Yes he did.
Leadership requires making correct, tough choices. Who among the politicians and/or citizens really exhibits much leadership anymore???
Bernie Sanders, LOL
- Thread starter SPK145
- Start date
Yes he did.
Leadership requires making correct, tough choices. Who among the politicians and/or citizens really exhibits much leadership anymore???
And while I'm on a rant, when is any politician/citizen/corporate leader going to be honest?
Speaking for the baby-boomers (I'm 58), our parents generation made the tough decisions and only spent what they had. Our generation has become the softie's. No one wants to make the tough decision ("it's impossible politically"); they just want to kick the can down the road (more debt); they want to spend on a credit card, they have no interest in paying off and more concerned with the here and now, vs. the next generation (our kids). The way things are now? Our kids are screwed. Let's face it, our Social Security won't be touched; the Baby-Boomers will have to make a 180 and be willing to give up things in retirement (entitlements), which won't happen. The politicians that are part of this mess will not overtax retirees rather than face one or no term.
My future is relatively secure financially. I feel for our children. They will pay for the sins and debt we've created and their life will not be as secure and not even close to be financially rewarded as ours. If I was 20 now, I'd be more pissed. I'd be more politically active than the recent generations. And I would applaud them if they did.
Funny thing is that most people I talk with in my situation, would gladly pay more taxes IF it would guarantee to pay down the debt with no additional spending. More taxes will only go toward new programs that we can't (and our kids can't) afford. When I have time, I'll post an experience with our benefits administrator on our healthcare cost expectations for this coming year and the reality of Obamacare.
I wish more people would wake up and stop buying the B.S. we get fed from the politicians and the media (both sides)....for my kids sake.
Speaking for the baby-boomers (I'm 58), our parents generation made the tough decisions and only spent what they had. Our generation has become the softie's. No one wants to make the tough decision ("it's impossible politically"); they just want to kick the can down the road (more debt); they want to spend on a credit card, they have no interest in paying off and more concerned with the here and now, vs. the next generation (our kids). The way things are now? Our kids are screwed. Let's face it, our Social Security won't be touched; the Baby-Boomers will have to make a 180 and be willing to give up things in retirement (entitlements), which won't happen. The politicians that are part of this mess will not overtax retirees rather than face one or no term.
My future is relatively secure financially. I feel for our children. They will pay for the sins and debt we've created and their life will not be as secure and not even close to be financially rewarded as ours. If I was 20 now, I'd be more pissed. I'd be more politically active than the recent generations. And I would applaud them if they did.
Funny thing is that most people I talk with in my situation, would gladly pay more taxes IF it would guarantee to pay down the debt with no additional spending. More taxes will only go toward new programs that we can't (and our kids can't) afford. When I have time, I'll post an experience with our benefits administrator on our healthcare cost expectations for this coming year and the reality of Obamacare.
I wish more people would wake up and stop buying the B.S. we get fed from the politicians and the media (both sides)....for my kids sake.
Politically impossible does not mean you give up. It means that you need to find a different solution. and are you kidding? Of course things are that pathetic! No amount of leadership from any politician would be nearly enough to educate the public about why they are supporting repealing education funding. Even if they did have the mythical type of leadership to convince the other representatives that they should vote for repealing funding, the entire bunch would be voted out of office and replaced by a group that would reinstate them.
That doesn't mean there is no solution, it just means that idea isn't one.
As awful as Bush's middle east meddling was, he and Cheney decided from Day One to say F the surplus, deficit spending here we come. And the right wing didn't care. True believers like SPK and Ron Paul spoke up (SPK's scope was more limited...) but the repub pols and pundits punted. I can distinctly remember reading an article that quoted Cheney as saying nothing wrong with a little deficit spending in the earliest of days of W's presidency.
As I have said here before, Newt had Clinton on his back and had his foot on his neck, but Clinton played ball and they balanced the budget, which seemed impossible when Perot started scaring the shit out of us in 92 became a reality. And we pissed it away, and now the past two admins have left twice the debt was they had when they came.
And the same policies are being proposed by the repub candidates today.
I am not up on stats of Obamacare. But you don't need to be a genius to know that the cost of healthcare in the US is way higher than in countries with national healthcare programs. Of course, we are so f''ing fat and lazy. How about someone actually buy a friggin rake and use it to get rid of the leaves. Nah, buy a blower and burn some gas while you stand still. Of course, we cannot mention this stuff, cause we are independent and don't need the govt breathing down our necks. At least not till they need govt insurance to pay for their new knees and hips.
Not to mention, every day I see a teenager on a freaking Hoverboard while I'm wearing my Fitbit trying to get to 12K steps for the day!!! Get some exercise!!! Why would any parent buy their kid one of these things? Why not just put the kid on a statin and insulin at 12 years old?
Yes, YOU could(n't) care less, but obviously a lot of other people did. Chris Christie, for one, and he put civil unions, all-inclusive, on the table, but the state activists (to the chagrin of the more moderate homosexuals) shot it down, holding out for "marriage." So, you see, both sides play the semantics game.
