I just read an article on AOL.com that elaborated on the sooner than expected demise of Social Security. As is usual, the article goes on and on about fund insolvency, and time running out, but once again fails to address the whys of the issue itself. Knowing the real history of this issue--not to mention that fact that I am now directly a part of the issue because of my disability--I just had to respond with a non-smart alleck answer that were so prevalent on the site.
My response...
"Everyone--especially our leaders in Washington DC--wants Americans to forget that as of two years ago (2010), Social Security was saved, and the US should be debt free, and in the black financially. Under the leadership of then President Bill Clinton, Congress passed the needed cuts so all the vital govt. programs were secure and we were already on their way to four consecutive years of budgetary surplus.
Then, Gee! Dubya Bushie stepped into office and plundered every solvent program within his first year in office, and began piling up unsustainable levels of debt that the current administration keeps worsening. President Obama seemingly refuses to look to the past success of the Clinton leadership, instead opting to inexplicably outspend even Gee! Dubya, yet expect things to get better. Congress, thanks to the slimy former (and disgraced!) House Speaker Newt Gingrirch, is so partisan than they cannot easily be brought to a peaceful coexistence and work together to really address the budgetary mayhem we now see.
There are now no easy solutions to this entire mess. However, President Obama has failed to actually lead this country towards financial solvency. He can't because he doesn't know how. Plain and simple. We need a leader in the White House who will bring the parties together in a truly cooperative effort. Until then, the US will edge ever closer to financial insolvency and therefore, be on the verge of collapse."
So far since my post, there have been no dissenting opinions to my thoughts. There are however, lots of rants without any other real discussion. I guess people are more concerned with whining rather than offering thoughtful discourse.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Another Utah Legislative Session? Whoopee...
The Utah State Legislature is once again in the midst of its yearly fifteen week period of worthless, time-wasting legislative meandering. An article in today's Provo Daily Herald talks about what a slow start the legislature is off to as members refine bills and conduct their endless discussions over language, content and budgetary issues of said bills. I've made it no secret what I think of this State's Legislature. This article gave me yet another opportunity to let local readers know just what a waste of time really happens in SLC every year. My response...
"The Utah Legislature is doing what this near worthless body always does each legislative session...make their bills, discuss them endlessly, posture and threaten, waste time for thirteen weeks, then, because they're short on time, cram fifteen weeks worth of real work into just two.
At the end of all that they've passed unwanted/unneeded or just plain poor legislation, overlooked real problems and issues and fail to assure proper budgetary oversight problems which redundantly end in the loss of tens of millions of wasted taxpayer dollars.
It'll be a cold day in you know where before the Utah Legislature actually becomes a responsible, thoughtful and actionable governing body."
"The Utah Legislature is doing what this near worthless body always does each legislative session...make their bills, discuss them endlessly, posture and threaten, waste time for thirteen weeks, then, because they're short on time, cram fifteen weeks worth of real work into just two.
At the end of all that they've passed unwanted/unneeded or just plain poor legislation, overlooked real problems and issues and fail to assure proper budgetary oversight problems which redundantly end in the loss of tens of millions of wasted taxpayer dollars.
It'll be a cold day in you know where before the Utah Legislature actually becomes a responsible, thoughtful and actionable governing body."
Inspiring Story: Lucas and Juno
This story is absolutely amazing. Please read his. It will bring a new meaning to the term, "Man's best friend."
Lucas and Juno: Special bond of a rescue dog and dying boy
Lucas and Juno: Special bond of a rescue dog and dying boy
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Gingrich the Hypocrite
I've been quietly watching this years' presidential political process--not writing any blogs because of how my brain is processing information--and have not, until now, written anything because I've having difficulty writing clear, coherent and legitimate essays. However, after listening to the New Hampshire Primary coverage, I just have to write even if I don't get my thoughts out properly.
My angst comes from Newt Gingrich's recent attacks on fellow candidate Mitt Romney. Slimy Newt is accusing Romney of being "a liar...and being falsely pious" in his self presentation. Plus, Gingrich is further attacking Romney for his comment yesterday about liking to fire people...a quote taken completely out of context that is intended solely to harm Romney's bid for the presidency.
The real clincher here is that this comes from the lips of a man who resigned from Congress in disgrace over unpaid taxes and some 80+ other ethical violations; and who purposely destroyed Congressional bipartisanship in his 'Contract with America;' and who has demonstrated his lack of moral integrity and commitment by cheating on two wives, and is married to the third woman with whom he cheated on wife number two.
And he is calling another candidate a liar, and questioning his integrity? Mitt Romney has never been removed from office, he ran a successful venture capital firm, and has been married to the same woman for 40+ years. Plus, Romney ran a successful business, transformed a disastrous Salt Lake City Winter Olympics--scandal ridden and financially destitute--into the best run, most profitable Olympic Games ever, and successfully led a vastly majorative Democratic Massachusetts as a Republican Governor.
Damn that Romney. He just lies, and lies and lies. Poor Newt has never done anything but be honest his entire political career, and always takes the high road both personally and politically.
Newt Gingrich can be summed up in a single, glaring word...Hypocrite.
My angst comes from Newt Gingrich's recent attacks on fellow candidate Mitt Romney. Slimy Newt is accusing Romney of being "a liar...and being falsely pious" in his self presentation. Plus, Gingrich is further attacking Romney for his comment yesterday about liking to fire people...a quote taken completely out of context that is intended solely to harm Romney's bid for the presidency.
The real clincher here is that this comes from the lips of a man who resigned from Congress in disgrace over unpaid taxes and some 80+ other ethical violations; and who purposely destroyed Congressional bipartisanship in his 'Contract with America;' and who has demonstrated his lack of moral integrity and commitment by cheating on two wives, and is married to the third woman with whom he cheated on wife number two.
And he is calling another candidate a liar, and questioning his integrity? Mitt Romney has never been removed from office, he ran a successful venture capital firm, and has been married to the same woman for 40+ years. Plus, Romney ran a successful business, transformed a disastrous Salt Lake City Winter Olympics--scandal ridden and financially destitute--into the best run, most profitable Olympic Games ever, and successfully led a vastly majorative Democratic Massachusetts as a Republican Governor.
Damn that Romney. He just lies, and lies and lies. Poor Newt has never done anything but be honest his entire political career, and always takes the high road both personally and politically.
Newt Gingrich can be summed up in a single, glaring word...Hypocrite.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
LDS Church and Party Preference
An article in yesterday's Provo Daily Herald described the efforts by new Utah State Democratic Chairman Jim Dabakis to get more members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to switch to the democratic party; an effort hindered by a decades old cultural assumption that all Mormons (the common name for the LDS church) vote Republican.
This came about because a church leader once stated his voting preference in an interview (in the 30's or 40's, I believe), and church members here in Utah took his comment to mean this should also be the party preference of all LDS members. After that, this misconception took on a life of its own, and has morphed into the false thinking that all Mormons in the US have to vote republican as well--an erroneous thought that even church leadership has sought to dispel.
Here is my rebuttal to the article...
"The entire assumption that all Mormons are republican is simply ridiculous. This political mirage exists not just in Utah, but throughout the US as well. Church leadership has never told its members to vote for one party over the other. To do so would go against one of the basic tenents of church doctrine, that of Free Agency. I am so tired of hearing phrases like, "Can a good Mormon be a Democrat?", a quote that was on [local affiliate] Fox13 news last night. How preposterous, ludicrous and downright ignorant of what should be a responsible news agency.
Whether you subscribe to Democratic, Republican, Tea Party or other political philosophies, the fact that you are participating in the political process is the only vital element that anyone should be concerned about. Who an individual American chooses to vote for is a purely individual right, guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States.
The real question every American voter should be asking is, why has the political landscape grown so hostile? These men and women are working for all of us. They should be setting aside their divisiveness and working for the common good. Unfortunately, the philosophical gap only widens with every passing year. Instead of Bipartisanship, we see only political posturing, threatening and grandstanding. The parties have become so entrenched in their limited views that real compromise is nearly impossible in every level of government.
We, the people, should be writing, calling and emailing our Representatives and demanding change, cooperation and real leadership. Are YOU doing this?
Remember, this is a government that is OF the people, FOR the people, and BY the people. Everyone, of all parties, should be actively involved in some way to see that our leaders are leading us.
We don't have to agree on any particular party platform; but we should all agree to be working together to make our country, state and cities better places through a truly representative government.
THAT should be our focus, and not the political infighting and cross-aisle temper tantrums that are so glaringly apparent today."
This came about because a church leader once stated his voting preference in an interview (in the 30's or 40's, I believe), and church members here in Utah took his comment to mean this should also be the party preference of all LDS members. After that, this misconception took on a life of its own, and has morphed into the false thinking that all Mormons in the US have to vote republican as well--an erroneous thought that even church leadership has sought to dispel.
Here is my rebuttal to the article...
"The entire assumption that all Mormons are republican is simply ridiculous. This political mirage exists not just in Utah, but throughout the US as well. Church leadership has never told its members to vote for one party over the other. To do so would go against one of the basic tenents of church doctrine, that of Free Agency. I am so tired of hearing phrases like, "Can a good Mormon be a Democrat?", a quote that was on [local affiliate] Fox13 news last night. How preposterous, ludicrous and downright ignorant of what should be a responsible news agency.
Whether you subscribe to Democratic, Republican, Tea Party or other political philosophies, the fact that you are participating in the political process is the only vital element that anyone should be concerned about. Who an individual American chooses to vote for is a purely individual right, guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States.
The real question every American voter should be asking is, why has the political landscape grown so hostile? These men and women are working for all of us. They should be setting aside their divisiveness and working for the common good. Unfortunately, the philosophical gap only widens with every passing year. Instead of Bipartisanship, we see only political posturing, threatening and grandstanding. The parties have become so entrenched in their limited views that real compromise is nearly impossible in every level of government.
We, the people, should be writing, calling and emailing our Representatives and demanding change, cooperation and real leadership. Are YOU doing this?
Remember, this is a government that is OF the people, FOR the people, and BY the people. Everyone, of all parties, should be actively involved in some way to see that our leaders are leading us.
We don't have to agree on any particular party platform; but we should all agree to be working together to make our country, state and cities better places through a truly representative government.
THAT should be our focus, and not the political infighting and cross-aisle temper tantrums that are so glaringly apparent today."
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
President Obama's Work Bill
Last week, President Obama asked to speak to a joint session of Congress. During his address, the President introduced legislation that he claims will put Americans to work, and stimulate the economy. Plus, he claims that the $450B price is already paid for, and that Congress "Must pass this bill now!"--a phrase he pushed numerous times during his address. An article in today's Deseret News reiterated that same call from a speech the President made today in Ohio. The following is my reply...
After reading portions of this bill, and listening to and reading the debate, it seems clear to me that the President is pressing Congress to pass this bill so hard because he knows that this is bad legislation, and wants the provisions enacted before anyone takes a close look at the language, outcome of enaction and financial/budgetary consequences.
If this was a solid bill, then I would certainly expect an invitation to scrutinize the legislation. All we hear is, "Pass this bill!" From his Congressional address [in introducing the bill] to his campaign rhetoric; that same call resonates constantly, and should be a warning to Congress. They should study, calculate and scrutinize everything in the language. If not, they could very well be caught in yet another legislative blunder that is eroding public policy and confidence in our elected leaders.
After reading portions of this bill, and listening to and reading the debate, it seems clear to me that the President is pressing Congress to pass this bill so hard because he knows that this is bad legislation, and wants the provisions enacted before anyone takes a close look at the language, outcome of enaction and financial/budgetary consequences.
If this was a solid bill, then I would certainly expect an invitation to scrutinize the legislation. All we hear is, "Pass this bill!" From his Congressional address [in introducing the bill] to his campaign rhetoric; that same call resonates constantly, and should be a warning to Congress. They should study, calculate and scrutinize everything in the language. If not, they could very well be caught in yet another legislative blunder that is eroding public policy and confidence in our elected leaders.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Personal Commentary
Dear Readers,
I want to apologise for my lack of current commentary on the many important events surrounding all of us. The fact of the matter is that my health has declined to the point that my energy is nearly non-existent, and my ability to write coherent, educated and rational commentaries has declined in a like manner.
My fight against this aggressive kidney disease is nearing a critical point. I hope to be able to be writing again in the near future. Until I do, please continue to check on my blog so you know when I've begun commenting on the idiocies of our world once again.
Thank you.
ScottW
I want to apologise for my lack of current commentary on the many important events surrounding all of us. The fact of the matter is that my health has declined to the point that my energy is nearly non-existent, and my ability to write coherent, educated and rational commentaries has declined in a like manner.
My fight against this aggressive kidney disease is nearing a critical point. I hope to be able to be writing again in the near future. Until I do, please continue to check on my blog so you know when I've begun commenting on the idiocies of our world once again.
Thank you.
ScottW
Saturday, July 2, 2011
The Founding Fathers and The Role of Religion in Shaping the USA
I read an article today by Thomas Kidd of The Free Lance-Star that sought to accurately portray the religious aspect in the founding of the United States. Overall the article was well-researched and well-written. (Having done my own exhaustive research on the subject, I knew that Mr. Kidd was coming from a place of fact; not history that has been distorted and rewritten.) My only objection was the neat little wrap-up of the article...it just seemed like the author ran out of steam so he ended the article. Anyway, the following is my written response to the article...
"Up until the 1860's history books included the religious aspect of the founding of the US. Religion was a common, publicly accepted attitude and was, in one form or another, a prevalent way of life in post-colonial American society.
It was the rise of secularism that caused history to be rewritten, and of historians who would distort the truth to suit their personal interpretation of events that became the real catalysts for the exclusion of religious reference amongst the Founding Fathers.
Today's secularists would have you believe that the supposed "Separation of Church and State" is an actual Constitutional emplacement in law; when in fact, the Jefferson letter only coined the phrase as a matter of clarification. Nowhere in the Constitution are the words "Separation of Church and State." They don't exist! Supreme Court rulings of the late 1800's and early 1900's popularized the phrase amongst those seeking to further rewrite history to a more convenient, secularist interpretation, and to instill their selfish individual views upon the populace as a whole.
Anyone wanting to learn the REAL history of the US has only to do their own research and to not rely on history that has been rewritten."
I have not yet received any rebuttal from my response; though I'm certain secularists or atheistic respondents will attack me and the truth of what was stated [in the article or in my response] simply because they don't want history to be the truth; but to be as they envision it as a matter of convenience in order to justify their position.
"Up until the 1860's history books included the religious aspect of the founding of the US. Religion was a common, publicly accepted attitude and was, in one form or another, a prevalent way of life in post-colonial American society.
It was the rise of secularism that caused history to be rewritten, and of historians who would distort the truth to suit their personal interpretation of events that became the real catalysts for the exclusion of religious reference amongst the Founding Fathers.
Today's secularists would have you believe that the supposed "Separation of Church and State" is an actual Constitutional emplacement in law; when in fact, the Jefferson letter only coined the phrase as a matter of clarification. Nowhere in the Constitution are the words "Separation of Church and State." They don't exist! Supreme Court rulings of the late 1800's and early 1900's popularized the phrase amongst those seeking to further rewrite history to a more convenient, secularist interpretation, and to instill their selfish individual views upon the populace as a whole.
Anyone wanting to learn the REAL history of the US has only to do their own research and to not rely on history that has been rewritten."
I have not yet received any rebuttal from my response; though I'm certain secularists or atheistic respondents will attack me and the truth of what was stated [in the article or in my response] simply because they don't want history to be the truth; but to be as they envision it as a matter of convenience in order to justify their position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
