Like our bellies, our government has become super-sized. We Americans do everything BIG! as if it's a testimony to our intelligence, or our bank accounts, or our prowess. But "bigger isn't better", to quote a man who met with fame for being little -- General Tom Thumb. (Barnum)
 |
| Source |
Like the Trojans, we need to beware of "Greeks bearing gifts." The more we accept from our government, the more people like it. Well, some people, of course. What ever happened to working hard, saving money, and living within our means? Too many people take the easy road, accepting government handouts with no thought of whether or not they deserve such rewards.
Can you believe people voted for Obama because of the "stuff" he promised? How can you live with yourself? That's just bribery!
I want to return to a world where people work hard and in return, make money. The harder you work, the more money. Okay, well, we all know salaries are not necessarily based on how hard you work - with athletes and celebrities getting paid astronomical amounts. I'm not saying they aren't worth it -- the people want their "rock stars," but in the case of every day working class people, your paycheck should reflect the work you do. Now, now, now -- don't get all bent out of shape about salaries. As a teacher, I know first hand how mismatched salaries are! I'm just trying to make the point that you shouldn't get "sumtin for nuttin." What are we teaching our children? Don't go to work and someone will take care of you? (Oops, perhaps I should examine my own household about that one -- but I digress!)
What breed of human being are we developing in the US?
This picture popped up on Facebook today and pissed me off ...
I think this demonstrates extreme liberalism! Yes, we should help the sick and the poor -- the truly destitute who don't have any means to support themselves. Not those who choose not to work, who choose to support themselves by having babies to increase their welfare checks, who gloat about the size of their hand-outs, and who have nicer phones, cars, and clothes than those who are working their butts off! (Oh, and I have NO idea who John Fugelsang is or why I should care what he says. But someone does, I suppose.)
Smaller government means we don't create a program for every person, group, or cause that need help. Instead, we help people get back on their feet again so they can feel worthwhile! Shame on those who rejoice in their bad fortune. We are enablers in this country -- we help people stay poor and uneducated -- and unfortunately, some of them love it.
You dare to question my Christian values??? My belief is that if our government were smaller, our tax bills would get smaller. If government took less of the money I earned (through my hard work, intelligence, and diligence), then I would have more to donate to those causes I believe in. I donate to many causes regularly and wish it could be more. Some I choose not to donate to because I question their values or their use of my money. That's my choice. But when the government takes my money to "give" to others, I have no say in where my money goes.
I believe in the generosity of the American people. Just look at what we do for each other when a crisis comes up! The American Red Cross has reported $117 million in donations for those suffering the effects of Hurricane Sandy.
The Red Cross said that by Friday it had raised $117 million in donations and pledges, and the Salvation Army cited $5 million. SOURCE
 |
| SOURCE |
Can't we trust the American people to come forward and help those in need, instead of continually increasing what we work hard to earn? We're not heartless. We're not children who need to be forced to do the right thing ...
Now, don't even get me started about the taxes for those earning at the top 10%. Really? So you're basically saying that people who work hard, earn more, and save responsibly should be punished? Why bother working at all? Oh, now I see ...
I don't want the government taking care of me. I want to take care of myself. I want to make my own decisions about the personal issues in my life. I want to be free to believe what I believe and act on that accordingly.
Oh, and here's the kicker ...
WASHINGTON — An economic calamity looming, President Barack Obama on Friday signaled willingness to compromise with Republicans, declaring he wasn’t “wedded to every detail” of his tax-and-spending approach to prevent deep and widespread pain in the new year. But he insisted his re-election gave him a mandate to raise taxes on wealthier Americans.
“The majority of Americans agree with my approach,” said Obama, brimming with apparent confidence in his first White House statement since securing a second term.
Really, Mr. President? Okay, technically you did receive the majority vote - 50% to 48%. Not much of a landslide, and I also wouldn't call it overwhelming support for your policies.
Though I doubt Mr. Romney was the perfect candidate in every way, I truly believe he would have kicked the economical butt of this country into submission. Now, I have no hope for my children, grandchildren, and the children of the future. We will be speaking Chinese before long ...
Enough ranting for today. Hope I didn't scare anyone away!
Thanks for reading,
Linda
Oh, and ONE MORE THING! Mayor Bloomberg, banning super-sized soda may feel like a good thing to do, but in the US, we allow citizens to make their own decisions about what they put in their bodies -- and weather the consequences - responsibly (or not.) that is our choice. If we're fat, then no one is to blame but ourselves. Stop being an ineffective parent!
 |
| SOURCE |
Recently it was pointed out to me that the "Obama Phone" program was started during the Reagan administration. That's all well and good, but my point is, those people receiving the benefits don't know that -- and thus, they cast their vote for one reason only.
ReplyDeleteReading the RR's blog for the few days has bothered me somewhat. After the event of last Tuesday, I could have settled into mind numbing inactivity. These blog entries and the responses they initiated made it impossible for me to click off my thinking gene. The result of Obama over Romney just flat ass perplexes me. I couldn't seem to make any sense out of it. How does one say something like..."Yeah, well those Obama supporters are just ... well,... stupid." They can't all be stupid...laws of probability say so. So, how is it that the all ACT stupid? I think I've been able to grasp at least a thread that explains it all.
ReplyDeleteMy wife and I have recently got into watching ALIAS, that sort of sci-fi, James Bondish series that began about 10 years ago. Each episode shows Sydney with a new identity (alias) as she works for the government to get or plant some device or info that will benefit the good guys. She works for SD-6, a branch of what she thought was a black ops division of the CIA. But then she learns that it is part of the Alliance, a group of bad guys that she thought she fighting against. So then she becomes part of the CIA and now her job is to destroy SD-6 and the Alliance. Whew! So what's that got to do with OUR current situation? Everything. You see, the members of SD-6 pretty much all think that they are the good guys. Only a handful of SD-6 dudes know that they are bad guys and they conceal that fact from 99+% of their workers. Starting to see the connection? That's what the Democrats are...SD-6. Only a few of them (Obama, Valerie Jarrett, George Soros...) know who they really are (bad guys bent on destroying what we Republicans value) and they have duped the rest of their membership into thinking they are doing good for this country.
Richard, I work in the security field, which means I get to see a of evilness in my line of work. Having done this for a long time I've come to a single realization about the nature of Evil: Evil people don't think they're evil. Seriously. They don't have secret lairs, sinister laughs, or plans to destroy civilization and take over the world. What they *do* have is a fundamental belief that their cause is just and the means they choose to achieve success for their cause is acceptable. So when you come to the conclusion that the Obama/Jarrett/Soros trinity is inherently evil I would submit to you that perhaps they are nothing more than true believers in their cause who are out to do what they think is best to improve the state of the country and the welfare of its citizens. That their ideas and methods clash with "Republican Values" is a natural byproduct of the political system in which we operate. They are in fact not Republicans, but Democrats whose values and approach to economic, social, and political leadership is by definition distinct from Republican values.
ReplyDeleteIf you reject that premise (and I can understand how you might) and still believe them to be truly evil then you also have to accept the equally plausible and widespread belief in Democratic/liberal circles that the Bush/Cheney/Rove trinity was likewise inherently evil and that their activities while in power can be shown to demonstrate an overambitious attempt to destroy traditional "Democratic values" while disguising their activities as being for the good of the country and its citizens. Is that an any more believable and/or preposterous notion?
So which of these scenarios is true? I guess it depends on what side of the aisle your allegiances belongs to.
"And what is truth?/Is truth unchanging law?/We both have truths./Are mine the same as yours?" (Reference check: "theatrical history" :-)