Mostly Cloudy / 55° F
Elections have consequences [UPDATED]
Published 10:25am Thursday, November 15, 2012 Updated 12:28pm Thursday, November 15, 2012Now that the dust has settled after the election of 2012, you may be asking yourself “What just happened?”
On both the national and state levels the majority of the voters decided that it was better to vote for entitlements and handouts instead of capitalism.
The idea of more taxes and more spending continues at a runaway pace, as we continue to hand our children and grandchildren a national debt which will forever be a heavy weight around their neck.
Gone are the days of “a good day’s work for a good day’s pay” as now we collectively agree that it is better to let the government provide for the citizenry. Hopefully you do not agree with this idea, but unfortunately, those who voted as a whole sent this message to Washington, D.C. and Saint Paul.
Two years ago Mark Dayton who ran for Minnesota’s governor as the DFL candidate, and to this day Governor Mark Dayton continues to say that he wants to raise taxes in Minnesota.
He says that he wants to raise the taxes of the rich, which would be a bad idea as those are the people who provide the employment to the middle and lower income level job holders. Any tax increase on anyone is a tax increase to all.
Now with the DFL tax and spend controlled House of Representatives and Senate, what could possibly stop him?
Will he keep his promise and change the business climate in Minnesota? If he gets the blessings of his fellow Democrats in the Minnesota Legislature, he will. Prices will continue to soar and your paycheck will plummet to a lower level.
This is not a rosy picture, but just reality. Two years from now will we be asking “What happened to my paycheck and Minnesota’s economy?”
Elections do have consequences, and sometimes a nation and state get just what they deserve.
Brent E. Frazier
Pelican Rapids
There are none so blind as those that refuse to see. The author of this letter not only refuses to see, he refuses to listen.
The voters rejected his ideas, (such as they were). Rather than accept the verdict of the American public he seeks consolation and refuge in fantasy. Rather than re-think his theory’s, he chooses to believe that those with a different view were bribed. He still thinks he can elevate himself by insulting others as being lazy.
He is the intellectual Ludite, who champions an obstructionist congress when he can not sell his ideas at the ballot box. A conservative so divorced from reality that he clings to the time proven fallacy that the wealthy create jobs, that we help the poor by feeding the rich. For that matter, that a fair days wages even exist for many people regardless their output or efficiency.
He is the conservative that demands more work for less pay, even as he takes more for himself, then is dumbfounded when workers rebel.
He is the unsympathetic remnant of a feudal system dressed up as free enterprise and pushed by those who reap the benefits while denying the same to those who actually produce wealth by sales and demand.
He is the Model A Ford stuck in the mud wondering why a New Corvette just waxed his buttocks.
Elections do have consequences. The 2000 election got us into a war that has cost us over 6500 lives and 50,000 injured. And the estimated 3-4 trillion dollars that it will have cost us by the time it’s done with. On top of that, they had the brilliant idea to cut taxes, so there’s less money coming in to pay for it… meaning more borrowed, more interest, more debt. Any wonder why the economy has been down?? Cutting taxes for the wealthy does not grow the economy. “Trickle down” doesn’t work… it only makes the rich, richer. Proven. Republican economic policies protect the rich, erode the middle class, and create more debt.
How many lives did the 1996 election cost? (Due to the wall between CIA-FBI, 9-11 occurred.)
How many lives has the 2008 election cost us? (Due to continuing wars & Rules of Engagement.) How many lives has it cost the Mexicans? (Fast & Furious)
Chairman Zer0 has plenty of blood on his hands, and in the case of Fast and Furious, it seems to be intentional. Vastly increasing the size of government for the purpose of regulating citizens does not create wealth, it only consumes it. Spending your way out of debt is a f00ls game, and the king of f00ls is in control of our earnings.
The separation between the CIA and the FBI, “the wall”, had been in place since the CIA came to be in 1947, not 1996.
2008? Can’t hardly blame the President for a war he didn’t start. But, he IS finishing it.
Vastly growing government? Not true. Total number of government jobs are down now compared to when Bush was President.
Spending? Obama’s first term got started with Bush’s financial bailout (Oct 3, 2008)… $700 billion. Spending since then has been relatively flat, with what increases there have been due to automatic/mandatory spending for Medicare, etc.
To say that President Obama has vastly increased the size of gov’t is intellectually dishonest. To say that the reason is for “regulating citizens” is just plain inflammatory bs.
“At issue was the oft-noted wall of separation that prevented counterterrorism agents and federal prosecutors from communicating with one another prior to September 11. Information collected under special FISA warrants, which do not require a probable cause, was generally not to be shared with personnel responsible for enforcing federal criminal laws — where probable cause must be demonstrated for a warrant to be issued. As lawyers David Rivkin and Lee Casey noted on our Op-Ed page yesterday, the practical effect of the wall was that counterintelligence information was generally kept away from law enforcement personnel who were investigating al Qaeda activities. But Ms. Gorelick’s memo clearly indicated that the Clinton administration had decided as a matter of policy to go even beyond the law’s already stringent requirements in order to further choke off information sharing.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/apr/15/20040415-094758-5267r/#ixzz2ClzaKysd
“Dean Paulson” is apparently the new local democrat propagandist.
Oh, now I see, 911 was Bill Clinton’s fault….yet another conspiracy.
Wow, that must have been some memo, written in 1995 with regard to the 1993 WTC bombing btw, to have earned the blame for 9-11, six years later, and 9 months into the Bush Administration. Ha! You’re reaching now. Propagandist? That didn’t take long, lol.
Now that we’ve heard from an alternative universe of sore losers , let’s talk about some real facts.
911 happened because the Bush administration was too busy planning their own wars to read intelligence briefings about some religious fundamentalists intent on killing Americans.
President Obama, despite the silage you absorb at Fox News has cut the size of government. That’s a fact regardless the pain it causes to your little gray cells and what you tell other conservatives to pet each others egos. Fast and Furious is another unfounded conspiracy of the right wing just like the birth certificate conspiracy and the “Obama will take your guns” conspiracy and the free Obama cell phones to black people conspiracy and every other Obama conspiracy you chicken little’s dream up in lieu of real ideas to help this country. You conservatives have held months of Fast and Furious congressional hearings and the only thing you’ve manages to do so far is to reveal the secret identity of some of our field agents. Just like the Valerie Plame conspiracy. Remember that?
In any case it’s difficult to take seriously anything written by someone who thinks putting capital zeros in place of small “o” is making a profound political statement. And if you think President Obama is in control of your wages, perhaps you need a new job. Or is that the latest conspiracy? “Oh Oh, I could make more money but Obama is controlling my earnings”. Sure he is, after he controls the secret signals from space and killer rays from a secret room in the White House. Is it any wonder you guys lost the election!
Unfortunately, the majority of “cuts” of government workers during 0bama’s (note the zero, Curly?) are from national security positions, armed forces and defense dept civilian billets, Border Patrol, DEA, ICE, to name a few. And there is the usual Marxist trickeration embedded in your and Paulson’s assertion that 0bama has cut government jobs..for many of the “government ” jobs are State, county, municipal jobs cut primarily by GOP State legislatures and governors through streamlining and trimming government regulations and the bloated bureaucracies which enforce those rules.
Consider also the many municipal and county and State jobs lost because the costs of the cadillac retirement and other benefits progarms are nonsustainable , and the governments have had to bite the bullet and cuts jobs, always resisted by the government employee unions.
0bama has a vested interest in keeping all the non defense jobs he can – they are a valued pool of voters to keep him in office, and an almost bottomless pot of campaign funds for the socialist democrats.
Gee Camillbill, your words sound so familiar, if I could just think who said that same thing just recently.
Oh, wait wait, I remember now…it was that loser, what’s his name… mitt, no, mittens, no, oh yeah Willard Romney. He was your hero, remember?
He lost the election with that silly nonsense and you lose this argument with the same.
The point is, regardless of where the cuts were, government was NOT vastly increased, as Mike stated. Look at the years when government did grow, you might be surprised.
As Mike stated:
2008: $2.98 trillion
2012: $3.71 trillion (versus $3.65 trillion enacted)
Apparently you are not a numbers guy Paul, so to help you understand, that is a 25% increase in spending.
That increase in spending occurred during a recession, thus tax receipts are reduced. That means the money had to be borrowed.
If you’re going back to ’08…both the ’08 and ’09 budgets belong to President Bush, as does the cost of the wars, as do the tax cuts… which during a recession, compound the debt problem. Even considering that, increased spending alone does not mean government has grown. Two different things.
If increasing the burden of government to taxpayers is not growth, I don’t believe we can find common ground.
Is nationalizing control of the health insurance industry government growth? The following quote refers to 0bamacare:
“Section 3022 of the law, which is about the Medicare shared savings program, take up just six pages in the 907-page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But HHS has turned that into 429 pages of new regulations”
http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/04/07/6-pages-of-obamacare-equals-429-pages-of-regulations