The Economy of the US is going down the tubes and all our president can do is to find something or someone to blame for it. In order: president Bush, The European economies and banks, The Arab revolts, the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, and finally it’s the tea party’s fault. Even though the party caucus consists only of 65 members from congress. Obama and his party control the administered part of government, and the US senate, 2/3 of the government, and since he cannot provide any leadership or plans for the economy, It’s the tea party’s fault. Maybe next he’ll decide to actually place the blame where is should reside on himself and the policies he has trying to institute. I think our new slogans should be “Change we don’t need” and “No we can’t”.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
Unconstitional
The Obama Administration has to decided not to enforce the "Defense of Marriage Act".
He has decided it is unconstitutional and he and his Attorney General will not support it.
So now he has the ability to decide if a law it constitution.
I thought deciding that was a duty of the courts. It may be unconstitutional, but that is not part of his job. So what other law will he decide is not legal. Maybe he'll want to make own laws. Maybe he wants to be like Hugo Chavez and rule by decree.
If it's not legal the court can say so, or the congress can repeal or alter the law
He has decided it is unconstitutional and he and his Attorney General will not support it.
So now he has the ability to decide if a law it constitution.
I thought deciding that was a duty of the courts. It may be unconstitutional, but that is not part of his job. So what other law will he decide is not legal. Maybe he'll want to make own laws. Maybe he wants to be like Hugo Chavez and rule by decree.
If it's not legal the court can say so, or the congress can repeal or alter the law
Sunday, November 21, 2010
He Agrees!
Finally A politico agrees with me.
The Governor of Texas, Rick Perry also thinks Social Security is ponzi scheme.
The Governor of Texas, Rick Perry also thinks Social Security is ponzi scheme.
Friday, October 8, 2010
More!
I haven't posted much in the last few weeks because I have been busy. Maybe I'll have more time after I retire.
Now I do have a few observations.
I'll be going on social security in a few months after I retire, but what do I think of it?
It's a ponzi scheme, and has been since it was started in the 30's. My thinking now is that there should be a better way to invest the funds from social security then IOUs that have no value.
I admit that when I was in my 20's if I had the option of getting my hand on more money if social security didn't exist I probably would have spend it. There probably needs to be a mandate from the government how much you and your employer should save for your retirement, but then the government should keep their hands off. If you want to invest it in stock, us saving bond, gold, pork bellies, oil, etc., that your business.
I've been a republican all my life, and recently I have admired what the teaparty is doing. I have become a member of a local teaparty organization, and have attended a few rallies. But I do have some concerns. First: how many teaparty organizations are there? It seems that anyone with a computer can create an organization. How do we know which are real, and what could be a plant? You see conflicts between organization that have teaparty in there name, so do they serve the interest of the American people, or are they just misleading us. They appear to endorse candidates without vetting them first, They endorse because of something they said recently, but have little concern about what they have said in the past, or their personal faults, but that
comes out after the primary, and tears down the candidate. I would prefer one organization, within, but independent in the Republican Party. They could endorse candidates that did not have the backing of traditional republican groups, but would use the resources of the party
to vet all their candidates.
The recent trial about the murder of Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her daughters in Connecticut, got me think again about the death penalty. If anyone deserved death, the two animals in this case do. But I need to express my opinion about the death penalty in general. The death penalty
is meant to be a deterrent, but is can't be much of a deterrent if it
takes 20+ years to be concluded. Any one found guilty and sentence do death should have the right to appeal. They would have the right to appeal to a special judge would review the trail transcript, and if there was any possibility then trail could be in error, or there were any extenuating circumstance, then their sentence would be commuted to life in prison. If the judge found nothing, he would say so, and the next day the sentence would be carried out.
Just some thoughts.
Now I do have a few observations.
I'll be going on social security in a few months after I retire, but what do I think of it?
It's a ponzi scheme, and has been since it was started in the 30's. My thinking now is that there should be a better way to invest the funds from social security then IOUs that have no value.
I admit that when I was in my 20's if I had the option of getting my hand on more money if social security didn't exist I probably would have spend it. There probably needs to be a mandate from the government how much you and your employer should save for your retirement, but then the government should keep their hands off. If you want to invest it in stock, us saving bond, gold, pork bellies, oil, etc., that your business.
I've been a republican all my life, and recently I have admired what the teaparty is doing. I have become a member of a local teaparty organization, and have attended a few rallies. But I do have some concerns. First: how many teaparty organizations are there? It seems that anyone with a computer can create an organization. How do we know which are real, and what could be a plant? You see conflicts between organization that have teaparty in there name, so do they serve the interest of the American people, or are they just misleading us. They appear to endorse candidates without vetting them first, They endorse because of something they said recently, but have little concern about what they have said in the past, or their personal faults, but that
comes out after the primary, and tears down the candidate. I would prefer one organization, within, but independent in the Republican Party. They could endorse candidates that did not have the backing of traditional republican groups, but would use the resources of the party
to vet all their candidates.
The recent trial about the murder of Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her daughters in Connecticut, got me think again about the death penalty. If anyone deserved death, the two animals in this case do. But I need to express my opinion about the death penalty in general. The death penalty
is meant to be a deterrent, but is can't be much of a deterrent if it
takes 20+ years to be concluded. Any one found guilty and sentence do death should have the right to appeal. They would have the right to appeal to a special judge would review the trail transcript, and if there was any possibility then trail could be in error, or there were any extenuating circumstance, then their sentence would be commuted to life in prison. If the judge found nothing, he would say so, and the next day the sentence would be carried out.
Just some thoughts.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Stimulas Again?
Isn't it just like President Obama to offer another $50 billion in new
stimulus, just like his old $800 billion package that failed miserably.
More taxpayer money directed for roads, railroads, and airports. Roads, railroads, and airports that will not have any products from new jobs to be transported by them.
He created the $800 billion package and then forgot about the economy. He had more important things to worry about, like making a healtcare fiasco, a cap and trade tax, finacial reform tax, and directing NASA to reach out to Islam.
Hopefully we'll not have to but up with his agenda after November
stimulus, just like his old $800 billion package that failed miserably.
More taxpayer money directed for roads, railroads, and airports. Roads, railroads, and airports that will not have any products from new jobs to be transported by them.
He created the $800 billion package and then forgot about the economy. He had more important things to worry about, like making a healtcare fiasco, a cap and trade tax, finacial reform tax, and directing NASA to reach out to Islam.
Hopefully we'll not have to but up with his agenda after November
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Issues?
President Obama speaking out praising the Automobile Companies bailout from a Ford plant, when, Ford was not a part of the bailout.
The 26 billion dollar payout to Teacher and Public Employee Union to save jobs in the public sector. While teacher, firemen, police to a valuable job, they actually do do not produce a product. Won't it be better to end unemployment by putting this money into private business to create jobs that produce something.
Webster's Unabridged Dictionary has the definition for marriage:
The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.
I am all in favor of civil unions for gays to have the same rights as married couples, but why should the definition of marriage be changed?
The 26 billion dollar payout to Teacher and Public Employee Union to save jobs in the public sector. While teacher, firemen, police to a valuable job, they actually do do not produce a product. Won't it be better to end unemployment by putting this money into private business to create jobs that produce something.
Webster's Unabridged Dictionary has the definition for marriage:
The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.
I am all in favor of civil unions for gays to have the same rights as married couples, but why should the definition of marriage be changed?
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Global Warming?
I'm a little skeptical about global warming, not that I don't believe it
is happening, but maybe the warming is just a natural part of the
earth's climate cycle. In the history of earth there were rain forest
in Antarctica and glacier covering most of the northern hemisphere, but
let's just look at the past 2000 years.
In the first century AD the Romans invaded Britain to colonize it, at
that time they brought grape vines with them, and for the next 1200
years wine was produced there.
There was a period of time in the 6th century there was a slight cooling, caused
by a volcanic eruption of the Krakatau caldera in Indonesia.
Shortly after this the earth entered a warning period, know as the
"Medieval Warming Period". This lasted approximately from the 6th to
the 11th century. During this time, the North Atlantic became free of
ice. The Vikings sailed to and colonize Greenland, Greenland because it
was green. There was an abundance of birch trees around the fjords in
there, They went to Labrador and Newfoundland, where they discovered
wild grapes growing. All of Europe experienced prosperity and growth.
Sometime in the 12th century the earth enter the what is referred to as
the "Little Ice Age". It was estimated to last into the 19th century, During the
period of time Europe went into decline, the growing regions for grapes
move 300 miles south to France, Famine became common. The colonies in Greenland and Vinland were abandoned, There is speculation that the climate lead to the spread of the black
death, since people seemed more inclined to huddle in their hovels with the rats. The only good about this period in northern Europe, was the making of more beer to replace the wine that wasn't being produced.
So now it's getting warmer, wine is returning to Britain, and some of ice in the north is going away. Is man causing this or is it part of a nature cycle?
is happening, but maybe the warming is just a natural part of the
earth's climate cycle. In the history of earth there were rain forest
in Antarctica and glacier covering most of the northern hemisphere, but
let's just look at the past 2000 years.
In the first century AD the Romans invaded Britain to colonize it, at
that time they brought grape vines with them, and for the next 1200
years wine was produced there.
There was a period of time in the 6th century there was a slight cooling, caused
by a volcanic eruption of the Krakatau caldera in Indonesia.
Shortly after this the earth entered a warning period, know as the
"Medieval Warming Period". This lasted approximately from the 6th to
the 11th century. During this time, the North Atlantic became free of
ice. The Vikings sailed to and colonize Greenland, Greenland because it
was green. There was an abundance of birch trees around the fjords in
there, They went to Labrador and Newfoundland, where they discovered
wild grapes growing. All of Europe experienced prosperity and growth.
Sometime in the 12th century the earth enter the what is referred to as
the "Little Ice Age". It was estimated to last into the 19th century, During the
period of time Europe went into decline, the growing regions for grapes
move 300 miles south to France, Famine became common. The colonies in Greenland and Vinland were abandoned, There is speculation that the climate lead to the spread of the black
death, since people seemed more inclined to huddle in their hovels with the rats. The only good about this period in northern Europe, was the making of more beer to replace the wine that wasn't being produced.
So now it's getting warmer, wine is returning to Britain, and some of ice in the north is going away. Is man causing this or is it part of a nature cycle?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)