Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Lack of Postings, Explained in an E-Mail

You may have noticed that I haven't posted much at all since the recent elections.

It's not because "my guy" or "my side" fared so poorly in the elections; rather, it's because my idea of how this country should be has been tarred and feathered, labeled and lambasted, mocked and ridiculed by politicians, television and Hollywood. The decisions coming out of Congress and the White House are so backward, disgusting and sad that I can't even understand how any of them represent me.

I no longer feel like a part of this country. Instead, I feel like a servant, working each day to fund things I don't believe in, things I don't agree with. Every day I see bad things being protected and promoted, even though I know that in the long run those things will come back to haunt this nation.

There is no democracy here. The people are asked a question, and if the askers don't like the response they can get a liberal court to reverse that response. Or, liberal groups rally to collect as many ignorant and uninformed people as they can to vote for their side, with promises of easy money, freebies and sandwiches.

Nothing I care about seems to matter. No, all that seems to matter is how much tax money I can contribute to the voluntary destruction of my country.

But I received an e-mail today that sums up much of what I'm feeling, so I am posting it here. The only part of this that I don't agree with is the Subarus ... I like Subarus because they're great in the snow.

Here it is:

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like re distributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.

Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O' Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters and PETA people. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we won’t be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.

We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Bai Ya or We Are the World.

Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you.


Karen Olson said...

Now you know how the rest of us felt the last eight years.

Please keep in mind that Obama won. A majority. I don't want to hear that he's not listening to the will of the people. The will of the people was that we needed a change and we trusted in him more than McCain.

The man's been in office three months. You seriously think that we're so fucked because of him? Give me a break. Who started this ball rolling?

And you are not going to see your taxes go up. You don't make that much money.

Al said...

My income tax might not increase, but other taxes will.

And this isn't about a tax increase -- it's about where tax dollars go.

Just like the left complained about money going to fund a war they did not approve of, I don't like my tax dollars going to fund social causes I don't approve of.

Funny, you mention Obama's "win" ... how come when you win, you win, but when *we* win, we "cheated" ... ?

Karen Olson said...

You have to admit that Bush's first win was clouded in controversy.

The second time, yes, he did win and I never said otherwise.

Social issues? Do you mean health care? I just don't understand why providing health care for everyone is such a horrible thing. Medical expenses are the No. 1 reason why private citizens must declare bankruptcy. And now with all the unemployed out there, it's an even bigger issue. Don't you think we're subsidizing all those people in emergency rooms anyway now?

Europe is having the same sort of economic downturn we are, but its people are not as hurt by it, because they have health care, they have other social programs that mean people aren't going to become totally destitute.

What other social causes are you thinking about that you believe will bankrupt our country?

Al said...

This is much larger than just health care.

I don't agree with the philosophy that it's the government's role to take from one person and give to another.

Aside from individual "assistance," which is just involuntary charity, that also includes the government taking general taxpayer money and doling it out to whatever projects or groups it deems worthy, because that's very subjective, and also because the process is tainted by favors and paybacks.

Why should the feds take money from people in one state and use it for something in another state?

At the state level, why should government take money from people in one municipality and use it in another municipality?

It's unnecessary, and it I feel it pits people against one another.

One very specific example is public housing -- you have the government using taxpayer money to pay someone else's housing costs, and oftentimes this is less of a helping hand and more of an enabling of irresponsibility. In any story about a housing project in New Haven, for instance, you're sure to hear from someone who has grown up in public housing, had kids in public housing, and whose kids are now having kids in public housing. Rather than a helping hand until the first person got their shit together, you now have 3 generations of people dependent on other people's money in order to survive.

That's not how a society is supposed to work.

And, keep in mind, I'm not against charity -- I just think it's a local issue, not something the government should be involved in. I think direct person-to-person charity is more efficient and more beneficial, because so much money is lost in the process of going through governmental offices to aid agencies to local entities.

And, I do believe that if the government stopped taking the money from the people, those people might (should) be more charitable directly.

Chris Hoffman said...

Dude, take a breath. Do you really think Karen and I are "Marxists" because we support Obama? If so, define "Marxism." Is it raising the top tax rate from 36 to 39 percent? Does that make Obama Stalin?

I know you to be a decent, fair-minded, reasonable guy, so I'm struggling to figure out what you're so angry about and why you think Obama is some sort of radical.

Let's review: Obama wants to increase the top tax rate from 35 to 39 percent. That's what it was under Clinton. It's lower than it was in Reagan's first term or during the Nixon and Eisenhower administrations. That's socialism? If it is, then Reagan, Nixon and Ike were socialists.

He also wants to regulate business and the financial world. Why? Because when you don't, you get greedheads like Bob Jelinic who loot the economy instead of build enduring businesses that provide jobs and prosperity. We had regulation from the early 1930s to the 1980s and the American standard of living shot through the roof, with the American middle and working class living better than it ever had. Is it an accident that wages for nearly everyone went stagnant or began falling after Reagan began dismantling the regulatory state? I think not.

In sum, deregulation was tried for 20 years and it led to disaster. Do you really think the answer is more deregulation? That's like banging your head bloody on a wall and deciding the way to get better is to keep banging it.

So Obama wants to go back to a level of regulation that existed for 50 years and led to stability and prosperity and that's socialism? That's the collapse of the Republic?

You say you do not believe in "redistributive" taxes. In essence, you are calling for dismantling of the New Deal and the Great Society, an end to everything from Pell grants to Social Security to Medicare. Fair enough. While I disagree with that position, I respect it.

But let me point out that this system, this approach to government, has existed since Roosevelt. Voters have said loudly and clearly since 1936 that they do not want to dismantle this system.

Your beef therefore is not with Obama. It is with Roosevelt (Do you have any relatives who lived through the Depression. I urge you to talk to them before you dis Roosevelt). Given that fact, why are you suddenly apoplectic about a system that's existed for nearly 80 years?

Regarding public housing, everyone, including Obama, agrees it was a disaster. Not even Michael Moore or Jane Fonda would defend public housing. You are jabbing at a straw man.

I understand you disagree with Obama and are unhappy he was elected. But how you can say that Republic is ending, that succession or separation are the only solutions, honestly puzzles me.

Al said...

Thanks for the post, Chris, but now I'm the one that's puzzled.

It was a great defense of Obama, but there was no attack on Obama ...

I don't understand why you feel that I have some beef with Obama. This country was screwed up long before he was around. It was also screwed up long before W.

It's a cumulative thing that has created an atmosphere that I just plain can't handle. I hate what it's become.

I do feel that liberals make stupid decisions. Not that conservatives don't, but if I had to pick which ones were less damaging to society and the country, I would side with the conservatives. (Please note the use of the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' as opposed to 'Democrat' and 'Republican' ... I specifically mean 'liberal' and 'conservative.')

I find it insane that two men can get married but there are words I'm not legally allowed to utter because it's a hate crime. I find it deplorable that people in border states have to deal with the immigration crisis on their own because it's become politically incorrect to expect certain laws to be upheld.

There was a proposal in Maine, I think, to allow 11-year-old girls to get birth control pills from the school, without parental consent; but that same 11-year-old isn't allowed to pray in school?

It's not Obama, it's the liberal philosophy. If he subscribes to it, then so be it. But I think, like a lot of liberals seem to do, he only subscribes to it when it doesn't affect him negatively.

Anonymous said...

Is it possible to contact administration?
Thank you