Weekly Open Thread – Bumped

I generally avoid posting links to liberal (much less union) blogs, but this one comes the closest to best illustrating the philosophical divide between conservatives and liberals. If you choose to click on the link, don’t even bother with the text (although it is reasonably well written, from a liberal point of view) — just scroll to the bottom and look at the series of graphs.

Both conservatives (e.g Sarah Palin) and liberals have great concern about the State of the Union — but the natures of the respective concerns are light years apart.

The theme is “American Exceptionalism.”

http://defendingthepublicgood.org/2011/04/18/the-real-american-exceptionalism/

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

Interesting read, however, I find it mainly full of tripe. ‘American exceptionalism’? His definition, as explained, is completely wrong. It is defined here, as follows:

The late Seymour Martin Lipset defined it as liberty, equality (of opportunity and respect), individualism, populism, and laissez-faire economics. The creed combines with other aspects of the American character — especially our religiousness and our willingness to defend ourselves by force — to form the core of American exceptionalism.

http://www.redstate.com/aarongardner/2010/03/29/permanence-change-and-american-exceptionalism/

It has nothing to do with “superiority”, or anything divinely ordained. In the above definition, even the religious talk of American exceptionalism is geared towards the openness to practice towards all faiths, something that is lacking in nearly every other country on earth.

Americans did not become rich because of our rugged individualism or entrepreneurial drive or technical inventiveness. We were born rich.

Really? Tell that to the likes of Colonel Sanders, Bill Gates, Robert Fulton, Benjamin Franklin, Sam Walton, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Eleuthère Irénée du Pont, John D. Rockefeller, Ray Kroc, Thomas Edison, Samuel Colt, John Deere, Henry Ford, John L. Morris, Richard Sears and Alvah Roebuck, John Menard Jr., S. Duncan Black and Alonzo Decker, Roger Penske, Daymond John, Levi Strauss…………………….and I could keep going on and on and on and on, but I’ll stop here for now.

As for the writer’s discussion of Ayn Rand and her philosophy, he misunderstands it, and thus, misrepresents it in his article. Nowhere does Rand ever state that charity is evil.

From Ms. Rand herself:

“My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”

On charity:

charity is a marginal issue: it is not especially noble to engage in it, but if pursued prudently and seriously, and not at the cost of other important values, it can be a source of good for one’s society and ultimately one’s self.

Both of those contrast with the author’s description of Ayn Rand’s philosophy. Is it about the self? Yes, it is. What people like the author fail to realize is that in one’s pursuit of selfish achievement, indirect benefits to society, or “good” as liberals like to say, happen, even while one doesn’t engage in productivity for that purpose. Liberals rail against Rand’s philosophy all the time, but in my experience, they fail to grasp the concepts of it, and because of it, they bastardize it into something that doesn’t resemble anything like what it really is.

Let’s get back to other comments in the article, ok?

We became rich because we were exceptionally lucky.

Again, ask the people I listed above about how ‘luck’ played into their successes. But that comment is quite revealing, later, when the author states this:

In contrast, Europeans believe luck and circumstance are more important than hard work and skill and a sturdy social safety net is needed to help those who are unlucky.

So, according to the author, this ‘American exceptionalism’, discussed by many of our politicians, goes against the grain of what Europeans believe. We believe in hard work and ability result in success in life, while Europeans believe in ‘luck’, and now we see that attitude creeping into our society. Some “luck quotes”;

“Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” – Seneca, Roman philosopher

“I’m a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it.” – Thomas Jefferson

“Being deeply learned and skilled, being well trained and using well spoken words; This is good luck” – Buddha

Shallow men believe in luck. Strong men believe in cause and effect. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

Luck is simply an excuse that men poor in spirit use to explain their lot in life.

More from the article:

America has been and continues to be exceptional. At first we were exceptional because of circumstances that conferred on us enormous advantages over other nations. Today we are exceptional because of our culture, a culture born of our unusually fortunate history and now perhaps the single biggest handicap to our collective survival and prosperity in the less favorable circumstances of the 21st century.

I don’t think anyone will deny that when our founders took their first steps in the New World, that the abundance was quite clear, however, without the hard work and industry of those seeking to make their own lot, not their neighbors, better in life is what has led to the prosperous nation we live in today. And I don’t see how that same attitude of finding a better life for oneself, which some would call selfish, means that others in our society, if they were doing the same, would leave anyone behind.

I do not have a social responsibility to my neighbor, beyond not abridging their rights. If he/she loses their job, and I wish to provide assistance from my own labor’s, that is my decision, but it is only a decision, or choice, or, more appropriately, FREEDOM, if I have the choice to do so or not. Freedom is what made America exceptional, and the guarantees of such, by our Constitution, is what makes us unique in the world.

What the author really is encouraging, by his misrepresentation of ‘American Exceptionalism’, is the idea that one must live for all those around them, their neighbors, society. To do so, one must sacrifice their own industry, for the sake of others, and thus, becomes servile to them. In turn, those who receive that sacrifice, by the “benevolent” government, become servile to the state, by engaging in interests that are non-productive to society in general. To liberals, ‘good-will’ is a one-way street, with those who produce, forced to provide it to others. How is ‘good-will’ provided to those who produce? It is not an equal trade, and results in unearned benefits to those accepting the producers ‘good-will’, yet we are lectured on how it is for the good of society, the good of all. Nothing could be further from the truth.

When you purchase a product, do you not wish to receive equal value for what you pay for the item? Your equal value of work, represented by the money you pay for the item, to his/her equal value for the productivity to produce that product? I do. I demand it. And if I find that I don’t receive that, I can choose to not engage in trade with that person anymore. And if this describes you, which I don’t doubt does, for, I cannot imagine you willingly trading more productivity of your own for any product, then why do you accept it in your life in general? You, and I, both provide portions of our productivity to the government, for the use of the government to spend on those things listed in Article I, Section 8. For me, I expect an equal trade in value for my productivity, from the government. Do I receive it? No. And neither do you. Others, though, receive the difference from us, giving less productivity, sometimes none, and receiving much more than they trade for. Do you always pay for the person’s cart of groceries behind you in the grocer? No. Is it right that you should be forced to? No, it isn’t. But that is exactly what you do in promoting any sort of ‘wealth redistribution’ type legislation by the government.

The author promotes a ‘selfless’ attitude and portrays it as something to aspire to, but what he is really promoting is that America move more and more to a nation of masters and servants. I do not wish to become part of that, which is why I fight for conservative, Constitutional government, not the furtherance of social programs designed to reduce my rights, including property, and take away my freedoms and liberties.

SARAH PALIN, deliver on her first speech, imagine the POWER she can deliver from now on, yes, she and ALLEN WEST are doing it very cool and collect but did not miss any punch,
just like It was the easyest thing to do, next time they do another appearance, they will have the ATTENTION of many more and watch them go,
AMERICA DON’T CRY, I WILL WIPE YOUR TEARS, I AM HERE TO HELP,
BECAUSE I LOVE YOU AMERICA AND I REMEMBER WHAT YOU GAVE ME AND MY ANCESTORS,
THOSE WHO GAVE THEIR LIFE FOR YOU, AMERICA WATCH ME , I AM HERE AND WILL MAKE THEM PROUD, I WILL MAKE THOSE INJURED BY FIGHTING FOR THE FREEDOM YOU GAVE US,
JUSTIFIED. AMERICA, JUST YOU WAIT AND SEE, SO HELP ME GOD I WILL.
THAT IS WHAT I HEAR FROM THEM

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

While you claim exaggeration on my part, I feel that you are most definitely engaging in such action yourself. Bill Gates is not a “one-off” as far as birth, homelife, educational opportunities, intelligence, etc. This is the failure in your argument. The one thing he had, or developed, was an intense desire to see his visions come to fruition. Many other people had similar backgrounds, intelligence, educational opportunities, etc., yet they did not co-found and build Microsoft into the massively successful company that it is. This desire for productivity beyond what most are willing to engage in is what made Bill Gates, yet liberals damn him for it, for the wealth he accumulated, and the wealth of others that he helped them realize, either by working for him, or using his products to make their own work towards their own goals, easier. “Born lucky”, or, as the author stated, “born rich”, had nothing to do with it. Many of those I mentioned happened to be born in another country and came here for the opportunity. If that is what you mean, and what the author means, as “lucky”, or “rich”, then I agree. America is a land of abundance in opportunity. Yet, that is partially what makes America exceptional, but would never have become that way were it not for the freedoms and liberties we naturally have, recognized, and guaranteed, by our Constitution.

As for your ‘derision’ of voodoo economics, which I assume you are referring to Reagan’s trickle down theory, you make some outlandish statements.

Then the country went crazy for three decades, suckered in by voodoo economic theory that you can cut taxes without commensurately cutting spending and the economy will grow so much more that you won’t have to borrow the money to finance the difference.

Show me where cutting taxes has reduced federal income receipts, and for the inverse, where raising taxes increases federal income tax revenue.

As a results of voodoo economics, we’ve seen the top 1% prosper as never before, while the bottom 90% are worse off than before.

Really? Explain then why U.S. median income, nominally, rose for 33 straight years following 1975, dropping in only 2009. And why inflation adjusted median income rises following tax cuts, most of which, regardless of the rhetoric, are designed mainly for the middle class. The fact is that there are many, many other factors prevalent in a discussion of incomes, income gaps, and wealth accumulation other than tax cuts. Things like minimum wage hikes, corporate tax increases, increases on gas taxes, natural disasters, credit rates, housing booms or depressions, etc. Yet, you want everyone to think that a tax cut, for a high income earner, somehow drops wages for the lower level earners, despite the preponderance of evidence showing that tax cuts give boosts to the economy and create jobs.

The correction for this is simply a return to economic sanity, which means returning to a tax structure which supports our wars and which doesn’t put state colleges increasingly out of reach for average American families, and, yes, which provides health care the same way it provides national security and police protection and fire protection and paramedic protection. All of this is 100% consistent with the Constitution.

Show me, other than military spending, that the Constitution allows congress to spend money to help people go through college, get handouts for healthcare, provide police, fire, and paramedic protection. If anything, those items are reserved to the states to decide, in accordance with their own constitutions and charters. The only one you mentioned, that is also mentioned within the purview of the Constitution, is national defense. And believe it or not, I believe we spend too much on that, generally, although I support higher spending during times of war.

I mainly just want to go back to the days where we raised taxes when we went to war, rather than cutting them.

That, if the current tax system is in place, would be ok with me, as it was with Jefferson and Madison, who both wrote about maintaining standing armies and navies, but in times of war, where men and equipment beyond the standing number were needed, increased spending was needed, along with the requisite congressional action to pay for such, until such time as the war has ended, and then drop back to pre-war spending and taxation. No argument from me here. The problem we had in 2001 was a little thing called the midst of the tech stock implosion, which threatened to stagnate the economy. As such, and even with 9/11, tax cuts were needed to stimulate the economy, which the federal revenue numbers bear out as happening.

We don’t have a problem with taxation, Larry. We have a spending problem. Decades upon decades of adding new programs, which added mandatory spending, along with their respective annual mandatory spending increases, to the baseline budget. Again, it’s a spending problem.

As far as the charge that I want to see the USA go the way of France, no I don’t (except in the area of health care, where they truly have a much superior system). That’s what I mean by exaggeration.

When I commented on that, it wasn’t exaggeration. It was an observation, and I invited you to correct me if you felt that was wrong.

@johngalt: I guess you must have been born with a silver spoon in your mouth Larry! You couldn’t be a success according to your data. I have had as many statistics classes as most college educated people. I think it was Sam Clemens who made the famous comment about liars and statistics. Well, they apply to comparing the US to Europe opportunities for the individual to succeed.
Have you considered that the educational system that is controlled by the left carries any blame? You yourself continuously state that the poor should be taken care of by the rest of us. Of course, you fail to identify who the poor are. Do you think that by providing the “poor” with everything they need provides them with any incentive to succeed or to even get out of bed in the morning? If you want to see how well you philosophy works in real life, just visit any Native American village that is not supported by “contracted” casinos. Take a trip to Bethel Alaska and get the statistics for success. You and the rest of the left must take a major part of the blame for the lack of incentive and the inability of individuals to succeed in the US.
Remember the “War on Poverty”? That worked out well, didn’t it? According to many think tanks, the War on Poverty is credited with destroying the black family in the US. The statistics also show that individuals from single parent families fail in life more frequently than those from two parent families. Now, was the War on Poverty a conservative effort? Is there any justification for the War on Poverty in the constitution? If so, show me where! Larry, you and those liberals in California have no clue what is really happening in the rest of the world or even your own country. A good example of California economics is to freeze the cost of utilities to users as the cost of utility generation rises. There was also another good article today about California law makers visiting their industries who move to Texas and other states.

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: In response to two of your comments (sorry, still don’t know how to highlight):

In the same vein, ‘another vet” presumes to speak for those who served this nation during the Revolutionary War, World War II, and so forth. The soldiers who volunteered to fight Hitler and Hirohito did so under the Command of the Father of the New Deal. When they came home, they taxed themselves at a rate sufficient to pay off the debt the nation incurred in support of their heroism.

I don’t speak for them because I wasn’t around back then. Any evidence to back up the claim that the troops who volunteered for WWII did so to defend the New Deal? You are not implying that if someone other than Roosevelt had been in office when Pearl Harbor was attacked, no one would have fought for the country, are you? Last I checked, the overwhelming majority of Americans who served in WWII were draftees, not volunteers. Based on the last election, if the election were decided by the Veteran vote alone, Obama would have lost by double digits. If it would have been decided by those in the military at the time, he would have lost by even more. Seems to me that indicates a rejection of his policies (big government, Constitution is a living breathing document that we can change when ever we damn well please without a constitutional amendment) by those who volunteered to serve the country.

Then the country went crazy for three decades, suckered in by voodoo economic theory that you can cut taxes without commensurately cutting spending and the economy will grow so much more that you won’t have to borrow the money to finance the difference.

No arguments from me on this one!

I knew this was going to happen.

I sent an email to the Tea Party Patriots and suggested that they have any politician that they recommend sign a contract stating what they will do and to have a date in the contract that says that if they don’t do what they said they would do, the contract is also their resignation notice effective on that date. This way the politicians would of had to do what they agreed to even if they didn’t want to.

There are no more democrats of republicans in congress. They are all republicrats. I don’t even capitalize them any more. The capitalization needs to be EARNED. They lost that right a long time ago.

I view myself as conservative, I do not by any means, consider myself a ‘Republican’, per se, but on the other hand, I have very rarely seen anything , sic, coming out of the Democratic Party that even tweaks my curiosity, but a lot that makes me tear whatever hair I have left.

The Tea Party principles, while obviously a product of modern times, are basically the same as those the heralded Boston Harbor in December, 1773.

A series of actions by the British Crown to pay for th French and Indian War, including the Stamp Act (1765), the Townsend Acts (1767) and the Boston Massacre (1770) stoked the colonists underlying resentment at the British Crown, further straining relations with the mother country at that time. But it was the Crown’s attempt to tax tea that spurred the colonists to action and laid the groundwork for the American Revolution.

The colonies refused to pay the levies required by the Townsend Acts claiming they had no obligation to pay taxes imposed by a Parliament in which they had no representation. In response, Parliament retracted the taxes with the exception of a duty on tea – a demonstration of Parliament’s ability and right to tax the colonies. In May of 1773 Parliament concocted a clever plan. They gave the struggling East India Company a monopoly on the importation of tea to America. Additionally, Parliament reduced the duty the colonies would have to pay for the imported tea. The Americans would now get their tea at a cheaper price than ever before. However, if the colonies paid the duty tax on the imported tea they would be acknowledging Parliament’s right to tax them. Tea was a staple of colonial life – it was assumed that the colonists would rather pay the tax than deny themselves the pleasure of a cup of tea. http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/teaparty.htm

‘it was assumed that the colonists would rather pay the tax than deny themselves a cup of tea;….sound familiar? Even then those in power resorted to smoke and mirrors…..

The Tea Party has the correct philosophy, however, I see the the Tea Party as too little too late. With a 14 trillion deficit, the band-aid measures proposed thus far in the current budget are still going to give us nearly a doubling of the deficit in only the next 12 years. Where we are at the present is clearly unsustainable, what fools believe we can sustain a deficit of 28 trillion?

So, I see the stock market as for the ‘little people’, and the play on the world market of ‘trillions’ and their manipulation as the haven of the big boys, each with a puppet wire in Obama’s head, arms, etc. We know where Omama is leading us, we can figure that out, but we have absolutely no idea what the eventual result is going to be, or what life will be.

Many of us will be in the twilight of our lives in 12 years, I will be 71, Lord willing. It pains me to think of all the struggle, the pain, and heartbreak so many Americans have endured over the centuries to provide for their children and grand children, and the legacy that they handed down to us that we as a country have truly thrown to the dogs.

The more I look at the Left, the more I see people totally out of touch with reality. People who cannot discern the difference between billions and trillions, and people who believe that no matter what, the government will always be there with the printing presses shrilling and ‘The Rich’ always there for the Left’s ‘legal thievery’.

The Left is in for a surprise: either we are going down, or it’s all a sham, and the Left knows something the rest of us do not…..but I would not bet the family jewels upon that.

I consider myself a strong Tea Party supporter, but I can’t for the life of me understand why doing away with the 17th Amendment would promote democracy?

ex animo
davidfarrar

@David Farrar:

I posted on the 17th amendment a week or two ago, but I’ll try to repeat it here, as best I can.

When the framers of the Constitution sat down to develop a plan of representation, in the federal government, their concerns were to have representation of the the sovereign individual, the sovereign states, and the populace entire. The first was accomplished through election of Representatives, who represented the smallest grouping of the individual practical, with election by district within a state, based on the population. The last was accomplished by election of the President. The second, however, was not originally popular election of the two senators representing a state, but in the state legislatures themselves choosing who would represent their state within the federal government. All states were given equal representation, as each was considered it’s own sovereign entity within the Union.

Alexander Hamilton and James Madison write, in Federalist Paper no. 62;

A common government, with powers equal to its objects, is called for by the voice, and still more loudly by the political situation, of America. A government founded on principles more consonant to the wishes of the larger States, is not likely to be obtained from the smaller States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between the proposed government and a government still more objectionable. Under this alternative, the advice of prudence must be to embrace the lesser evil; and, instead of indulging a fruitless anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue, to contemplate rather the advantageous consequences which may qualify the sacrifice.
…………………
Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.

Alexander Hamilton writes, in Federalist Paper no. 59;

Suppose an article had been introduced into the Constitution, empowering the United States to regulate the elections for the particular States, would any man have hesitated to condemn it, both as an unwarrantable transposition of power, and as a premeditated engine for the destruction of the State governments? The violation of principle, in this case, would have required no comment; and, to an unbiased observer, it will not be less apparent in the project of subjecting the existence of the national government, in a similar respect, to the pleasure of the State governments. An impartial view of the matter cannot fail to result in a conviction, that each, as far as possible, ought to depend on itself for its own preservation.

As an objection to this position, it may be remarked that the constitution of the national Senate would involve, in its full extent, the danger which it is suggested might flow from an exclusive power in the State legislatures to regulate the federal elections. It may be alleged, that by declining the appointment of Senators, they might at any time give a fatal blow to the Union; and from this it may be inferred, that as its existence would be thus rendered dependent upon them in so essential a point, there can be no objection to intrusting them with it in the particular case under consideration. The interest of each State, it may be added, to maintain its representation in the national councils, would be a complete security against an abuse of the trust.

This argument, though specious, will not, upon examination, be found solid. It is certainly true that the State legislatures, by forbearing the appointment of senators, may destroy the national government. But it will not follow that, because they have a power to do this in one instance, they ought to have it in every other. There are cases in which the pernicious tendency of such a power may be far more decisive, without any motive equally cogent with that which must have regulated the conduct of the convention in respect to the formation of the Senate, to recommend their admission into the system. So far as that construction may expose the Union to the possibility of injury from the State legislatures, it is an evil; but it is an evil which could not have been avoided without excluding the States, in their political capacities, wholly from a place in the organization of the national government. If this had been done, it would doubtless have been interpreted into an entire dereliction of the federal principle; and would certainly have deprived the State governments of that absolute safeguard which they will enjoy under this provision. But however wise it may have been to have submitted in this instance to an inconvenience, for the attainment of a necessary advantage or a greater good, no inference can be drawn from thence to favor an accumulation of the evil, where no necessity urges, nor any greater good invites.

It may be easily discerned also that the national government would run a much greater risk from a power in the State legislatures over the elections of its House of Representatives, than from their power of appointing the members of its Senate. The senators are to be chosen for the period of six years; there is to be a rotation, by which the seats of a third part of them are to be vacated and replenished every two years; and no State is to be entitled to more than two senators; a quorum of the body is to consist of sixteen members. The joint result of these circumstances would be, that a temporary combination of a few States to intermit the appointment of senators, could neither annul the existence nor impair the activity of the body; and it is not from a general and permanent combination of the States that we can have any thing to fear. The first might proceed from sinister designs in the leading members of a few of the State legislatures; the last would suppose a fixed and rooted disaffection in the great body of the people, which will either never exist at all, or will, in all probability, proceed from an experience of the inaptitude of the general government to the advancement of their happiness in which event no good citizen could desire its continuance.

Simply put, they weighed the arguments, in consideration of not wishing the Union to retain too heavy an influence over the states, and not wishing the states to retain too heavy an influence over the Union. What resulted is that the states would regulate their own choosing of their representation within the Senate, while the Union would regulate the choosing of representation of the people, the individual, in it’s lowest practical form, within the House of Representatives. More was said on this in both of the above Papers, and mentioned in others.

With the advent of the 17th amendment, however, the choosing of representation within the senate moved to an advantage for the Union, by it’s popular statewide vote of such, not very different than how the President is elected within a state. The power shifted noticeably away from including the interests of the state, as represented within itself by it’s own legislature. One of the inherent checks upon an overreaching federal bureaucracy, that of the states, was removed with that amendment.

Is it any wonder then, the severe encroaches upon states’ rights, since the adoption of the 17th amendment? Isn’t the 10th amendment supposed protect the states, and individuals, from an overreaching government, then? The problem with that second question is that no check is available to prevent such action from occurring, with the sole exception of the judiciary, which as we have seen, is corrupted by idealogues, supporting viewpoints altogether different than an original constructionist judge. The result is that states have lost their ability to check the encroachment of their rights by the Union.

That last has led to severe latitude given the ‘commerce clause’, and the Union’s ability to regulate interstate commerce, as most recently evidenced by Obamacare. That is a whole other discussion, which I touched on briefly in my post #69. Suffice it to say, the ‘commerce clause’ was meant to regulate against the states imposing heavy, crippling duties upon those goods originating within one state, to that state, simply by an act of traveling through the first on it’s way to their destination. It was thought, at the time, that this would result in uneven trade between the states, due to a war of tariffs, duties, and imposts, giving advantage to those states able to obtain goods from overseas, or with friendly neighboring states. It was meant to keep the peace between the states, economically. It was NOT meant as reasoning to impose federal regulation upon industries, due to the sole reason of an object, or good, being sold from one state to peoples in another.

I could go into the reasoning behind the adoption of the 17th amendment, however, I feel that this is beside the point, and could have been resolved by much different means that did not remove an intended check upon federal government power grabbing.

I apologize for the length, but I feel this is an important matter for discussion, and as such, want to present as much as I can. More can be read at the below links;
http://virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/the-17th-amendment-a-thought-study/
http://repealthe17thamendment.blogspot.com/2011/01/seventeenth-summary-01-10-2011-am.html
http://www.repeal17th.com/

Obama continuing his war on oil and gas companies.

Obama renewed his proposal to end roughly $4 billion annually in various government subsidies to oil and gas companies “at a time when they’re making record profits and you’re paying near record prices at the pump. It has to stop.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42699556

Now, don’t get me wrong. Subsidies for the oil and gas companies, just as they are for any company, is only a different type of welfare politics practiced by the pols. Giving unearned benefits to those who do not earn them, and as such, like I feel about any type of welfare program, they must be ended.

My problem with this particular issue is not that he wishes to end them, but that he deliberately misleads people by implying that the added costs, after the subsidies are ended, won’t be passed on to consumers. How dumb does he think we are? Of course, he is sending his DOJ goons out to root out any ‘price gouging’, so one has to wonder, then, that if these subsidies are ended, and the price of your fuel at the pump increases, will they consider that ‘price gouging’, and go after the oil companies further? I don’t know, but at this point, nothing surprises me about Obama.

On a similar note, for those arguing for higher taxes placed on the “rich”, did you ever stop to think that if those higher taxes are enacted, that the real burden of them would be shifted back onto the backs of all consumers, who buy products from the small businesses affected, as they add those tax increases into the cost of their doing business?

@another vet: #72
If you meant you don’t know how to highlight a quote from someone else, just copy and paste the quote into the comment, highlight it, then go above the comments window and click on “b-quote.” It took me a while to figure it out.

@Smorgasbord: Thanks. There it was staring me in the face this whole time! I figured out the issue as to why my first response to Larry posted 3 times. When I was typing in the words that were in the code box to verify the post, it kept saying the comments didn’t post so I kept retyping the new code that appeared in the box so it kept posting. And I thought it was the beer!

another vet, hi, I was also wondering with all the A AND NO S,
JUST KIDDING YOU. bye

John Galt Back from church on the holiest of Christian holidays I see you’ve spent a good part of your day lecturing on the Constitution.
I know many Conservatives here at F.A. are strong constitutionalists and speak in glowing terms of our founding fathers.These men universally believed in God and were strongly Christian in faith.
You I believe are a disciple of Ayn Rand, a self proclaimed atheist and a woman who believed religion a crutch and only for the weak willed. Please give us your thoughts on religion as it played a role in the formation of our Constitution. Thanks and a blessed Easter to all.