State Fiscal Condition: Ranking the 50 States
New research from Sarah Arnett examines states’ abilities to meet their financial obligations in the face of state budget challenges that have far outlasted the Great Recession. Fiscal simulations by the Government Accountability Office suggest that despite recent gains in tax revenues and pension assets, the long-term outlook for states’ fiscal condition is negative (GAO 2013). These simulations predict that states will have yearly difficulties balancing revenues and expenditures due, in part, to rising health care costs and the cost of funding state and local pensions.
Arnett uses four different indices to analyze state solvency using each state’s fiscal year 2012 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report data. She then weights these four indices to create the State Fiscal Condition Index below.
Cash Solvency
A state’s cash solvency takes into account the cash the state can easily access to pay its bills in the near term, reflecting the state government’s liquidity. The map below indicates that most states have enough cash on hand to meet their short-term obligations.
Budget Solvency
A state’s budget solvency is its ability to create enough revenue to cover its expenditures over a fiscal year. Budget solvency varies greatly across states. As the map below shows, in fiscal year 2012-13 states had an operating ratio below 1, indicating a budget deficit.
Long-Run Solvency
Long-run solvency measures a state’s ability to use incoming revenue to cover all its expenditures, including long-term obligations such as guaranteed pension benefits and infrastructure maintenance. Long-run solvency is less sensitive to economic trends than the other measures examined here.
Service-Level Solvency
Service-level solvency is the most difficult to measure because it reflects whether state governments have the resources to provide their residents with an adequate level of services. A state’s service-level solvency is measured using taxes and revenue per capita, along with expenditures per capita.
State Fiscal Condition Index
Using the four solvency indices above, Arnett creates an overall State Fiscal Condition Index. She improves on past research about fiscal metrics by weighting each solvency indicator based on the timeframe in which it will affect state residents. Although the ranking is a snapshot in time, the states at the bottom are there due to years of poor financial management decisions, bad economic conditions, or a combination of the two. New Jersey and Connecticut face similar problems: tax revenues that have not kept up with expenditures, use of budget practices that only appeared to balance their annual budgets, and significant debt levels as a result of decades of using bonds without being able to pay for them (State Budget Crisis Task Force 2012). In addition, both states have underfunded their pension systems, resulting in billions in unfunded liabilities.
Blogs For Victory 
Interesting. It’s also interesting to compare life spans in the different states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_life_expectancy
Nine out of ten of the top states for longest life span are blue states. Nine out of ten of those with the shortest life spans are red states.
“Nine out of ten of the top states for longest life span are blue states. Nine out of ten of those with the shortest life spans are red states.”
“Looks like poverty rates are also higher in red states than blue states.”
So the people can live longer in a bankrupt state? But since you fail to connect the dots, the blue states are approaching insolvency, then where would their anti-poverty programs be?
I guess you are desperate to see a positive in a blue state even though it can barely support itself. If the state then loses more and more revenue, then the people will suffer and the state health and food stamp programs, civil services, fire, police etc. etc. will be affected. Those will have an affect on life expectancy and poverty rates as well.
Looks like poverty rates are also higher in red states than blue states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate
Looks like people in blue states are also better educated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_educational_attainment
Obviously, you are not educated enough to avoid using wikipedia as a reference source.
If you have better links please list them.
sooo to cappy some internet LINK is the “truth” except when a conservative provides one, then it is BS
Those who CAN do
those who CANT “teach”
What you should key in on is that DC has nearly 3 times the national average of graduate degrees. As they do nothing but government there, it is almost certain that these are law degrees…or degrees which are completely worthless, except in places where government is the primary source of income. We must also exclude Maryland and Virginia, because most of those graduate degrees are really just DC graduate degrees who are living in the environs of DC. Massachusetts has MIT, and so has a much higher number of graduate degrees simply because if you want to make money with a graduate degree in the hard sciences, you need to go to those few institutions which value such a thing. So, off to MIT you go.
And, so, let’s get down to brass tacks – why does California have only an insignificant percentage more graduate degrees than Kansas?
Mark,
What you should key on is that people in red states die sooner, have a higher rate of poverty, are more likely to get pregnant as teenagers, and are less educated than people in blue states.
“What you should key on is that people in red states die sooner, have a higher rate of poverty, are more likely to get pregnant as teenagers, and are less educated than people in blue states.”
Yeah Mark, the other stuff is less important….. so what if a state cannot support itself, the programs fail to help the people, teen birth rates go up, civil services and protections get cut, etc. etc.
Only focus on the stuff that can be spun as a positive and ignore the fact that progressivism is a fiscal failure.
Not actually – the data are skewed because of a few very well off areas in blue States. Areas that are mostly well off because they are subsidized by the rest of the nation, it should be noted (NYC has been doing well, for instance, only because of the trillions showered on the financial industry over the past 5 years by the Federal reserve…as far as a trading center goes, it has fallen behind New Orleans and Houston – and as exports go, it also stands behind Long Beach, Hampton Roads, Portland, Tacoma and Charleston). Political connections explains the wealth of the bluest areas of the nation, not actual produced goods contributing to the national wealth. But, with bags of money comes more education (even though all education outside of the hard sciences is useless in 99% of the cases, these days), better access to health care and all the rest. I’ll bet that if we excluded San Francisco, Manhattan and the wealthiest areas of Los Angeles county we’d find that it is reversed – that blue States have the much higher rate of social pathology.
No, that’s what YOU think YOU need to key on (sic).
You seem pretty impressed by your quoted stats, cappy—why? What do you think they mean?
And BTW, you are all the proof we need that a degree does not mean “educated”.
dbschmidt
You don’t like the other links try this one. Teenage birth rates. Notice a pattern?
http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/state-data/state-comparisions.asp?id=3&sID=18
“Teenage birth rates. Notice a pattern?”
A while ago, crusty presented that same crap about high teen birth rates in red states and blue states that gave contraceptives – Mississippi was the worst while New Hampshire was the best. The sad fact was that with easy access contraceptives, New Hampshire had a much higher ABORTION RATE (which would reduce the rate of teen pregnancies) while Mississippi had lower abortion rate.
The particulars:
New Hampshire abortion rate according to the Guttmacher institute is 12.3 per thousand women aged 15-44.
Missisippis abortion rate, according to the Guttmacher Institute is 4.6 per thousand women aged 15-44.
crusty had to dismiss the data as a simple anomaly.
Again, all these social programs will be for nought if the state cannot support itself. Why is it that the BLUE states are at the bottom of the list?
“Not actually – the data are skewed because of a few very well off areas in blue States. Areas that are mostly well off because they are subsidized by the rest of the nation”
Actually, it’s the Red states that are being subsidized by the rest of the nation.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps
cappy, that “source” does not look at the big picture. It is based on for every tax dollar paid compared to what they get back. Are you trying to tell me that Alaska receives more total federal tax dollars than California? I don’t think so! The only way to fudge the numbers is exactly the way it was done in your “source”.
No matter how Mother Jones (snort!) tries to spin it, wealthy liberal state are fiscally in the hole. And all your “numbers” (that are important to proggies to make them feel good about themselves) won’t mean squat when the financial floor falls out from under them. They are on a path to failure as the thread shows. You need to cherry pick and spin the data to get “plusses” for your side.
One more time…………You seem pretty impressed by your quoted stats, cappy—why? What do you think they mean?
“Actually, it’s the Red states that are being subsidized by the rest of the nation.”
And it’s the blue states that want to expand these subsidies and will fight any effort to stop the increase…. details….details…
You want them to stop their vote buying schemes?
sounds like cappy is drinking the forkers and mitches cool aid. I have never seen a more ridiculous assessment in my life….one has to look no further to see the better educated more successful blue staters than detroit, new orleans, liberty city, harlem, s. central la, etc etc etc etc etc.
hey cappy hows about you do a breakdown of those on welfare, food stamps, wik, EBT cards, ect ect ect and the 47% who pay NO federal taxes……make two categories donks and GOP…
the donks being blue and GOP being red..
cappys rendition of “blue” states……
Yes, just imagine — as long as you agree with my politics. And see the Huffington Post essay on this issue by James Boyce who invokes the eighth commandment: “Thou shall not steal.” Steal? How can one steal when everyone owns everything? In a socialist world where there are no possessions there can be no theft. The problem is there are no socialists there either. There are only socialist pretenders and they are capitalists all.
The Marxian commandment “to each according to his need,” is perhaps the most imbecilic aphorism ever conceived. Without capitalism there can be no progress because there is no capital to invest. Without capitalism there can be no charity because there is no wealth to charitably distribute. Ah, but the socialist/communist responds, “with such a principle there is no need to redistribute because everyone already has what they need.” Think so? Then why did Leonid Breshnev need an antique car collection while Soviet gospodins stood in line for bread and meat? The answer is simple: They help themselves first. Capitalists all — each and every one!
Anthony Benvin is a former university professor and has worked for over twenty-four years in the financial services industry.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/02/deconstructing_the_socialists.html#ixzz2slN5xuWG
strange cappy if for MURDERING his future pupils. what a guy!
“Social issues have produced an even starker dividing line between red and blue states.
Abortion wars in Texas drew national attention this summer when state Sen. Wendy Davis (D) filibustered against a bill to restrict abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The filibuster helped launch Davis to a candidacy for governor in 2014. But in conservative Texas, she and her allies ultimately failed to block enactment of the bill, which was championed by Gov. Rick Perry (R) and the GOP-controlled legislature.
Texas was hardly alone among red states in moving to restrict abortion rights. Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion issues across the country, said that in 2013 there were 64 restrictions approved in the states. Of those, 53 were in states where Republicans control both the legislature and the governor’s office. Ten came in states where the Republicans have partial control of the government.
“In general, if there is Republican control, then abortion restrictions are on the table and able to be enacted,” she wrote in an e-mail. “When Democrats are in charge then abortion restrictions are not very likely.” Nash noted that California was the only state to approve expanded access to abortion services.
full article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/red-blue-states-move-in-opposite-directions-in-a-new-era-of-single-party-control/2013/12/28/9583d922-673a-11e3-ae56-22de072140a2_story.html
Casper,
Mother Jones is not an actually reliable source for things like this. Also, the numbers cited stop in 2005. By my calculation, that was 9 years ago.
What your missing is the crucial aspect of all of this – the reason there are more federal income taxes collected in California and New York is because there are vastly more very rich people in those areas…but they are rich not because the make, mine and grow things (as they do in Texas, which is, by the way, also a State which pays more in taxes than it gets in benefits), but because they work in areas subsidized by the government. What is not worked in to the data of your link is the money that the Federal Reserve pours, for free, into our major financial institutions, which then turn about and provide very high salaries to their senior executives, who then pay buckets of income tax money. It goes on and on like that – a person drawing a $300,000.00 a year salary for his work at UC Santa Barbara isn’t counted as getting federal benefits but he is counted in the federal tax receipts, and he pays quite a lot…but the fact of the matter is that he wouldn’t get $300,000.00 per year absent federal subsidies for higher education. Move Santa Barbara’s college to Sparks, NV and transfer Wall Street to Winnemucca, and you’ll immediately see that Nevada pays far more in federal taxes than it receives in federal benefits. But this is not blue States subsidizing red States. That is an elitist bit of nonsense cooked up by liberals who like to think that the nation would just fall apart without them. Trust me on this, San Francisco and New York City fall in to the ocean tomorrow, some how or another we’d all struggle through…
The red states are being subsidized by the rest? I’ll give ya a little hint. Take all that Federal money that is going to the Red states now subtract what is being spent on the military and you will get a truer picture of who gets what.
Just as another little exercise in reality get a list of all military installations in CONUS. You will find that the overwhelming majority of them are in Red States.
Providing for the “Common Defense” It’s in the Constitution. Providing for a longer life span is not.
Still no explanation of what significance casper finds in his numbers.
But then, he IS a Lefty (supporting issues instead of the tyrannical political system hiding behind them, but a vote is a vote) so really, all that matters is the WORDS.
Cappy is always quick to ask questions, demand answers and sources, but never seems to reply in kind.
The numbers make him feel good and to a lefty that is all that matters.
Cappy is always quick to ask questions, demand answers and sources, but never seems to reply in kind.
Tired, I think that’s just the way the Liberal mind works. I’m sure in Casper’s mind, being better educated and living longer somehow takes the sting out of all the bad things wrought by Progressivism.
But here we come back to the same old problem, that of Liberals depending on words instead of definitions. We see here how they scurry away from defining anything. But they sure do like those words.
So they mount insanely passionate arguments and fights, not for actual equal treatment of homosexual couples but for a single WORD.
They sucker young people into going tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt for EDUCATION, uncaring that these people get no actual knowledge for their bucks. But they have the word.
They hoot and holler about the eeeevil “conservatives” but they have no clue as to what a conservative is. Nor do they care. They have the word.
They preen about being “progressive” but are completely ignorant of the ideology of the Progressive movement, its agendas or its unbroken history of failure and misery. But they don’t care. They have the word.
casper has a degree. Maybe two. He takes a class every now and then. And because of this he considers himself EDUCATED in spite of the fact that he knows so little. And, as the true purpose of higher education is less to impart facts than it is to teach people how to think, what he considers his superior education is clearly an abysmal failure. He is nothing but a lockstep puppet, without even the slightest ability to think for himself—and worse, without the understanding of why this would be so important, or the inclination to try.
but he has his word.
They preen about being “progressive” but are completely ignorant of the ideology of the Progressive movement
Amazona, I think most Leftists would be hard-pressed to identify the underlying lynch pin of the Progressive movement, that the Federal Government is allowed to do anything that is not specifically prohibited by the Constitution — completely ignoring the Tenth Amendment. At the dawn of the progressive movement, the only way they could implement this principle, and I use the word “principle” loosely, was to have the courts veer away from originalist thinking and begin relying on legal precedent as a way to modify the Constitution without that pesky amendment procedure. That was the beginning of the end for the Constitution. That would be akin to my taking a card from your hand in a game of poker, on the assumption that, because Hoyle doesn’t specifically prohibit it, it’s OK. Then, if you let me get away with it, it sets a precedent that doesn’t go away — until I pull my trusty derringer from my vest pocket and shoot you in the face, heh.
I understand the need of Progressives to try to twist the Constitution to mean something must be specifically prohibited within it to be disallowed to the federal government. And I suppose that if the Constitution stood alone with no supporting documentation, no contemporaneous writings of the Founders, no historical context, no explanation of the Constitution after it was written when people asked questions about it, it might be possible to make this assumption.
But the very structure of the thing denies this assumption. The Constitution itself sets out what the federal government must do. The Bill of Rights says what it cannot do. The 10th Amendment ties it all up neatly, saying that if something is not delegated, nor prohibited, it is up to the states or the people. The only way Progressives can cling to their wildly distorted view is to simply ignore the entire Bill of Rights, not just the 10th Amendment, because the very existence of the Bill of Rights is proof of the balance demanded by the people at the time the Constitution was written—-that it not just say what had to be done, because some people might think that meant they could add to the duties of the government, but that it also say what it could NOT do, to firmly establish boundaries.
There is such an abundance of contemporaneous writings explaining in such detail not just the actual wording of the Constitution but the thoughts and reasoning and arguments and debates that formed the basis of each clause, the only way for Progressives to make their argument is to just ignore it all, look at the document itself as an isolated stand-alone document with no context, and then invent a far-fetched interpretation of that document that depends on, I guess, the belief that it does not contain more delegated responsibilities because someone got writer’s cramp or something. They seem to picture the Founders saying “Well, we’ve got 17—that’s a good start, and future generations can finish it later, let’s take a break and grab a beer.”
But—having said all of that, I still don’t think that the self-styled Progressives like Freddie and his alter egos even have that much understanding of the foundation of Progressivism. After all, its ideology is one of the subjugation of the individual in favor of the glory of the collective—they just get around objections to this on Constitutional grounds by reinterpreting the Constitution.
A derringer? Really? Which reminds me—I shot my Air Weight and didn’t much like it. I’m trying to get in to try the White Rhino. But pah! I speeet upon your toy gun!
A derringer? Really?
Sorry, a tongue-in-cheek reference to poker games in the old west, not to any weapon I actually own.
Which reminds me—I shot my Air Weight and didn’t much like it.
I know you like the White Rhino, but, if you can find one, you might want to check this one out.
Heh – “women and older shooters” — I love it.
Actually, I did get the derringer reference.
I went to your link, I liked the comment about it being easier to rack the slide (skipping over the totally irrelevant “older” comment) but what I really got out of the article is—- It hurts your hand.
If it hurts your hand when you shoot, you won’t practice, and if you don’t practice you might as well carry a brick. My instructor for my concealed carry class carries an Air Weight and even he said to practice with a different gun, because you sure won’t like practicing with this one.
I thought this was a great article on the Rhino, especially because he compares it to the same Air Weight I have. I know you like semi-automatics but unless and until I feel really really proficient with one, to the point of everything being absolutely second nature, the revolver is the gun for me.
And the WR is just so darned COOL—which is, you have to admit, a major consideration.
http://thedentalwarrior.com/2011/12/30/gun-review-the-ugliest-coolest-gun-ever-chiappa-rhino/
Yeah, I should have read the entire review on the R51 before linking to it — my bad. I’ve read several other reviews that were very positive. The R51 just began shipping last week, so, if the initial consumer response is negative, Remington may decide on some modifications.
BTW, my personal carry weapon is also a revolver, although for target shooting, I prefer a semi-auto.
February 10, 2014
Obama’s Loafer Nation = (donk blue staters)
By Ed Lasky
President Obama has broken many promises. One that he has not broken is his boast that he would “fundamentally transform America.” He and his fellow Democrats are on the verge of doing just that by turning us into a nation of loafers.
A loafer is an idle person who lives off others. Barack Obama seemingly has no problem with such people. He might even relate to them. He does have a serious problem with his own work ethic, and finds work boring. He also denigrates the work of others who build businesses through dint of hard work and risk-taking (“You didn’t build that”); talks incessantly of “fat cats” on Wall Street; embraced the Occupy Wall Street Movement of squatters and pumped up their own inflated self-importance by telling them “You are the reason I ran for office”; and accuses doctors of running up the tab by, among other evils, taking tonsils out for money instead of diagnosing problems as allergies). He has yet to speak critically of union leaders, class action lawyers and others who run up the tab for all Americans because they are, after all, the Democratic Base.
But Obama and his Democratic Party allies seem to be gleeful about the rise of the loafer class. Recent revelations from the Congressional Budget Office bear witness to this phenomenon.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/02/obamas_loafer_nation.html#ixzz2sv1Szn36
Neo, excellent article. Ed Laskey succeeds in hitting just about every aspect of our national nightmare.
Spook
yes he does,
by the way, tired spanked the loons over at site X the other day a real hoot!
Well neo, it did not take them long to ban me from their blog! Mitchie, of course, readily lost control of his mind (and his bladder). I am sure after a night of binge drinking. He reverted to his usual, “you just have blind rage and pathological hatred for the President” nonsense when he can’t apply the dumbed down talking points and the party ideology to my arguments and facts. He especially took as a threat to my post that essentially said “if you don’t like the answer then don’t ask the question”. When I said it wasn’t a threat, only sage advice he called me “f****g nuts” and banned me. Now he is all smiles……
…but still a coward. The others promptly clammed up when I answered their assertions. They would jump from subject to subject hoping to get me with little pathetic gotchas. But once bored with the continuing effort, they clammed up and jumped to something else.
Of course in the end, they ridiculed most of my posts since it was riddled with auto-corrections and typos from typing on a small screen with my large fingers. And mitchie had to get his dig in on Palin at the same time. Pretty pathetic.
tired, surely you are not surprised.
When people flock to a personality, and become part of that personality cult, as the Obamabots have, it is all based on blind emotion. Lacking the experience of having made objective analytical decisions based on objective analytical facts, when we try to explain this to them they are completely adrift, because we are speaking an alien language, using alien concepts. So they have to redraft everything to make it fit into the very narrow basis for their own decisions, which is blind emotion.
As our position is contrary to theirs, our emotions must be the opposite, as well—or so the knee-jerk reaction goes—-so if theirs is passionate love and approval, based solely on emotion, our MUST be passionate hatred and rejection, based solely on emotion.
Every now and then a Lib will break out of the pack. A synapse will fire differently, and a new perception will intrude on the clutter of feelings. When this spark occurs, it can start a whole new way of looking at the world, and when this happens the birth of a new conservative is often the end result,
With me it was the reaction of the so-called feminists when an idol of theirs was accused of assaults on women. The entire script for assault on women—-no means no, even a prostitute can be raped, it is wrong to drag a woman’s sexual history into an investigation of rape, rape is an act of violence not of sex, we have to listen to and believe women when they say they have bee assaulted—–all went out the window in a heartbeat, and the alleged defenders of women started defending their Rapist of Choice with comments like “She’s too ugly to rape”. That was my spark to look differently at the rhetoric of the Left, and it led to studying the true history of the Left, but it started with just a glimpse of the fact that maybe I was wrong.
With David Horowitz it was the murder of his secretary by the Black Panthers, and the refusal of the Leftist defenders of the Panthers to take it seriously.
Everyone has a different spark. I think what all former Libs have in common is the moral decency to WANT to be right, and the integrity to admit when they are wrong.
These are what I find lacking in the Libs I meet and talk with. There is no deep desire to be right, and there is not the courage to admit to the possibility of being wrong. When a position is based on thought and objective analysis, one can admit to mistakes. It’s like saying you bought a certain kind of car based on the information you had, but when you discovered that the information was wrong and you made a bad choice all you have to do is buy a different car. But when a position is based on emotional commitment it becomes part of a person’s identity, and admitting to error is very very threatening because it undermines that identity. This is why we run into the shrill hysteria we encounter when we try to talk to Libs. We are talking about facts, but all they perceive is that we are attacking who and what they are AS PEOPLE, and they fight with all they have to defend those identities.
I liked George W. Bush. I thought he was a decent human being doing what he thought was the right or best thing at the time. So I was able to disagree with him on some things without wading into the feverswamp of all-out personal attacks, seething loathing of him as a person, etc. When did we ever hear anyone from the Left act as if he was anything but the spawn of Satan, pure evil and without any redeeming characteristics at all? I don’t remember anything like this. No, they had a knee-jerk reaction against anything he ever said or did, because it came from him, and their personal hatred of him was so overreaching that it colored every single word he said, every action; even just the fact that he existed drove them into a frenzy of rage.
Naturally they think we are like them, we think the way they do, we base our opinions on the same blind emotion they do. I once asked a Lib why Dems had such HATRED for Bush, and the answer was “After the way you all hated Clinton so much, this is just fair.” ??????? I never hated Clinton. I just strongly disagreed with his political ideology and his vision for America, and thought he was bad for the country.
But this is the lens through which the Left views the world, and we can’t change that. All we can do is offer enough information to, maybe, spark one of those rogue synapses.
“tired, surely you are not surprised.”
Not at all, It was expected. But, I am surprised that I was able to post as long as I did. Mitchie has a hatred for all things conservative and makes no secrets about it. No matter what obame has done, these drones defended him at all turns. Don’t you dare criticize him regardless if he did worse things Bush than did (Patriot Act). Obama expanded the Patriot Act to the point that our 4th Amendment rights are violated every day with warrantless wire taps. At first these mindless drones denied that the NSA was monitoring communications. Once I showed them that was indeed the case, the spin came from another direction and they still blamed Bush for the Patriot Act to begin with.
Another, was where obame was not enforcing his own “signature health plan” by putting in waivers and extensions. Their response – there is nothing in the law to stop him from doing so regardless of the specific dates as to the starting of the next phase. The list is endless. There is nothing obame can do that will change the minds of these drones.
tired, I think you can turn off “auto correct”, which is just a different name for “auto mangle”. I got tired of trying to type “agreed” and having it come out “aggressive”, etc. It’s kind of handy when it supplies an apostrophe where needed, but all in all I prefer to make my own mistakes.
One of the strangest things I ever encountered similar to this was when my left arm was in a cast and I installed a text-to-type program on my computer. I programmed it—you read a text and you are told, with green or red lights on the screen if the computer recognizes the words, and you keep doing this till the program says it knows what you are saying. I made a point of speaking slowly and clearly. And I got the most mangled, incomprehensible gibberish possible.
“Dear Patsy, I hope you are feeling better after your accident” would get turned into “door pot she I hope few raw peeling after beer incident”. I had my husband and a friend try it, getting it programmed for their voices and inflections and pronunciations, and they had the same experience. Between that and auto correct (if you want to see auto correct go bats**t, try texting to someone named Vladimir) I got pretty fed up with technological “advances”. (Though I recently got a long email from someone who had spoken it into her phone and it was remarkably coherent—maybe that particular technology has gotten better.)
“How do the clever Beltway Republicans and their consultants explain how Ronald Reagan won two consecutive landslide election victories, doing the opposite of what they say is the only way for Republicans to win elections?”
“If you think human beings are always rational, it becomes impossible to explain at least half of history.”
-Thomas Sowell
Just a couple from Random thoughts on the passing scene
John Hawkins brings up the 5 virtues that Liberals take to the extreme;
1) Tolerance
2) Compassion
3) Being nice
4) Self-Esteem
5) Diversity
of course a couple they they don’t is self-reflection or understanding of their ideology.
Then again 5 Virtues That Liberals Take To The Extreme is equally interesting to my previous post.
I don’t know who John Hawkins is, but he seems to be buying into the rhetoric about Lefties and ignoring the reality.
Tolerance? Only toward a very limited and narrow range of acceptable politics, religions, and beliefs.
Compassion and Being Nice? See above. All we have to do is look at the Libs who post here to see what a disconnect there is between the self-satisfied image of tolerance, etc., and how so many Libs actually act.
Self Esteem? Oh, yeah. They are just bubbling over with self-esteem, being so busy patting themselves on the back for their niceness and tolerance and compassion and all. That and SAVING THE WORLD contribute to buckets full of self esteem. However, there is no need to link feeling good about yourself to actually producing or accomplishing. You just have to think the right things.
Diversity? Oh, give me a break. They define “diversity” as, once again, a narrow and limited range of acceptable characteristics. Ask a Lib about diversity of political opinion and see how much “diversity” they are willing to “tolerate”. And they prize the illusion of “diversity” over everything. Again, it’s all about a word.
liberals ideology simple
marxism
alinsky
cloward pivens
communist manifesto
neo, I do not agree with your list of the ideology of Liberals.
First, most Liberals have no ideology at all. They are driven by blind emotion, manipulated into making decisions based on how they FEEL about certain “issues”. There is not a hint of awareness of even the most basic ideology of the Left.
Just look at poor sap Freddy’s passionate listing of all the anticipated results of the triumph of Progressivism—-every single one of them is the exact opposite of the actual ideology of the Progressive Movement. He is a hardcore Lefty, and votes that way (or will when he is old enough) but he is utterly clueless about any of the things you mention.
“Alinsky” is not an ideology—it is a strategy for achieving the goals of an ideology. Ditto for the agenda of Cloward and Pivens. Do you really think that the average Lefty Lemming can explain either of these strategies? Do you think they would agree with them once they are explained? If so, why don’t any of the Lefties who have blogged here defend them?
They don’t defend them because they don’t understand them, and most don’t even know they exist.
Marxism is explained in the Communist Manifesto. Have you ever met a Lefty who has read this? Have you ever met one who can explain it? Who will defend it?
No, while a few at the top do have an understanding of the ideology of the Left, I think that the vast majority of those who vote D do so without a clue as to the ideology they are supporting, being motivated instead by blind emotion. Some do it because that emotion is purely negative, a knee-jerk hatred of what they have been told is the evils of “conservatism” (or its representative, such as Bush or Palin) or an equally knee-jerk support of some “issue” that has been dangled in front of them as bait.
It does go on a bit like that for the left. I knew a very nice and well educated woman who was going to vote for Gore over Bush in 2000 because Gore would surely lower the tax burden on middle class working people like her…also, of course, Bush and the Republicans were all racist, anyways. She sincerely believed this. She believed that Gore would do the opposite of what he promised to do…because she was told, and believed, that Democrats care about people like her…
“…she was told, and believed, that Democrats care about people like her…”
Which goes back to the success of the Left in emotional manipulation. In this case, in convincing people that the purpose of government is to “care about people like her”. But the purpose of our form of government is to provide an umbrella of protection for all under it, so they have the freedom to make their own decisions—to care about everyone, in making sure everyone has the same protections, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities.
When you cast a vote for a government because you believe it cares about you and people like you, you are casting a vote for a nanny state which then takes on, with your permission, all sorts of responsibilities which you might not want taken from your own control. It is also a vote for a government which divides citizens into classes and treats those classes differently. She was happy with the idea of Gore because she thought her class would benefit by electing him, with the subtext of “and who cares about the other classes of people.”
And the relative benevolence of a nanny state quickly evolves into a less benign, more intrusive, more controlling Big Brother state. Always. It is a natural and inevitable progression.
A few years ago when Colorado was thinking of making homosexuals a protected class, a friend who was a 40-year-old divorced Italian woman said she would not vote for the proposed law, nor would she vote for anything that gave any special status to 40-year-old divorced Italian women. It’s not about the class, it’s about the principle.
Back to your friend. Obviously it would not have worked to tell her that she was wrong about Gore, but she might have been a little more receptive to the idea that a well-run government which follows the Constitution and treats everyone the same, and which leaves most of the authority in the hands of the states and the people, would by definition have a fairer tax code FOR EVERYONE because the government would be restrained in its scope.
As for “…Bush and the Republicans were all racist, anyways…” well, you just can’t fix stupid.
Whenever I hear of anyone buying into this crap, I am aware that the meme only appeals to people who are, themselves, inherently bigoted, and just looking for a class or group to identify as the target of their bigotry and intolerance. Intelligent and reasonable people reject this kind of vicious and vile slander, but there are always some who prove to be eager recipients of this kind of toxic mental sludge, and I have the same contempt for them as I do for real racists.
Kind of brings me to a radio show I was listening to on my way home from work today–I believe it was Rush who I am badly paraphrasing here. The primary difference between the US and even countries like in the EU is that the philosophy is that everything is illegal until the King, the government or the State declares that is legal whereas in America, we are born learning that everything is legal until some law is enacted making it illegal. It is a major difference that Americans are gifted with from our founders.
Ama
seems we disagree….. 🙂
From another site…loved it.
“Grand Old Party?, hell no, Gutless Other Party.
Ama
I believe a whole lot more know what leftism really is…it is revolution and is preached in every high school, college, innercity “church” , donk meetings…the revolution of change against evil corporations, Christians, whites, elderly,…. all racist, bigot, homophobes who want to keep the underclass down….the terms? most dont, but they know the workings inside and out nomenclature or not.
But those are all “issues” not ideology.
Which is why I think we need to stop talking about issues, because issues are usually emotion-based and therefore subject to the skillful manipulation of the Left to get people all wound up about things that have nothing to do with how the government is run.
As for some of the things you mention, I think they are limited to a relatively small number of noisemakers. The average guy on the street who pulls a lever for “D” is not against Christians, or white people, or corporations. He is just a well-meaning guy so naive he can’t believe that the press would say all those things about the Right if they weren’t true, who has a personal emotional connection to one of the Leftist “issues”.
He is one of the vast majority who says he hates politics, who won’t discuss politics, who is turned off by the bickering, but who has a vague idea of what he would like to see happen in one or two areas of his life.
Do I think he is really really stupid, if he voted for Obama a second time? You bet I do. I am ticked off at him for being such a dunce and for doing this to the country. Do I think he did it to help further the agenda of Cloward and Pivens? No. Do I think he did it because he believes in the Communist Manfesto? No. Do I think he did it because he admires Saul Alinsky? No. Do I think he did it because he yearns for a massively powerful Central Authority that can and will control his entire life? No. Do I think he did it to support a “revolution”? No. Do I think he hates Christians? No. Do I think he hates white people? No.
Do I think he would say, if asked, does he believe in and support the Constitution? Yes. Do I think he has ever read the Constitution? No, at least not since he was in school. Do I think he understands what it says and why it was written the way it was? No way. Do I think he even knows what the Bill of Rights is, or why it was put together and ratified? No. Do I think he realizes that the current regime is trampling on the Constitution and violating it ten ways from Sunday? Finally, I can say a tentative “yes”.
And this is where we have to focus.
The problem is not the Left. The Left is what it is, and what it always has been. The problem is that we have had such a poor response to the Left that we have allowed it to take over so much of our system that it is now a lot harder to get our message out. The good news is that our message is better and will resonate—if we can only find a way to communicate it.
Which is why I think we need to stop talking about issues, because issues are usually emotion-based and therefore subject to the skillful manipulation of the Left to get people all wound up about things that have nothing to do with how the government is run.
Hmmm the donks have done VERY well on issues since the 1960’s. we havent WE LOST!
Neo,
I do not believe we have lost but do need to take a new tact which is exactly what Ama is saying. I have stopped many a conversation ~ or not stopped but redirected ~ by just saying something like “Where exactly is [topic] covered in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any of the founding documents?” Changes the direction of the original topic quickly–towards one we can easily win on.
db
Semper Fi;
but when the constitution is mentioned peoples eyes glaze over, and mostly dont give a damn, because they were taught lies.
You cant un brainwash people by quoting the constitution, that should be PART of the equation as should morality, family, God, hard work and perseverance.
Quoting the second amendment till the cows come home have got us our collective asses kicked on gun control laws ALL which are un constitutional in mho.
Ignoring radical islam, homosexuality, racism, socalism, etc etc etc by saying YEAH BUT it isnt in the constitution ad nausiun has, and will get us steamrolled.
Patton read Rommells book, used it to know his enemy and how to counter him. Their books are marx, alinsky, GLADD, planned parenthood….good luck quoting the constitution.
“Hmmm the donks have done VERY well on issues since the 1960′s. we havent WE LOST!”
…so we should keep doing the same thing hoping it will turn out different this time?
Gee, what does THAT sound like?
The Left OWNS “issues”. So why not leave them to their issues and go where they are afraid to go—–government?
Sure, if you just stick out your chin and start to lecture about the Constitution eyes will glaze over. You think you will get a better response if you start telling people they are immoral? If you tell people that your way is the only way? If you just run around flapping your hands and yelling “ALINSKY!!! MARXISM!!! CLOWARD AND PIVENS!!!” Yeah, that’s going to win a lot of people over.
It is possible to get the message out, especially with the boost given to us by the over-confident Left, which has read the tea leaves wrong and is now busy putting their collective feet in it. They do not see the election of Obama as mass stupidity or Fan Club hysteria. They actually see it as a mandate to impose the radical Leftist ideology that Obama has been so careful to never actually explain or even acknowledge, and a lot of people are now saying “Whoa! THAT’S not what I voted for!”
Everyone can understand the principle of choosing between a federal government severely restricted as to size, scope and power, with most authority vested in the states or in the people, vs an infinitely expandable Central Authority with no reins on the scope of its power. That is where I start. And now that people can start to see that the promises of the huge Central Authority, to solve all problems and take care of all people, simply cannot be met, it is easier than it was when it was all abstract and blue sky.
db, I got a lot more accomplished by telling Libs I know that I think socialized medicine is just fine, that if people want their government to pay their doctors they have every right to vote to make that happen—-but that it has to be at the state level because the Constitution does not delegate health care to the federal government. By not arguing against the idea of health care paid for by someone else—-which you have to admit is a pretty attractive idea—–but by pointing out that it just has to be done legally, a lot of argument is stopped then and there.
Following up with the observation that no two states are alike, no two states have the same health concerns and medical needs (except maybe North and South Dakota, which seem to me to be pretty much one and the same…) so it just makes more sense to have each state determine and administer what is best for it, seems to move into discussion a lot better than just trying to shoot down the whole idea. People are not stupid, and they easily get the idea that oversight is more effective at a more local level, that costs will be less when administered locally, and so on. They understand that One Size Does Not Fit All. Once you start to talk about the very different health care needs of a state with an older population, like Florida, compared to a state with a younger and more athletic population, like Colorado, you can actually get into a discussion, and it then follows that mention of the 10th Amendment is a natural thing to happen.
The natural progression of such a discussion always is “But our taxes here would have to go up if the state took on health care costs” and that leads right into “But that’s the point—the whole tax schedule is upside down. The federal government is legally only supposed to have 17 delegated duties, and the reason federal taxes are so high is because they keep expanding the scope of what they do. If the federal government was run according to the Constitution, the national tax rate would be a third of what it is now, and the state could double its own, and it would all run a lot better.”
People are often willing to talk about politics, if they feel they can be heard. And starting off with not arguing with them about what they want and just suggesting that there is a better way to accomplish it works a whole lot better than just telling them they are wrong and their ideas are socialist.
Ama,
That is where I was heading. In the normal course of conversation–I don’t stop the actual conversation but gently (as gentle as a Marine can be) redirect it to a Federal vs. States issue. I do not try to give anyone a lecture on the Constitution but just the overview. I have had quite a few ask more but then I send them to Hillsdale and it has had worked out better for them than Casper.
Most everyone agrees that they do not want a larger, centralized government in DC but rather the closer to home and to the people style of government that could serve them better. Most do not like even the fact that Raleigh is our State level base of power for the entire State of NC. Boone & Ashville (both great places to live or visit) are not always served as well from the other side of the State.
Quite often it turns to taxes, which I understand are inevitable, but I point out we should only be paying State taxes and the States should be fueling whatever form of Federal government we the people decide to have. Personally, I would like the Federal government to be more like Texas where they convene every two years to do the people’s business and then adjourn.
It goes all over the map and I am not against discussion but more for making it productive. I do not engage quite a few people because ever sentence starts with “Them evil Republicans crushed…” Those folks are worthless low-info types. Big one here as of late is Gov. McCrory giving teachers a higher base rate of pay to help get good teachers. Or his idea of merit pay versus tenure. (Casper–explain why elementary school teachers need tenure.) Both are shot down as destroying the educational system but these folks never complained about the previous 28 years of Dimmicrats at the governorship or the previous 120+ years under full Dimmicrat control.
I just like to add an option and new perspective to any conversation–one that hasn’t been heard in quite some time. Now, I need to see about a visit to Monticello before my brother leaves. Maybe in April when the guided tours are also available.
dbschmidt, Moderators do not usually correct posts but we feel that your use of the word “genitally” was meant to be “gently” so we have corrected that. If you meant to say “genitally” please say so and it will be returned to the way you wrote it. // Moderator
and a lot of people are now saying “Whoa! THAT’S not what I voted for!”
A WHOLE LOT! Particularly young people, who voted overwhelmingly for Obama. As most of you know, I listen to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, although not as much since I retired. I also like the local guy who comes on after Rush from 3-6. All three of them have been getting numerous calls lately from people asking the same question: why can’t any of our elected officials do anything about Obama’s constant ignoring, breaking, bending or re-writing of the law? One caller yesterday came up with what I think is a workable solution — massive civil disobedience, instigated by public service announcements funded by organizations like Freedom Works, Club for Growth and American Enterprise Institute. Something along the lines of “President Obama has no authority to make such and such a change in (fill in the blank), and you have no obligation to obey it. Sort of a reverse Cloward & Pivin strategy, if you will — overwhelm the legal system. Absent the development of any kind of spine on the part of legislators, I don’t see a whole lot of other options.
One caller yesterday came up with what I think is a workable solution — massive civil disobedience
Talk about a prescient comment.
Damn auto correct. I really need to re-read everything more closely. Thanks to the Shadow/Moderator. Job well done by one who did it poorly.
hell even these people wipe their noses with the constitution….
February 12, 2014
Is the GOP Already Dead?
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/02/is_the_gop_already_dead.html#ixzz2t8ukRVfb
Yet the greatest error is that Republicans have already been following the “fiscal issues only” approach. So politicos misdiagnosis the situation. Republican insiders are so stuck on a broken record that they are not aware of events on the ground. The party’s challenge lies in its failure to handle the media and respond effectively to attacks and smears.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/lou_dobbs_drinks_the_insider_kool-aid.html#ixzz2t911to8l
—————————————————————————————————————-
YUP!!
“To: Moseley
“Low taxes and less spending in Sodom and Gomorrah is not my idea of a conservative victory”
11 posted on Monday, January 13, 2014 7:31:35 PM by icwhatudo”
but but but the constitution……..
(black thugs) = ***Teens*** run wild during Florida State Fair’s first Friday
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/teens-run-wild-during-florida-state-fairs-first-friday/2164974
The article and the video did not say anything about the race of the teens. We have been down this road before. Please control your need to make comments about race. //Moderator
we were discussing social issues, this happened in my back yard and YES the article does divulge the demographics of the rioters.
I personally know people who were there when this took place, and YES it happens almost every year.
I made no comment about race I posted an article about a social issue that is an 800 lb elephant in the room.
IN the ARTICLE……………………..*********Before next year’s fair, the agency plans to coordinate with **community groups**, including Tampa’s **Pastors on Patrol**, the **NAACP** and the **Sheriff’s Black Advisory Council** to get the word out that such behavior is unacceptable —*******
please read the article before the usual screaming about alleged racism.
It was a polite comment. Yours is a rude response. We have been down this road before and all the Moderators are tired of it. Just shut up about race. You have made your point so shut up about it or go away. This is no longer a request. It is a condition of you posting here. Got it? Good. // Moderator
Ok
lets try this again…..
My intention on posting the article was to convey that our discussion of the GOP merely pointing out the relegated duties of the government to large segments of our population will get the GOP nowhere.
We pretty much know who the perps are when this type of mob behavior is exhibited, we cant stick our heads in the ground and pretend it doesnt exist, and not speaking to to the issues of behavior, class warfare, responsibility, morality, citizenship, gives us groups that are lost to modern day society.
That includes 5yo’s using the same bathrooms in california because they are gender conflicted. REALLY??? REALLY??? and we are supposed to sit down and STFU on these issues read them the constitution, states rights, and lower taxes to these groups??
Sorry but I have to agree with one of the postings from above.
“Low taxes and less spending in Sodom and Gomorrah is not my idea of a conservative victory”
Neo,
Outrage? Yes, it should be national but at the moment the best I have found is at the local level, County meetings where half the people still do not want to accept what they see and hear everyday. Until the local population starts to see it as an outrage–national is off the radar. On the national radar are things like gay marriage and amnesty for illegals. IMHO, marriage is between a man and a woman period (unlike Obama, I mean period) and illegals, and all of their kin (including anchor babies) should never be given citizenship.
The real problem is not the law or enforcement of the laws–it is the toleration or lack thereof of the general population. Laws (several levels) against Murder or killing of another human (even though some may be in name only) have not stopped people from killing each other. Laws against “x” haven’t stopped “x”.
As we get to other matters like black on black crime–the nation wants to hush everyone up (not a comment on the Moderation here) and even my local county meetings do not want to acknowledge anything of the sort. Until folks at the local level are willing to admit and confront the real issues–I do not see anything happening at the national level. It can go top down as well but the “thugs” in charge (like Rahm Emanuel) of many of America’s largest cities just want to sweep it under the rug.
Not much difference, and lack of outrage at, than conditions in Sochi, Russia, or Brazil building a wall between the poor and disenfranchised and the area of the summer Olympics.
Crap, your stomping grounds are my old stomping grounds except now I am going to have to go out in the snow to clean off my satellite dish and get to the store for an adult beverage or two.
““Low taxes and less spending in Sodom and Gomorrah is not my idea of a conservative victory””
I am always interested in how history repeats itself.
Descendants of people who came to this land and founded this country to escape tyranny in the form of a monarchy now willingly offer themselves up to a central authority with nearly unlimited scope and power, in which the head of the nation makes his own rules.
And descendants of people who came to this land and founded this country to escape religious tyranny now want to inflict their own religious beliefs on others.
I still contend that wanting to follow the Constitution, except when you don’t, does not make you a conservative just because the times you want to ignore it are in sync with what some call “conservative values”.
If you think the federal government should be allowed to expand its scope and power in areas that you like, but not in others, you are not a conservative. Period.
“And descendants of people who came to this land and founded this country to escape religious tyranny now want to inflict their own religious beliefs on others.
I still contend that wanting to follow the Constitution, except when you don’t, does not make you a conservative just because the times you want to ignore it are in sync with what some call “conservative values”.
If you think the federal government should be allowed to expand its scope and power in areas that you like, but not in others, you are not a conservative. Period.”
HUH?? WYH????
OOH you mean like mitt and 80% of the GOP….got it.
neo, you make less and less sense as time goes on, and as you let your emotions take over.
Yes, I understand that you are outraged at what you see as immorality, etc. So am I.
What comes through your posts is that you want, somehow, in a vague and incoherent manner, to have issues of morality addressed at the federal level. And I am merely pointing out that if the Constitution does not delegate matters of morality in its 17 enumerated duties, the federal government is simply not allowed to do so.
If you disagree with this, please say so and state your case.
If you think the federal government does have, or should have, some say in moral issues, then I assert that this position removes you from the rolls of Constitutional Conservatives.
If you think that you can qualify as a Constitutional Conservative and still want the federal government to exceed its 17 enumerated duties, please say so and state your case.
Incoherent babbling about Mitt Romney does nothing to make your position make any sense.
What do you think about my suggestion that perhaps—just perhaps—bringing moral issues into politics sends the message that morality can be voted on? It occurred to me that when we ask people to examine moral issues in a political context we really are kind of telling them that what is morally right really just depends on how many people vote for or against it.
And I think that is a very dangerous direction to go, and might explain some of what we see now.
I suggested that issues involving morality really ought to be kept at the state and local level, for Constitutional reasons but also because there is so much more moral pressure at the local level, from family and church and community. Morality is less anonymous at home.
If you have a Mitt/RINO comment about this, don’t bother.
If you have a Mitt/RINO comment about this, don’t bother.
so mitt care is in the constitution? or by some standards he really wasnt “conservative” after all.
neo, you make less and less sense as time goes on, and as you let your emotions take over.
my emotions?? LOL only to some, who have ESPn
seems to me the feds paved the road for homosexuals to serve openly in the military has implications on all states as each state sends sons and daughters to serve.
It is the feds forcing states to recognize same sex “marriage” performed in another state directly overides the will of the independent voters of different state.
kind of like the FEDERAL circus court ruling Christian business people MUST cater to homosexuals…..like making “wedding” cakes for them.
What do you think about my suggestion that perhaps—just perhaps—bringing moral issues into politics sends the message that morality can be voted on?
WOW…….
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=63
“seems to me the feds paved the road for homosexuals to serve openly in the military………
It is the feds forcing states to recognize same sex “marriage”…………………
kind of like the FEDERAL circus court ruling Christian business people MUST cater to homosexuals…………………….”
Exactly. This is my point. All of the above are wrong, and are examples of what happens when any one group gets to tell any other group what is legally moral. It’s what happens when government gets into the virtue game, and it’s what happens when government is put into place because people have voted on “issues” —-like gays in the military, same sex “marriage”, etc. It’s what happens when we tell people that they can vote on right and wrong, that right and wrong do not exist as absolutes but are infinitely malleable and depend on how many people agree with any given definition at any given time.
I say people should not vote on issues at all, and you say they should, just on issues you find acceptable.
I say government has no place in determining virtue, and you say it does (in spite of the Constitution) as long as it is virtue of your choice.
And your link, while probably making you feel quite smug and virtuous, has nothing at all to do with my comment.
neo, you linked to many quotes from various sources yet only one of all of them states that there should be a state religion. “No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country” from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Every other quote is about the need for religion, the need for morality, the need for a nation to be governed by moral men. Yet not one of these people says that religion, or morality, is a job for government.
Not one.
They all say that government must be supported by morality, and they sometimes say that government must support religion, but none say government must, or should, impose religion.
I wonder if you even read what you link to.
Take a look at what Oliver Ellsworth said, quoted in your link: (emphasis mine) [T]he primary objects of government are the peace, order, and prosperity of society. . . . To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support: and among these . . . religious institutions are eminently useful and important. . . . [T]he legislature, charged with the great interests of the community, may, and ought to countenance, aid and protect religious institutions—institutions wisely calculated to direct men to the performance of all the duties arising from their connection with each other, and to prevent or repress those evils which flow from unrestrained passion.”
This former chief justice of the Supreme Court, quoted in your link, makes the very clear point that government should aid, protect and promote religious institutions—-which are the sources of moral education.
I know you are quite wound up about this, and quite determined that what I am saying is that I do not think morality is important in government. But so far not one word of any response of yours has been relevant to anything I have actually said, so I guess I have to just accept the fact that you prefer to continue misunderstanding me and then arguing with your own invention, rather than actually listen to what I am saying and addressing it.
“If you have a Mitt/RINO comment about this, don’t bother.
so mitt care is in the constitution? or by some standards he really wasnt “conservative” after all.”
This is absolute gibberish. It doesn’t even come close to making any sense.
Well, I have not advocated running solely on fiscal issues. As a matter of fact, I advocate not running on issues at all, at least for Congress and the presidency.
I advocate running on government. If you run on the best way to govern the nation, the fiscal issues resolve themselves. Stick to what kind of government works best, what kind fails, and remind people that a lot of what they want you to talk about is not the business of the federal government anyway, but is restricted to state and local government.
sums it up for me….
Founding Fathers Legislated Morality
Monday, 02 Jun 2008 10:49 AM
By Pat Boone
We’ve all heard this phrase repeated over and over, haven’t we? “You can’t legislate morality!”
Well, of course this dictum is propounded mainly by a growing army of militant self-appointed legislators who don’t want anybody telling them what they can or can’t do. Increasingly, there is resistance to even any public mention of Judeo-Christian, yes biblical, prohibitions or guidelines meant to govern social and personal behavior. “Nobody, no government, should be able to enforce its ideas on other people!
“Each citizen should be able to decide for himself or herself what’s right and wrong, according to individual conscience.”
Sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? Sounds like freedom, democracy, independence, right?
Think again. Moral law, whether codified by civil law or not, is absolutely essential to any society’s survival; if history teaches us anything, it reveals that all great governments and states have disintegrated when they became corrupted with immorality — no matter how you define immorality.
Hear again the profound words of Benjamin Franklin, no hothouse plant or religious fanatic himself: “Only a moral and virtuous people are capable of freedom; the more vicious and corrupt a society becomes—the more it has need of masters.”
full article here
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Boone/founding-fathers/2008/06/02/id/323897#ixzz2tFMF4BHn
It may sum it up for you, but it tells me absolutely nothing about what role you think the federal government—now try to follow along, here, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT —-is supposed to do to make all this fine stuff happen.
And then tell me just where in the Constitution—-a document written, by the way, by the same people you quote so extensively—–the federal government is delegated anything whatsoever to do with morality.
What you are missing is that there is a big difference between understanding that a nation must be governed by moral people and demanding that its government be given the scope and authority to determine and enforce morality.
If the Founders, who so obviously felt very very strongly about the need for morality in government, felt this way and also chose not to say a word about it in the Constitution, worked so long and so hard to create the best form of government they could and still did not give that government the authority to impose any moral judgments, it’s pretty obvious that they understood the dangers inherent in such a thing.
It’s also pretty obvious that you don’t.
Yes, I know that it makes you feel all righteous and superior to quote all these writings, to lecture me on morality as if I need to be told. But it is this same sense of entitlement to make decisions for others, and to be quite willing to distort the Constitution you sometimes claim to love and support to do it, that makes me respect more every day the wisdom in omitting any reference to virtue in the document.
You may think of Pat Boone as a sage but I don’t. I find this quote to be pretty shallow. ” “Nobody, no government, should be able to enforce its ideas on other people!………Each citizen should be able to decide for himself or herself what’s right and wrong, according to individual conscience.”” Well, whoop de do. Of course this invented philosophy has absolutely nothing at all to do with anything I have been saying. I haven’t even come close to this, and it is grossly dishonest to imply that I have.
I think there have to be rules of morality. I think the family, the church, the community all play important roles in determining, teaching and enforcing moral codes. I have even said this. So do not put words in my mouth, especially mealy-mouthed words like this, which are quoted only to support a sanctimonious sense of moral superiority. It can’t be a very well-founded sense, if you have to shore it up with lies.
I also think it is hypocritical to pay lip service to respect for the Constitution out of one side of your mouth and then holler that the federal government ought to do more to —— what?
You never say. You hoot and holler, you insult, you lecture, you posture, you lay claim to the Higher Moral Ground, but somehow you dodge the question I keep asking: What part or parts of the Constitution do you think should be changed or just ignored, to go along with this big moral crusade of yours? It sounds like you would happily have the government establish a religion, or at least a moral standard, but of course this would all depend on it being one you find acceptable.
And herein lies the danger of tyranny—it only feels good when you are the one holding the upper hand.
And herein lies the danger of tyranny—it only feels good when you are the one holding the upper hand.
Tyranny?????? 200 +++++++ years of living by our founding fathers belief system, becoming the greatest civilization ever on the face of the earth, Helping, saving, freeing more people since our beginning that has walked the earth in all time before us??? No no no…..since we have left our roots beginning in the 60’s is when we begun the fast slide into sodom, and anarchy.
TODAY we are not much more than a police state attempting to maintain order with savage segments of our own population.
We have a foreign usurper, raised a communist, and muslim now in charge….YES we now have Tyranny but it is not because of Godly men, it is because we LACK of them.
You never say. You hoot and holler, you insult, you lecture, you posture, you lay claim to the Higher Moral Ground, but somehow you dodge the question
moral crusade?? DUH!
Physician heal thy self.
Pontius Pilate said to Jesus, “Do you realize I have the power to have you crucified or set free?” And Jesus replied, “You would have no power over me if it had not been given you from above”
The knowledge to be gleaned from Pilate’s question and Jesus answer, is this … governments, no matter their position of power, whether at the lowest level or the highest level, any authority they have comes from above, because even the highest level of civil government on earth is at the mercy of the One who holds All authority. And they should govern according to what His Word says. God is not tyrannical, but He expects obedience, King, Queen, President, or the guy living on nickels and dimes. If people are obedient, then He blesses them bountifully. Israel had to learn this lesson time and again.
Perhaps America would do well to elect Godly leaders, and come out of their disobedience.
Jer
Perhaps America would do well to elect Godly leaders, and come out of their disobedience.
BINGO!
“Perhaps America would do well to elect Godly leaders, and come out of their disobedience”
And just what can these "godly leaders" DO, constitutionally, to lead others "..out of their disobedience" ?
Show me a single duty of the federal government that allows leaders to determine what is “obedient” and what is not, much less that allows them to act on this decision.
Go ahead. I’ll wait.
I absolutely believe that character is a vital component of what I want in our government. I absolutely believe that I want moral people in government. No question about it. But do I want any of these examples of virtue trying to take any action, once they are in office, to lead America “..out of their disobedience”? No sirree, I do not. Because that is not their job.
And I do not want government officials determining what is and what is not “obedient”. What you guys fail to grasp is that once government steps into the arena of morality or personal belief, it is a short step to where “disobedient” means “disobedient to the government” and not to God.
And saying that it is wrong for the Left to manipulate or ignore the Constitution to achieve their own ends but it would be OK for our side to do the same because our ends are so much better, so much more moral, than theirs is not only the height of hypocrisy, it is a denial of the Constitution as the law of the land. And this means that whoever takes this position is not a conservative, but just a Liberal with a different agenda, because conservatives believe that the federal government is restricted to just what is delegated to it, and the Left thinks it should be altered to meet whatever agenda is on the table.
I think this old dead white guy had it right. His words still ring true today. Neo’s question remains more than valid.
Soddom gets the limited government and Gomorrah gets the tax breaks? The other way around?
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams
2nd President of these United States John Adams
Read the whole letter here
http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/115/Message_from_John_Adams_to_the_Officers_of_the_First_Brigade_1.html
let me see……..TEN COMMANDMENTS on the wall of the supreme court
all oaths of office SWORN on Christian bible, british common law basis of our legal system, In GOD we trust on our coins, Prayers opening all school days across the country until MMO the atheist sued and some wacko leftist judge agreed with her.
Congress opens with a prayer, etc etc etc …and they Aint mooslem, hindu, jewish prayers. I dont know why you hate the idea of our government being rooted in a Christian belief system, but that is the way it has been since the beginning.
Not so much now and we are coming apart at the seams…..I do not want to be led by preists, ministers, rabbis, but Godly, God fearing men who have bible rooted morals. If you are happy with the likes of the kennedy, klintoons, & obamas …….Ok, some of us arent.
“I dont know why you hate the idea of our government being rooted in a Christian belief system”
This constant and annoying misstatement of what I say—-what we call “lying”—is not only getting old, it is stamping you with the same stamp as our Lefty posters, who have to reframe what others say so they can create a foothold for their arguments.
But here I call you out. You are lying. You are a liar. Furthermore, I think you are fully aware that you are lying, because not even in the murk and mire of your hysteria can you truly believe I have ever said a single word that says, hints, or implies that I “…hate the idea of our government being rooted in a Christian belief system”
And you are not only a liar, you are a weasel, because you are trying to weasel out of answering the question I keep posing, and doing so by throwing crap. If it were not for the subject matter I would think I have been debating casper or mitche, given the integrity of my opposition.
But, one more time. I’ll try to rephrase it a little. Maybe a slight change in wording will distract you from your hissy fit.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAVING A GOVERNMENT BEING ROOTED IN A CHRISTIAN BELIEF SYSTEM AND HAVING A GOVERNMENT WHERE THIS SYSTEM IS INTERPRETED, DEFINED AND IMPOSED ON THE POPULACE BY THAT GOVERNMENT?
And,of course
WHAT PART OF THE CONSTITUTION WOULD YOU IGNORE TO BE ABLE TO USE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE IN MATTERS OF MORALITY OR VIRTUE?
100% SPOT ON!!!!!
GMB
glad to see you and Jer get it…….. 🙂
Well, ol’ John had plenty of opportunity to argue for inserting into the Constitution some kind, any kind, of government authority in matters of virtue.
But he did not.
Have you wondered why?
Neither did Jefferson, or Franklin, or Madison, or Washington.
“If you are happy with the likes of the kennedy, klintoons, & obamas …….Ok, some of us arent.”
Oh my goodness, aren’t you the sanctimonious one! I wonder if you have pondered the irony in claiming the higher moral ground while lying to do so.
I see that this topic is so emotionally turbulent that some simply cannot think clearly when it comes up. I keep seeing quote after quote after quote about need for morality in our leaders, in our population, etc etc.
But none of you are willing to answer the one question I keep posing. And that is, as always:
WHAT PART OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE YOU WILLING TO CHANGE OR IGNORE SO YOU CAN USE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE THIS MORALITY?
All you can do is twist what I say, or ignore it, so you can continue on this rant of yours. It’s like arguing with mitche, just with you taking a different tack. But the strategy is the same: lay out a position and then defend it by attacking the other person, and whatever you do do NOT address the real point of the discourse, because if you do that you can’t win.
So you just keep on keepin’ on. You just keep throwing out quotes from Founders and aging pop stars about how we need to be moral people, and you keep on snarling that if I don’t want a theocracy then I am immoral. But none of your snarling bombast will obscure what you are trying so hard to ignore—–there is no place in the Constitution, not a word, that gives the federal government the right or authority to intervene in matters of morals or virtue.
I accept that you might not be able to grasp the difference between needing moral people to run a country and putting moral people in charge of other peoples’ morals. Actually, after all this hysteria and insulting I think it is probably so. At least you keep posting quotes on the first while demanding the second.
It feeds your ego and your sense of moral superiority to set up moral standards and then demand that others meet them, to get your vote. That’s just the other side of the coin from only voting for people who support abortion, etc. You look at your side and say it is good, but you are oblivious to the fact that both sides want the same thing—–the subversion of the Constitution to meet their own agendas, because the Constitution just doesn’t say what they think it should. I am arguing about the fact that the whole concept, the whole coin, is bad, and you are trying to smear me so you can argue that your side of that coin is OK because you think the ends justify the means.
WHAT PART OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE YOU WILLING TO CHANGE OR IGNORE SO YOU CAN USE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE THIS MORALITY?
NONE,
this seems to fly over the cho chos nest though…..The states long ago have given up on autonomy so you are beating a dead horse on that one,
WE elect presidents, US senators and congressman to represent US collectively on the national level, I merely believe they should be God fearing, MORAL, straight, men and women….NO MORE, NO LESS. It is they who make, enforce, control the laws we live under. I want these laws to favor moral good people which they have for over 200 years. NO one wants to live under a religious oligarchy, nor is anyone proposing that!!!!
Good luck in an attempt to get rid of all the federal agencies, .they are here.until states simply refuse to comply or secede, until then it WILL be business as usual.
When there are tens of millions who suck on the government teat, tens of millions on welfare, unemployment and 47% of the residents pay no federal taxes, 20 million ILLEGAL peasants, gang bangers, UN assimilateers in this country you will never convince the takers and looters that smaller government, and less taxes is good for them……. flailing your arms in the air shrieking, attacking, accusing, will prove nothing… nor will putting words and meanings in my mouth.
“Because power corrupts, society’s demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.
John Adams
The free stuff armies have no morality nor any character of rightness. They will listen to the screeds of those that preach limited government and ignore because the free stuff will end.
In the last one hundred years both major political parties have done their best to destroy the morality of this nation to increase their power.
The free stuff army has heard you and they don’t care what you are saying.
GMB
Amen!
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson 3rd President of these United States
How can anything be sinful? Isn’t sin a tenant of religious belief? Does this explain why the republican party will not stand in opposition to providing funds to organizations that murder the unborn?
When you gave up on the “social issues” you really gave up on any authority to govern at all.
2014 is going to be interesting. The Senate 52-48 d to r? I think someone is having a dream
2016 is going to even more interesting. I forsee millions upon millions of those who were at one time the base of the party, staying away from the polls or skipping rheinholds rino flavorite of the day.