Curtis Dahlgren
Some reasons to "still" be hopeful (maybe)
By Curtis Dahlgren
"This is a sit-com of the insane. I don't think God's writing this anymore, becaise God is not cruel, and this is getting beyond insanity." — Rush Limbaugh
"I KNOW POLITICS IS JUST A GAME," said a friend of mine. "But I follow it anyway."
The question is, why was she almost apologizing for paying attention to politics? We know people aren't buying newspapers much anymore. We know many people go out of their way to avoid the news on radio or TV. A guy at work even said that Rush Limbaugh "must be insane" for paying attention to the little details of politics. The devil is in the details though.
Well, many of my Democrat friends have made statements that still give me reason to "hope." I was talking to a neighbor the other day and he said he liked my column last week ("This ain't your daddy's Democrat party anymore"). That was good to hear because this older fellow only voted Republican once in his life — 1980.
Another friend of mine was talking about deficits and the national debt and asked what the solution is. I said that "There is a solution, but no one wants to hear it — spending cuts." My friend then made a profound statement:
"BUT, THE MONEY'S ALREADY SPENT!"
How true! And we're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar the Federal government "spends." That trillion dollar "Stimulous" bill was like applying for a line of credit on your home equity when your home had lost $20,000 in "equity" and your credit cards have been revoked.
I WONDER WHY WALL STREET IS NERVOUS?
As I said, though, I still have "hope" (not Oboma-hope, but some real stuff). One reason is another lifelong-Democrat friend of mine. During the 2008 election campaign, he got upset with me and said, "You're a poor man, Curt. Act like one!" By that he meant that Oboma was promising to take care of us without raising taxes on people making less than 250,000 dollars (yeah right). My friend recently shook my hand and admitted that his "politics" hadn't always been "right."
I don't know of a single person who likes the Prez better today than when he took office. I can think of several Democrats who like him less! The thing that broke the camel's back was ObomaCare. Think that's not going to cost the middle class any money? (HA.)
Supposedly kicking in safely after the 2012 election, it's not going to make the insurance companies rich either. Federal bureaucrats will keep adding more "mandates" to insure that insurance companies are slowly squeezed out of the health insurance business (if free birth control and abortion pills are now "The Law of the Land," will free Viagara for everyone be next?).
And you can forget about the Executive Order against tax money for abortions and the "conscience clauses," because bureaucrats can't relate to people with consciences (at least not "The Conscience of a Conservative").
CONCLUSION
We get the government we "deserve," so please stay in touch with your [formerly] Democratic friends and relatives. Be friendly, because they're probably even more discouraged than you are! If we're almost getting ulcers, they probably can't even sleep at night.
I know moderate Democrats, even Independents, who were quite optimistic during the first year of the Oboma Administration. They were simply watching their 401K numbers, though, and all their "gains" have since been wiped out.
Speaking of getting wiped out, how about that Big Deal on the deficit ceiling that was supposed to "calm the markets." Both the DNC and the RNC need to kick their washing machines because they're stuck on SPIN cycle. The White House press secretary is speaking out of all 3 sides of his mouth. If you want to know what I really think about the big "compromise," let me put it this way:
My grandmother always used to say, "'Every little bit helps,' said the mosquito when he peed in the ocean."
Congress didn't exactly "do nothing," but at this point it's pretty hard to define what they DID. As my friend said, the money's already SPENT. The horse is out of the barn already, and the President thinks cutting spending now would make things worse.
A HISTORY LESSON
My library had a used book sale, and one I got was "With Reagan; the Inside Story" by Edwin Meese III (1992). By the way, I remember the Carter recession and it was a lot worse than our 2008 "crisis." I moved to Wyoming to stay employed in 1981.
Anyway, Meese points out that under the eight years of Reagan's presidency, "real domestic spending" rose at an average annual rate of one percent — a fraction of the next lowest spender of the last 50 years. Curiously, during the four years of George H.W. Bush, the rate of growth in domestic spending averaged TEN percent (the "peace" dividend?).
During Reagan's "lean spending years" he produced a GDP growth of six percent one year and left office with the economy still ticking upward. The "kinder, gentler" Bush left office with the economy sputtering.
PLEASE NOTE: Reagan was an economics major at a little college in a town of about 4,000 people; Bush went to Yale and I don't know what his major was. Prez 44 went to Columbia and Harvard, supposedly, though we aren't allowed to see his records. He could have been a recreation major for all we know, and it shows when he talks about economics.
The intangibles of Econ 101 seem to totally escape the Ivy Leaguers. The President we have now believes in central planning as a path to more stability and "certainty." This is one of those paradoxes that Liberals just can't understand:
In a nation of Freedom-lovers, central planning produces more UN-certainty. Socialism doesn't even work in Europe, and even less in America! If you're a second- or third-generation American, you understand that our forebears were risk-takers! They gave up everything they left behind in the Old Country for a New World of "uncertainty." Another paradox!
The bottom-line is that we will again get the government we deserve in 2012. Will it be the same old politics of demagogues, or will it be change?
As Francis Bacon said, "Hope is a good breakfast, but it's a lousy supper."
© Curtis Dahlgren
August 6, 2011
"This is a sit-com of the insane. I don't think God's writing this anymore, becaise God is not cruel, and this is getting beyond insanity." — Rush Limbaugh
"I KNOW POLITICS IS JUST A GAME," said a friend of mine. "But I follow it anyway."
The question is, why was she almost apologizing for paying attention to politics? We know people aren't buying newspapers much anymore. We know many people go out of their way to avoid the news on radio or TV. A guy at work even said that Rush Limbaugh "must be insane" for paying attention to the little details of politics. The devil is in the details though.
Well, many of my Democrat friends have made statements that still give me reason to "hope." I was talking to a neighbor the other day and he said he liked my column last week ("This ain't your daddy's Democrat party anymore"). That was good to hear because this older fellow only voted Republican once in his life — 1980.
Another friend of mine was talking about deficits and the national debt and asked what the solution is. I said that "There is a solution, but no one wants to hear it — spending cuts." My friend then made a profound statement:
"BUT, THE MONEY'S ALREADY SPENT!"
How true! And we're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar the Federal government "spends." That trillion dollar "Stimulous" bill was like applying for a line of credit on your home equity when your home had lost $20,000 in "equity" and your credit cards have been revoked.
I WONDER WHY WALL STREET IS NERVOUS?
As I said, though, I still have "hope" (not Oboma-hope, but some real stuff). One reason is another lifelong-Democrat friend of mine. During the 2008 election campaign, he got upset with me and said, "You're a poor man, Curt. Act like one!" By that he meant that Oboma was promising to take care of us without raising taxes on people making less than 250,000 dollars (yeah right). My friend recently shook my hand and admitted that his "politics" hadn't always been "right."
I don't know of a single person who likes the Prez better today than when he took office. I can think of several Democrats who like him less! The thing that broke the camel's back was ObomaCare. Think that's not going to cost the middle class any money? (HA.)
Supposedly kicking in safely after the 2012 election, it's not going to make the insurance companies rich either. Federal bureaucrats will keep adding more "mandates" to insure that insurance companies are slowly squeezed out of the health insurance business (if free birth control and abortion pills are now "The Law of the Land," will free Viagara for everyone be next?).
And you can forget about the Executive Order against tax money for abortions and the "conscience clauses," because bureaucrats can't relate to people with consciences (at least not "The Conscience of a Conservative").
CONCLUSION
We get the government we "deserve," so please stay in touch with your [formerly] Democratic friends and relatives. Be friendly, because they're probably even more discouraged than you are! If we're almost getting ulcers, they probably can't even sleep at night.
I know moderate Democrats, even Independents, who were quite optimistic during the first year of the Oboma Administration. They were simply watching their 401K numbers, though, and all their "gains" have since been wiped out.
Speaking of getting wiped out, how about that Big Deal on the deficit ceiling that was supposed to "calm the markets." Both the DNC and the RNC need to kick their washing machines because they're stuck on SPIN cycle. The White House press secretary is speaking out of all 3 sides of his mouth. If you want to know what I really think about the big "compromise," let me put it this way:
My grandmother always used to say, "'Every little bit helps,' said the mosquito when he peed in the ocean."
Congress didn't exactly "do nothing," but at this point it's pretty hard to define what they DID. As my friend said, the money's already SPENT. The horse is out of the barn already, and the President thinks cutting spending now would make things worse.
A HISTORY LESSON
My library had a used book sale, and one I got was "With Reagan; the Inside Story" by Edwin Meese III (1992). By the way, I remember the Carter recession and it was a lot worse than our 2008 "crisis." I moved to Wyoming to stay employed in 1981.
Anyway, Meese points out that under the eight years of Reagan's presidency, "real domestic spending" rose at an average annual rate of one percent — a fraction of the next lowest spender of the last 50 years. Curiously, during the four years of George H.W. Bush, the rate of growth in domestic spending averaged TEN percent (the "peace" dividend?).
During Reagan's "lean spending years" he produced a GDP growth of six percent one year and left office with the economy still ticking upward. The "kinder, gentler" Bush left office with the economy sputtering.
PLEASE NOTE: Reagan was an economics major at a little college in a town of about 4,000 people; Bush went to Yale and I don't know what his major was. Prez 44 went to Columbia and Harvard, supposedly, though we aren't allowed to see his records. He could have been a recreation major for all we know, and it shows when he talks about economics.
The intangibles of Econ 101 seem to totally escape the Ivy Leaguers. The President we have now believes in central planning as a path to more stability and "certainty." This is one of those paradoxes that Liberals just can't understand:
In a nation of Freedom-lovers, central planning produces more UN-certainty. Socialism doesn't even work in Europe, and even less in America! If you're a second- or third-generation American, you understand that our forebears were risk-takers! They gave up everything they left behind in the Old Country for a New World of "uncertainty." Another paradox!
The bottom-line is that we will again get the government we deserve in 2012. Will it be the same old politics of demagogues, or will it be change?
As Francis Bacon said, "Hope is a good breakfast, but it's a lousy supper."
© Curtis Dahlgren
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
