.....
***********************************************************************
Login | Register | Search Blogs |
Oftentimes, liberals will offer you big government as the solution to a problem. On the other hand, conservatives will assert that lessmuch lessgovernment is the sure fix. Ronald Reagan would have had you believe that government is inherently evil, that government is itself the problem. But neither of these approaches have solved much: witness LBJ's Great Society and Reagan's social welfare cuts. America didn't destroy poverty in the '60s, nor did less government in the '80s cause us all to develop better morals. So what is government's role in solving the socioeconomic problems, and even crises, facing America? And yes, we do have crises. What is happening in the majority-black, crack-ridden inner city? There's a war going on, and most of America doesn't care. The Katrina victims haven't been properly recompensed, haven't had their homes, their communities, their cities rebuilt. And the working middle class is being ravaged. Jobs are leaving, homes are foreclosing, and a way of life is being torn asunder in a silent, faceless genocide.
Well let me tell you what's what: it is not the government's job to funnel billions into a new program, staffed by more out-of-touch, hapless bureaucrats. But neither can the governmentand the country it servespreside idly over humanitarian and economic crises. We do not have the option to do nothingfor we would become monsters, desensitized to any suffering. Nevertheless, I can understand someone who is hesitant about the government going out and trying to fix the ghetto. Those that are hesitant about such things are not hesitant because they believe those who live in the inner city deserve an opportunity-less, fearful existence. Theyre hesitant because although weve tried, we havent succeeded, and weve run out of ideas besides pumping more money in, money without any organization or resolve behind it. We must regain the peoples trust in spending their money, and we must do this by spending it wisely and effectively. We dont need a federally-administered War on Poverty, nor do we need money taken away from such vital institutions like insane asylums, Social Security, or Medicare. Government is not the solutionpeople are. But the destruction of communities because of disappearing jobs and foreclosed homes cannot be solved by good intentions alone. The cycles of poverty, addiction, recession, and bankruptcy are indeed vicious, and they are also often strong and seemingly endless. These things cannot be fought just by nice thoughts if we intend to succeed on a broad scale. There must be force behind effort, not just willpower on the part of a few, but conviction and action by the many. This is a sentiment Sen. Barack Obama has been emphasizing during his campaign. This action will not succeed if not taken up collectively.
What Im saying in short, is that the most effective ways to deal with poverty, declining economic opportunity, and community rebuilding originate from within the community. And the most efficient way of administering these solutions is by and through the community. But one of the unfortunate parts of this approach is that community programs often lack breadth, their ability to reach many, because they lack that one important resource that frequently determines whether a program will last or perishmoney. And that is where we need great politico-economic innovation: combining the fantastic depth and effectiveness of community programs with the more-encompassing breadth and monetary resources of a federal or even state program.
Governments must cease to be a bureaucratic parasite that takes large percentages of our income and then swallows it up to be wasted, misappropriated, and disappear into ineffective committees and useless federal oversight programs. Instead, government must be a tool that like-minded individuals can use to confrontand defeata problem bigger than themselves.
A national Consumption tax is something we need very, very, badly.
This bill was created to try and rectify the problems that have emerged from the Federal Income Tax and the IRS's existence. It would repeal the 16th amendment and put in its place a national sales tax for the United States Government to collect revenue.
The problem with our current system is that a) The Income Tax is a great violation of personal liberty, with the government forcibly taking our hard earned money and b) The IRS has become a highly sophisticated organization, and nearly incomprehendable to ordinary citizens.
The FairTax would fix both these problems and then some. It would allow us to take home all of our paycheck, instead of having it cut to pieces by taxes, and it would end the Income Tax's destruction of our rights. It would make taxation a choice, meaning it is your choice to go out and purchase luxury commodities and the like. It would also render the IRS and its highly intricate Tax Code unneccesary and wasteful.
Economists at Boston University concluded that the FairTax would reward low-income households with 26.3% more purchasing power, middle-income households with 12.4% more purchasing power, and high-income households with 5% more purchasing power.
This issue destroys class and party lines. It simply logic to endorse something like this, and a National Candidate like Obama would be the best to endorse it.
There are two things that Hillary Clinton has done that deserve immediate scrutiny:
1) She has disregarded the will of the DNC, the only uniting organization between Democrats.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7036562.stm
2) She has given President Bush the authority to attack Iran. This is a portion of a statement that the Gravel Campaign is circulating. Though Obama does recognize that it is too early to rule out a strike against Iran, he did not vote on this measure, like the traitor Hillalry did.
It started with Democratic Presidential Candidate Mike Gravel criticizing Senator Hillary Clinton on live TV. Now, two other candidates are catching on. John Edwards and Barack Obama have both followed Gravel's lead, making statements that criticize Clinton's controversial vote on a measure which gives President George W. Bush the cover to attack Iran.
At the September 26 Democratic debate in Hanover, N.H., Gravel first raised the issue, calling the Kyl-Lieberman amendment (S. Amdt. 3017) "a fig leaf to let George Bush go to war with Iran." The Senator went on to say, "I'm ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it. You're not going to get another shot at this." You can watch an excerpt of that debate here.
Since then, Edwards and Obama have made similar statements.
While Obama told AP he sees "nothing wrong with identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization," he admits that the vote "could potentially lead to military action in Iran." You can read more about that in today's Union Leader.
Obama was absent the day the vote was cast in the Senate. As a result, he could not vote on it.
Edwards, who calls his vote authorizing the Iraq War a "mistake," followed Gravel in congratulating Senators Chris Dodd and Joe Biden for voting against the resolution
There was a courageous Senator from Wisconsin back in the 50’s who predicted all this; his name was Joe McCarthy and the leftists crucified him. Back in the 50’s there was a common term “Better dead then red”. The seeds for a revolution are growing.
Exposed but not challenged by the L/MSM. They want this guy in. Then again. I am a bit surprised as how CNN of lately has actually brought up his dealings with ACORN.
Thanks for the ping...........
Thanks Ernest and geo.
The Law Under Obama
Forbes | 10.24.08 | Robert Bovarnick
Posted on 10/24/2008 12:57:30 PM PDT by george76
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2114392/posts