We are just simple farmers around here, but we do know what works and what doesn't work to a fashion.
And we know that to continue policies coming from Washington as presented is a dead end road.
It is too far gone I'm afraid.
I am not wealthy Sigurdur, but have worked hard for over 30 years to get where I am today and see Obamacare and government in general trying to take it away at every turn. It infuriates me when some people think somehow my family should be paying more to the government. Sorry, but we've been sapped enough. It is the takers, not the makers that are draining the system.
We have never taken one dime of government assistance even when both me and my wife lost our jobs in 1992. We have a modest home, live cheap and don't drive new cars, but guess what, we managed to save and invest and have money set aside for bad weather. Now my wife cannot work due to an injury in April, not job related. While others we know would lose their homes and file bankruptcy because they lived it up on two incomes, bought big homes, boats and the like, we will survive.
Not one person has ever once answered my question: how does raising taxes on my employer improve the business climate and promote economic activity? How does raising the cost of doing business not harm me, an employee and the hundreds that work with me? Explain how raising taxes on my employer will not result in lowering our standard of living by for example increasing our health care premiums and deductibles etc.? What about cost of living increases? We had a two year wage freeze from 2009-2011, and yet some people think my employer should pay higher taxes? Are they insane?
Here is Fascism at work folks. This is what you get with FDR/Progessive style government; in bed with business:
It looks like General Motors will be throwing everything in but the kitchen sink to help fluff its second quarter earnings numbers. Taxpayers continue to help with the cause as President Obama campaigns on the "success" of GM following the manipulated bankruptcy process that cost taxpayers $50 billion and another $45 billion of tax credits gifted to GM to help protect powerful UAW interests. We now learn that government purchases of GM vehicles rose a whopping 79% in June.
The discovery of the pick-up in government fleet purchases at the taxpayers' expense comes just weeks before GM announces its second quarter earnings. Overall fleet sales (which are typically less profitable than retail sales) at Government Motors rose a full 36% for the month, helping to drive decent sales improvements year over year.
This is how we reign in the bloated and irresponsible Federal Government.
The National Debt Relief Amendment Scott Strzelczyk
Since the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, the states have never successfully convened an Article V convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. Now, however, a nationwide effort is underway to call an Article V convention to consider the National Debt Relief Amendment -- a simple eighteen-word amendment designed to take power from the federal government and restore it to the states:
An increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the legislatures of the several States.
Regardless of the party in power, the federal debt continues to rise with no end in sight. The ruling class has squandered our hard-earned property, resulting in a fifteen-trillion-dollar debt. The Constitution provides two methods to propose amendments: by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, or by application of two-thirds of the states to convene an Article V convention. Throughout the history of the United States, all constitutional amendments were proposed by Congress; states have never convened an Article V convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.
The National Debt Relief Amendment movement was started by restoringfreedom.org and the Goldwater Institute. The amendment was adopted as model legislation by the American Legislative Exchange Council. Two states, North Dakota and Louisiana, have already passed a resolution calling for an Article V convention limited to consideration of the one amendment only.
North Dakota State Senator Curtis Olafson sponsored the resolution in North Dakota and continues to work diligently with state legislators around the country. Eight other states have primary sponsors of the resolution, and an additional fourteen states are considering it. One key aspect of the resolution is that each state submits a uniform resolution calling for an Article V convention to consider this one amendment only. If successful, only the National Debt Relief Amendment would be considered at the Article V convention.
Much rhetoric surrounds the Article V convention (commonly referred to as a constitutional convention). Some oppose an Article V convention on the grounds that the convention could turn into a runaway convention. However, a wide-open constitutional convention is a myth intended to frighten sensible people. If that were a valid argument, then why do the people making it not fear a runaway Congress? Ultimately, Washington, D.C. will not fix Washington, D.C. Regardless of the party in power, Washington, D.C. has never constrained itself.
(Constitutional scholar Rob Natelson has done considerable research into this issue, and you can read that research here.)
Moreover, the regressives and mainstream media demagogue anyone mentioning states' rights, constitutional limits on federal power, or the rule of law. Those opposing an all-powerful federal government are called terrorists, extremists, racists, and barbarians. An Article V convention is a tool provided by the Constitution that affords the states a peaceful method to restrain an all-powerful federal government. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson eloquently captured the essence of self-governance and the rights of the people to alter or abolish government (emphasis added).
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
If states successfully convene an Article V convention to consider the National Debt Relief Amendment, it would be a watershed event in the country's history. First, it would put the federal government on notice that states are reasserting their proper role in federalism by taking power from the federal government. Secondly, if the National Debt Relief Amendment is ratified, it would be the first amendment ratified since the Bill of Rights that has actually restricted the powers of the federal government. Thirdly, if states exercise their powers over future debt limit increases, they will neutralize spending and the size of the federal government.
The citizens have tried changing those in power. In my adult life, the country has had every possible combination of Republicans and Democrats in control of the White House and Congress. In thirty years, the national debt has grown from less than one trillion dollars in 1981 to nearly fifteen trillion dollars today. Washington is broke and broken. The National Debt Relief Amendment is our best chance to limit the arbitrary and unilateral power of the federal government.
It was pointed out that the link does not work for some. Here is the op-ed piece that I wrote. I want America to succeed, not fail.
To the editor:
My Fellow Voters:
I feel the reason we elect people to represent us in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives is not for a local issue, or a pet initiative. Don’t we really elect them to solve national problems? To address the most pressing problems facing the nation today?
Our most pressing problem is one of a fiscal nature. Our debt has exploded to over 100 percent of Gross Domestic product (GDP). This debt is a burden, not only applying to our present fellow citizens, but our as yet unborn children as well.
Current debt for every man, woman, and child in our country at present is approximately $48,000. For a family of four, that is $192,000. That $192,000.00 would buy any family in North Dakota a very fine home.
Now, as a family unit, you understand there is a problem.
Debt: $192,000 Budgeted expenses: $37,000 Potential Income: $24,600 Difference between income and expenses: $12,400
Putting this in Federal Format:
Debt: $17,000.000.000,000 (current debt ceiling) Budgeted Expenses: $3,700,000,000,000 Potential Income: $2,460,000,000,000 Difference between income and expenses: $1,240,000,000,000
You realize that your credit card is maxed out. Well, it is so maxed out that you can’t even pay the interest on your debt. Looking in the mirror, as a parent, you think: “My family is in serious trouble. I know I can’t go to the bank for more money. I can’t even pay the loan that I have now! I can’t even budget to pay interest on the loans that the bank has given us! What can I do to rectify this untenable problem?”
Sitting down with your family, stern look on your face, you explain the above to them. Knowing that you can’t continue to increase your spending, as no bank is going to lend you money, you mutually come to a decision.
1. WE have to FREEZE our spending. We will still eat, have a roof over our heads and drive our present vehicle. The important things in life will be taken care off.
2. WE have to INCREASE our revenue. Discussing this with your children, and knowing that you will miss a few ball games, etc., you all decide that one parent is going to find another part-time job. You expect that job to bring in enough revenue that within five years you will at least be able to MEET expenses.
3. At the end of that five years, you will concentrate on paying some of the accumulated debt off to regain a strong financial footing so that when opportunities present themselves, the family unit can take advantage of that opportunity.
On a Federal level how can we do this?
1. Freeze spending at $3.7 trillion. The family can do it, our ELECTED representatives can do it.
2. Increase revenue by one percent of GDP per year for the next five years. That part-time job. This will require a slight change in living, but in the long run will bring a sense of economic freedom to that family again, instead of being shackled to debt.
By freezing debt at $3.7 trillion, assuming a three percent annual growth rate in GDP and achieving a one percent increase of revenue as a percent of GDP, in five years our budget will be balanced.
The long-term GDP growth from 1949-2009 is three point two percent. The result of having a federal plan in place to address the current debt problem will result in at least another one percent growth to GDP just on this assurance.
This is a win-win for everyone. There will be funds available to repay our debt to the Social Security trust fund as required and address the need for a new car by then.
Freezing spending at $3.7 TRILLION will not result in draconian cuts. $3.7 TRILLION is a sum so large that it is hard to imagine. Well, as an added tool, $3.7 trillion is $422,374,429.22 each and every hour of the year. Four hundred twenty-two million, three hundred seventy-four thousand, four hundred twenty-nine and twenty-two cents.
Are there checks made wide enough to print this every hour of the year? It is time for our great folks running for elected office to speak as adults, act as adults, and get the job done as adults. We can no longer accept excuses, only results. We are all one large family and need to address this as such.
If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed. -- Mark Twain
sigurdur, I am going to send that in to the op ed section of the Houston Chronicle. It was very well written and easy to understand. It is definitely time to tighten the belts and start working on getting our fiscal house in order.
"A May 4 letter expresses the opinion that our financial "Armageddon" is of President Obama's own making. Here are the facts, obtained from a Google search of information originating from official government sources such as the Office of Budget and Management: When Ronald Reagan took office in 1980, the federal debt was $0.9 trillion. At the end of his two terms and the senior Bush's term, the debt stood at $4.2 trillion, an increase of $3.3 trillion. In contrast, under Bill Clinton the debt increased by $1.6 trillion, less than half the increase under his predecessors. But the prize winner for debt increase was George W. Bush. During his two terms the debt rose by $4.9 trillion, from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion - an astounding 86 percent increase. That increase was due to three Bush administration policies and actions: tax cuts for the wealthy; the recession that began under his watch; and two wars which Bush paid for in no small measure by borrowing from the Chinese government. Democratic congresses cannot be blamed for Bush's sorrowful record. Republicans controlled the House for six of Bush's eight years and the Senate for four of six years. They effectively controlled the Senate for the remaining two years, when it was split 50/50 but Vice President Cheney could - and did - cast the deciding vote in case of a tie Senate vote"