Published: Monday, Oct. 14 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
Updated: Sunday, Oct. 13 2013 9:40 p.m. MDT
Excellent letter, Andrew. Expect the usual suspects to start complaining about
how President Obama's a socialist anytime now.
"Beliefs determine what we can see."Exactly. And facts
don't matter.Two examples.Got a mass email from
someone in our scout troop a couple years ago. It explained how Obama wanted to
take "in God we Trust" off of the money. This person called for
organized protests. He sent this to 50+ people.When I responded
(only to him) with several sources showing that this was completely false, I
never heard back. He didn't thank me or express happiness that this
terrible thing would not be happening. Same thing with the ACA. A
friend told me that he was Furious with the ACA because Congress has exempted
itself. (Seen daily on Fox News.) What a great rant he had. It was his proof as
to how bad the ACA was.I then showed him, with unbiased or right
leaning FACTS how this was false. Congress and staff are the only people in
America who are REQUIRED by_law to join the exchanges.(I also gave him the
facts about their subsidy and_why)Was he happy? NOPE.He
would rather rant about something that was false, than be satisfied with the
truth.Ask yourself. "Is that ME"?
What I see as sad is that we are stealing so much from our nation's future.
So much... they are going to have to pay so badly for our debt. When the Republicans are in charge.... they don't balance the budget.
They say they will... but always find reasons to spend, spend and spend. When the Democrats are in charge... they don't seem to even talk
about trying to balance the budget. I feel for the children. We
are literally stealing from them with these unbalanced budgets. Simple math. Spend less or equal to what you take it. If Congress can't
figure that out, why exactly do we expect them to figure anything else out?
Excellent commentary about the Tea Party, Mike Lee, and their ilk.
Yes, blame those who believe in freedom, for Obama's usurpation of our
liberty. The White House directed the parks and monuments of this nation to
shut down. Was that a loss of liberty? Can the Americans who fought WWII to
retain our freedoms even visit the monument that was erected, with private
funds, to honor them and the sacrifice that they made? Why did Obama shut down
WIC when funds had been allocated to that program and funds were still available
even if no funds had been allocated? Why would anyone hold women, infants and
children hostage? Certainly no American President has ever stooped that low.
Yet, the letter writer blames the "tea party".Who was it
that wrote the Declaration of Independence? Was it those who shouted the praises
of King George? Was it those who told the people that the King could do
whatever he wanted because, after all, he was the King, whether he was
"crazy" or not?Today, "King Men" shout praises for
Obama. They mock our freedoms. They mock those of use who cherish freedom.
They want a King. They are incapable of handling freedom.
Deficits...Poisoning...and Don Quixote..."...Deficits don't
matter...".So said romney's idol, republican vp dick
cheney...Poisoning?rafael cruz = Don Quixotemike lee = Sancho Panza.Where do we go from here?The
title of a recent book suggests that...republicans have lost their
minds...Democrats are useless...And the Middle Class got
Andrew,So anything with which you disagree is “uninformed and
irrational radicalism”? Ah, the typical “tolerance” of the
left. And of course, our typical leftist commenters show the same
“tolerance”Capable and well intentioned potus? NOW who
is being uninformed and irrational?There you go,Who said
cheney was romney’s idol? Making stuff up again?
Re: "uninformed and irrational".... this letter takes the cake.You can tell when somebody gets all their information from MSNBC or the news,
and hasn't bothered to actually talk to a Tea Party person or even go to a
rally to see for themselves.Tea Party isn't about getting
Obama. It was around before Obama. And they have taken on more Republicans
and gotten more Republican incumbants unelected than they have Democrats.This fear that they are just after Obama, and the constant uninformed
insistance that it's all about race... is "uninformed and
irrational".They are mainly after out of control Government
spending. They can't help it if Obama is the poster-child for what they
are against.I suspect when Obama is gone in a couple of years they
will continue, and they will continue to be about reducing our government's
spending, out of control taxation to accommodate that spending, reduce the size
of the FEDERAL Government (to the boundaries set in the Constitution). They
will continue to be about individual liberty (even liberty to make mistakes).
And the movement will continue to have zero to do with racism.
Re:2bitsThe current Tea Party movement began in early 2009. I remember
very clearly watching Fox promote them on various programs. I've also listened to T Partiers discuss the issues and explain
themselves--and not through the "liberal" MSNBC or other
liberal,programs.It is very possible the Republicans would have the
majority in the Senate were it not for the T-Partiers. For example, the Tea
Party promoted "i'm not a witch" Christine O'Donnell in DE
over a well-liked and well-respected Republican Mike Castle which resulted in
the Democrats winning the seat.Andrew is spot-on.
It's ironic that Mike Richards would bring up the King Men from the Book of
Mormon on this one. Weren't the King Men a (rich) minority who
didn't like Democracy? Wasn't Pahoran democratically elected by the
majority voice of the people? Yet, wasn't it the King Men who wanted to
negate his election and overrule the majority? Weren't the King
Men those who sought to exasperate a situation for their own political gain?Weren't the King Men those who rather than follow the rules and
regulations of the land, destroy them? Mike Lee, Jason Chaffetz, and
the Tea Party are modern day examples of King Men. The mere fact that they are
running away from their constituents and refusing to do any interviews with KSL
only proves this point. They don't care about us. They only care about
themselves. About representing their tiny (rich) minority.
"So anything with which you disagree is uninformed and irrational
radicalism?"My Gpa was a very wise man. He taught, "If it
looks like a rat and smells like a rat, it probably is." Sorry,
but sometimes uninformed and irrational radicalism really just is uniformed and
irrational radicalism. You may not like this. You may even ignore the evidence
that proves this. But you cannot change the fact and the truth that it is. I'm sure that Pharisees and the Sadducees were in the same denial.
"Us? Evil? But we're children of Abraham! How dare you demand to see
our good works! We do great works all the time!"
Re: Hamath "When the Republicans are in charge.... they don't balance
the budget".Fact is... last time the budget was balanced
Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate. Granted Clinton occupied
the White House, but Republicans controlled Congress (which controls the
budget).Google "who controlled congress when clinton balanced
the budget".You will be exposed to the fact that no Democrat
controlled Congress has balanced the budget in over 40 years.Here's some history on it...1993 — the year of the
giant Clinton tax hike — was not the turning point in the deficit wars.
In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted
by the president’s own Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far
as the eye could see. America disgusted with rampant welfare abuse and out of
control government spending elected Gingrich and company giving "Contract
with America" empowered Republicans (the Tea Party of their day) control of
Congress... and they did balance the budget as promised.Congress is
responsible for the budget (not the President). People giving Clinton credit
for that budget he fought bitterly against are intellectually dishonest.
Hamath said, "When the Republicans are in charge.... they don't balance
the budget. They say they will... but always find reasons to spend, spend and
spend. When the Democrats are in charge... they don't seem to even talk
about trying to balance the budget. "Part correct and part
incorrect. In the presidential campaign of 1980 Ronoald Reagan claimed that the
$75B deficit from President Carter's last year in office was
"obscene." Then Reagan was elected and tripled our national debt
leaving us with $350B plus deficits. Not once did Reagan present anything close
to a balanced budget and on two of his eight years in Congress, the Democratic
controlled House passed a budget with a lower deficit than Reagans proposed
budget for that year.President Clinton, with assistance from a
Republican Congress, passed a surplus budget that the CBO said, if continued,
would erase the then $5+ trillion debt within ten years. But George Bush gave
tax cuts, most to the wealthy and look where we are today.
Look at those who tell us that because Obama was elected that he has the right
to dictate to us anything that he wants, regardless of the restrictions put on
him by the Constitution! Look at those who think that bribing Congress
(Louisiana Purchase, Nebraska, etc.) is lawful and ethical. Look at those who
think that changing the rules at the last second, when ObamaCare was going down
in flames, is what the people who elected Obama wanted. Look at those who tell
us that the government has the right to ignore 59% of the people who told
Congress and Obama that they did not want ObamaCare passed.Those who
tell us that Obama and Reid have the right to hold America hostage until America
concedes that those two can dictate to us whatever they want, are clearly wrong.
They are the "King Men". They have traded the freedoms, guaranteed by
the Constitution to the People, for a handkerchief so that government can wipe
their noses.Then, they have the gall to tell us that King Obama has
the right to stomp on the Constitution because they voted for him.
Weren't the King Men a (rich) minority who didn't like Democracy? QUOTEIf I have the right scripture it states that the
supporters of Amalackiah, who conspired to be a king, .."were the greater
part of them the lower judges of the land....And they had been led by the
flatteries of Amalckiah, that if they would support him.... he would make them
rulers of the people".Alma 46:4-5In a later
rebellion against the laws of liberty it was "almost all the lawyers"
and the "kindreds of ...judges" and even "high priests" that
conspired to destroy freedom.3 Nephi 6: 27-30
@2 bitsFact is...last time the Republicans controlled the White
House, and both houses of Congress they ran up then record deficits. Did
nothing to slow down the growth of government (in fact they greatly increased
it)When either party is in complete control they tend to run away
with spending, it only becomes an issue when it is on things you don't
"Fact is... last time the budget was balanced Republicans controlled both
the House and the Senate. Granted Clinton occupied the White House, but
Republicans controlled Congress (which controls the budget)."Yes
2-Bits. But ...The GOP also controlled the congress for 6 years
under George W Bush?During that time the deficit jumped significantly.The passed Medicare Part D which was the largest entitlement expansion
in decades.Hard to portray the GOP as deficit busters. It would
appear that they only scream about spending with a Dem in the white house.
Truthseeker,The same people who fight big spending by Obama were fighting
big spending under Bush (TARP, etc). That's why Bennett got ousted.Maybe they didn't call themselves the Tea Party back then, but they
were still there.IMO They didn't fight government spending
under Bush as they should have. But they did fight it (a losing battle). They
became especially active when Obama took office because of his campaign promises
to raise taxes (and fighting tax increases on ALL Americans is part of their
platform). And no... Racism has never been part of their platform.I think their message was mostly ignored during the Bush years because he kept
cutting taxes and promising to keep taxes low (which is their main thing). But
He also kept spending (mostly on the wars). So anti-tax protests under a
President who was CUTTING taxes... didn't get much traction.MaxPower,I don't know if Clinton era Republicans slowed government
growth, but Welfare-Reform DID produce a documented decrease in entitlement
spending (though it wasn't enough to last long or save them from long term
bankruptcy).IMO best combination in Washington is Democrat President
and Republican Congress.
JoeBlow,I didn't say any time Republicans control Congress we have a
balanced budget. That's obviously not true (like you pointed out). But I
also never said it.I actually said it's best when there is a
Democrat President and a Republican Congress (or visa versa a Republican
President and Democrat Congress). Proof...Last time a
Democrat President had a balanced budget Congress was controlled by Republicans
(empowered by the landslide mid-term election and the contract with America to
do something about government spending).Last time a Republican
President had a balanced budget (Eisenhower) Democrats controlled Congress.The point being... it's GOOD for there to be opposition, checks and
balance in government (as our founding fathers wanted). And it's BAD when
we have a President, Congress and Supreme Court controlled by the same party (as
we had the first years of the Obama administration). During those years
Congress didn't even SUBMIT a budget... must less BALANCE the budget!That's what happens when you have one-party-supermajority, and an
arrogant supermajority at that. As you point out... same thing happened during
the Bush administration when Republicans controlled everything.Balance is key.
2_bit,It appeared to me that you advocated a GOP congress because
"Congress is responsible for the budget (not the President)."I only pointed out that the GOP congress with a GOP president had free
reign.And they didn't handle it well, deficit wise.I too believe that balance is best. I am actually pulling for the moderates
in the GOP to somehow gain back control and bring a bit more "rational"
thinking to the party.I could possibly vote for a Christie because
he would not be a puppet to the wing of the party.Romney would have been
as evidenced by how much he tried to cater to them.I would strongly
consider Rice. I would have probably voted for Colin Powell. Or Huntsman But, in reality, the wing of the party, who controls the primary
process, would not want anyone who will not vote lock step with them. They want
someone to rubberstamp only a far right agenda.They want a Cruz
type.And the independents will not go for Cruz.Give me
reasonable balance. That is what we need. R or D would be fine. Most cant admit it but Obama is fairly moderate.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments