Sequestration Weekend Chat

It’s finally here! The formulated crisis known as Sequestration is to occur today at Midnight. I will be looking out the window waiting with bated breath, watching the sky fall! OH!, You mean it won’t fall? It was never really going to fall? Please don’t tell me that our illustrious President and members of his Administration have not been telling the truth! 


  1. TGIF SUFA 🙂

    Did Obama and members of his Administration knowing LIE to the public regarding the Sequester? If you believe he did, do you feel it’s acceptable for this to occur?

  2. This is centered on the left to right change-but what I thought was interesting was the process.

    Why Do Some Liberals Become Conservatives?
    The intellectual transformation from left to right.

    Jean Kaufman

    March 1, 2013 – 12:13 am

    These days it may seem as though the entire nation is moving ever leftward. But on the personal level it’s actually much more usual for political change to go in the opposite direction: from left to right.

    It’s not that uncommon an event, either — in fact, there’s a whole literature of political memoir written by left-to-right changers (such as David Horowitz and Norman Podhoretz, to name just two).

    One changer closer to home is founder and former CEO of PJ Media Roger L. Simon, who talked about his own story in a recent speech in which he admitted that, despite his having written a book about his change experience, the how and why of political change is still a mystery to him.

    Political change is something I’ve thought about long and hard because it happened to me, too, about ten years ago. In fact, struggling to understand and explain that change was one of the things that first drew me to blogs and blogging. I agree with Roger Simon that the vast majority of people are exceedingly reluctant to change their political beliefs and identification, and that was my experience, too; in fact, I’ve titled my own change story “A mind is a difficult thing to change.”

    It’s not easy to come up with universals, because change stories differ in their personal details: fast or slow; solitary or interactive; sparked by things heard, seen, read, or personally experienced. But over the years that I’ve been contemplating my own story and listening to or reading those of others, I’ve come to see some patterns.

    Rarely, if ever, are prospective changers actually seeking change. In fact their previous political positions on the left may be quite firmly and strongly held, and they would probably consider anyone quite mad who had the audacity to inform them of the transformation about to take place.

    But although they may not be interested in change, change is interested in them. It usually begins with something external, some new information encountered seemingly by accident, something that starts to bug the person because it contradicts or doesn’t fit easily into his or her pre-existing framework. It’s like a buzzing fly that won’t quit and can’t be ignored. It causes discomfort, a sense of unease, and the disequilibrium that comes from the dilemma known as cognitive dissonance.

    It’s such an unpleasant experience that people are usually eager to resolve it. How they do that is one point at which changers split off from non-changers. The latter group, if faced with that very same information, might just swat that fly — that is, in their discomfort at the knowledge that seems incongruous with their previous beliefs, they would either discredit the new information, minimize it, rationalize it, or shut it out entirely, thus ending the discomfort and the dilemma.

    But those who ultimately end up as changers can’t seem to put it away that easily. For them, something once seen cannot be unseen. Perhaps they have a different habit of mind to begin with, one more accustomed to challenging its own beliefs and assumptions, one more uncomfortable with contradictions.

    The process can become even more intense if the experience is a personal one in the first place. Roger Simon’s slow decades-long change, for example, began with trips to China and the Soviet Union in the 70s and 80s, where he witnessed some disturbing things he found he couldn’t forget or explain away. David Horowitz discovered that a friend of his whom he’d sent to work as a bookkeeper for the Black Panthers had been murdered by them and the crime was covered up by the left. These are personal experiences of a dramatic sort, especially Horowitz’s. They act as catalysts to send the person on a path to a series of discoveries, although the initial experience doesn’t need to be so extreme to spark the same process.

    The whole thing rarely happens overnight, although it can. It resembles tearing down a structure and building a new one brick by brick. The final collapse of the first building tends to be the quickest part, with the changer now perceiving that structure as having been a house of cards, essentially fragile, although previously the person had been unaware of that fact.

    Another less dramatic way a change experience can begin is with the perception that the mainstream media has lied about something. It can even be something that seems quite small and unimportant by itself, but then it happens again, and again, and a pattern begins to emerge. This learning usually also comes about by accident. For example, a person might happen across the original of a speech from which a truncated quote had been taken, and suddenly realize that the quote was probably edited that way in order to purposely mislead. The advent of the internet has increased the opportunities for this sort of discovery, because it’s much easier to compare the two texts.

    Again, the watershed moment is not usually the event itself, but the person’s reaction to it. Some people resolve the discrepancy by ignoring it with a shrug, and perhaps the thought, “Oh, everybody in the media lies all the time, the right even more than the left.” Or it’s dismissed with the rationalization that it’s not really a lie because a much more important truth is being told in the process. Or it can be justified with an ends/means calculation: lying in a good cause is okay. In the future, such a person might even try to avoid going to the source of quotes, in order to avoid encountering similar discrepancies that might lead to more cognitive dissonance that could lead to greater unease.

    But people who end up becoming changers are much more likely to vow to get to the bottom of it and learn more, plunging ahead with research. People who do so often discover as time goes on that a great deal of what they thought they knew is actually false.

    I know that place; I’ve been there. It is a profoundly disorienting time, and many and even perhaps most people would do almost anything to avoid it. But those who are constructed a certain way cannot help themselves, because the discrepancy gnaws away at them. Next time they see something – another quote, for example — that reflects badly on someone on the right, they are driven to check out its veracity by looking at the original text and its context. And of course they also check out similar stories in the press on the right, hoping to find similar distortions about the left, so it can all seem evenhanded. But if they are persistent, over time they discover the troubling fact that it’s not quite equal: generally there are more distortions (and more egregious ones) made by the left.

    At some point changers usually become hungry for knowledge. Reading more and more writers on the right (sometimes for the first time), and/or talking to more people on the right, they discover a number of simpatico souls where they had thought there would be none. Ultimately, they find a coherent philosophy and their place in it. It takes a while, often quite a while, to accept that one is now a Republican or a conservative or a libertarian or a classical liberal or whatever one ends up calling oneself. Some never do; Zell Miller, who changed his mind but never could bring himself to switch his party affiliation, likened party identification to a birthmark.

    And finally, of course, there are the reactions of others. Most people who’ve lived their lives in a liberal bubble have little awareness of the invective hurled at those who change– — until they become one of those people themselves. And even if they were previously aware of it, they probably remain sanguine in the notion that it won’t happen to them, because, after all, they’re talking to liberals who’ve been their friends for years.

    So it is usually a tremendous shock when they have their first coming-out discussion. Even if voiced only tentatively, their departure from the liberal line is often met with tremendous hostility. Not from everyone, of course. But a large percentage of the people they now encounter, including friends and family, will express anger and contempt.

    Being on the receiving end of this experience can’t help but be profoundly disturbing. Perhaps it even drives some people under cover, and or back into the liberal fold. But for most, it seems there is no turning back, because — as a fortune cookie I got a few years ago succinctly put it — “one’s mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions.”

    • All that to say “Another one finally wised up” 🙂

      • I thought it was a pretty good picture of my personal time spent at SUFA-I wasn’t a liberal and I’m still not a Libertarian-but I am not what I was. 🙂

    • “The intellectual transformation from left to right

      BIG TIME OXYMORON … intellectual and right

      • Mornin Charlie, Hope all is well in leftyland 🙂

        “The intellectual transformation from left to right”

        This is a Ougt-not-be-a-moron, not an oxymoron, get it right slick 😆

      • Did you notice I was interested in the process of change more than the actual left to right paradigm? But if you prefer just taking a pot shot at the intelligence of the right instead of talking about the actual ideas in the article. Go ahead -it’s not like I never take a pot shot at the left. You may consider this whole article one-but that I can’t help that, and don’t really care 🙂 I read it, I thought it was interesting , so I posted it. I believe everyone has that option.

        • Calm your Jets, VH … all I did was see that last line … no time to read articles … I saw that absurd statement and had fun with it … take a breather … yous people in here are really sounding whacky lately … just an observation 🙂

  3. Here’s Woodwards response to the release of the Emails. I also posted an article by Ron Fournier last night. What I think is interesting about these, I’ll call them warnings about the suppression of the Press, are coming from the left. Now they seem to want to give Obama a pass, IMO, which they would not do for a Republican President. But none the less-They are warning us that things have gotten out of hand and it’s effecting the Freedom of the Press.

  4. One thing I’m very thankful for, is that Michael Moore is on their side, they can keep him too!

  5. Buck, This may affect you someday. How do you feel about this and do you welcome a transgender male into your little girls bathroom?

    • While I recognize the issue here, you are barking up the wrong tree — I would support teaching my little one tolerance and I would support the transgendered person’s use of the restroom for which they believe they belong.

      • Not really barking. Your a new father and may have to deal with this issue. I have no problem with your answer.

      • Well you’d be teaching the wrong type of tolerance. Your tolerance dismisses all the reasons we separate by sex in the first place. The correct tolerance would make it possible for the transgendered, cross dresser, or whatever other defining word fits, to use whatever bathroom fits their physical biology without incident. The mass majority shouldn’t lose their ability to have privacy between the sexes-and the transgendered do not have the right to demand that we do- we All should learn to Tolerate and Accept the differences. That includes the transgendered. They have no right to claim everyone has to accept their differences and make allowances except themselves.

        • I think you need to do a bit more research as to what it means to be transgendered.

          I sincerely hope that doesn’t come off as snarky.

          • No, Buck I don’t -because what it means to be transgendered has nothing to do with my point. At least acknowledge my point even if you disagree with it. You are teaching one sided tolerance. I must have tolerance for the trangender’s differences but they do not have to have tolerance for mine. Start with that point.

            • You are telling them they cannot use the women’s room because they don’t have 100% female parts and that they make you uncomfortable.

              What tolerance do they need to show you in this instance?

              • Sorry Buck-I had to leave and now I’m leaving right now until tomorrow, most likely. Get back to this later

              • First, let’s look at your use of the word uncomfortable. Such a small sounding word-it immediately trivializes any objections-attempts to make anyone who believes in separation by the sexes, based on privacy ,to be discriminating against others. But the argument isn’t based on my being uncomfortable with transgenders or cross dressers-I’m uncomfortable with different genders being together in these situations. My reasons aren’t trivial and they are not a form of discrimination. You have no problem with separation of the sexes , in general, when it comes to issues of privacy -do you Buck?

                But now, we have a problem-people who have had these differences are bringing them out into the open-so as a society we have to come up with a way to solve the problems that come with them. And as usual their fix is discriminatory and defies reality. If anything we now have more than two genders per medicine and surgery or even just choosing to live like one because it is how one feels.

                You can not fix the problems by just proclaiming to the world-You will perceive this person as a woman or vice a versa. Because it is a lie. If we are going to figure out a reasonable solution to this problem, it is necessary to discuss that fix based on reality, not by declaring that everyone just has to accept the lie and lose their very reasonable request not to be forced to disrobe or bath or anything of the sort with the opposite sex.

            • V.H., I agree with you. About 0.3% of the population is listed as transgender. Why does that 1 person in 333 who is uncomfortable in their own skin have the right to make the other 333 uncomfortable. It seems to me that we are bending over backwards to accommodate a small deviant percentage of the population. Buck, please tell us how you explain to a 4 year old girl why a man is using he ladies restroom.
              If this is the direction we are heading, then make all public unisex with private stalls.

  6. Creates the Precious Metal Purchasing Act. Provides that a person who is in the business of purchasing precious metal shall obtain a proof of ownership, create a record of the sale, and verify the identity of the seller. Provides that a person who is in the business of purchasing precious metal shall not pay for the precious metal in cash and shall record the method of payment. Requires the purchaser to keep a record of the sale for one year or, if the purchase amount is over $500, for 5 years. Provides that a person who violates the Act is guilty of a petty offense and subject to a fine not exceeding $500. Provides that the Attorney General may inspect records, investigate an alleged violation, and take action to collect civil penalties.

    Interesting. Wonder why the whacko lefties there think they should have this knowledge? These govt people are sure getting nosey.

  7. Just A Citizen says:


    I am still WAITING for you answer from yesterday.

    Smart man vs. Moronic man……. in case you forgot.

    • JAC — It was a silly question deserving of a silly answer; my sincerest apologies if I did not make that clear yesterday.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        It was not silly at all. Does the smart man bear responsibility or not for the deal he negotiates with a man who does not have full mental capability?

        Run and hide if you must, but you can’t simply dismiss this as a silly question.

        • So now you are arguing that Boehner does not have full mental capability?? I’m glad we agree on something, but am unsure what this has to do with anything and I’m completely confused by the point you are trying to make.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Once again, my question is a question. Not making a point. At least not yet.

            It was a general question and not about Boehner.

  8. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I look for some new pro-gun media groups coming out soon, there is too much money out there to be made in the market. A guy like Nugent could put them out of business in no time 🙂

  9. Until drugs are legalized (which will never happen), I think I can support this type of testing.

    • sigh.

      • Why the sigh Buck? The part about legalizing or testing? For the record, I have always been against testing in general. But if I have to test to get a job, then be subject to testing while employed, then those benefiting from tax dollars should also be subject to the same. That is what I call “fair”. Of course, just make them legal, control their potency, tax them and let’s move on. Just some thoughts 🙂

        • “That is what I call “fair”. ”
          G … is it fair when “investors” earn millions while others do the work?

          In your brainwashed view, probably, yes … but that just goes to show you how “fair” is a moveable feast 🙂

          • Charlie, where are there business’s that employ people that someone else did not invest to build the company? Where? Where is there not a rich 1%? Where Charlie? Governments do not build business’s, they steal them and destroy them.

            • Actually, G, there are several … several here in the good old us&a … but that wasn’t the question. And since you brought it up … since the government is so corrupted by the 1% … don’t you feel as though you contradict yourself about every other second. I mean, are you accepting the 1% as your lord and ruler (as I’ve always assumed :)) when you state: ‘Where is there not a rich 1%? Where Charlie? …”

              Oy vey, my brother …

              • Charlie, I’m talking about countries where your fantasy utopia exists. We both know the govt is corrupt and we both know the rich do the corrupting. OK, so we have that reality in common, now, you want more govt to get corrupted and I want less, that is not a contradiction, that is how I have always spoken. Quit claiming your contradiction bullshit cuz no one is really paying attention to you when you do so. Come up with some reasonable comments for a change, please!

              • Sigh!

                OK, lets all acknowledge that the folks with the big bucks have the clout and have always had the clout. What makes us different? Well, what makes us different is that we are one of the only places where you or I or our children can break into that exclusive club.

                What influence do Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, Steve Jobs, Carl Ican, The Koch brothers, and their ilk have. Quite a bit and I think you would agree. However, they have all earned their power and influence. None were born to the royal purple nor inherited their wealth. John Kerry is in the club too but he married in.

                There are those like the Rockefeller’s and certainly the Kennedy’s who have never done an honest day’s work in their lives. But there are also the Vanderbilt’s and Whitney’s who have nowhere near the money, power and influence their forebears had because they never added anything, had poor financial advisers or did not inherit a defined plan but rather got a lump sum which they then blew.

                We are a bit unique here in that old money and new money are not separated as far as they are in Britain. Paul McCartney, Elton John and Richard Branson may be “lords” but they will, despite their fortunes never be accepted as such. Can they peddle influence? Hell yes, along with Rupert Murdoch but remember, they are all self made. That to me makes a difference, a big difference.

                I have always been ambivalent about inheritance. Personally don’t like it. As with the Kennedy’s and Rockefeller’s, it allows them to dabble in running other peoples lives when they have not either earned that right from the people nor do they have a clue how those people live. I always got a laugh from Bobby Kennedy going on about the poor Latino’s and Blacks. The closest he ever really got to these people were his waiter and the guy who shined his shoes.

                I’ve said it before and it bears repeating. Despite the fact that I am a great believer in freedom and not in any type of government coercion, there was something very good about the draft, the Big Green Machine, and the the great leveler that the US Army was. In addition, I, despite my hate for Chairman Mao, always admired the ideal of sending the rich, the famous, and the intellectual on a sabbatical to the rice paddies every five years to get “reacquainted ” with reality. There you go, just uncovered myself as a secret Commie!

        • In case I wasn’t clear, the sigh was for testing.

          Take a look at the results in other states that mandated such testing and then report back to me.

    • As a resident of Kansas I support this

        • I do remember the Florida mess. I’m not even sure it will work if it doesn’t cost extra money. I do like the threat of testing being their. Let’s say they only test a certain percentage (random). The cost would be far less but the fear would always be there.

          • Bottom Line says:

            I have an idea…

            Get rid of drug laws (for starters), as well as stop stealing people’s money.

            Let family, friends, and charity organizations take care of the less fortunate.

        • Every employer I have had in this state drug tests before hiring and randomly after hiring. If people are going to get and hold down jobs they are going to have to be drug free. It is a person choice to use drugs and take the risks. However I should not have to support the drug user who gets caught and loses their job because they took the risk. It is the same reason I am against bailouts. If company take a risk and loses it should not be my or collectively the societies responsibility to take care of it.
          I have however helped friends who have had drug problems in the past and would help again, but that is of my own choosing and not force upon me by a state as in the case of welfare.

  10. A Puritan Descendant says:

    A snippet from a post by Mathius>

    “But I view UI as a safety net. You want UI? OK great, but we’re not going to let you sit on your ass and collect. So here’s my proposal:

    1. No drugs, regular and random screenings. Zero tolerance, reapplication permitted in six months.”

  11. Just A Citizen says:

    To those DNC maggots who were ripping on people for raising questions about “legitimate” rape.

    Another young man found innocent but AFTER the accusations were used to DESTROY his career.

    For those who think the community simply bows to the Athletic program, let me remind you that Univ of Montana, and the city of Missoula is PORTLAND east. IT is a hotbed of PROGESSIVES.

    • Bottom Line says:

      ” Another young man found innocent but AFTER the accusations were used to DESTROY his career. ”

      I recommend you watch the movie titled “The Life of David Gale”. You might appreciate it.

  12. “However, they have all earned their power and influence.” … oy vey, NO THEY HAVEN’T … but forget that for now … here, have some fun at a commi’s expense (you’d call him a commi, I’d call him a dictator) …

  13. Good Morning SUFA 🙂

    Woke up to see that the snow was still flying, which tells me the sky didn’t fall 🙄 Despite all the scare tactics we are all still here and life will go on. Next up, March 21st .

    So, we all have heard Charlie rail about how “investors and those that built their companies did it on the backs of the workers. Let’s just say, that technically, Charlie is right and all these business owners and investors should have their wealth taken (stolen) and redistributed to the workers. Let’s take this a step further. Let’s demand that nobody can build a business or invest in any business’s because they earn wealth unfairly.

    Now let’s take that idea back to 1900. No investors and nobody to build business’s because their is no longer an incentive to succeed. I wonder where we would be today if the Charlie’s of the world had their way since 1900 here in America and every other nation where wealth exists on the backs of employees, as they like to piss and moan about.

    Food for thought 🙂

    • Oh, you’ll have to go back farther than that, my brainwashed friend, G … by 1900, the good old us&a (you know, that land of the free where all men are created equal) was well on the way to exploiting third world countries for all they were worth, not to mention the exploitation going on at home (remember, blacks didn’t have a voting rights act for another 65 years) and native americans became a spaghetti western novelty … but you keep that narrow vision of your intact … the 1950’s Stephen so loves, where America did so much for one middle class (whites), was pretty much at the expense of blacks and the poor … but, hell, like you always say: It sucks to be them …:) (trust me, that smile is a sarcastic one).

      • Charlie, SO WHAT! I’m white and I’m not about to apologize for it. Your white too, remember, are you sorry for that? Just what is the point your making with all of this? The past is gone, what do you want?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Gman asked you a good question which you apparently didn’t understand.

        So go back to any point in time of your choosing. It does not matter when.

        The question was WHAT does the world look like today IF you imposed your dogma of prohibiting people from making money on “investments” or “business ownership”.

        My first question is who do you think would have developed the NEW STEEL and the mass production process that created the modern world?

        • Charlie would be living in a grass hut and wearing a loin cloth 🙂 Because that’s all anyone would have if his dogma existed, and he knows it too!

        • JAC, I didn’t answer the question for a few reasons. First, because I don’t see the point in arguing on this site (or haven’t you noticed the lefty-commi-pinko drain here?). It’s like banging one’s head against a radiator. Second, it’s a dumb question. The world has been around a lot longer than capitalism and/or incentives to create. Actually, incentives to create had NOTHING to do with profit going back to the earliest civilizations. People created tools because it made their life easier, not to become investors. Somehow the world survived back then, just as it does today in societies where profit isn’t the focal point of life. Third, there’s no need to “go back to the 1900’s” … the tools are in place now (steel factories, if you will) … bread factories, etc., so why reinvent the wheel? Just limit the profits “investors” can “earn” and put more back into society (in the form of education and heatlhcare for starters) … now, you two have fun today 🙂

          • Charlie, Just because we have differences in what we believe and wish for, doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it. I want to learn what drives your thoughts and why you think they will work in our society. The list of problems in this world is endless it seems, maybe we can come to agreement on a few of them. The drone issue is really not a left or right issue, it’s about whats legal and moral, and about our privacy here in the States. We can all learn from each other. 🙂

            • Fair enough, G. Drone issue … I missed it. I’ve been busy writing my thesis for school so I haven’t followed all of what’s going on here. If it’s what I think (drone bombings, etc.), I’m torn … like gun control … I can understand both sides … I don’t, however, condone any form of collateral damage as acceptable, but especially when going after finite targets (i.e., a car load of terrorists–and then killing an innocent who might be nearby) … on the other hand, I can see where a country would seek to protect it’s soliders by using drones. Tough, tough issue for me. Just don’t know.

      • Now, now, now! You know damn well that I acknowledged all the mistakes along the way in this country and you know or at least should surmise, that like everything else, we are a “work in progress”. So, while I look back at the ’50’s in a nostalgic way, I recognize that there were major problems. I also saw, even at the time that they were being addressed.

        There is an old expression, “don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater” which is really where I am heading. Seems to me that in the effort to redress everything, we threw the good out with the bad. That’s all my friend. As i pointed out above, there as this thing called the Civil War wherein a whole lot of people died to end slavery. You seem to think that nothing was ever done and today is 1734.

  14. Maryland is going to pass a new gun law that will require the following: The new legislation will require gun owners, as well as new purchasers of firearms, to get fingerprinted, take eight hours of classroom study, and pay for a more extensive background check. In addition, no one will be able to buy a so-called “assault weapon” or purchase a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. The bill will also tighten up limits on gun ownership by residents committed against their will for mental health treatment.

    It’s no secret that I think this law is totally unconstitutional. Putting restrictions on the types of guns and magazines is rediculous and will not serve any purpose. Demanding school and payment for a background check to exercise one’s rights is also unconstitutional on it’s face. That’s like demanding one goes to school to properly protest in public. This Governor is a traitor to the people of Maryland and should be recalled or just plain fired.

    O’Malley says: “It is a common-sense licensing requirement. If you have to get a license to drive a car in Maryland … you should have to be licensed in order to operate a firearm.”

    Really? He doesn’t seem to know the difference between a RIGHT and a Privilege. What say all of you?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Not until Holder/Obama decided to furlough Displaced Okie and co-workers.

      Now there is a potential “conspiracy” for you G. 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I think I posted here long ago how repugnant the concept of “hate crimes” is to freedom and liberty.

      Now you see one of the results.

      So YES, I think we will get to the same place in the good ol US of A.

  15. Been a while since I commented here. I drop by occasionally to read the discussion.

    With all the sequester nonsense, I wanted to bring something up. I think the Republicans are being flat out idiots for refusing to close tax loopholes. I’m not talking about raising rates or anything like that, I mean fundamental tax reform. What say you here?

    Please keep in mind that we MUST address government spending and particularly Medicare and SS, which by themselves will consume all government spending in a few decades. Tax reform cannot solve that problem!

    This is a very leftist article, but consider his point that eliminating ALL deductions would raise $2.2 T over ten years. That’s not even a quarter of the deficit we will run in the same period if things stay the way they are.
    “In fact, the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan Washington think tank, has shown that eliminating all itemized deductions while leaving tax rates where they are now would raise $2.2 trillion over 10 years. That’s $600 billion more than President Obama is seeking from Congress.”

    For all I want a reduction in the size and scope of government, shouldn’t we also be trying to fix the tax code? The Democrats will come out on top of this one if the Republicans keep up these antics. If the Reps about face and close loopholes, the Dems will be forced to either cut spending in a real way or prove themselves to be full of hot air.

    • Howdy JB, Hope today finds you and yours healthy and happy 🙂

      I would agree that we need some serious tax reform. But maybe what we really need is government reform first. The fastest way to solve spending problems is to start with the spender, not the payer. Obama will never see this, nor will anyone else in DC. If it were up to me, the only thing the Feds would do would be to fund our military (a smaller one who would be at home), and maintain our interstate highway system. The states can handle the rest. By doing this, the cost of government would be 70% less, thus fixing all of the funding problems. That would allow for ample time to transition Social Security and medicare to the state levels.

      None of this will happen in this entitlement society we now live in. I’m just waiting for it all to collapse, then hopefully we can fix things. Unfortunately, all of the Charlie’s of the world will have to be shot on sight 😆 😉

      • Many thanks, G. My 1 year old daughter is toddling around now. Life can’t get much better than watching her play!

        I agree that we need to reform spending or else tax reform will not change anything in the big picture. My point is that, if Republicans include tax reform in their bargaining platform, they will put the Dems’ feet to the fire. Either fix the primary causes of our fiscal problems (reasonable and relatively minor changes to SS will make it solvent to infinity), or we will not agree to any new revenue. Actually, Reps should be the ones itching for tax reform, rather than the idiotic and rampant nepotism and corruption within the tax code itself! So much for fiscal conservatism!

        Keep up the good work G! I’m glad to see SUFA surviving, even without USW!

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I think their position of NOT addressing the tax code with Sequestration was the CORRECT decision.

      However, they should have been in that spot months ago and had a better plan to reveal it. Instead they spent weeks crying about how bad it would be then weeks saying Obama was crying wolf because it won’t be that bad.

      Don’t forget that the R’s have in fact raised the idea of eliminating deductions and loopholes. Romney included it in his campaign.

      Their problem is that they can’t make a rational proposal to SELL to the public without wrapping the comprehensive Budget with the deal. That is why it was good to avoid now.

      But why it is going to be so hard in the months ahead.

      They have a narrow window of opportunity I think, to push for the bigger deal that will balance the budget at least. And perhaps create a path to DEBT reduction. You will see the tax code raised in the 2014 budget battle that is about to start.

      They will probably not succeed but they might get the PEOPLE on board if they keep to some simple concepts. Like targeting any further “tax revenue increases” to DEBT reduction. And using cost cutting to balance the existing budget.

      They also need to suck it up and SEPARATE Medicare and Social Security from the Total Budget debate. Start a separate battle to make those programs stand on their own. Make them 100% funded by payee contributions. Let the people decide whether to participate or not.

      • I find it very unlikely that a balanced budget will ever happen in this country unless we have a massive economic boom. The ridiculous nature of the sequester (a paltry 2% that the government can’t even get right) proves that. The Republicans will have a hard time getting people on board the government reduction train for several reasons: (1) people want stuff without paying higher taxes (don’t touch my social security!), (2) the president of the country (can’t get much more clout than that) does nothing but rail against them, and (3) most people simply don’t care enough to know how dire straights we are in!

        I agree that closing tax loopholes should not have been a part of sequestration, but I think with the looming budget and spending cap deals, R’s should try not to be so stand off-ish. It actually weakens their position politically (all of our woes are due to those silly, belligerent, obstructionist Republicans), and is the wrong choice fiscally!

  16. JB,

    I fully agree the tax code needs to be rewritten and simplified. The Republicans have proposed this several times but with the caveat that the changes be revenue neutral. Naturally that condition gets vetoed by the Democrats since they look at it as a new source of revenue.

    From my personal position, I live in one of the blue states, CA, so pay significant income tax, vehicle taxes, and real estate taxes. My mortgage is done so I do not have that deduction. I do however spend 50% of my salary on healthcare. Without these deductions, especially the latter, I would be running negative cash flow. I have already reduced many optional and nice to have expenses so belt tightening from here forward would be extremely painful and would jeopardize my position in retirements years which are approaching fast. So from my personal perspective, I am not willing to give up deductions unless they are accompanied by a tax rate reduction.

    From a philosophical position, we have a spending problem not a revenue problem. No amount of revenue increases will solve that since with the prevailing attitudes in DC, any increased revenue will come under immediate new spending pressures. Also, increasing tax rates never increases the revenues per the projected amounts since increasing taxes actually slows the economy. The best way to increase revenues is to increase economic activity, i.e., more activity generates more jobs which generates more income which generates more tax revenues.

    The Republicans did raise tax rates in the last deal, but the Democrats have not changed their stance. They want more taxes. They have offered nothing on the spending side in exchange for the revenues they just got. If the Republicans once again cave and close loop holes without reducing tax rates, I do not expect the Democrats to come through with any spending reductions. Obama campaigned in ’08 on using a laser to cut spending. He has offered nothing in this area since then. Everything has been just generalities, but once specifics are mentioned, it’s nothing doing.

    • Greets, T-Ray.

      I understand your situation. Mine is relatively similar, though much less mature, you might say. I did not mean to imply that we should remove all tax incentives (read tax breaks), but rather those that are so obviously unnecessary and crowded with nepotism. Why should some major corporations (GE, Boeing, Mattel, Verison) pay 0 taxes!?! Why do some of those companies actually net money from the government!?! I think our corporate tax rate is too high compared to our competitors, but if major corps are not paying anywhere close to the rate, isn’t that a problem?

      I agree with your basic ideas, here. The Reps will have a hard time getting meaningful change if they allow the Dems to walk all over them. I just would like to see them act reasonably and if the Dems don’t go for it, then prove to the people who is full of hot air. Right now, they both appear to be, but with Pelosi saying she would make cuts to Medicare and SS if the Reps would cut loopholes, political favor is trending toward the Dems! I don’t believe for a second that she would actually go along with those reforms (how her base would howl!). I truly believe she is just using it to make the Reps look bad, but you know what, I think it is working!

      I must say, I have very low hopes of anything being fixed. I pray to God that I am wrong! 😦

  17. I’m starting to think that lefties might have a mental illness.

    Another democrat to add to the heap of fools that need shipped off to the loony bin 🙄

    • I wonder how hard the lawyers lobby pushed for that… 😉 Should prove to be a goldmine for them.


    Boy would we have been in trouble when we were young. Every banana was a gun.

  19. The drone issue continues. Don’t worry, they won’t be used to spy on Americans, wink, wink.

  20. The video at the bottom is rather interesting. Weather is a great thing to follow!

  21. Breaking: Homeland Security is Releasing Far More Illegal Aliens than Previously Disclosed

    Bryan Preston

    March 1, 2013 – 2:26 pm

    The AP reports that the Obama Department of Homeland Security has been releasing illegal aliens from jail since February 15. While the administration claims that it has only released a few hundred, the real numbers are far higher according to government documents that the AP obtained.

    The Homeland Security Department released from its jails more than 2,000 illegal immigrants facing deportation in recent weeks due to looming budget cuts and planned to release 3,000 more during March, The Associated Press has learned.

    The newly disclosed figures, cited in internal budget documents reviewed by the AP, are significantly higher than the “few hundred” illegal immigrants the Obama administration acknowledged this week had been released under the budget-savings process.

    DHS is releasing the illegal aliens primarily in four states, three of them red states: Arizona, California, Georgia and Texas. DHS has not consulted with the states in which the releases are taking place, and the Obama White House claims that the releases are taking place without their input. But:

    The release of thousands from immigration jails is consistent with Napolitano’s early warnings on Monday – hours before anyone knew publicly that any illegal immigrants had been released – that the pending, automatic budget cuts known as the sequester would limit the government’s ability to maintain enough detention center beds for at least 34,000 immigrants.

    Budget cuts cannot be to blame for these releases. For one thing, the sequestration cuts are actually just cuts in the rate of growth. Second, they have not occurred yet, and certainly had not when DHS began releasing thousands of illegal aliens. Third, DHS is currently running under full capacity in its jails, by about 3,000 prisoners.

  22. There is some question whether Dorner was also taking SSRIs.

    Instead of addressing the people problem we go after the inanimate objects they use.

%d bloggers like this: