Trump had 59 Tomahawk missile fired into Syria at an airfield because Syria used chemical weapons on it's own people. The damage was reported as heavy. But videos showed little damage; runway was in use the next day; aircraft revetments appeared untouched; no damaged/destroyed aircraft seen--only one aircraft seen and it was in an undamaged revetment; no bomb craters were seen. So just what was the damage? Understandably only the one aircraft was seen because Trump had alerted Russia to the attack and they (most likely) alerted Syria so Syria's aircraft could be relocated away from the intended airfield. Remember when Trump said he'd never disclosed any military action he might take?
4-09-2017
Electoral College
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68
laid out what he believed were the key advantages to the Electoral
College. The electors come directly from the people and them alone for
that purpose only, and for that time only. This avoided a party-run
legislature, or a permanent body that could be influenced by foreign
interests before each election.[23]
Hamilton explained the election was to take place among all the states,
so no corruption in any state could taint "the great body of the
people" in their selection. The choice was to be made by a majority of
the Electoral College, as majority rule is critical to the principles of
republican government. Hamilton argued, electors meeting in the state
capitals were able to have information unavailable to the general
public. Hamilton also argued that since no federal officeholder could be
an elector none of the electors would be beholden to any presidential
candidate.[23]
Another consideration was the decision would be made without "tumult and disorder", as it would be a broad-based one made simultaneously in various locales where the decision-makers could deliberate reasonably, not in one place, where decision-makers could be threatened or intimidated. If the Electoral College did not achieve a decisive majority, then the House of Representatives was to choose the president from among the top five candidates,[24] ensuring selection of a presiding officer administering the laws would have both ability and good character. Hamilton was also concerned about somebody unqualified, but with a talent for "low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity", attaining high office.[23]
Another consideration was the decision would be made without "tumult and disorder", as it would be a broad-based one made simultaneously in various locales where the decision-makers could deliberate reasonably, not in one place, where decision-makers could be threatened or intimidated. If the Electoral College did not achieve a decisive majority, then the House of Representatives was to choose the president from among the top five candidates,[24] ensuring selection of a presiding officer administering the laws would have both ability and good character. Hamilton was also concerned about somebody unqualified, but with a talent for "low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity", attaining high office.[23]
Abortions
I need to say upfront that I think all abortions at any stage of pregnancy are grievous and that Late-term Abortions are horrendous. However, I also believe that I have no right whatsoever to intrude, in any way, into a woman's decision to have an abortion; neither does the government, federal or state; the ultimate decision is hers--it is her body. The main reason for my believing this way can be found in our Constitution where the right to privacy is paramount and inarguable. How anyone can argue that they or our government can dictate how a woman, or any individual for that matter, must care for/take care of her body is beyond me. Of course, that doesn't keep the multitudes from caterwauling pro and con the issue of abortions. What gives me the right to be judgemental? Being pro-choice carries no mandate, pro-choice just accords to the pregnant woman what is rightfully hers---the right to privacy.
Obama's Fault?
In response to a post by an acquaintance blaming President Obama for the state of our economy plus other aspects of his administration that has not been superlative, I responded as follows:
What an amazing litany of empty-headed inglorious BS! So it's Obama's fault now? Now that we're better off than when the "stuff" ended its slide downhill into a quasi-depression in mid-2009?
Do you really believe it was Obama's Recovery Act that caused those eight million-odd job losses and drove up the unemployment figures to 10%? Get over it. The Recovery Act slowed then stopped the bleeding. To believe otherwise is just plain ignorant.
My mind just cannot fathom the depths of despair this country would be in now if McCain had won in 2008. Think about it, how would he have stopped the 600,000 job losses per month, repaired the bursting housing bubble, and contained the financial markets and banks so our country wouldn't become a piddling worthless entity? Sure, blame Obama for getting our troops out of Iraq, blame him for doing what Bush reneged on--killing OBL, blame him for the stock market doubling in three years. And, for good measure, blame him for not getting a budget out of Congress for three years(?) when the 'Publicans (better "Publi-cannots") filibustered and would not permit cloture on every part and parcel of the budget. I say blame the 'Publi-cannots for not allowing final votes on a budget.
Just say'n......
What an amazing litany of empty-headed inglorious BS! So it's Obama's fault now? Now that we're better off than when the "stuff" ended its slide downhill into a quasi-depression in mid-2009?
Do you really believe it was Obama's Recovery Act that caused those eight million-odd job losses and drove up the unemployment figures to 10%? Get over it. The Recovery Act slowed then stopped the bleeding. To believe otherwise is just plain ignorant.
My mind just cannot fathom the depths of despair this country would be in now if McCain had won in 2008. Think about it, how would he have stopped the 600,000 job losses per month, repaired the bursting housing bubble, and contained the financial markets and banks so our country wouldn't become a piddling worthless entity? Sure, blame Obama for getting our troops out of Iraq, blame him for doing what Bush reneged on--killing OBL, blame him for the stock market doubling in three years. And, for good measure, blame him for not getting a budget out of Congress for three years(?) when the 'Publicans (better "Publi-cannots") filibustered and would not permit cloture on every part and parcel of the budget. I say blame the 'Publi-cannots for not allowing final votes on a budget.
Just say'n......
Constitutional-Religious Issues
 |
There
is an agenda to redefine marriage, an institution of at least 4,000
years that has always been a husband and a wife ( or wives in some
societies). There is clearly an agenda by some in the left to change the
definition, although the recent vote by the citizens of NC show that
Democrats are as supportive of this measure as ate Republicans. Clearly
Prop 8 would have passed except for the historic amount of black church
going voters that voted for Obama and against gay marriage. That being
said I could care less if gays marry, legalize marijuana, or any other
intrusive laws the government passed are overturned. Give me $2.50
gallon has and a 4% unemployment rate and you can make Elton John
Secretary of State.
|
Constitutional-Religious Issues
 |
Tom: Let me give you a few examples.
1. In 31 states, people without a belief in a monotheism are disqualified from holding public office. 2. The Ten Commandments are posted in courtrooms 3. The State provides a religious book for people to swear on before giving testimony 4. We have monotheistic messages engraved on our money, in our national pledge, and in our national anthem 5. There continue to be "blue laws" (sabbath laws) prohibiting specific activities on Sunday in most states 6. Blasphemy is still a crime punishable by fines and incarceration in a handful of states 7. Prayers are given in the chambers of our congress 8. The bible is cited as justification for opposition against everything from gay marriage to wars against Muslim countries Note that the above examples are codified by law. When you say that other philosophies like those advocated by "militant gays, Muslims and feminists" are "forced" on people, what you really mean is that popular culture today is starting to tolerate them in the national dialogue, and people like you can no longer shut out all such messages from your lives. That's very different than disqualifying straights from public office, or posting passages from Queen songs on our public buildings, or prohibiting the sale of food in daylight hours during Ramadan. You have the freedom to reject all of these people's messages without the threat of interference. You can also speak out against them from a moral standpoint. As you said, you find these ideals to be important building blocks for society, and you're free to encourage anyone and anyone to agree with you - but not everyone will, and they have the freedom to build their lives with their own blocks, just like you do. In North Carolina or Minnesota (or most other states), though, a non-believer can't simply "ignore" the issues. They can be recalled from office simply for not professing belief in God. They still have to use money that promotes monotheistic ideals. Gays still can't share power of attorney, hospital visitation, inheritance, or benefits rights like straight couples can. These are truly, genuinely "forced" on them by laws voted on by people who justify those votes with a holy book, despite the VERY clear specification of the freedom of religion, and the establishment clause prohibiting laws respecting establishments of religion. You've had a 236-year monopoly in having your own religious symbols prominently displayed and advocated by our government in courts, money, mottos, schools, and pledges. Why is it such a problem to get the government OUT of religion, and let it operate as a free market like other services and non-profits? Layne: Nobody is forcing you to believe in same-sex marriage. It may very well be a sin. But in America, we're supposed to be free to sin. Allowing gays to marry doesn't "force" their definition on you any more than the legalization of alcohol "forces" you to condone drinking. You can choose your own definition of marriage, just like you can choose your own beverage. Anyone who follows this board knows that on MOST issues, I align to the right. I want small government. I don't want government regulating our healthcare, our housing, our food, our transportation, our financial institutions, our employment, or our carbon. In a stunning display of consistency, I ALSO resist government regulating marriages, substances, airports, air travel, free speech, religious belief, and media. I want small government in ALL areas of my life. And if we can't even keep government out of our bedrooms and our personal relationships, how can we expect to keep it out of our healthcare, our vehicles, or our banks? I adhere STRONGLY to the "Don't Tread On Me" doctrine - let all be free, just don't hurt me. I don't smoke, I don't hire prostitutes, I don't do drugs, I don't commit adultery, and I don't hunt for sport. I find all of these activities to be extremely immoral, in fact. But if someone else wants to do them, go right ahead. I don't own you. But you don't own me, either, and I'd like to know that I can disbelieve in God AND run for office. Right now I can't, not because of a 2000-year-old book, but because hordes of people take that book with them into the voting booths to make laws for people who don't believe the same way as they do. Sorry for the long rant. |
National Debit and Social Security
Many citizens, including me, seem to be joining an ever increasing crowd of very disgruntled citizens. This soliloquy is in two parts.
PART I.
I do understand that the POTUS is the "leader" of the Democratic Party, but I firmly believe the compromise regarding spending (budget) and raising the national debt limit should be going on solely between congressional members. Of course, democratic congressional members can, and should, consult with the POTUS but the onus is upon Congress (House and Senate) to pass the bills, then send them to the POTUS. It galls me, in a sense, that the POTUS is blamed for not compromising on these bills; the POTUS does not compromise. he either signs or vetoes bills. The POTUS proposes an annual budget, but the Congress then does what it will with the proposal.
I firmly believe 545 congressmen and women should be able to develop spending plans (of whatever description) that work best for the country and is fair for all (It is their responsibility!), more so than one person, even if he is the POTUS. If the POTUS vetoes, the Congress gets to override the veto, or not. If not, Congress goes back to the drawing board and gets a bill back to the POTUS that he either signs or vetoes (and a circle-a-rama ensues). In the end a bill will be "approved;" the POTUS will sign or Congress will override a veto.
PART II
Social Security. The first thing to know about Social Security is that at no time in its history, up to and including today (and for the even the near future), has Social Security contributed to the national debt! Social Security is solvent through 2036 (that's when the trust fund of currently $2.4 trillion is depleted). So, of course some reform needs to take place between now and 2036. Some would argue, like me, that reform should start now; the sooner, the better, and the easier it is ($$$$) on all of us (sic). Here's the thing, with Social Security income decreasing (poor economy/high unemployment) relative to increasing payout (retirement of baby-boomers increasing the number of recipients), the differential between income to payout speeds along from plus to minus in a few short years, therewith beginning to siphon off the trust fund.
This is mathematically a fact. Facts: In 2010 Social Security income was $791 billion; payout was $715 billion--differential was +$76 billion. What will be the differential for 2011?
How do we extend the life of Social Security without impoverishing its recipient? We probably all have suggestions. Here's mine, for what it's worth:
1. Increase the cap on the amount at which Social Security deductions stops--$175,000. I have no idea how much this will positively affect the income-payout differential, but annual reviews will be telling as to when to activate step 2.
2. Reduce annual COLA, if any, by 30% of its amount, e.g., COLA is 3%, reduce to 2.1%. Adjust at five-year reviews.
3. When, and if, steps 1. and 2. "play out," determine mathematically (or however they determine these things) when to either revise the cap upwards as in Step 1, further reduce the COLA as in Step 2, or use a combination of both Steps 1 and 2.
4. Finally (way down the road[?]), as necessary, reduce Social Security payments by a percentage, across the board, that will keep Social Security solvent and where an acceptable payment to recipients can be made for the number of years before reform is again necessary.
All of this IMHO.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)