The Coast Guard has given BP a 48 hour mandate to show improvement or else. Not sure what that or else will be. At the same time President Obama is pushing congressional leaders to pass additional $50B to assist states and local governments. The additional money will be used to keep layoffs of teachers, police and firefighters. I know when the original stimulus bill was passed many, including myself, warned that it was a temporary fix. When will the Obama administration understand that government spending will not bring us out of the recession?
Government needs to re-prioritize their goals. Hamburg faced a threat of losing Local Government Assistance (LGA) from the state of Minnesota in order to balance the budget. After the dust settled, Hamburg did see a cut in LGA funds but not as deep as originally anticipated. The ripple effect we experience is that local governments have become dependent on LGA, the state government dependant on Federal handouts, and where does that leave the Federal government?
I know that people rail against the TEA Party movement for their demands of smaller government. The extra money that Obama is looking for is the exact reason why TEA Party supporters are demanding smaller government. Now, smaller government does not have to mean less government; rather it means smarter government. We cannot sustain the trajectory of government employment, we cannot sustain the trajectory of spending that we have seen over the past four year, and we cannot sustain the trajectory of lost freedoms in a free society. Congress is correct to ignore the extra money Obama is requesting of them. The United States cannot continue to bailout poor financial decisions of all levels of government. Hard choices need to be made and it is time for Americans to demand that of government at every level.
"We cannot sustain the trajectory of lost freedoms in a free society."
ReplyDeletePlease list the freedoms which have been lost and those responsible for taking them.
Anon
ReplyDeleteHere is a short list:
1. Patriot Act - yes, started under Bush but has been used by Obama
2. Health Care Mandate - punishes those that self-insure
3. Smoking Bans - Restricts business
4. TARP, GM and Stimulus Package - is putting undue financial burden on future generations which means higher taxes and less money to do with what one chooses to do with it.
1. Okay, good example.
ReplyDelete2. Not so good of an example. It's your opinion and has yet to take effect.
3. A pretty weak example. Again with the private business rights thing. No one said you can't smoke. You just have to go outside or be off the grounds. But really? Smoking? I'm sure the founding fathers would have been outraged.
4. Another weak example. And way to go with the laundry list approach. So, as far as you're concerned, taxes equal less freedom. Are you one of those people that challenges the Constitutionality of taxes as a whole?
I'm sorry, but listing things with which you disagree does not mean that they are a loss of freedom. It's my opinion against yours so of course you're right and I'm wrong.
It's interesting that you decry smoking bans as restricting business but yet would allow businesses to discriminate based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. Oh wait, discrimination is a good thing! Racism is a good thing! Why? You're a white male with an education and a job. You rule the world!
How much freedom has really been lost in those? How many Americans have less freedom in actuality because of the Patriot Act? The average citizen isn't impacted. How many people really don't have insure because they don't want it?
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting that the smoking bans probably have the most actual individual impact and you cite it as a business restriction. The individuals rights are far more restricted. A business is far more restricted by other laws, such as labor laws, minimum wage, zoning, liquor laws, etc.
Anon
ReplyDeleteReally, you do not understand how the Health care mandate is a restriction on our freedom? Not only does it penalize those that self-insure it requires every legal American to purchase a product. The Government, at any level, should not be allowed to require a product be purchased just for living.
The smoking ban has nothing to do with outrage from the Founding Fathers, although, since tobacco was a staple crop of the colonies they may object from the stand point of lost business. The smoking ban tells a small business owner that they cannot provide a location to use a perfectly legal product.
And yes, the more money Uncle Sam requires of its citizens then less money that citizen has to take a trip, buy a home, buy a car, go out to eat, etc..It is not an issue of I'm right and your wrong. All the points listed do, to some degree, restrict our freedoms.
I never said racism is a good thing. Racism will exist no matter what the government mandates. People of different cultures will always have their biases toward another. To your point though, why cannot a business carter to a certain clientele? We allow women only spas, so why not allow Muslim only bakeries?
Toph
ReplyDeleteRight now law abiding citizens have little to fear from the intrusions afforded government agencies to eavesdrop. When things start heating up and the Progressives and Conservatives start fighting for more and more turf, who ever is in power will use the Patriot Act to root out the competition.
The new full body scanners, under the guise of national security, is another example of personal freedom lost; privacy. And you are correct that business see other restrictions on their businesses. Which is why instead of banning smoking, require a certain level of air quality. I shared this once before too.
I was in a cigar/whiskey bar in South Carolina while getting training on Marine/Military product line of my former employer. I'd say 80% of the people in the bar were smoking and the majority of them smoking cigars. One of the guys with us was a non-smoker but enjoyed his whiskey. He commented on how the bar didn't smell like smoke. The amazing part about their filtration system was one didn't even notice the disappearance of the smoke. There was no loud roar or feeling of being sucked upward. One simply exhaled thier cigar smoke and within seconds it was no more. Requiring this type of filtration would allow those that want to, to supply an environment for smokers while at the bar without shoving them outside.
It's a good thing the ACLU is fighting to stop the use of full body scanners at airports. I'm sure that's an organization that the Viper fully supports.
ReplyDeleteGuise of national security? Why else would the government want to implement them? Just to spend a few bucks, get drunk on money, and to create dependency? The fact it came up after a terrorist threat was just convenient?
ReplyDeleteI don't understand how the Health Care law is a restriction on our freedom. Does it go against your right to get sick and die from a simple disease? Oh wait, you're the guy that believes health care is a privilege not a right. No use arguing here.
ReplyDeleteI only mentioned the founding fathers in anticipation of your typical arguments. Let's be clear here, a smoking ban is not akin to prohibition of smoking. I'm all for personal choice and will even admit that I had a Camel or three over the weekend. But why is it so horrible that the big bad government is looking out for it's constituents by passing laws which look to protect the health of non smokers patronizing businesses or the people employed there? What are the nefarious intentions of the government in this instance? They want to promote living a healthy life? And you are just wrong that "the smoking ban" (please do tell us to which you refer) "tells a small business owner that they cannot provide a location to use a perfectly legal product." I am unaware of any "ban" focused on small businesses that tells them they cannot set up a smoking patio or outdoor smoking area.
So what's your point on taxes? Should they all go away? No no no, I remember, the Ross Perot idea, right? Or wait, a flat tax? No? A VAT? Well Viper, a tax is a tax. Do you see no benefit from your tax dollars? Think long and hard before you answer that.
In your "air quality" or "air filtration" hypo, who would set these standards? Who would verify compliance? Who would force action to be taken? Would fines be levied? If so, by whom and in what amount? Sure seems like a lot of administrative work to be done. But who would do it all?
I should clarify something. It's not that I can't possibly understand how the health care law is a restriction on or an infringement of "our freedoms". It would be more accurate to say that I disagree with your opinion that it is or does such a thing. Just like, or perhaps even more than, your claim of it being unconstitutional, it's an opinion.
ReplyDeleteI really wonder how many people railing against this mandate would actually be impacted by it? How many health care opponents have coverage through their employer? I have insurance from my employer so it's a non-issue. To be clear, this is not a factor in my evaluation of the law, it's just a fact. My evaluation of the law is based on a fair minded reading of it and a balancing of pros and cons. In my mind, the pros far outweigh the cons.
Sorry group, my internet was out for about a day. The Bush Administration used 9/11 to push through the Patriot Act and many signed on because of "national security". As for the ACLU, the group historically has been one sided when it comes to defending civil liberties but I am happy to hear they are mounting a front on full body scanners.
ReplyDelete"Health Care Law is a restriction on our freedoms"
There are elements of the Constitution that call out that the government cannot mandate their citizens to purchase a specific product. I recognize, and have brought forth, that people have used the Commerce Clause and the "Supremacy Clause" to strip away personal and State freedoms/rights. At last count 18 States Attorney General have filed suit against the health care mandate. I recognize that it is not being pushed forward as that will be the last item that Democrats want on the front page while mid-terms take place.
Smoking Ban
The smoking patio and outdoor can be set up but no bar service or food service is suppose to take place on it. If it does the bar faces a fine and possible suspension of their liquor license. My air filtration "hypo" is not hypothetical is reality. The state set the indoor air quality standards. As for which agency oversees it in South Carolina I am not sure. I'd guess OSHA though.
Taxes
Taxes restrict the income and money flowing within the market. Taxing one more as they earn more only gives that person less money to spend money in the economy. Consumerism fuels economies not government spending. With 47% of American not paying taxes and the reliance on the other 53% for revenue we run the risk of getting closer to a 50/50 split. If we get past that 50/50 split be prepared for further erosion of your freedoms. I do support a flat tax. I do not favor a VAT tax as that will just be passed onto Consumers and will kill our economy. I do see benefits in tax dollars but we do not need to over tax our citizens either. Instituting a flat tax will reward hard work and those that choose to improve their lot in life instead of our current system that rewards people for making babies and fatherless families.
As for an expansion on the health care mandate.
ReplyDeleteEmployers will make a decision of whether to pay the fine or provide their employees with health care. At last look, I think the fine for a business not to offer insurance was $800 per employee. Go ask your HR what the company pays to have insurance on you. My last employer paid over $18,000 a year for me to have insurance. Do you think the employer wants to pay $800 or $18,000 a year?
And you still don't think it will become an issue? Companies have already reported how much it will affect them and Congress attempted to shut them down even after it was their own legislation that required them to report the findings. The mandate will become a trojan horse and companies will no longer offer health care insurance.