Community Blogs
What many of us thought after the elections...
The following is from the website "Casual Sundays with Mr. Curry." A friend brought this article to my attention after the recent elections. I think the words, sadly, read very true today. Our country is in dire straits, and I do not see anything in the future that will save America. The only hope we have - ironically - is that things get so bad that more people wake up out of their "entitlement-me-me-me" stupor long enough to vote for an end to the dangerous path we are on.
--------------------------------------
Well, It's official; I don't know anything.
I thought for sure that given such a clear choice, Americans would vote for love of country over revenge.
I was wrong.
I thought, that just as every presidential election in my lifetime, the bad economy would be hung around the incumbent's neck, sinking him.
I was wrong.
I thought that even those few Americans who were fortunate enough to still be fully employed (not counting those leeching off the public system) would be cognizant of how much pain their neighbors were in and elect someone who would at least try to make improvements.
I was wrong.
I thought that now that FINALLY some of the disturbing truths about our first black president had come to light, voters would reject a man so dangerously at odds with the American experience.
I was wrong.
I thought the 2010 elections and the Tea Party meant something.
I thought the enthusiasm on display at Romney/Ryan events, contrasted with the lack of same at Obama/Biden events meant something.
I thought Americans would never sell their liberty for the sake of trinkets like cell phones or even big shiny lies like 'free health care'.
I was wrong.
Never in a million years would I have supposed that America would support a president who left his (our) people to die at the hands of our enemies overseas without lifting a hand to help, then lie about what he watched in real time for over two weeks, then lie about the lie for another month.
I was wrong.
I thought Americans could tell a hawk from a handsaw.
I was wrong.
We were offered the clearest choice we've has since 1980, where we had malaise and a misery index on one hand and a shining city on a hill on the other. Back then, we chose the city on the hill. This time the choice was between a man who says 7.9% unemployment and $4.00 gas is the new normal and a guy whose entire career has been about fixing broken entities.
We chose to stay broken. And Broke.
Maybe I'm wrong about the ramifications of this choice. Maybe windmills will actually turn out to be a viable energy source. Maybe America diminished will be loved overseas. Maybe a nuclear Iran won't be a threat. Maybe Israel is over reacting. Maybe western civilization was always over rated. Maybe life under sharia is fun. Maybe when the rest of the world realizes that we have no intention of ever paying back that $16,000,000,000,000.00 (and counting) that we've borrowed from them, they won't devalue the dollar, causing hyper inflation here at home. Maybe China will just keep on giving us money and not demand our hearts, souls, national monuments and marriageable daughters as payment.
I've watched my candidate lose elections before but I've never felt the way I did last night when this one was called for Obama.
It wasn't bitterness or sadness or even disappointment. It took me a while to figure out what it was. Then it hit me; it was horror.
Pure, unadulterated horror.
Not because of Obama, but because of what it says about us, the American people, that we chose this.
It shouldn't have even been close. Faced with the choice between taking charge of our destiny and tackling our financial problems, we opted to get high and have sex. We re elected a guy who doesn't understand that a growing economy that creates more tax payers will bring in more revenue than higher taxes. A Commander in Chief who doesn't know our military still uses bayonets. A man who wants to control the economy without even knowing the difference between bankruptcy and liquidation. It was one thing to elect an unknown quantity, buying his line of 'Hope and Change'. It's something else to deliberately choose his failed policies over someone who has actually achieved success in life. I never dreamed America would do that.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, Hello Idiocracy!
Goodbye, recovery.
Goodbye, energy independence.
Goodbye, religious liberty.
Goodbye, liberty and justice for all.
Goodbye, America dream.
It profits a man nothing to lose his soul for the whole world but we threw ours away for cell phones and birth control pills.
In the twentieth century (the American Century), we stepped up to the plate three times and saved the rest of the world from fascism, nazism and communism. We were the cavalry, always riding to the rescue.
Now, we've gotten rid of our horses, spent all our money on windmills, alienated our allies, bowed to our enemies, cut ourselves off from our own natural resources thrown away our children's birthright and spent their inheritance.
And we did it on purpose.
When the wolf is at the door (and he's coming, yelling 'Allahu Akbar') we're going to find out that there is no one out there to come to our rescue.
On the bright side, maybe it'll all turn out great. After all, I don't know anything.
I thought for sure that given such a clear choice, Americans would vote for love of country over revenge.
I was wrong.
I thought, that just as every presidential election in my lifetime, the bad economy would be hung around the incumbent's neck, sinking him.
I was wrong.
I thought that even those few Americans who were fortunate enough to still be fully employed (not counting those leeching off the public system) would be cognizant of how much pain their neighbors were in and elect someone who would at least try to make improvements.
I was wrong.
I thought that now that FINALLY some of the disturbing truths about our first black president had come to light, voters would reject a man so dangerously at odds with the American experience.
I was wrong.
I thought the 2010 elections and the Tea Party meant something.
I thought the enthusiasm on display at Romney/Ryan events, contrasted with the lack of same at Obama/Biden events meant something.
I thought Americans would never sell their liberty for the sake of trinkets like cell phones or even big shiny lies like 'free health care'.
I was wrong.
Never in a million years would I have supposed that America would support a president who left his (our) people to die at the hands of our enemies overseas without lifting a hand to help, then lie about what he watched in real time for over two weeks, then lie about the lie for another month.
I was wrong.
I thought Americans could tell a hawk from a handsaw.
I was wrong.
We were offered the clearest choice we've has since 1980, where we had malaise and a misery index on one hand and a shining city on a hill on the other. Back then, we chose the city on the hill. This time the choice was between a man who says 7.9% unemployment and $4.00 gas is the new normal and a guy whose entire career has been about fixing broken entities.
We chose to stay broken. And Broke.
Maybe I'm wrong about the ramifications of this choice. Maybe windmills will actually turn out to be a viable energy source. Maybe America diminished will be loved overseas. Maybe a nuclear Iran won't be a threat. Maybe Israel is over reacting. Maybe western civilization was always over rated. Maybe life under sharia is fun. Maybe when the rest of the world realizes that we have no intention of ever paying back that $16,000,000,000,000.00 (and counting) that we've borrowed from them, they won't devalue the dollar, causing hyper inflation here at home. Maybe China will just keep on giving us money and not demand our hearts, souls, national monuments and marriageable daughters as payment.
I've watched my candidate lose elections before but I've never felt the way I did last night when this one was called for Obama.
It wasn't bitterness or sadness or even disappointment. It took me a while to figure out what it was. Then it hit me; it was horror.
Pure, unadulterated horror.
Not because of Obama, but because of what it says about us, the American people, that we chose this.
It shouldn't have even been close. Faced with the choice between taking charge of our destiny and tackling our financial problems, we opted to get high and have sex. We re elected a guy who doesn't understand that a growing economy that creates more tax payers will bring in more revenue than higher taxes. A Commander in Chief who doesn't know our military still uses bayonets. A man who wants to control the economy without even knowing the difference between bankruptcy and liquidation. It was one thing to elect an unknown quantity, buying his line of 'Hope and Change'. It's something else to deliberately choose his failed policies over someone who has actually achieved success in life. I never dreamed America would do that.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, Hello Idiocracy!
Goodbye, recovery.
Goodbye, energy independence.
Goodbye, religious liberty.
Goodbye, liberty and justice for all.
Goodbye, America dream.
It profits a man nothing to lose his soul for the whole world but we threw ours away for cell phones and birth control pills.
In the twentieth century (the American Century), we stepped up to the plate three times and saved the rest of the world from fascism, nazism and communism. We were the cavalry, always riding to the rescue.
Now, we've gotten rid of our horses, spent all our money on windmills, alienated our allies, bowed to our enemies, cut ourselves off from our own natural resources thrown away our children's birthright and spent their inheritance.
And we did it on purpose.
When the wolf is at the door (and he's coming, yelling 'Allahu Akbar') we're going to find out that there is no one out there to come to our rescue.
On the bright side, maybe it'll all turn out great. After all, I don't know anything.
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.
- Obama waves the white flag on the War on Terror (14)
- Rain: "Hold my umbrella" - Benghazi: "Stand Down" (273)
- Does the truth matter anymore? (265)
- "My kind of town, Chicago is" (262)
- Two words we must not utter: radical Islam!!! (314)
- Boston Massacre (279)
- What's missing? (308)
- Just in time for Easter... (232)
- The definition of "fair" according to Obama (127)
- Why I Do Not Like The Obamas (207)
- More It's Hemmer Time posts
Politics
89 Comments
Peter123 - Dec 02, 2012 8:38 PM
Regarding the entitlements, I recall people attacking the Democrats two years ago for cutting Medicare. A big part of the complaints about Obamacare were because it made changes to Medicare (aimed at slowing down health care cost growth).
It's an interesting point you make about needing 3% growth to get out from underneath all this debt. You're absolutely right, we do need to grow. To that end, any changes in spending and taxes right now should be aimed to promote growth. Do the big companies wait to expand because they're not making enough money? Because taxes are too high? No, it's because they don't have enough demand - they couldn't sell it if they did expand. The big corporations are sitting on record profits and huge cash reserves waiting for a need to use it. They wait to repatriate profits from overseas because in the past, there have been tax holidays on that. No reason to bring it home until they need it or there's a tax holiday, right?
Regarding Iran, it was the article by Mr. Curry which suggested that a vote for Obama was a vote for a nuclear Iran. I pointed out reasons that's ridiculous, and you moved the goalposts. No.
For the point about the Republicans holding the full faith and credit of the United States hostage, you say there's no one to blame but Obama. I'm confused. He had the choice between the deal reached involving the supercommittee (leading to the so-called "fiscal cliff), a veto (causing us to reach the debt ceiling and shutting down the government), or declaring the debt ceiling unconstitutional and ignoring it. What would the true leader you're suggesting have done? Or is it because they didn't raise the ceiling enough when the Democrats were in control? I'll agree with you on that point, but they expected everyone to act as adults. Oops.
WFB resident - Dec 02, 2012 10:47 PM
"factually correct" and at this point is nothing more than hearsay." Now take the time
to read my comment on how PDLS's will down play what was done ! lol...Almost
word for word on how PDLS's ignore opposing comments to make themselves feel
better !!
MGarber - Dec 03, 2012 6:22 AM
Silly me I thought Mr Curry was being serious. "
Its sortof like a corollary to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law.
ahemmer - Dec 03, 2012 6:40 AM
ahemmer - Dec 03, 2012 7:05 AM
-----
"GWB: Sigh. Please stay on topic. As I stated in my previous blog, the "comments" section is not designed to attack a former blogger to livinglakecountry.com.
By the way, you are wrong. Mr. Hayett was never forced to "relinquish" his blog. He left of his own accord to take a break. Who knows, maybe he will be back in the future.
If you do not believe this, contact the folks at livinglakecountry:
Editor-in-Chief: Scott Peterson (262) 361-9130
Managing Editor: Debi Eimer (262) 361-9135
Otherwise, stop your obsessing over Mr. Hayett and lying about why he is no longer blogging.
Now - stay on topic."
-----
C'mon GWB: You - and other lefties who comment here - need to stop this strange obsession with Mr. Hayett and his blog. All you have to do is contact the two folks listed above and ask them if Mr. Hayett stopped blogging of his own accord. Very easy. Pick up the phone. Ask if Mr. Hayett stopped blogging because he decided to. When they answer "yes" you will know. End of story.
Mucho - Dec 03, 2012 10:23 AM
How simple Peter. I love your generalization that there are "Big companies" with "Record profits" that are "waiting" for demand. Successful companies anticipate demand so they can have product ready for it. The companies that wait are not successful and certainly are not sitting on record profits as you put it. Unfortunately the current economic outlook driven by the past 4 years of failed policy is as bad as ever and without any anticipation that the "leader" that maintains anemic growth despite record deficits intends to change his ways, we will stay here indefinitely.
Pin this on "Big companies" all you want but without promise of anything other than higher taxes and more spending, they have no reason to anticipate growth and their lack of production translates into thousands of small businesses in their supply chain that also have no demand ON TOP of higher taxes and the burden of more regulation and costs via ObamaCare.
Obama shares your disdain for capitalism and it shows. The bright side is that investing opportunities are simple with Obama at the helm - Buy Gold.
Peter123 - Dec 03, 2012 11:26 AM
If I hadn't specified big companies, I would have heard from Jim about how it's tough in small business. I could have talked about the banks which aren't lending. I could have talked about Google or Apple or Microsoft or GE or many others, which had enormous profits during 2011, but didn't spend them to expand because there was no growing market to sell to.
It's not the job of big business to hire. It's not the job of big business to grow the economy in general. It's the goal of businesses to make money. Is it demonizing big business to recognize that their interests don't always line up with the interests of the American people? I brought that up the idle profits to counter the standard line the tax burden hurting businesses which would create jobs. It's demand that's missing, not an excess of taxes and regulations.
It's the responsibility of government to promote an environment where responsible business can thrive, as that helps the people thrive.
ExToDResident - Dec 03, 2012 1:06 PM
how Carl Hicks reached this conclusion."
I believe he "reached this conclusion" after reading this comment of yours at
6:53pm on Dec 2, 2012.
You just didn't seem to understand the blog. It was written tounge-in-cheek. You
know, kind of sarcastic."
So no doubt you will now claim that there is a clear distinction between a
sarcastic tounge-in-cheek article and an article that is a joke.
Two phrases stand out in your last comment.
They are; "I didn't think..." and "I have no clue..."
MGarber - Dec 03, 2012 1:22 PM
Ahhhh.. another "2nd trem prediction" of total satanic/islamic/communistic doom? Just put it on the pile along with all the other insanity, and now http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/right-wing-conspiracy-theory-barack-obama-third-term.
Do you *really* want to know why "their side" got more votes????
(Pay close attention, and I'll put this as politely as I can) Because "your side" is not too credible.
Mucho - Dec 03, 2012 1:56 PM
While the T's and C's of that statement are arguable, Who campaigned on that vs. who proved their ineptitude on doing that for 4 years?
What part of higher taxes on anyone assists in doing that? What part about a $2500 cost increase for a middle class family to cover ObamaCare "helps the people thrive"?
Any reasonable person looking at Obama's budget "solution" last week knows he is playing politics and is as far from promoting compromise as possible. I see no problem with allowing the solution inplace to take effect. It was a bi-partisan agreement that Obama seems determined to enact so let him have his way and see where we are all at this time next year. It beats the $2trillion deficit he proposed.
referee33 - Dec 03, 2012 2:06 PM
ExToDResident - Dec 03, 2012 2:22 PM
She did not say "I didn't think..." that is my misquote.
What Amy did say was "I don't think..."
Again my apologies for misquoting you Amy.
WFB resident - Dec 03, 2012 2:51 PM
not able to figure that out .
I have noticed now that the Lefties are reverting to attacking the blogger !! Some
how they do not realize that they are not able to refute what Hemmer wrote . So
they jump to their usual attacks , of word usage and the such !!! lol... Grow up guys ,
start thinking through what you believe be for you attack others for your lack of
knowledge .
MGarber - Dec 03, 2012 3:38 PM
Its indeed hard to refute stuff like "Just wait till Barry takes over our 401K's to share..." other than to put it on the (steaming) pile of other predictions, and wait and see.
BTW, the "O" got a little more than 6%, and the other guy got a little less than 6. If you were not able to figure that out.
Peter123 - Dec 03, 2012 4:52 PM
Are you suggesting that the initial offer needs to show compromise? I thought it was the responsibility of the opposition to come in with a counter-offer. Compromise happens after both sides have made their initial offers, trying to find common ground... something both sides can accept. And if you're happy with the austerity coming our way, why do you care if Obama is presenting something which you don't find reasonable? Then you win both ways - if it's terrible (like it will be), you can blame Obama. If it's not, then the deficit drops and the federal balance sheet is improved.
Higher taxes allow the government to pay the bills long-term, which creates a stable economic environment. Because deficits during good economic times are irresponsible. Deficits caused by responsible spending to keep the economy moving when the private sector is slowed down are not irresponsible. See the economic theory of John Maynard Keynes for details.
The increased cost for Obamacare is justified if the health insurance coverage leads to people not being bankrupted by medical bills or dying because they can't afford long-term or preventative care. Or if it helps rein in health care spending, which is the biggest problem for our long-term fiscal situation. Which it has some measures to do. Will it succeed in these points? Remains to be seen. But looking at the cost without looking at the benefits is disingenuous.
Mucho - Dec 03, 2012 5:29 PM
Obama is a legislator not a leader. Suggesting that the President start out with a ridiculous plan so he can "negotiate" down to a reasopnable one is a game for Congress.
He got re-elected. As a leader he should present a plan that works and take it to the people. Instead he would rather posture and then blame the other side. Pretty pathetic.
Socializing Health Care does nothing to lower costs. Look around at other countries. It simply throttles usage via rationing. Making my rates go up $2500 per year to cover my family as the FICA rates go back up at the same time the Bush tax rates get jacked up is going to hit the economy hard.
Obama is positiioning himself for someone to blame and it is a sign of his inability to lead. Again, he got elected so it's his call what he wants to do with his power. It is just a shame that he hasn't got the courage, skills or desire to lead.
ahemmer - Dec 03, 2012 6:38 PM
Just as Obama's last budget proposals have been met with laughs and thrown out - by all Dems and Republicans alike - so is this "fiscal cliff" deal absurd. Obama hasn't offered ANYTHING. As a "leader" he is pathetic. And in a few days Obama and the family will be jetting off to Hawaii for a three week vacation on the taxpayer dime. $4 million bucks and counting... Ah, the life of Obama. The Obama family motto is "Let Them Eat Cake." He could care less about the dangerous fiscal state our country is in. He could care less about all those who are unemployed - and those who will be facing unemployement once Obamacare is fully implemented. He could care less about huge tax increases all across the board. He could care less about curbing reckless spending. See, the guy is a socialist. He wants to bring this country down. So we go over the "fiscal cliff" - what does he care? He'll get what he wants. The United (or should I say "Divided") States be damned.
- Dec 03, 2012 8:08 PM
Well how much less would it cost if he vacationed in Wisconsin? Is it a significant amount?
Most folks do go "home for the holidays" and Hawaii is his home is it not?
If Romney were now President, and he vacationed in Utah, would the cost be about the same, or would the cost be higher because of all the kids and grand kids?
WFB resident - Dec 03, 2012 11:42 PM
!!! Again you refuted my comment with out fact !!!