I think eliminating programs that no longer make sense, makes sense. My ex-father-in-law, whom I loved dearly, used to get paid not to farm. Now he was elderly, and his farm was not active for many, many years. In fact, he sub-let part of his farm for a younger farmer to use. But in the end, it was more profitable for him to let the government pay him not to farm. He was retired, but continued to get paid anyway.
I am sure that when the program he was part of was initiated, there was a reason and it made sense. But where was the monitoring and accountibility as the program aged?
“For example, cutting $8 billion from crop insurance puts the entire program at risk,” said House Agriculture Committee chairman Frank Lucas of Oklahoma and Kansas Sen Pat Roberts, Republican leader on the Senate Agriculture Committee.
This is EXACTLY the problem with Washington today. Republicans have been demanding that we can solve our nation’s problem with spending cuts and spedning cuts alone (i.e., without increasing taxes on those that can afford to pay more). But when you get down to SPECIFICS about what to cut, there is little support for cutting spending.
Isn’t it easy to say “we have a spending problem” without specifying what it is you plan to cut?
I’m all for cutting spending where necessary, but a balanced approach is the only logical solution.
With the 2011 SRA the crop insurance budget was reduced by 5-6 billion. Now the White House is wanting to cut another 8 billion. So if you add up these cuts the White House is wanting to reduce the crop insurance budget by almost 30% from the original 10 year estimate of 47 billion. Where are these same cuts in welfare programs? According to the Oct 2010 CBO report on the farm bill spending, almost 75% of the farm bill cost are going to the Title IV section (Nutrition) of the farm bill. The largest share of Title IV is for food stamps and SNAP. Cut Title IV spending by 30% and we can save 122 billion over the next 10 years. So if you’re for a balanced approach then all government programs should be cut by 30%.
Farm subsidies are welfare programs. Why are handouts to farmers and corporations not considered welfare? Your response is typical of those that say “cut spending, but don’t cut spending on my programs, cut spending on someone else’s programs.”
A balanced approach is not cutting across the board. That’s taking a hatchet to a problem that needs a scalpel. If the oil companies and agribusinesses don’t need governmnet handouts, they shouldn’t be gettng them. But that doesn’t mean we should cut the same perrcentage from all areas. Some areas have already been slashed.
OPV, Your response is typical of those who twist the facts to meet their agenda and have no desire to look at things objectively. No where in my post did I say I was against the cuts that were made to Farm Subsidies/Crop Insurance. I would be interested in knowing who you think needs government handouts though. Those who make babies just to get a bigger government check or those who need a little help to get back on their feet. Those who need food stamps to buy the food basics or those who use food stamps to buy steaks and food from the Schwan’s truck. Those who need a welfare check to provide for a basic home with electricity and heating or those who use their welfare check to buy a new big screen tv and a Wii. It just amazes me that so many of you are uneducated about what is actually in the budget and what the money is spent on. Keep you head in the sand and one day when you finally pull it out you will realize that all this free money that you are willing to give away to the “needy” is being wasted by not only our government but those who are receiving it.
I am all for Crop Insurance since weather can be devastating anywhere, anytime. However, Congress and previous administrations through the Agriculture Dept have been paying farmers for not growing crops for decades. Why should Farmers be on the government dole like welfare. Let them grow crops and export to other countries who need food. That would help the balance of payments problem. Sell corn to Saudia Arabia for $88 bushel just like they charge us for their oil. I would also cut the Agriculture Dept budget to half because we don’t need their bureaucrats wasting our money.
Right…. The Midwestern Farmer is going to sell his Corn to Saudia Arabia. I agree they should have ended the pay for non-growing of crops years ago, but to say something like this is idiotic.
Republicans didn’t get us into this mess. Remember when YOU voted for “change”? Well, you are getting it. Your dollar is now worth just that; some change.
UCT, when you say “Republicans didn’t get us into this mess,” I hope what you meant was that they didn’t getus into this mess all by themselves. If you think Republicans have no culpability, then you’re not paying attention. Government spending is supported by both parties.
This is a perfect example of Republican hypocrisy. They wail and mona that Obama is spending us into oblivion and that we should cut spending. So Obama proposes to cut spending for something that obviously should be cut and Republicans oppose the spedning cuts. Tomorrow, these same Republican clowns will denounce Obama for his failure to cut spending.
And what the heck is this comment about your dollar not being worth as much? Inflation is lower now that it was under Bush!
Agree on your point that it was a bi-patrician effort that put us in this mess. Disagree about inflation. Over the last two years; my property taxes went up 15%, gas is up 30%, coffee is up 75% (can’t do without my caffeine) donuts up 30%, electrical rates up 20% (I’ve been advised by my utility company they are going up 10% a year for the next 4 years), drinks at the gas and go up 30%, milk up 30%, fees for my annual state business license went from $45 to $170, replaced my car (same make and model – Ford) at $5,000 more than it cost me 4 years ago. However on the bright side my house value dropped 30% so that must have been the factor that off-set what I mistakenly thought was the rise in inflation.
Bob, you can always point to individual ticket items that cost more today than they did yesterday, but that’s not a true measure of inflation. The CPI (Consumer Price Index)shows that in Obama’s first year in office (2009), average prices dropped 0.4%. In 2010, average prices were up 1.6%. That’s hardly an alarming inflation rate. Under Bush, the inflation rate hovered around 3%. That’s hardly discouraging either.
I really don’t credit this mess to just Bush or Obama. It is the fault of the special interest groups, one issue voters, uninformed voters, the idiots that vote based on monologues from late night comedians and those who just listen to Fox or MSNBC without doing their homework – I would like the voters in this election to take a page from James Carville campaign manual when he reminded Clinton that “It’s the Economy Stupid” – all else will sort itself out.
Stastsics can be used to mar truth, and often are. Study statistics and you will find that combining a few stastics can make the appearance of a completely different curve if you combine the select ones versus others. It’s likely just as much a joke as the unemployment rate. When Canada took our unemployment rate measurement, theirs was 5% like ours. They however don’t believe in dishonest numbers. The amount of the employed population is the only number that matters, and whether or not that is changing dramatically. This would be like quoting the CBO on tax revenues differences. If the growth is so great during Obama’s presidency and we haven’t changed tax code, why the lower receipts? CBO doesn’t know. They can’t predict jack, and most stastics are poor. As you are quoting stastics like many liberals do in poor fashion, I just had to point out make your own theory, and follow That. Don’t use unproven theory as your references or your reasoning behind your beliefs, it is easily manipulated. I say make your own with common sense.
Now, moving forward, let me guaranty you: Inflation is higher during Obama’s term than Bush’s.
In 2004 I was renting a house in Washington, 2 bedroom for 550, nearly every apartment of equal quality in the same area (as I have not moved) was the same. That same apartment is now $1,050 in WA and good luck finding one under $950 for a 2 bedroom in the same areas I checked before. My friend recently checked.
I used to buy groceries at $60 a pop in 2004. 2 visits would last me a month, and it was good quality meals. Now I’m spending damn near $350 for the same thing. I basically keep my diet the same due to being quite the competition in power lifting leagues.
The income of a Vet tech, vet assistant, and every job within a 20 mile radius of Seattle has not increased. The minimum wage as a vet assistant is still at just under 10 an hour, still 15-18 an hour for a vet tech. Macy’s and retailers still make $10 an hour to start. Clerks still make about 14 if they are lucky. Contractor, architects, engineers, (I work with them in Insurance) have not increased income either. That’s the biggest thing the price index does a poor job of monitoring. Inflation is even worse when incomes do not increase, and incomes haven’t increased. We have indefinitely had more inflation under Obama than Bush, and living has become infinitely harder. I’m making $75k a year, with a 212k house loan, a $16,500 car, and very few other monthly payments other than living expenses, and I’m saving as much as I did making $39,500 in 2006 living in a more expensive apartment (same rent as my current house) with the same car loan. and same annual expenses, I’ve changed nothing. I’m sorry it just does not pan out. Everything we need does cost more. I’m making an estimate that 40% is an accurate portrayal of the current situation. And as for gas: It didn’t skyrocket until 2008 summer, before than it was nearly half what it is now. Blame that on Bush if you want, it doesn’t change the fact that Obama further increased it, and did not releive the factors causing it’s increase. It’s still over double what it was in 2006, at least around here. 3.80 a gallon. I used to buy it $1.90 easily.
And if you want to talk about your republicans crud above allow me to point out that in Oregton DHT was going to set up thousands of jobs. A law was created that the governer at the time passed (in bed with another certain famous company, UPS)which hindered DHT’s performance, and they left the state. No coincidence, UPS has an in with a democrat senator who is now trying to make flight carrier regulations (with no purpose whatsoever) that will hinder Fed ex’s ability to compete. In Washington we have pretty much just Comcast in the Seattle area. Have you looked at Washington state building code? It was written nearly to the T to favor Comcast. I know of a firm right now being sued for not using the word “company” in their fee agreement. When the company fought it, and showed that every insurance brokerage in Washington is failing on that aspect and they have one of the best contracts in the state, the liberal judge stated “we can be arbitrary” and refuse to enforce it across the board. They also refused to give him an example of which form would work. They just said “whichever form you go with we can still go after you”. The owner said that the public officials they have hired monitoring the code in Washington would be reduced dramatically without these costs, by posting a form online. The state refused. Does it sound like they want the ability to go after anyone they want in get in bed with people much? Cocky much? Liberal states…With liberals excercising power, is far more a problem than Conservative…I can literally measure the effects of regulations by democrats on the economy, don’t even get me started on my experience with Oregon regulation code. You can call B.S. on the republicans for being mad that Obama wants to trim $50 billion on a 4 Trillion plus budget, or you can acknowledge they just know it’s a political play by Obama who is not serious in cutting the budget. It was a republican congress who made the balanced budgets. Not Clinton. You wouuld do well to remember that, and they did it just after the were voted in for the first time in 40 years. So I think they have a better record.
We can save the Obama vs. the World topic for a more appropriate forum. I am neither a Republican or a Democrat. Anyone claiming Obama is good for this Nation is either in total denial, or not educated enough to know their liberties are being taken away.
As for statistics; Mark Twain said it best. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
OK, so educate me. What liberty did you enjoy before Janaury 2009 that you do not enjoy today? Freedom to purchase an incandecent light bulb? Oh my, let’s start a revolution.
The warrantless wiretaps in the Patriot Act (thank you George W. Bush) are a direct assault on our 4th Amendment rights to not be subject to warrantless searches and seizures.
Obama pushed for and successfully got rid of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell which allowed gays and lesbians to serve in the military. I would say that was a big step in the direction of more liberty, not less. These people are now free to serve their country without fear of being discharged.
OPV Are you kidding me? Are you even aware of what Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was? OPV this shows to me you don’t know what the heck you’re talking about. It was a rights movement, 1993, in order to educate you this was a democrat movment, led by Clinton (I’m not saying that as an insult, it’s just credit where it’s due) It’s intention was to allow you to be in the military regardless of your sexual prefernces, but to prohibit practicing openly in the military (which would mean you are dating within your squad which is a BIG problem.) Are you quite aware of why the military is separated regarding genders? It wasn’t discrimination. It was a form of optimization we have had in our military for some time. any potential for romantic involvement with a commander might change your decisions in the middle of a gun fight. Many politicians preferred the don’t ask don’t tell policy for perfectly sound reasons, nothing to do with “liberties”. Don’t ask don’t tell allowed one to be gay, but ensured that dating would not happen in the military on either side. I would assume that now heterosexuals can’t, and gays can while in service be with their significant other. That is a problem on so many levels regarding fairness, and or efficiency in the military.
Why the military “was” separated regarding genders. Same concept still applies. The only point I’m getting across is that it prohibited “open” practice. Which makes perfect sense.
Obama has not passed everything he has wanted to. By the grace of karma or a God he was stopped after only about a year by a republican congress.
Universal healthcare was his goal. That is a removal of a freedom. The only way to impliment that is to make buying insurance illegal. If you have looked at Canada’s law wording, they way they did it was by limiting one’s right to have another person/entity be billed for their insurance. That’s the only way to do it. They did it by saying a doctor may not bill anyone for treatment other than the client or the government. One should have the choice to buy into a pool of risk to get insurance. The public option is only not in place due to Obama being stopped. That is a huge freedom issue, and is the only way to put in place a universal plan, to limit rights. Communism starts small, but it ends with the government owning your decisions. Obama has many tax codes and policies that consistently point to this being his goal.
A perfect follow up example would be the health savings account. Obama is taxing it. Taxation drives policy, and what the government wants you to do. Obama’s goal there is to drive you to a government program. If I want to tap into my health savings account, it’s now taxed. With Bush, I could touch it at any time I chose.
I could go into others…But I believe these are enough to show your point is greatly incorrect about not losing freedoms. You should read some state code some time, and also code from other countries. I can tell you have not, and it would do you some good. The above Canadian wording is nearly to the letter how the code is written.
We can agree to disagree as to whether the repeal of Dont Ask Dont Tell was an additional freedom granted to the People. I say it is a new freedom, you say it isn’t.
But I have yet to hear an answer to my question: What liberty do you not enjoy today that you enjoyed before Obama took office? You people rant and rave that Obama is taking away your freedoms. What freedoms are you talking about? What can you not do today that you could do in December 2008?
Obama didn’t change the tax code! It’s the same tax code as under Bush. The only thing he changed was he reduced the amount of Social Security tax you pay every by 2%. Obama doesn’t control state codes.
TELL ME ONE FREEDOM YOU HAVE LOST. You can’t do it. But I can assure you that the Patriot Act was a blow to your 4th Amendment freedoms, but that’s OK with you because it was done by a Republican. The Patriot Act is more like Communist Russia than anything Obama ever dreamed about. You like the idea that the government can listen in on your phone conversations? That was Bush’s law, not Obamas.
I can name one. By passing this health care bill, Obama is violating The 10th Amendment.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Health care was not dictated to the federal government, so it by default, is left up to the states. I feel this is the best way because if you do not like one state’s rules, you have the option to move to another state that doesn’t have that law.
September 21, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Wayne Kindred says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The reason that the goverment staring paying farmers for putting their land in CRP or crop reduction program is to stop some of the land from blowing away. Now as far as putting the land back into production my wife has land in eastern Colorado which maybe have a crop once every 5 years. I do not know if anyone on these comments know how it was back in the 30s where big black dustorms would come rolling out of Kansas and Colorado. This is the reason that this program was put into effect. It was to keep all of the land from blowing away. I agree that there are a lot of big farmers that are getting big fat checks that do not deserve them. How can you sell corn and wheat for a big price when you do not make a crop? All of the farmers that have their land in CRP is has to have a cover crop of grass to keep it from blowing. It is not cheap to put this land in grass.
There is little question that direct payments and subsidized crop insurance whould be eliminated.
So should the illegal aliens sucking up our school tax dollars, flooding our hospitals and prisons. Obama won’t do much about that except to reward them witht DREAM (Nightmare) Act.
And so called nutritional programs now cost over $111 billion each year as part of the USDA budget. Makes the commodity and insurance programs look small by comparison. Where is the outrage on that!!! More than doubled in the last eight years.
I am tired of the leeches sucking the taxpayers dry and tired of hearing about how the poor are getting screwed. It’s the middle and upper middle income workers who pay $20 to $100K a year in federal income taxes that are getting scewed!
I think eliminating programs that no longer make sense, makes sense. My ex-father-in-law, whom I loved dearly, used to get paid not to farm. Now he was elderly, and his farm was not active for many, many years. In fact, he sub-let part of his farm for a younger farmer to use. But in the end, it was more profitable for him to let the government pay him not to farm. He was retired, but continued to get paid anyway.
I am sure that when the program he was part of was initiated, there was a reason and it made sense. But where was the monitoring and accountibility as the program aged?
“For example, cutting $8 billion from crop insurance puts the entire program at risk,” said House Agriculture Committee chairman Frank Lucas of Oklahoma and Kansas Sen Pat Roberts, Republican leader on the Senate Agriculture Committee.
This is EXACTLY the problem with Washington today. Republicans have been demanding that we can solve our nation’s problem with spending cuts and spedning cuts alone (i.e., without increasing taxes on those that can afford to pay more). But when you get down to SPECIFICS about what to cut, there is little support for cutting spending.
Isn’t it easy to say “we have a spending problem” without specifying what it is you plan to cut?
I’m all for cutting spending where necessary, but a balanced approach is the only logical solution.
With the 2011 SRA the crop insurance budget was reduced by 5-6 billion. Now the White House is wanting to cut another 8 billion. So if you add up these cuts the White House is wanting to reduce the crop insurance budget by almost 30% from the original 10 year estimate of 47 billion. Where are these same cuts in welfare programs? According to the Oct 2010 CBO report on the farm bill spending, almost 75% of the farm bill cost are going to the Title IV section (Nutrition) of the farm bill. The largest share of Title IV is for food stamps and SNAP. Cut Title IV spending by 30% and we can save 122 billion over the next 10 years. So if you’re for a balanced approach then all government programs should be cut by 30%.
Farm subsidies are welfare programs. Why are handouts to farmers and corporations not considered welfare? Your response is typical of those that say “cut spending, but don’t cut spending on my programs, cut spending on someone else’s programs.”
A balanced approach is not cutting across the board. That’s taking a hatchet to a problem that needs a scalpel. If the oil companies and agribusinesses don’t need governmnet handouts, they shouldn’t be gettng them. But that doesn’t mean we should cut the same perrcentage from all areas. Some areas have already been slashed.
OPV, Your response is typical of those who twist the facts to meet their agenda and have no desire to look at things objectively. No where in my post did I say I was against the cuts that were made to Farm Subsidies/Crop Insurance. I would be interested in knowing who you think needs government handouts though. Those who make babies just to get a bigger government check or those who need a little help to get back on their feet. Those who need food stamps to buy the food basics or those who use food stamps to buy steaks and food from the Schwan’s truck. Those who need a welfare check to provide for a basic home with electricity and heating or those who use their welfare check to buy a new big screen tv and a Wii. It just amazes me that so many of you are uneducated about what is actually in the budget and what the money is spent on. Keep you head in the sand and one day when you finally pull it out you will realize that all this free money that you are willing to give away to the “needy” is being wasted by not only our government but those who are receiving it.
I am all for Crop Insurance since weather can be devastating anywhere, anytime. However, Congress and previous administrations through the Agriculture Dept have been paying farmers for not growing crops for decades. Why should Farmers be on the government dole like welfare. Let them grow crops and export to other countries who need food. That would help the balance of payments problem. Sell corn to Saudia Arabia for $88 bushel just like they charge us for their oil. I would also cut the Agriculture Dept budget to half because we don’t need their bureaucrats wasting our money.
Right…. The Midwestern Farmer is going to sell his Corn to Saudia Arabia. I agree they should have ended the pay for non-growing of crops years ago, but to say something like this is idiotic.
Republicans didn’t get us into this mess. Remember when YOU voted for “change”? Well, you are getting it. Your dollar is now worth just that; some change.
UCT, when you say “Republicans didn’t get us into this mess,” I hope what you meant was that they didn’t getus into this mess all by themselves. If you think Republicans have no culpability, then you’re not paying attention. Government spending is supported by both parties.
This is a perfect example of Republican hypocrisy. They wail and mona that Obama is spending us into oblivion and that we should cut spending. So Obama proposes to cut spending for something that obviously should be cut and Republicans oppose the spedning cuts. Tomorrow, these same Republican clowns will denounce Obama for his failure to cut spending.
And what the heck is this comment about your dollar not being worth as much? Inflation is lower now that it was under Bush!
http://www.fintrend.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp
Come on, if you’re going to complain about something, at least have a legitimate complaint.
Agree on your point that it was a bi-patrician effort that put us in this mess. Disagree about inflation. Over the last two years; my property taxes went up 15%, gas is up 30%, coffee is up 75% (can’t do without my caffeine) donuts up 30%, electrical rates up 20% (I’ve been advised by my utility company they are going up 10% a year for the next 4 years), drinks at the gas and go up 30%, milk up 30%, fees for my annual state business license went from $45 to $170, replaced my car (same make and model – Ford) at $5,000 more than it cost me 4 years ago. However on the bright side my house value dropped 30% so that must have been the factor that off-set what I mistakenly thought was the rise in inflation.
Bob, you can always point to individual ticket items that cost more today than they did yesterday, but that’s not a true measure of inflation. The CPI (Consumer Price Index)shows that in Obama’s first year in office (2009), average prices dropped 0.4%. In 2010, average prices were up 1.6%. That’s hardly an alarming inflation rate. Under Bush, the inflation rate hovered around 3%. That’s hardly discouraging either.
I really don’t credit this mess to just Bush or Obama. It is the fault of the special interest groups, one issue voters, uninformed voters, the idiots that vote based on monologues from late night comedians and those who just listen to Fox or MSNBC without doing their homework – I would like the voters in this election to take a page from James Carville campaign manual when he reminded Clinton that “It’s the Economy Stupid” – all else will sort itself out.
On that we can agree. :)
OPV:
Stastsics can be used to mar truth, and often are. Study statistics and you will find that combining a few stastics can make the appearance of a completely different curve if you combine the select ones versus others. It’s likely just as much a joke as the unemployment rate. When Canada took our unemployment rate measurement, theirs was 5% like ours. They however don’t believe in dishonest numbers. The amount of the employed population is the only number that matters, and whether or not that is changing dramatically. This would be like quoting the CBO on tax revenues differences. If the growth is so great during Obama’s presidency and we haven’t changed tax code, why the lower receipts? CBO doesn’t know. They can’t predict jack, and most stastics are poor. As you are quoting stastics like many liberals do in poor fashion, I just had to point out make your own theory, and follow That. Don’t use unproven theory as your references or your reasoning behind your beliefs, it is easily manipulated. I say make your own with common sense.
Now, moving forward, let me guaranty you: Inflation is higher during Obama’s term than Bush’s.
In 2004 I was renting a house in Washington, 2 bedroom for 550, nearly every apartment of equal quality in the same area (as I have not moved) was the same. That same apartment is now $1,050 in WA and good luck finding one under $950 for a 2 bedroom in the same areas I checked before. My friend recently checked.
I used to buy groceries at $60 a pop in 2004. 2 visits would last me a month, and it was good quality meals. Now I’m spending damn near $350 for the same thing. I basically keep my diet the same due to being quite the competition in power lifting leagues.
The income of a Vet tech, vet assistant, and every job within a 20 mile radius of Seattle has not increased. The minimum wage as a vet assistant is still at just under 10 an hour, still 15-18 an hour for a vet tech. Macy’s and retailers still make $10 an hour to start. Clerks still make about 14 if they are lucky. Contractor, architects, engineers, (I work with them in Insurance) have not increased income either. That’s the biggest thing the price index does a poor job of monitoring. Inflation is even worse when incomes do not increase, and incomes haven’t increased. We have indefinitely had more inflation under Obama than Bush, and living has become infinitely harder. I’m making $75k a year, with a 212k house loan, a $16,500 car, and very few other monthly payments other than living expenses, and I’m saving as much as I did making $39,500 in 2006 living in a more expensive apartment (same rent as my current house) with the same car loan. and same annual expenses, I’ve changed nothing. I’m sorry it just does not pan out. Everything we need does cost more. I’m making an estimate that 40% is an accurate portrayal of the current situation. And as for gas: It didn’t skyrocket until 2008 summer, before than it was nearly half what it is now. Blame that on Bush if you want, it doesn’t change the fact that Obama further increased it, and did not releive the factors causing it’s increase. It’s still over double what it was in 2006, at least around here. 3.80 a gallon. I used to buy it $1.90 easily.
And if you want to talk about your republicans crud above allow me to point out that in Oregton DHT was going to set up thousands of jobs. A law was created that the governer at the time passed (in bed with another certain famous company, UPS)which hindered DHT’s performance, and they left the state. No coincidence, UPS has an in with a democrat senator who is now trying to make flight carrier regulations (with no purpose whatsoever) that will hinder Fed ex’s ability to compete. In Washington we have pretty much just Comcast in the Seattle area. Have you looked at Washington state building code? It was written nearly to the T to favor Comcast. I know of a firm right now being sued for not using the word “company” in their fee agreement. When the company fought it, and showed that every insurance brokerage in Washington is failing on that aspect and they have one of the best contracts in the state, the liberal judge stated “we can be arbitrary” and refuse to enforce it across the board. They also refused to give him an example of which form would work. They just said “whichever form you go with we can still go after you”. The owner said that the public officials they have hired monitoring the code in Washington would be reduced dramatically without these costs, by posting a form online. The state refused. Does it sound like they want the ability to go after anyone they want in get in bed with people much? Cocky much? Liberal states…With liberals excercising power, is far more a problem than Conservative…I can literally measure the effects of regulations by democrats on the economy, don’t even get me started on my experience with Oregon regulation code. You can call B.S. on the republicans for being mad that Obama wants to trim $50 billion on a 4 Trillion plus budget, or you can acknowledge they just know it’s a political play by Obama who is not serious in cutting the budget. It was a republican congress who made the balanced budgets. Not Clinton. You wouuld do well to remember that, and they did it just after the were voted in for the first time in 40 years. So I think they have a better record.
We can save the Obama vs. the World topic for a more appropriate forum. I am neither a Republican or a Democrat. Anyone claiming Obama is good for this Nation is either in total denial, or not educated enough to know their liberties are being taken away.
As for statistics; Mark Twain said it best. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
OK, so educate me. What liberty did you enjoy before Janaury 2009 that you do not enjoy today? Freedom to purchase an incandecent light bulb? Oh my, let’s start a revolution.
The warrantless wiretaps in the Patriot Act (thank you George W. Bush) are a direct assault on our 4th Amendment rights to not be subject to warrantless searches and seizures.
Obama pushed for and successfully got rid of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell which allowed gays and lesbians to serve in the military. I would say that was a big step in the direction of more liberty, not less. These people are now free to serve their country without fear of being discharged.
OPV Are you kidding me? Are you even aware of what Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was? OPV this shows to me you don’t know what the heck you’re talking about. It was a rights movement, 1993, in order to educate you this was a democrat movment, led by Clinton (I’m not saying that as an insult, it’s just credit where it’s due) It’s intention was to allow you to be in the military regardless of your sexual prefernces, but to prohibit practicing openly in the military (which would mean you are dating within your squad which is a BIG problem.) Are you quite aware of why the military is separated regarding genders? It wasn’t discrimination. It was a form of optimization we have had in our military for some time. any potential for romantic involvement with a commander might change your decisions in the middle of a gun fight. Many politicians preferred the don’t ask don’t tell policy for perfectly sound reasons, nothing to do with “liberties”. Don’t ask don’t tell allowed one to be gay, but ensured that dating would not happen in the military on either side. I would assume that now heterosexuals can’t, and gays can while in service be with their significant other. That is a problem on so many levels regarding fairness, and or efficiency in the military.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell
Research please, you should know better.
Typo:
Why the military “was” separated regarding genders. Same concept still applies. The only point I’m getting across is that it prohibited “open” practice. Which makes perfect sense.
OPV, First of all:
Obama has not passed everything he has wanted to. By the grace of karma or a God he was stopped after only about a year by a republican congress.
Universal healthcare was his goal. That is a removal of a freedom. The only way to impliment that is to make buying insurance illegal. If you have looked at Canada’s law wording, they way they did it was by limiting one’s right to have another person/entity be billed for their insurance. That’s the only way to do it. They did it by saying a doctor may not bill anyone for treatment other than the client or the government. One should have the choice to buy into a pool of risk to get insurance. The public option is only not in place due to Obama being stopped. That is a huge freedom issue, and is the only way to put in place a universal plan, to limit rights. Communism starts small, but it ends with the government owning your decisions. Obama has many tax codes and policies that consistently point to this being his goal.
A perfect follow up example would be the health savings account. Obama is taxing it. Taxation drives policy, and what the government wants you to do. Obama’s goal there is to drive you to a government program. If I want to tap into my health savings account, it’s now taxed. With Bush, I could touch it at any time I chose.
I could go into others…But I believe these are enough to show your point is greatly incorrect about not losing freedoms. You should read some state code some time, and also code from other countries. I can tell you have not, and it would do you some good. The above Canadian wording is nearly to the letter how the code is written.
We can agree to disagree as to whether the repeal of Dont Ask Dont Tell was an additional freedom granted to the People. I say it is a new freedom, you say it isn’t.
But I have yet to hear an answer to my question: What liberty do you not enjoy today that you enjoyed before Obama took office? You people rant and rave that Obama is taking away your freedoms. What freedoms are you talking about? What can you not do today that you could do in December 2008?
Obama didn’t change the tax code! It’s the same tax code as under Bush. The only thing he changed was he reduced the amount of Social Security tax you pay every by 2%. Obama doesn’t control state codes.
TELL ME ONE FREEDOM YOU HAVE LOST. You can’t do it. But I can assure you that the Patriot Act was a blow to your 4th Amendment freedoms, but that’s OK with you because it was done by a Republican. The Patriot Act is more like Communist Russia than anything Obama ever dreamed about. You like the idea that the government can listen in on your phone conversations? That was Bush’s law, not Obamas.
I can name one. By passing this health care bill, Obama is violating The 10th Amendment.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Health care was not dictated to the federal government, so it by default, is left up to the states. I feel this is the best way because if you do not like one state’s rules, you have the option to move to another state that doesn’t have that law.
The reason that the goverment staring paying farmers for putting their land in CRP or crop reduction program is to stop some of the land from blowing away. Now as far as putting the land back into production my wife has land in eastern Colorado which maybe have a crop once every 5 years. I do not know if anyone on these comments know how it was back in the 30s where big black dustorms would come rolling out of Kansas and Colorado. This is the reason that this program was put into effect. It was to keep all of the land from blowing away. I agree that there are a lot of big farmers that are getting big fat checks that do not deserve them. How can you sell corn and wheat for a big price when you do not make a crop? All of the farmers that have their land in CRP is has to have a cover crop of grass to keep it from blowing. It is not cheap to put this land in grass.
There is little question that direct payments and subsidized crop insurance whould be eliminated.
So should the illegal aliens sucking up our school tax dollars, flooding our hospitals and prisons. Obama won’t do much about that except to reward them witht DREAM (Nightmare) Act.
And so called nutritional programs now cost over $111 billion each year as part of the USDA budget. Makes the commodity and insurance programs look small by comparison. Where is the outrage on that!!! More than doubled in the last eight years.
I am tired of the leeches sucking the taxpayers dry and tired of hearing about how the poor are getting screwed. It’s the middle and upper middle income workers who pay $20 to $100K a year in federal income taxes that are getting scewed!