Today’s offering is a guest post, of sorts. It was borrowed, it toto, from the blog of my favorite talk-show host, Michael Graham. My comments follow.

~~~

Does This Sound Like “Standing Behind Small Business” To You?

So says President Obama in his new ad, attempting to undo the damage of his previous “You didn’t build that” comments.

“Those ads taking my words about small business out of context, they’re flat out wrong,” Obama says. “Of course Americans build their own business. Everyday hardworking people sacrifice to meet a payroll, create jobs and make our economy run. And what I said was that we need to stand behind them as America always has.”

So here is President Obama “standing behind [small business]” in his previous speech that, he says, was “taken out of context.” Does this sound like he’s pro-business to you?

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

If this is what Obama sounds like when he’s PRO-business, I’d hate to hear what he sounds like when he’s not “standing behind” them.

I think the President’s problem is that he said what he meant and he meant what he said. He’s an economically-idiotic, far-Left, envy-spreading, class-warfare hack who’s so far out of his depth he’s suffering a case of electoral bends. He may be a nice guy and a loving dad, but as a president, Barack Obama’s record absolutely, positively sucks.

But please—don’t take me out of context.

~~~

Does Obama really believe more of the same, failed policies will somehow magically turn things around in America?

I love it when politicians forget themselves and mistakenly say what they really think, then have to spend days and lots of campaign money trying to make it seem like they said something else.

Obama has always been a collectivist. Because he was glad-handed up the ladder his whole life, rather than advancing through hard work and accomplishment, he apparently really believes that everyone else must have relied on other people to make them successful.

He really believes the individual “owes” the collective, that successful people owe their success to everyone else and so should be happy to have government take and redistribute what they earned.

He is so blinded by his ideology, he cannot see the damage his utopian dreams have done to America and like, all such folks who live in a state of self-delusion, he’s sure the problem is not his policies but that we just need more of them.

Even a child understands that if you hit a board with a hammer and it cracks, hitting it harder, again and again, is not going to fix it.

I guess it’s a good thing Obama never appeared on the TV game show “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader.”

Obviously, he’s not.

Share or Bookmark

Last week, someone sent me the following graphic:

I expect it was intended to convince me Republicans are better than Democrats because they are, on average, more fiscally responsible. But that is not how I see it.

What I see is that Republicans are a little less fiscally irresponsible, but so what? They are still fiscally irresponsible.

If the graphic concerned murders rather than money, would anyone think Republicans were somehow better because they only killed 159 people while the Democrats killed 372?

The fact is, for far too long, both parties have been spending taxpayer money like drunken sailors on leave in a whorehouse. (And isn’t ‘whorehouse’ the perfect metaphor for Congress?)

Keep in mind that the numbers in the graphic reflect only state debt. The $15 trillion federal debt is a horse of a different color. Heck, it’s a whole ‘nother animal entirely.

Neither party has anything to be proud of and would have much to be ashamed of, if any of them had any shame. But they don’t. Except, perhaps, for Ron Paul.

I suppose, as voters, we can use the numbers above to decide in November, when it comes time to vote, how deeply in debt we prefer our state be, but really, it’s just a matter of bleed me fast or bleed me slow.

Either way, we inevitably end up dead.

Or am I missing something?

Share or Bookmark

The video below and the column that follow may not seem related, but they are. Both speak to the unconscionable disaster our Federal government has become.

***

A Three-Minute Rant On How Bad The TARP Bailout Really Was

If Federal officials really knew something was wrong and ignored it all before we wasted $750 million…is dereliction of duty by elected officials and bureaucrats a punishable offense? If not, it should be, and a lot of federal officials should be be in prison right now.

***

A Campaign Altogether Old
by William Kristol

A new political science is needed for a world altogether new. But that is what we hardly dream of: placed in the middle of a rapid river, we obstinately fix our eyes on some debris that we still perceive on the bank, while the current takes us away and takes us backward toward the abyss. —Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

After the most serious financial crisis of our lifetime, after frantic bank bailouts and a massive government stimulus, after unprecedented deficits and extraordinary quantitative easing, we find ourselves in 2012 in a political-economic world altogether new. We need new policies to respond to our novel situation, policies reflecting fresh thinking based on firm principles. But this is precisely what our current presidential campaigns hardly dream of. And so, finding themselves in the middle of a rapid river, they obstinately fix their eyes on some debris they perceive on the bank, while the current takes all of us away and backward toward the abyss.

We expected no more from Barack Obama. We still hope for better from Mitt Romney. Perhaps Romney will start to take Matthew Continetti’s excellent advice in the editorial above, and decide to “talk straight to the American people about the manifold challenges facing the country and how he would fix them.” Perhaps he’ll address the worry “that the Republicans may not have changed after four years’ exile from the White House.” Or perhaps not. If not, we’ll just have to hope that candidate Romney knows what he’s doing in running a cautious and vague campaign; that he’ll win; and that President Romney, once elected, will adopt the bold remedies and imaginative policies the country needs.

Many presidents, after all, have done far more in office than would have been suggested by their campaigns. Franklin Roosevelt ran a reasonably conventional and cautious campaign in 1932. But as president, he transformed our fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policies, and altered fundamentally the size and scope of the federal government.

Could Romney turn out to be a modern-day FDR? Let’s hope so. This presidential campaign may not feature big-time ideas, but the next president had better be a big-time reformer.

Click Here to read the rest of this story.

I can’t argue with much Kristol said except that the very last thing we need is another FDR. FDR was not a reformer. He was a liar and  a bully; a man caught up in his own self-importance and so sure of his misguided vision that he turned what should have been a short recession into the Great Depression with his policies. Besides, we already have an FDR-wannabe in the White House whose socialist dreams have been just as disastrous for the nation the real FDR’s were for America eighty years ago.

True, we need a reformer, but we need one who will set America back on the road to independence and freedom, who understands that government cannot solve problems, that too much government is the problem that is driving every other problem we face as a nation.

Will Mitt Romney be that person? I don’t know. Based on his record in Massachusetts, I doubt it. But perhaps, like FDR,  he’s just played the political  game for a long time in order to get to the place where he can effect real and lasting change, where he can use the power of the Presidency to wake up the Lost generation, the Dancing with the Stars generation, and begin the painful process of lifting America out of the humongous financial and social holes the past four generations of politicians dug.

All I know for sure is that America is unlikely to survive four more years of Obama and his cabal.

Slim as the chance may be, Romney seems to be the last hope for America short of armed revolution, and I’m too damned old and tired for that kind of battle.

What do you think?

Share or Bookmark

Congratulations to this week’s Comment Contest winner — Mandi.

***

Below the fold on the front page of The Boston Globe Democrat today is a story about a prison inmate accused of running a multi-million dollar illegal drug ring from the slammer. Fourteen people were arrested. All for providing to a group of consumers a product the consumers clearly want and are willing to pay for. The story is here, if you are interested in the details, but it’s not this story I want to talk about today. The story was just the inspiration for an idea that would end the absurdly wasteful, destructive, and deadly war on drugs and provide benefits to every single person in the nation, drug user or not.

I don’t think I’ll get any argument about pointing out that providing recreational drugs to people who want them is a multi-billion dollar industry. In addition, the illegal drug trade has probably produced more well-paying jobs in America than the trillions in stimulus money Our Dear Leader has thrown away. But it’s a dangerous job. You could be captured by the government or killed by competitors or the government. Still, despite all the risks, the rewards are so great, that whenever government arrests one dealer, another steps right in to take his or her place. Which is why the drug war fits perfectly into the classic definition of insanity — doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome.

But I have a solution and I think it might be a good one.

Most recreational drugs, especially narcotics, cost next to nothing to produce and could be sold very profitably for a low-enough price to allow those who become addicted to live with their addiction, including holding down a job. Such was the case before government stuck it’s nose into the drug trade. Were all drugs legal to sell, those doing the selling would stand to reap huge profits. So, let’s legalize all drugs, regulate them, and designate the existing drug companies as the exclusive providers. And in return for the multi-billion dollar windfall, the companies will have to sell their medicinal drugs for a set percentage over production costs.

What will happen if we do this?

The cost of medicinal drugs will be sharply reduced, which will benefit everyone. Medicare and Medicaid expenditures will plummet.

The violence associated with the drug trade will end.

Addicts will no longer need to rob and steal in order to support their habits, A job at Burger King will pay enough to keep them high when they’re not working.

Government will no longer be killing innocents when they smash down the doors of wrong houses.

Billions will be saved by not having to incarcerate anyone for selling or using drugs or committing crimes to get the drugs.

Tax-paying jobs will be created at all levels, from manufacturing through wholesaling through distribution down to retail. And let’s not forget the local, state, and federal inspectors who will be checking to make sure the products are of advertised purity.

And speaking of taxes, think of how much new tax revenue will be generated, taxes that can go toward helping addicts, if such is society’s desire, or toward other worthwhile endeavors.

Is there a downside to this plan? If so, I’m not seeing it.

Some will say that legalizing drugs will just create more addicts and further burden society. I think more people will indeed experiment but I also think anyone who really wants to experiment can easily do so now given that most recreational drugs are readily available in most places. And some will suffer due to the lack of quality control.

What do you think?

Would you be willing to let drug companies produce recreational drugs in return for lowering the cost of your Lipitor and other medicinal drugs?

Do you see a downside to the plan that I’ve missed?

And if all currently illegal recreational drugs were legalized, which would you try, if any?

Share or Bookmark

I’m pretty good at math, so I did some the other day. I wanted to figure out where I stood, retirement-wise. It turns out, I won’t be standing, but sitting right here in front of the computer monitor working. Social security and our meager savings will not come close to allowing us to live comfortably here in The People’s Republic of Massachusetts. And with our first grandchild due next month, I’ve abandoned all hope of convincing Martha to move.

As it turns out, though, we’re not alone. Lots of others are facing seniorhood with less-than-stellar financial resources, too.

5 Steps to Greater Retirement Self-Reliance

Poverty rates have been rising for older Americans. They’re not alone, of course. The meager recovery from the recession has left millions of us worse off. Younger people can at least hope for a rebound when things get better. But it is hard to find a silver lining in any of the clouds that hang over older folks.

Tax rates are set to rise. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are under the gun. Federal and state spending will be under pressure for years, if not decades. And the flood of aging baby boomers promises to intensify demand for senior health and safety-net programs, just when it’s clear that the money for any expanded efforts is just not there.

The Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) recently took a look at poverty rates among people age 50 and older, and how they changed between 2001 and 2009. Looking at four different groups of older people, here is how their poverty rates have changed:

Ages 50 to 64: from 9.1 percent in 2001 to 12.3 percent in 2009

Ages 65 to 74: from 8.4 percent to 9.4 percent

Ages 75 to 84: from 8.8 percent to 10.7 percent

Ages 85 and older: from 15.9 percent in 2001 to 14.6 percent in 2009

Click Here to read the rest of the story.

Number 3 on the list, delaying retirement, is not even an option for me. It’s a necessity.

Even if I do delay collecting Social inSecurity until I’m 70, we still won’t have enough to live on comfortably. So the bottom line of my math exercise is, barring a  big lottery win, I’ll be working until I die.

Sigh…

What’s your situation?

If you’re approaching “that age,” will you have enough to retire comfortably?

If you’re younger, do you have a concrete plan to generate enough savings to retire?

And how do you feel the nation’s ongoing shift to socialism will affect you?

Share or Bookmark

Comments welcome.
Which are your favorites?
Enjoy!

Share or Bookmark

It’s funny how things happen.

I may have previously mentioned Martha and I will become grandparents at the end of July when our second daughter (aka daughter-in-law) gives birth. As you can imagine, the prospect and ramifications have given us much food for thought. We changed our last diaper about twenty-four years ago when our daughter pulled on her “big girl” panties for the first time. And it’s been decades since we needed a child-proof house, patched a skinned knee, ignored a temper tantrum until it ended, or exchanged some loot for a baby tooth under a pillow.

It was that last thing I was thinking about this past weekend, wondering how much the Tooth Fairy will be giving my grandkids in a few years. And then yesterday, what do I find on the front page of the local newspaper’s Living section…

Tooth Fairy economics

Years ago, when a child in her daughter’s class lost her first tooth and got $20 from the Tooth Fairy, Linda Jerrett was angry.

“All the parents were,” Jerrett, whose daughter is now 20, recalled. “Their daughter was one of the first at the time to lose a tooth. We didn’t have quite as much money, so we were like, ‘What are you doing?’ ”

Jerrett, who lives in Reading, also has two younger children, ages 7 and 13, which has put her back into the role of the Tooth Fairy all over again more than a decade (and a much-changed economy) later. Still, as for how she determines how much cash the imaginary sprite will swap for baby teeth, she said “social pressure” remains her guiding factor.

“In my town it’s generally five bucks a tooth,” Jerrett said, an amount that’s almost $3 more than the 2011 national per tooth average of $2.10, according to an annual survey done by insurer Delta Dental.

Such totals are due, in part, to the rise in kids’ — and parents’ — expectations around just about every holiday and near-holiday. At Halloween, a plastic bucket to collect candy isn’t enough anymore — there’s scary yard decor to consider and catalogs filled with pricey costumes. Easter often includes wrapped gifts in addition to a cute candy basket. And when birthdays roll around, many kids expect a bash at Build-a-Bear or a rented jumpy house in the backyard. Pin the tail on the donkey? Please.

And so it is with the Tooth Fairy.

What was once a magical experience that helped overshadow the mild trauma of tooth loss – a fairy leaving a token under a pillow in exchange for baby teeth – may be going the route of other gift-giving occasions. Some parents feel pressure to give an amount equal to their child’s peers, if not a gift as well. It’s keeping up with the Fairy Joneses.

Click Here to read the rest of the story.

When I was young, way back in the Stone Age, the Tooth Fairy left a dime for a tooth. Of course, the dimes were made out of silver back then, so they were worth something. In the ’80s, when my two were shedding their baby teeth, they found a quarter or fifty cents under their pillows.

These days, with inflation turning dollars into toilet paper, I suppose two bucks per tooth has  just about the same value as the dime I got in the 1950s. But twenty bucks for a tooth?

I guess if you have that kind of money, $400 for a mouthful of baby teeth isn’t a big deal. And maybe Professor Elkind is correct that such generosity is often a guilt response for some  for not spending enough time with their children. But I’m not sure telling your kids that there are different Tooth Fairies and and they got a cheap one is really the message we want to instill. Then again, perhaps it’s a good way to begin teaching them that life is unfair and they’ll have to get used to it.

All I know for sure is that I’m glad I won’t have to deal with it, but I’ll be curious to see how the Tooth Fairy treats my grandchildren. And if it turns out they, too, get a cheap one, well, grandfathers are well-known to always have a supply of dollar bills in their pockets.  Though with inflation the way it is, I might have to start accumulating fives.

What did the Tooth Fairy bring you and your kids?

And you may want to check out The Tooth Fairy Poll website.

Share or Bookmark

I’m not sure what to make of this story.

Apparently, the new trend by government control freaks is to criminalize feeding the hungry without first asking government permission.

No, this is not a late April Fools joke.

New law bans feeding the homeless without government permission

Charitable organizations and human rights activists in Houston hope to put an initiative on the November ballot that would reverse a controversial new ordinance which makes it a crime to feed the homeless, or otherwise give food away, without special permission.

On April 4 the Houston City Council passed the law, ruling that feeding the hungry requires the permission of property owners wherever it occurs — including the City of Houston, if the feeding happens on public property.

Council members passed the law by a a 11-6 vote; the regulations are set to take effect in July, according to Mayor Annise Parker’s office.

Don't feed these or any homeless people without permission or you could be arrested and fined, maybe even jailed.

Amber Rodriguez, executive director of Noah’s Kitchen in Houston, told The Daily Caller that the new ordinance will shut her organization down if it is upheld. A single fine from the city, she said, could hurt the charity significantly.

The maximum penalty for violating the ordinance is a misdemeanor charge accompanied by a $500 fine. The original proposal, submitted by Mayor Parker, included fines as high as $2,000.

Rodriguez said a $500 fine would keep Noah’s Kitchen from providing roughly 750 meals to individuals who need them.

Initially, the mayor also wanted “all charitable food to be prepared in city-certified kitchens, at least one person from each feeding organization take a food safety class and that everyone who wants to feed the homeless register with the city,” according to the Houston Chronicle. Those requirements were eventually struck from the final version, and registration was made voluntary.

The final seven-page law authorizes the city’s health department to approve “Recognized Charitable Food Service Providers” and fast-tracks its final implementation because of what the bill’s authors call a “public emergency.”

Rodriguez, however, is unimpressed. “I never knew there would be so much red tape to cut through just to do what we all should be doing for each other,” she told TheDC. “This will shut us down.”

Click Here to read the rest of the story.

Isn’t it wonderful?

Government imposes economic and social policies that result in more economic and social hardship, then requires those who try to help the disadvantaged to beg their permission to continue doing so.

Better to let them starve, I guess, so they’ll go live under a bridge in some other city or town.

Maybe they should just round up all those human eyesores and ship them off to some of those big, fenced-in FEMA camps the Feds have been building.

What really astounds me is that nobody in government seems to recognize that as they impose more and more “controls,” conditions keep getting worse and worse. Or maybe they do recognize it and the whole point is to continue making things worse so they can continue imposing new restrictions and accelerate America’s downward spiral.

Or maybe it’s just me and my silly belief that leaving people alone is the best thing government can do for them…and for the nation.

What do you think?

Share or Bookmark

I’m turning today’s blog post over to my favorite talk show host, Michael Graham, from whom this post is shamelessly stolen in its entirety, and to Rep. Paul Ryan, who appears in the video at the end.

Our first grandchild will be born near the end of July. This is not what I want for him or his parents.

Is this what you want for those you love? If not, please share this post. Nothing is more important to the nation than the debt the current administration and congress continue to refuse to address.

***

Paul Ryan Asks: Do You Even Care About Your Kids?

OK, that’s not exactly how he’s putting the question. He’s too politically smart for that. But the Republican leader on budget issues is going to put the question forward: Do we have enough Americans left who care more about their kids than themselves to actually do something about the fiscal screwjob our children are facing?

Here’s what that screwjob looks like:

These are President Obama’s own numbers. If we pass his 2013 budget, as proposed, our $16 trillion debt will become our $100 trillion debt. We will become Greece. On purpose. Because we choose to keep spending, to leave the impossible Medicare/Social Security/Public Pensions mess just like it is.

And that’s what the White House is proposing. They’re open about it, too:

After the Obama White House released its 2013 budget plan last month, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner went to testify before the House Budget Committee. He told the committee’s chairman, Republican Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the following: “We’re not coming before you to say we have a definitive solution to that long-term [budget] problem. What we do know is we don’t like yours.”

Not only does Team Obama not have a plan (other than to make it worse), they’re running ads called “Medicare Madness” attacking Republicans for trying to save the system before it goes broke.

This is the fiscal equivalent of the Nazis and Japanese sweeping across France and the Pacifiic, and President Roosevelt saying “Well, I’M not going to do anything about it. I’m just going to attack whatever YOU suggest we do about it.”

Love him or hate him, Rep. Ryan is trying to do something. He’s made a serious budget proposal that changes the chart above into this:

From Rep. Ryan’s op-ed in the WSJ:

As shown in the nearby chart, our budget tackles this crisis head-on by cutting debt as a share of the economy by roughly 15% over the next decade, putting the nation’s finances on a path to balance, and paying off the debt. By contrast, the president’s budget pushes debt as a share of the economy even higher. In his budget’s own words, it allows the government’s fiscal position to “gradually deteriorate” after 2022….

It is rare in American politics to arrive at a moment in which the debate revolves around the fundamental nature of American democracy and the social contract. But that is where we are. And no two documents illustrate this choice of two futures better than the president’s budget and the one put forward by House Republicans.

The president’s budget gives more power to unelected bureaucrats, takes more from hard-working taxpayers to fuel the expansion of government, and commits our nation to a future of debt and decline.  The contrast with our budget couldn’t be clearer: We put our trust in citizens, not government.

Once again, you can hate Ryan’s plan and attack it all you want. But then, if you care at all—even the least bit—about your kids, you have to answer the question “So what’s YOUR plan?”

President Obama has announced he simply refuses to have a plan. The Democrat-controlled Senate hasn’t even passed a budget in more than 1,000 days!

So what do you say to your kids? “Sorry, but scaring Granny about Medicare was more important that dealing with the debt—have fun paying off that $100 trillion!”  Is that leadership?

Forget GOP vs. Democrat: Politicians who screw our kids like this, and refuse to even try and prevent it, don’t deserve to be re-elected. Period.

Watch this video. Make sure your friends and family see it. For me, this is the overwhelming issue of the 2012 election.

Share or Bookmark

Next week, the Supreme Court will be asked to decide if the Federal Government can compel private citizens to buy stuff.

The court will hear arguments for and against Obamacare, and freedom-loving Americans from coast-to-coast and around the globe are hoping the answer will be a rousing and decisive “NO.”

Among the many, many reasons why all Americans should vigorously oppose Obamacare is that it will financially devastate many seniors, thanks to some taxes that traitors-to-freedom Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid made sure were in the bloated bill nobody could read until they voted for it.

Grover Norquist, the President of  Americans for Tax Reform wrote a short Op/Ed that outlines the five most serious tax consequences for America’s seniors if Obamacare is not overturned.

The five tax hikes in Obamacare that most hurt seniors

The jobs-killing Obamacare law contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and employers. Many of these tax increases fall on families making less than $250,000 — a direct violation of candidate Obama’s promise not to raise “any form” of taxes on these families. In less than a week, the third anniversary of Obamacare being signed into law will take place. The Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments about the constitutionality of Obamacare next week.

Out of the 20 new or higher taxes in Obamacare, there are five that fall most directly on seniors.

The first is the excise tax penalty for failure to comply with Obamacare’s individual mandate. Many seniors face a coverage gap between retirement and Medicare eligibility. Obamacare raises taxes on these younger seniors by punishing them if they don’t purchase “qualifying health insurance.” Set to go into effect in 2014, the excise tax penalty for mandate non-compliance will in 2016 rise to 2.5% of adjusted gross income for a senior couple (or $1,390 for those making less than $55,600).

Obamacare will leave many seniors counting pennies...if they're lucky.

Why does Obamacare raise taxes on seniors just as they are entering retirement? Many of these seniors will face this “stick” but find themselves with too much income to qualify for the “carrot” of tax credits to purchase Obamacare health insurance plans in an exchange. Many will be forced to keep working just to avoid paying this tax.

The second tax hike on seniors is the so-called “Cadillac Plan” excise tax. Starting in 2018, Obamacare imposes a whopping 40% excise tax on high-cost (“Cadillac plan”) health insurance plans. This is defined for seniors as a plan whose premiums exceed $29,450 for a family plan, or $11,500 for a single senior. Seniors often face higher costs in health insurance premiums due to chronic health conditions and other risk factors. This tax will fall almost exclusively on the seniors with the greatest health insurance needs.

Third is Obamacare’s dividends tax hike. Starting in 2013, the top tax rate on dividends is scheduled to rise from 15% today to 39.6%. In addition, Obamacare imposes a dividend “surtax” of 3.8% on families making more than $250,000 per year. That would create a top dividend tax rate of 43.4%, nearly triple today’s rate. This will fall very hard on seniors. According to the Tax Foundation’s analysis of IRS data, 70% of households over age 55 receive dividend income. Seventy-one percent of all dividends paid flow to these households. To raise taxes on dividends is to raise taxes on seniors.

Then there’s the medical device excise tax. Obamacare imposes a new excise tax on medical device manufacturers in 2013. These companies will surely build the cost of this new tax into the price of what they sell. Who buys medical devices? Who buys pacemakers, wheelchairs and other costly medical devices? Seniors do.

Finally, Obamacare reduces allowable medical itemized deductions. Under current law, medical itemized deductions can be claimed on tax returns, but they must be reduced by 7.5% of adjusted gross income. Obamacare increases this “haircut” to 10% of AGI in 2013. This will mean that millions of Americans claiming medical itemized deductions will no longer be able to. The same IRS data as above tells us that 60% of all tax filers claiming this deduction are over age 55.

All of the tax increases in Obamacare will hurt seniors, but these five fall on them directly and hardest.

Did Obama and his henchmen set out to deliberately penalize seniors for getting old? Or were they just too stupid or blinded by ideology to recognize the consequences of what they foisted upon America? Did it occur to them that not all seniors with dividend income are wealthy, that some simply live comfortably in retirement and others just scrape by even with their dividends and that confiscating forty percent of it might make the difference between eating three meals a day and two…or one?

It took 232 years for the nation to elect a president arrogant enough to presume he is not just another inexperienced, megalomaniacal politician, but some kind of royalty who doesn’t lead the nation but rules it.

Whether the Supreme Court decides according to the Constitution, as the Founders intended, or further twists and rips it to squeeze out another fantastical, never-before-noticed government power, we still have one more chance to save the nation come November. Sadly, it does not look like it will be in the presidential election, where Republicans appear determined to nominate the weakest possible candidate to face Our Dear Leader.

The only real hope is that the Tea Movement — notice we don’t hear much about them in the national media anymore — can help elect enough new members of Congress and the Senate to overthrow Obamacare and set the nation back on the road to prosperity.

I know some folks will say I’m dreaming, but for many Americans, the dream is all they have left.

What’s your take on this?

Am I overreacting? Or on the money?

Share or Bookmark