If I were to say, both parties are equally at fault, would I be sounding like I mean to say, BOTH parties are equally at fault?
In a flurry of forwarding emails sent to a group yesterday, my response was exactly that; and to be perfectly clear, I didn't even initiate the first one out of the gate -- I was simply the second or third voice, in a line of responses that went merrily on their way long into the afternoon.
But like I said, my main thrust of the debate focused on the fact that We the People have put people in office who have not been mindful, shall we say, of our money; We the People took our eye off the capital, allowing the government to grow and bulge and burst right before our eyes.
Anywho, moving right along here, in an instant I was admired for making a few salient points but with a big BUT dropped in at the end: "but I'm afraid ideology is more important to many people than principles." And immediately, I wasn't sure if it was directed towards me in particular, or simply making a general observation of the close-mindedness of "other people" who cling to their ideological fits of genius.
But then, this person used a Bill Maher line as the great equalizer:
"Bush and friends ordered a lot of food,
ate some of it and then left without paying the bill."
and then proceeded to say that under the Bush Administration, "the debt limit was raised 7 times"...
And again, allow me to scream from my mountaintop: BOTH PARTIES are equally at fault.
But how odd is that -- Bill Maher isn't exactly one to pussyfoot around his own political bias, for one; and for two, this person, apparently, clinging to his own ideology, chose a divisive, arrogant, explosive comedian who has no problem using political vitriol to fuel his audience and his success. But maybe we can laugh it off --
Have I mentioned this?....BOTH PARTIES....seem to be equally at fault. And now, allow me to prove it.
For the last twenty years, we have had nearly equal participation from both parties, pretty much all the way down the line -- in the Oval Office 50/50 occupancy with the R's and D's; Congress, 50/50 control in R's and D's.
Now with regard to debt limit increases, through the legislative process under both parties (per the party controlling Congress, which creates the legislation and the annual budget resolutions) 50/50 -- five raises before 2006 and five after over the last ten years.
Under Bush, the first increase of the ceiling was in June of 2002 to roughly 6.4 Trillion (from 5.95 T); the second, December 2002; in February 2003, the Treasury took measures to avert an increase; but by May, Congress raised it; then the Treasury raised the ceiling in Spring 2004; Congress raised it again by November of the same year; in 2005, Congress included a "debt limit (raising) reconciliation instruction" within the Budget Resolution for 2006, but no action was taken until much later, when the actual limit was raised in March of 2006. The Budget for FY 2008 was the final increase under Bush; this increase brought the debt limit to 9,815 Billion.
We then had a series of increases as part of nearly every major piece of legislation brought forward to supposedly "FIX us" -- beginning with the Housing & Recovery Act, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, the TARP reinvestment Act, as well as the FY2010 Budget Resolution -- taking us through the numbers from Bushie's nearly 10 Trillion to 12.104 Trillion, then to 13.029 Trillion, and then finally, to where it sits today, at 14.294 Trillion.
All in all -- during Bushie's eight years, the National Debt grew from nearly 6T to 10 Trillion; and under the Obama's watch, from 10 T to 14 Trillion.
The only difference -- which, one would have to be totally stuck on one's personal ideology not to see it -- is that Bush had eight years, two wars, a housing bubble, and 9/11 rock his world.
Obama, on the other hand -- has only had two and a half years under his belt -- after getting America into a third war, creating a stimulus bridge to nowhere, adding an unfunded healthcare liability which, by the way, steals 500 Billion dollars from Medicare, and all while, scaring the living, breathing daylights out of any current risk taker, or wannabe risk taker, into sitting on their money. Investment, expansion, corporate innovation of every kind has been squelched, put on hold indefinitely (regulation, unknown - healthcare costs, unknown -- taxes, unknown...).
So like I said, BOTH PARTIES are at fault -- dating back twenty years (at least). BUT, if you wanna add an itty bitty polka-dot bikini butt in there -- Bush, and his Congress, had six more years on Obama. Apples to apples, dust to dust -- if we go a full two terms under the Golden Boy, at the rate he's going, with another six years we would be sitting at 26 Trillion dollars.
Because of the level of UNFUNDED liabilities -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid -- and the new "Affordable [Health] Care Act" -- we cannot continue at the going rate. It is just not feasible in any way -- I don't care if it is an R or a D following your name. Incrementally, the rate of escalation sends us on a trajectory that we all know is unsustainable. And at some level, even Obama agrees (let us be reminded of his political mind from 2006):
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
yeah yeah, ideology didn't get into his way there, now did it? yeah, yeah, now of course, he regrets having said that today -- it is different, you know, when you are the leader.
Granted, G has had her pretty little face in the sand much of the last ten years -- I seem to have missed raising a little Cain during the Bushie years. MY APOLOGIES to YOU, AMERICA. What can I say, those years are gone. Albeit frittered away... at my job... raising my girl... arguing with her daddy over child support and custody, trying to keep a roof over my head and staying out of trouble. I know, I know; excuses, excuses. I ONLY WISH I was paying closer attention to every little breathing detail like I do now. BUT Please, please accept my apology now. I promise to do better. Consider G thoroughly smacked upside her head now.
And I would also like to think, that besides being more awake these days, that I am not one to cling to a cultural political ideology, as much as I prefer to cling to the ideology of our founders -- the foundation itself -- the principles and values that made this country great. That, to me, means adhering to the creative process this nation was intended. It means, sticking to the Constitution, aligning with the Rule of Law, keeping to our inherent duty as citizens, as countrymen, to be a self-reliant, independent bunch, living in the freedom to pursue our own happiness, under a LIMITED, federal government.
BOTH PARTIES used to agree on this one to a great degree -- whether you were an R or a D -- solvency was an essential ingredient, part of our nature, whether you came from the left or right. Sure, we may have different things that make us tick, but all in all, we should all be able to come together when it comes to keeping our fiscal house in order. I mean, tell me, who doesn't want that?
This person that made these free-flying Bill Maher Bush-bombs, continued to convey the importance of sticking to the principles, not ideology, in another '[SPAM] reply all' but directed towards one opinion in particular -- and then proceeded to close with "I was a conservative once, and then I got educated." and all that's left for me to say to that is, wow. way to reflect your magnificent principles, dude.
That is almost as ripe as our president walking out of the Debt Ceiling meetings yesterday, and telling Eric Cantor "Don't call my bluff." really?
Nobody is immune, are we? Even the president stoops to levels of playing politics with ideology -- leaving founding principles and values in a heap on the floor. And what in tar-nation is that? So you are playing chicken with the debt ceiling; you are playing with matches in a haystack. Bluffing? You said it, Mr. President. You don't want Eric to call YOUR BLUFF. Are you kidding me? really? seriously? you said that out loud?
Politics is what gets in the way of doing the right thing; this vicious cycle runs as predictable as climate change, just as explosive as human nature.
Just know, the latest contagion of the American Fall (direct opposite of the Arab Spring) -- the one rippling through our world in waves, going totally global, in a fierce, viral conversation -- a debate that nearly every card carrying member of the Power Elite are beginning to join in chorus -- is the call for raising America's debt ceiling and the pending doomsday if we don't. Moody's, Wall Street, Bernanke (and the Fed in general), IMF President, Geithner, Buffett...RINO's and DINO's... Maher (that is just to make us laugh) -- the pitch is one in the same -- raise the ceiling, or America will default on the debt and it will be all over.
It is almost like America is getting gang banged by the Power Elite to do what they say, not as they do. wow, talk about the Chicago code, an elitist mob rule, kicked up a notch...with everyone dressed to the nine's in haute couture ....Gucci, Dolce & Gabbana, and Givenchy...like ladies and gentlemen ga ga gook
[But one, in particular, seems to have issues...
"I do not want, and I will not accept a deal in which I am asked to do nothing. In fact, I am able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don't need, while, uh, a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds, uh, that they've got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans. That's what the revenue debate is about." - Our President of the United States of America, just July 11
...does wealth bother you that much, Mr. President? Do you not know how to put it to good use? Does it embarrass you that much? Would your mother or your father or your brother call you a "sell-out" or something? talk about some kind of dark ideological, internal conflict...You do know that an attitude of limitation is totally un-American, right?...oh right, and again, my conversation on Shared Sacrifice vs. Shared Prosperity is being pushed off to another day...]
Let's wrap things up.
The truth is, the Debt Ceiling was masterminded by man as a tool; it was to intended to keep our government in CHECK. (That is a good one, isn't it.) The debt ceiling is imaginary; man made it all up right from the start. They -- government -- keep ignoring it, because they -- government -- want to continue to borrow and buy on credit -- so that they -- government -- can continue to do the things it was never intended to do in the first place (like offer entitlements, in particular). They -- the government -- continue to do this to keep the peace and control the happy stupid people.
Just like the tide, doesn't matter if it be R's or D's...both parties are equally at fault.
And political, you betcha.
Which is exactly why resting on our founding principles IS the only way to do America, to do it right.
Which is exactly why the Tea Party is rising in this country (predicting a Tsunami force by 2012).
What? You think we Tea's are bluffing, or something?
That's a good one.
Make it a Good Day, G
and to all my muses on the day, many thanks for the inspiration.
And you know, if we want to stick to PRINCIPLES, not ideology, a notion I can fully support for the sake of this debate -- then we would have to restrict, repeal, and not replace, nearly 2/3rds of the reckless spending within our current federal budget. All entitlements go against the American Principles. Most departments are entirely unnecessary.
In truth, if you read the Constitution, the powers of the federal government rest almost entirely upon protecting us -- as in providing a strong military, and allowing for a grassroots militia of citizenry, as well as, protecting us from an overzealous government on down the road; the enumerated powers LIMIT government, while manifesting an UNLIMITED power of the people. Our principles and values relied on INDIVIDUALS maintaining principles and values -- above personal ideology -- while making painfully clear our direct responsibility and duty to uphold...principles and values.
Posts
