?â
19 So Jesus said to him, âWhy do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.
20 You know the commandments: âDo not commit adultery,â âDo not murder,â âDo not steal,â âDo not bear false witness,â âHonor your father and your mother.ââ
21 And he said, âAll these things I have kept from my youth.â
22 So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, âYou still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.â
23 But when he heard this, he became very sorrowful, for he was very rich.
Was this young ruler a conservative?
ET
17 JQ // Jan 28, 2008 at 11:59 am
Everthink-
The thing that most people donât recognize about this parable is that it had nothing to do with money. It had everything to do with where the young manâs heart was. The young ruler evidently had a stronger desire to hold on to his money than to his God. If the young man had instead been, say, an American NFL fan, Jesus may have told him to give up his Sunday football games.
The point is that we have to be willing to give up anything for the cause of Christ.
Now, thatâs very different from giving up everything for the cause of the federal government of the U.S. The Bible does indeed demand sacrificial, selfless giving. However, taxation is not the way to do it. Thatâs what charities are for (faith-based initiatives? Perish the thought…).
Giving has to be a choice, or itâs not truly giving.
18 da Bunny // Jan 28, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Excellent response to the “cherry-picker,” JQ. Itâs unfortunate that the point will be lost on the godless one who comes here only to mock. Were I the betting sort, Iâd lay it all on the odds that the one who mocks most definitely does not put his money where his mouth is…itâs a safe bet, for sure.
19 everthink // Jan 28, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Whoâs face is on the coin?
ET
20 conserve-a-tips // Jan 28, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Neverthink: If you are truly trying to understand scripture, then your questions are warranted. If you are trying to misuse scripture to taunt, then you are allowing Satan to guide your actions.
First, Christ told the young man in no uncertain terms that there was no good that he could do because only God is good. In other words, “it is by grace we are saved through faith and not of our good works lest we boast about what we have done “( Ephesians 2:8-9).
Second, He pointed out though, that because of that salvation you will want to do what pleases God, to keep his commandments.
Third, when asked by the Pharisees which was the greatest commandment, Jesus answered: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. ” Mathew 22:37 and in Mathew 6:19-24 Jesus tells the masses, “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and dspise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” And so, Jesus instructs them in Mathew 6:33, He instructs them, “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”
So fourth: Jesus was demonstrating to the rich, young ruler that his money was getting in the way of his devotion to God. It wasnât that Jesus wanted him to give it all up, but that He wanted him to be willing to give it all up, in the same way that God needed Abraham to be willing to sacrifice his son, Issac, even though God never intended for him to do so. God wants our hearts, not our money or our sacrifices. This young man went away sad because he realized that his heart was in his money and not in his devotion to God.
Christ told the crowds that if anyone could not hate his mother or father to honor Him, then that person was not worthy. Following Christ means being willing to take up his cross and give everything else up. When we become willing, then God places us in whatever situation, rich or poor, that He knows He can use us to His fullest. It is not being rich that determines the sin. It is where we place our loyalty and our hope that is the difference. If our hope is in the Lord, then we can have all the money in the world and we will know what to do with it to the glory of God. If our hope is in our money, then we are of no use at all.
wv ventilation gotiations airing out differences over little chin beards
21 boberinyetagain // Jan 28, 2008 at 12:38 pm
c-a-t, the “rich man/eye of the needle” passage seems to suggest that riches are viewed as a drawback as well
par zurich? sound like Tiger may have a trip coming up
22 JQ // Jan 28, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Boberin-
Agreed, the more physical possessions one has, the harder it can be for them to see past the fleeting physical world to the true spiritual one.
A person has to be able to separate his heart from his wealth. When a person can truly say that all he needs to survive is a daily dose of Godâs providence, heâs ready to handle any riches God will dish out.
Wealth, in and of itself, isnât bad. Look at Job, Abraham, Boaz, Joseph of Arimathea, Barnabas, etc. Godly people are often blessed with material wealth; in this way, they can make a stronger impact for the good.
Itâs not a question of whether or not the wealthy should help the poor; itâs a question of who the responsibility of disbursement falls to.
Taxation for the purpose of “charity” (read: welfare and other social programs) assumes that the federal government knows better how to spend your money than you yourself do. I happen to disagree. Rather than funding Planned Parenthood with my money, I would prefer to support a Crisis Pregnancy Center. Rather than funding welfare, I would prefer to support my churchâs food bank.
23 JQ // Jan 28, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Everthink, Re: 19
Oh, for the days when taxes were paid with coins…
So, whoâs “face” is on the coin? Letâs take a look at that, shall we? I see “The United States of America” printed on my bills. Thatâs me.
I believe your comment refers back to when Peter asked about paying taxes, and Jesus famously replied, “Give to Cesar what is Cesarâs.” Well, fortunately, we donât live under a cesar (a.k.a., dictatorship) anymore. “We the People” decide which taxes we want to the contribute to the public pool, which is to be used for the common defense, and so on. Therefore, “We the People” (as part of the deciding body) are perfectly entitled to object to the taxes that are levied against our will.
Nice try, though. Your Scriptural reference does serve to drive in my earlier point. As Christians, we shouldnât be so shackled to our money that itâs all we care about. It should be a means, not the end.
Caring about our taxes is merely part of being a good steward of what God has given us. I certainly donât want to be the servant who buried his talent in a federal bureaucracy, never to be seen again.
24 gafisher // Jan 28, 2008 at 1:12 pm
et Re#19: “Whoâs face is on the coin?”
This one? Why, thatâs Miss Liberty!
25 Hawkeye // Jan 28, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Everthink #16,
The rich young ruler was probably a “fiscal” conservative, but not a “Christian” conservative.
But seriously, think about the context of the passage for a moment. A rich young ruler comes to Jesus asking what he must do “to inherit eternal life.” Jesus tells him to obey the commandments, but the young man says he is already doing this. In effect, he is saying, “I am already good, but I want to do more.” Jesus suggests a life of sacrifice — in this case, to give up his wealth.
Indeed, Jesus sacrificed himself for us. He was asking the young ruler to become more like himself.
Notice too, that he did not tell the young ruler to petition the government to provide more services to the poor. He said, “Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor.” Charity is personal vs. a corporate.
26 Ms RightWing, Ink // Jan 28, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I thought Paul Bunyanâs face was on my Minnesota state quarter. Hmm, better go look again.
Maybe instead of WVâs we need 25 cent piece pictures
Ohio quarter: Dennis Kuchinch face with a broken down city on the back.
27 Ms RightWing, Ink // Jan 28, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Wisconsin quarter: Bordenâs Elsie the Cow with a crappie on the back?
28 Ms RightWing, Ink // Jan 28, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Oklahoma quarter: Will Rogers on the front with a tornado on the back
Tee hee, C.A.T
runabout pur:
What my car should do
29 conserve-a-tips // Jan 28, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Again, Boberin, if you read all of the passages together, including “The love of money is the root of all evil”, you will see that God does not make money the sin, but rather the focus and hope in riches as the sin. If God did not want people to be rich, then He would not have given Solomon the great riches that he had or Abraham or those in the New Testament who helped Jesus and Paul and the other disciples because they had money. We are not to seek after anything that becomes more important than our devotion to the Lord. That could be collecting baseball cards or wanting a house in south Florida or wanting that lady across the street who seems prettier than your wife. Mammon comes in all forms.
wv: van eats: Sonic
30 mig // Jan 28, 2008 at 1:36 pm
NCarolina Quarter: John Edwards brushing his lushes locks as Jesse Helms says No!No!No!No!
Description ample: my waste line
31 conserve-a-tips // Jan 28, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Ms Rightwing InK: unfortunately, the Oklahoma coin is going to have a sissy bird on it and a native American. It is pretty sorry looking. We got to vote on our quarter and had such wonderful choices. I think that the governor had already made up his mind and our vote didnât matter. The worst one got picked. Even the newspaper protested. Oh well.
wv: await posthypnotic say what???
Ohhhhh…ok….putting the thyroid to sleep is coming
32 gafisher // Jan 28, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Ms. RW Re#26: “Ohio quarter: Dennis Kuchinch face with a broken down city on the back.”
Sounds like a obverse / reverse inversion — I think itâs actually a broken down city with Kucinich on its back.
33 JQ // Jan 28, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Hawkeye, RE: 25
I agree with all of your points (especially the distinction between fiscal conservatives and Christian conservatives), but Iâd like to clarify one point.
I believe this was one of Jesusâ “Letter-of-the-Law” versus “Spirit-of-the-Law” lessons. The man had clearly kept the letter of the law all his life, but Jesus saw that he was merely checking items off a list. Jesus wanted to make it clear to him that, more importantly, he needed to address the spirit of the law. He had walked the line, but heâd never truly invested his heart and soul into following God. His inability to part with his wealth proved his lack of faith in the eternal.
C-A-T, RE: 29
Thanks for your post. I think you hit the nail exactly on the head.
34 da Bunny // Jan 28, 2008 at 2:15 pm
JQ, c-a-t, Hawkeye your posts concerning Biblical references and principles involving money are excellent, but they are lost on those who do not have Him in their hearts and minds. These mockers have been repeatedly and continually told and shown The Truth in a thousand different ways, but they reject it in favor of their own ways of thinking and in favor of mocking those whose faith lies in a Power far greater than any government. Even Jesus Christ, Himself, chose to “shake the dust off” and move on when He knew that His message was falling on purposely deaf ears.
35 JQ // Jan 28, 2008 at 2:29 pm
da Bunny, RE: 34
Perhaps, but Iâm not necessarily posting merely for Everthinkâs benefit.
I happen to think that money (a capitalist nationâs primary “Mammon”, as C-A-T put it) is a huge part of the Republican partyâs problems; some of the more “fiscally conservative” among us tend to the opposite extreme, where hoarding is considered next to Godliness. Itâs important for us all to remember that thereâs to be a balance between responsibly accumulating wealth and responsibly taking care of the needs of others, which God has also entrusted to us.
I think the key is to remember that everything we have belongs to God; weâre merely the stewards of his wealth. I canât imagine how someone could continue to be fiscally irresponsible while keeping that perspective at the forefront.
36 Hawkeye // Jan 28, 2008 at 2:58 pm
JQ #33,
I agree. This is a “spirit” vs. “letter” passage, but that is not something which is immediately apparent to the average reader of scriptures (as it is to those of us who are more scripturally informed). I was just trying to highlight the more obvious contextual message of self-sacrifice and Christ-likeness… “come, follow me”.
37 Hawkeye // Jan 28, 2008 at 3:01 pm
da Bunny #34,
So true. What was that verse about casting “pearls”…?
linebacker may — sack Tom Brady!
38 everthink // Jan 28, 2008 at 3:22 pm
JQ,
Re: 35
That was an outstanding answer! Thank you,
ET
39 boberinyetagain // Jan 28, 2008 at 3:39 pm
So, when “conservatives” and/or “republicans” decided to ship manufacturing and other jobs overseas, knowing the ultimate price that Americans would pay…and did so just to increase the “bottom line” and enrich themselves (with the goverments blessing/often encouragement/support) then they were not being…
Never mind, Christ or no Christ those things were the wrong thing to do but allegedly “godly” people did them just the same…
pricing to…to what I wonder?
40 everthink // Jan 28, 2008 at 3:41 pm
“Even Jesus Christ, Himself, chose to âshake the dust offâ and move on when He knew that His message was falling on purposely deaf ears.”
Can you cite chapter and verse on that statement?
ET
41 conserve-a-tips // Jan 28, 2008 at 3:53 pm
“If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and gomorrah on the day of judgement than for that town. I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innoncent as doves. Mathew 10:14-16
Now Walks: He who was crucified but now lives.
42 everthink // Jan 28, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Matthew 6:24
âNo man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.â KJV
ET
43 everthink // Jan 28, 2008 at 4:14 pm
CAT,
I know the Lordâs instructions to the disciples, but thatâs not the question. Please show me âEven Jesus Christ, Himself, chose to âshake the dust offâ and move on when He knew that His message was falling on purposely deaf ears.â
If you canât do that, and you canât, then maybe you shouldnât attribute words and deeds to The Master wrongly.
ET
ET
44 conserve-a-tips // Jan 28, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Boberin and Everthink: what I am hearing from you two is that you see yourselves as God who can judge another manâs heart and his motives. I hear you judging those with money who have taken actions regarding their companies and are looking at the results of those actions only as they affect those of us here in the US according to your take on things. Even the poorest Americans have more than most on this earth.
So letâs say, for the sake of argument, that a CEO decides to outsource jobs to India because it makes more money. So what? Jesus gives us a parable of a landowner who gives his servants money and applauds those who invest it wisely and punishes the one who does not. What if God is using that company to make life better for Indians who have only been making 50 cents a day and are now making $10 per hour, while our own unemployment rate is still only at 5% (which is considered full employment)? What if we have become so selfish in our attempt at accruing money for ourselves that jobs are being taken from us and given to others until we come back to recognizing that our provider is God and not the CEOâs? What if our abundance is being used by God to reach others in lands where there is a need for the word of freedom and liberty in Christ? Read the parable of the workers in the vineyard in Mathew 20: 1-16 where Jesus asks the question, “Donât I have the right to do what I want with my own money?”
I hear both of you trying to interpret the situations from a selfish standpoint - one that you accuse others of taking.
benefits in: The popular ‘thingâ in politics today - entitlements
45 everthink // Jan 28, 2008 at 5:01 pm
CAT
“Boberin and Everthink: what I am hearing from you two is that you see yourselves as God who can judge another manâs heart and his motives.”
I canât help the voices you hear, I have mainly quoted scripture. On the contrary, it is you “conservatives” who make judgments about the moral character of Democrats, or “liberals”.
You here have accused me of supporting all manner of vile and disgusting things, which are far from me; but then, it is true, members of my church do not “take up serpents” for fear of being bitten.
ET
46 Hawkeye // Jan 28, 2008 at 5:21 pm
everthink #43,
My friend, you “strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel”. Jesus told his disciples to shake off the dust from their feet, but he himself went much further than that. He called those who would not listen to him: 1) hypocrites, 2) blind fools, 3) whitewashed tombs, 4) serpents, 5) brood of vipers, 6) murderers, and 7) sons of the Devil. I think his followers are getting off easy!
47 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 28, 2008 at 6:22 pm
God Bless America
48 da Bunny // Jan 28, 2008 at 6:58 pm
JQ re: 35, I didnât mean that you were posting for ETâs benefit alone. I disagree that the love of money is a “Republican” problem…plenty of Democrats are more than willing to hoard their own fortunes while confiscating hard-earned money from the rest of us because “they know better than we do” how to use it. George Soros, the Clintons, the Kennedys, most of the Hollywood liberal elites, bigwigs in the LSM, John F. Kerry, et al are just a very few examples of such liberal/democrat “hoarders”. Spare us the notion that only Republicans are “greedy capitalists” who have shipped jobs overseas and want to take food and healthcare away from crying babies. [Not to mention the fact that Christian conservatives donât want those babies murdered before theyâre born!] Iâve also read of past studies having been conducted that show conservatives to be much more generous in their charitable giving than liberals.
ET, I wasnât quoting Scripture when I wrote post #34. As c-a-t so kindly posted in #41, the “chapter and verse” are about Christ telling his disciples to “shake the dust” off their feet and leave behind those who would not listen. I donât believe Christ would admonish His followers to do what He would not do Himself. I am not a Bibilical scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but Christâs meaning is clear in that verse, and in the terms He used to describe those who rejected His message, as graciously posted by Hawkeye in post #46.
Itâs funny how everyone else here understood my post about “the dust” quite well, but the “free-thinking” mockers were more concerned with the cherry-picking and “chapter and verse” word games. God knows my heart, and that is all that matters.
49 EXT // Jan 28, 2008 at 8:04 pm
#39
Just think! Those American manufacturers moved those jobs to low wage areas because Americans refused to pay the price for goods produced in America. Those who bought foreign to save a few cents now have fewer cents to spend so those jobs are going to have to move to lower wage areas. Maybe back to America? Probably not; minimum wage laws will keep that from happening.
When were you personally caught by this cycle? One might think it was early on….
50 egospeak // Jan 28, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Itâs 9pm, time for the State of the Union message and my TV and all radios are off. What?!!! Youâre not going to watch/listen to the President tell about the state of the union? Thatâs right… and you know why? Well about 10% is because Bush, whatever other faults he has, gives a lousy speech. He could read the words of JFK or Reagan and make them sound dull. Throw in 20% for all the pandering to various constituencies, another 20% for all the mis-statements and flat out lies that all politicians tell to protect us from the truth, (that would set us free, by the way) and you have half the reason.
The other half, the 50% solution if you will, is the utter hypocrisy of the whole affair. Congressmen and Senators who absolutely dispise the president standing up and applauding and cheering as if they were a bunch of 12 year olds at a Hannah Montana concert. It completely disgusts me, and is just more proof, as if any were needed, that it is Washington DC, and not Hollywood, Calif that is the land of make believe.
In the same vein as the wag who said, “If your vote could really change things they wouldnât let you cast it.”, if the State of the Union speech were really important the president would give it from the Oval Office. All who participate in this charade deserve a special place in hell.
Regards,
wv-thoughts burns… somehow that seems appropriate.
51 Fred Sinclair // Jan 28, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Listening to President Bushâs State of the Union just now, unfortunately he has undergone conversion to the new religion and is now an active member of “The Church of Manmade Global Warming” in addition to which he is still plugging his Amnesty program.
As with any loved one we see caught up in the grips of a cult, our beloved President is in need of our prayers for an intervention. Self appointed Prophet Algoreâs gigantic hoax is being exposed on a day to day basis. The question in my mind is how many years in prison will he and his fellow co-conspirators be sentenced to serve?
Heirborn Ranger
52 prettyold // Jan 28, 2008 at 10:27 pm
If Barak Obama gets elected will they change “Okinawa” to “Obamawa”? Maybe even Oklahoma to “Obamhoma”?
Donât worry C.A.T.,weâd all march and roll right down there to put a stop to that.
carelessly raelSombody carelessly left off the “I”. I pray that is not an omen.
53 conserve-a-tips // Jan 28, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Prettyold: Wonât happen here, where the wind comes sweeping down the plain. It would just ruin a good song - âȘ O-K-LA-H-O-M-A -Oklahomaaaaaa - OK! âȘâȘ
his Officials: Billâs hit squad??
54 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 29, 2008 at 6:12 am
I guess, according to various news media input, the vote in November will be strictly along religious-gender-racial lines.
Also, according to the same various news media input, is the comical delusion that pops up now and then over yonder in the EU wherein they think they
should be permittedhave the right to vote in our presidential elections. LOL Too funny. I mean, really: rofl.55 everthink // Jan 29, 2008 at 9:09 am
Even funnier is the very same ones who pulled the last trick on America, are getting ready to ask again: “Pull My Finger”.
ET
56 JQ // Jan 29, 2008 at 10:02 am
da Bunny, RE: 48
Absolutely right. By no means did I intend to demonize the Republican party as a money-grubbing hoarders; I am, myself, a Republican. I fully grasp the hypocrisy of some left-wingers who chastise wealthy Republicans while living on massive estates themselves. My post was simply a warning for us to steer clear of the temptation to revere private ownership higher than Godly stewardship.
In my mind, the primary fiscal difference between conservatives and liberals is distribution of funds. We all agree that the wealthy should help the poor and downtrodden; we just disagree on how the help should be administered.
Liberals want to give their percentage to the government, then go about their lives content that theyâve done their part to help; after all, the government knows far better how to spend their money.
Conservatives would rather give their money directly to the charities and people who are in need, knowing for sure that their contribution is actually going to help someone get back on their feet, rather than to grease the wheels of a bureaucracy.
Thatâs why Iâm a fiscal conservative. If the government would somehow allow me to mark on my tax forms where I wanted to apply my tax money, I would feel a lot better about giving it up. But then, why not lose the middle man?
57 da Bunny // Jan 29, 2008 at 11:11 am
JQ, being both a fiscal and a social conservative, myself, I appreciate and agree with your post #56.
You must log in to post a comment.