As the CEO of this organization, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barrack Obama is our President and that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way. To compensate for these increases, our prices would have to increase by about 10%. But, since we cannot increase our prices right now due to the dismal state of the economy, we will have to lay off sixty of our employees instead. This has really been bothering me, since I believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who would have to go. So, this is what I did. I walked through our parking lots and found sixty 'Obama' bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these folks will be the ones to let go. I can't think of a more fair way to approach this problem. They voted for change...... I gave it to them. I will see the rest of you at the annual company picnic.
"Anonymous poster? Really? So your given name, on your birth certificate is Land of Confusion? No?! So, it is a double standard that you live by here. While I am anonymous you are identified by a handle. This again, demonstrates the double standard in which conservatives like to cacoon themselves in. It makes them feel safe to judge others."
How does my having a "handle" using a double standard again? If anything, just the opposite is true.. by using a handle I assign myself accountability for my posts, making it easy for others to reference statements I have made and debate them when necessary. However by hiding behind anonymity, it makes it quite easy for you to post at your own will and never claim a statement was made if you get called out on it. I'm sure it happens quite often however there's no way to prove it because there's no way of knowing who you are. This has to be just as idiotic as the jackass who posted about the Gadsden Flag.. I truly hope you were not serious with this statement.
"I'd also like to note that you never contested anything I said, which would mean that the truth behind my words is plain."
What's there to address? That's how you feel isn't it? I'm not going to tell you what you should and should not feel, however I will bombard you with information so you can see how I draw conclusions.
Now with your above statement you assigned truth to your feelings and opinions as if they are facts using the logic of "if I say it and you don't contest it then it must be true". So does the same hold true with other opinions you may have? If someone doesn't disagree then they become facts? You know, pathological liars also use the same logic throughout their lives, they keep repeating a lie until they believe it... Hmmmm
"You actually went as far as admitting to the only insult or personal attack to be true. In case you do not recall this here is a quote.
"I may be a fuckhead, but I am so with pride and dignity..."
Really? A fuckhead and proud of it?"
Do you like hearing me repeat myself? Yes, I am a proud person who stands behind what I believe in. Not you, or anybody else is going to dictate how I should feel or what my morals or value system should be. Now the same opinions as well as values that I am proud of are what makes you think I'm a fuckhead, so through deductive reasoning it can be concluded that I am proud to be a fuckhead, if that's what you think I am.. I didn't mean to confuse you there, I thought it was a pretty simple concept...
"You come here and post with an arrogance that is sickeningly telling. Calling people out, arguing with links to sites or pages that support your ideology, calling them facts, (which by the way is very laughable)."
Would you be so kind as to reference any one of my posts (aside from the ones to you) where I have expressed such behavior? Thanks, and when you do we'll chat Jr.
Also, you were the one who picked this fight.. Now I reacted and you're still complaining about it.. Did you not understand earlier when I said that if you don't like what I have to say then don't read it? Your logic is not that of a sane person, you know you dislike what I have to say but you read it anyways, then you write posts attacking me and complaining about the content..
Speaking of content, I don't know if you have ever heard of this nifty little concept called "research"? Well it's what people do when they want to learn something, and I happen to post my research so that others can see where I'm coming from, you should try it sometime ;)
"Here, I'll demonstrate how your so-called evidentiary support is easily obtained for any claim.
Oh wow! Look, I made a claim, and backed it up with a link, it must be true!"
So is this your attempt to discredit the sites that I have included in prior posts? Well, I'll give you credit in the point you're trying to make however it was rather weak. I could see if I posted a single link to any given topic form an obviously biased site, but I don't.. Good try though ;)
"You call me young, immature, unable to listen to others views, etc, etc. Yet, it is you who are these things."
Examples?
"With your constant "challenge to debate" mentallity, and unwillingness to admit to flaws in your own judgement, oh, and there are many, many flaws, to your condecending verbage, calling me "Jr." "
If I remember correctly, you accosted me.. Again I will repeat myself and say that I didn't ask you to write your initial post, that was your choice and now your complaining about the way I replied.. Do you also walk around touching hot stoves and complaining that you were burned? How's that all working out for you?
Yes, I look for posts I'm interested in then I converse with the other poster about the subject, isn't that the point of this section? An open forum to debate others? Is it also safe to assume that because you said there were "many, many flaws in my condescending verbiage" that your statement is a fact, based off of similar logic you have used?
"Give it a rest Land of Confusion."
Yes sir... Can I be excused now? Or do I have to sit through another session of complaining before I can move on with my life?
"Your double standards are obvious, your arguments are weak at best, and you are simply another shining example of the flawed logic behind the American conservative."
Thanks for the input Jr. I'm going to repeat myself one more time..
If you don't like what I have to say, then don't read my posts. If you find that you just can't resist clicking that little button on the left side of your mouse when it's pointing over my post, then don't complain about what's inside. Now if you find that you can't resist and have to say something about the content because you couldn't resist but to read it, then say something intelligent that may encourage me to see things your way and if at all possible include a link or 2 to the site where you get your information. Now if you find that you can't bring yourself to an intelligent level and create a rebuttal to my post that is insightful and intelligent, then don't complain when I call you an idiot because at that point you have asked for it.. Sound good?
The fact that you continue to post negative comments about me because we don't see eye to eye leads me to believe that you're either losing faith in the beliefs you have and do not like to be reminded why, that you have some sort of mental deficiency that makes you an angry person who can't stand it when someone thinks differently than you, or have some sort of contempt for those who stand behind their views and are not cowards. Whatever the reasoning behind it, your posts are becoming the ramblings of an angry person that has lost their grip on reality..
I should also add that the creative use of adjectives and words with more than 3 syllables to attack a persons credibility does not make you intelligent, it means you paid attention in your creative writing class. Try posting something with substance about a topic related to what other people post in here if you want to prove to everyone how smart you are ;)
"I may be a fuckhead, but I am so with pride and dignity..."
Really? A fuckhead and proud of it?
You come here and post with an arrogance that is sickeningly telling. Calling people out, arguing with links to sites or pages that support your ideology, calling them facts, (which by the way is very laughable). Here, I'll demonstrate how your so-called evidentiary support is easily obtained for any claim.
Many are called but, few will be chosen. Most people I meet today that call themselves Christians aren't even close. That goes for my own family and friends.
I was called by God while not in church. I was called to the scriptures and I study them regularly. I still don't go to church. I tried church for many years but, Churches are full of lies and man's traditions. The people in them are weak and full of self. Blind and undone w/o Jesus Christ.They serve him with their lips but, their hearts are far from him.
You will know a true Christian by his love. You will sense that, they are different. Even though you may not be sure.
When you meet Jesus the blinders come off. You don't remove them with your own knowledge. He gives you the sight. If you haven't ever experienced this then, you aren't His.
No amount of communion,sunday school , bible reading or giving will save you. Only love and sacrifice until it hurts is a proof of salvation.
Are there 50 righteous here? I doubt it. I meet people all the time that go to church,are deacons or serve in some ministry. They are all fakes.
Wanna see a wolf in sheep's clothing? Speak gospel truth and you will see a demon rise from these reprobates. Nothing exposes a liar like Bible truth.
I'm not talking about denominational differences. I'm talking about requiring a self professing Christian to love and give. You would be surprised at the pious liars that sit on a pew every sunday...or saturday.
Now if you don't believe then, you aren't qualified to judge a Christian. That's scripture. Only other Christians can discern. If you don't believe you are just playing Satan in trying to tear down a man of God.
I've never failed to find a lost man that wasn't a Bible scholar. Every non Christian out there knows how we Christians should live. You non believers don't qualify in the discernment of the scriptures by spouting a couple of verses that you don't even understand.
Read the bible and pray for understanding because , there is a code however, it's not some magical numbers system. It's the ability to read another language in your own language. Education won't help you. I'm a high school dropout and I'm wiser than most presidents and all of congress tied together. Why? Because I have been blessed with a truth.
I'm not bragging..I'm complaining. Self goes out the window when you're in Christ.
Be angry and sin not. Be wise as the serpent. Take on the serpent.
Pray without ceasing . Pray that you will be found worthy to escape the damnation of man....allowed by God.
RE: re: re: re: Only children ask for permission. (The Tin Man... haha
That was pretty good ScareCro.. I do have to say, there's definitely something to be discussed within that entire post..
However I am going to say something that someone less open minded would say in an insulting manner.. While I completely understand the connection you were making with the movie the Matrix and our daily lives, using a plot from a movie does seem a little out there to the less informed people we've grown to know and love around these parts.. Unfortunately the connections you have made are true, even down to those being so dependent on a system that they're willing to defend the same system that enslaves them, we see it everyday.
Now, my challenge to you is how would one go about getting others to understand that the very people they think are trying to help them are the ones hurting them? How do you get people to realize that we're all born into slavery by the Federal Reserve and world banking system? That oppression is the means used to enslave us so we have no choice in the matter?
It's near impossible, for those who will never get it are the ones who benefit from the oppression of others.. Unfortunately those very people are becoming more abundant due to the oppression we see. It's a viscous cycle that can go no place but downward as more and more people become reliant upon the government.
Well should anybody doubt what's being debated follow the links below and see for yourself..
"and explains in detail how both industrialised and developing countries can contribute to the safety of the planet and its people, according to their means and responsibilities and shows how the poorest and most vulnerable on the planet can be protected and compensated." I'll get to the impact of this in a minute..
Now for the fun stuff. Below is taken directly from the outline of the Global Climate treaty Obama IS expected to sign in December with Al Gore by his side..
"The Treaty is based on the premise that all peoples, nations and cultures have the right
to survive, to develop sustainably and to alleviate poverty."
"It will additionally enshrine equity and the right to
survival for countries, communities, cultures, and ecosystems, as well as the right to
develop sustainably in accordance with the UNFCCC principles."
developing country fossil fuel and industrial greenhouse gas emissions would
need to peak before 2020 and then decline, which emphasizes the need to
provide high levels of binding support by industrialized countries.
All countries must contribute to preventing dangerous climate change. However, the
largest share of responsibility for staying within the carbon budget rests with the
industrialized countries, obligating them to reduce emissions at home whilst enabling
and supporting developing countries to develop in a low-carbon manner.
My favorite, the non-commitment to acknowledge that global warming is actually occurring: "Given that the remaining atmospheric space has been constricted as a result of the
excessive use of fossil fuels by industrialized countries to date"
"It also suggests new institutional and
governance arrangements under the UNFCCC."
"legally binding target' remember, this MUST be enforced by someone...
"The CCF would be empowered to recommend additional actions and advocate
penalties if not satisfied."
"much stricter compliance regime"
"A new institution will be required to ensure delivery of the obligations of
industrialized countries as well as implementation of the adaptation and mitigation
actions in developing countries. This cannot be accomplished by a fragmented set of
existing institutions."
"The new Copenhagen Climate Facility (CCF) would be an enhanced finance &
technology mechanism learning from the experience of already existing institutions.
It should reflect a democratic decision-making structure with an equitable and
balanced regional representation, ensuring significant representation from developing
countries, as well as formal representation from relevant stakeholders."
"Governance and Institutions – Copenhagen Climate Facility
To avoid dangerous climate change and build climate resilience, the way society is
structured will need to change fundamentally - from investment patterns to
development programs. This cannot be accomplished by a fragmented set of existing
institutions. In order to enhance the implementation of the Convention in accordance
with the Bali Action Plan and its four building blocks, a new institution, the
Copenhagen Climate Facility (CCF), is needed. This institution should ensure the
comprehensive, effective and inclusive delivery of the obligations of industrialized
countries (QERC’s and MRV Support) as well as the implementation of the actions
(adaptation and mitigation) in developing countries, with a necessary level of
accountability. It should also oversee the Technology Development Objective (see
technology chapter below) of the shared vision to both diffuse currently available
climate friendly technologies as well as spur the development of the next generation
of technologies."
All of this is taken DIRECTLY from this link... See for yourself, here is the start of the NWO, or "One World Government", be very afraid of this... Remember that ALL international treaties supersede an individual nations' constitution.. This is nothing more than global redistribution of wealth and an attempt to form a One World Government...
The matrix? well, that's a good start to where this is heading.. See for yourself... Also, look into the North American Treaty.. You'll find some interesting info there too....
Finally, is this not a drastic move considering the science behind global warming is at best "questionable"? Here's a few link of enlightenment for the simple minded, media lovers...
"On Dec. 13, 2007, 100 scientists jointly signed an Open Letter to Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, requesting they cease the man-made global warming hysteria and settle down to helping mankind better prepare for natural disasters. The final signature was from the President of the World Federation of Scientists."
After fact checking, this persons claims are valid:
How much talk has their been about raising taxes by the Liberal majority? Answer: A lot! Is that what you call Liberty?
Judging from the actions / policies of the past two administrations, it is clear that niether party cares about "Liberty". Obama has taken Bush's policies to a whole new level with regard to usurping our Liberty. Do you understand that everytime you pay a tax of any kind your Liberty is eroded? Do you understand that the governement produces nothing, creates nothing and distributes nothing that hasn't been taken (through coercion) from someone else? Is that what you call Liberty? Those Liberals in Congress and the White House are on a spending spree oblivious to thier fatally masochistic activities. How will we ever pay the debt that is being rung up? It's got to come from some where at some time... How much Liberty will we have with a government run healthcare system? How much Liberty will we have as we pay an ever increasing amount of tax? How much Liberty will we have as more and more people are reliant on the government for a hand out? How much Liberty will we have with cap and trade? ... the list oges on and on.
To state that liberals are for liberty is just silly since they have and continue to restrict our Liberty at every turn.
Tenants of Liberty:
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
The justice system may have failed to protect a girl in 1990, but they cannot and will not be allowed to waver in 2009. I urge you, fellow Americans wherever you reside, from the mountains, to the prairies, to the oceans white with foam, exercise your first amendment rights, the rights that so many good men and women have fought and died for to protect, and speak out for due diligence in this possibly critical matter. Make your voices heard from Main Street USA to Wall Street and most of all the federal district of Columbia.
Here's another thought on you. You claim to be a "christian conservative." Well, Christ taught love, respect, and humility. Christ taught to give up worldy things and live your life for God by serving the less fortunate around you. Christ NEVER taught every man for himself. Christ NEVER taught to hate or dislike or condemn ANYONE for ANYTHING. Christ preached to change the old ways to a more loving and interdependent society. Sounds to me like Christ was a liberal.
You on the other hand, use your so called "family values" not to help or teach others, but to condemn and oppress those who do not live up to a standard that even you are incapable of living up to. You and your favorite news stations lie, and twist reality to suite YOUR agenda of hate mongering and profiteering.
Sarah Palin dines, prays with Rev. Billy Graham, family in NC ahead of stop on her book tour
Sarah Palin on Sunday dined and prayed with the Rev. Billy Graham, who has counseled presidents and other politicians for decades. Graham had never met Palin, who is scheduled to stop at Fort Bragg in eastern North Carolina on Monday to promote ...
To begin: This is one of my hobbies, is that a problem with you Jr.? Should I get a better hobby based upon your insight into my life from reading the posts you have seen here with my tag on them? I extend my most sincere apologies for disagreeing with you, really I do.. I knew liberals didn't like to hear opposing thoughts but you just took the cake with that one ;)
So, would you mind telling me who doesn't agree with me? Not that I assume anyone does agree with me but in this instance it's fair to say that if somebody did then they would have spoke up by now. In fact, with the exception of you apparently, most of those who post on this site respect me as I do them even though we may not agree all of the time.. It's called maturity and I suggest you read up on it :)
Actually, since the maturity question was brought up I would like to state an observation I have made;
The post you wrote to me (I'm going to copy and paste below just for reference) was extremely hateful and basically was a personal attack on me for my views that was purely speculative on your behalf. You judged my life outside of CL as if you knew who I am or how I interacted amongst my peers, and you intentionally tried to bring question to my character which leads me to a very important conclusion, you are one of 3 things;
1. Very young and unable to comprehend that someone may see the world differently than you do, which there are many causes for this.
2. An adult but extremely immature and again unable to comprehend that someone has different views than you, or
3. The same poster I just finished a debate with who has created yet another anonymous post trying to act as if there are multiple people who disagree with me.
Now I'm going to stick with the latter view simply because your attack on me was entirely too personal and again unprovoked, which leads me to believe you were letting out some built up anger from our prior interactions, in which case you need to grow a set. If I'm wrong then you're one of the other 2 people I described and you really need to grow up a little and learn to behave like an adult.
If my views or opinions are that offensive to you then I suggest that when you see "(Land of Confusion)" next to the title that you simply don't open it, after all it is your personal choice is it not? However if you find you just can't restrain yourself from clicking on it and really need to know what I have to say that much, then don't complain about what I had to say. I'm not forcing you to open it and neither is anybody else, complaining about the contents just make you look like a little whiner who can't stand the fact that someone isn't liberal. Do you really want that? That's not very helpful to those who already have biased views against liberals being complainers and whiners.
I may be a fuckhead, but I am so with pride and dignity which I can't say for you. Yes, I have strong opinions and choose to voice them here but I always put some sort of identification on my posts so that those who would like to read them can, and those who wouldn't like to read them don't have to. It also allows others to see patterned behavior on my behalf so they may draw valid conclusions to my beliefs and conclusions, perhaps you weren't able to do so who knows...
Anyways, the next time you see my name next to a post, know that that the views inside are my own and are original based off of whatever research I may have done to form whatever opinion I'm stating. Click on it if you would like, read it if you want, but for Gods sake don't complain about the contents, it's just annoying and immature.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with what I'm talking about, this facility is where the original atomic bombs were created and tested back in the '50s and used all o0f the way until the mid-90s. There was also a sister site in Utah for the same purposes. There has been upwards of 1100 bombs tested in this area, all nuclear. Most online government sources will only tell you of the items placed in harms way that were not living such as trucks, buildings, various shelters, and military equipment however there are several books available that document the governments actions from civilian and military perspectives.
To keep things brief and to the point I'll give a few examples to spark interest in those who may want to research further.
One of the best documentaries I have read about the sites is called "American Ground Zero". It's a relatively short book (300 or so pages) with pictures and narratives of firsthand experiences with the tests and fallout. Along with non-living items placed in harms way the government would have soldiers placed at various distances from "ground zero" of atmospheric tests to monitor the effects from radiation (which were obviously unknown at the time) and some were as close as 1000 feet, they didn't live to tell their tale after a month or 2. The government would also place livestock and prisoners in cages at "danger close" locations to see the direct impact of the blast on humans, most were vaporized and those that weren't died shortly after.
Along with the active participants in the tests, there were passive participants as well. The fallout "clouds" would be blown downwind through towns and villages. The clouds contained highly radioactive matter and were pink in color. Rather than warn the townspeople of the effects and dangers of the clouds, the government told everyone that there was no need for concern and that the clouds would not harm them. The towns closest to the site starting having large numbers of people showing up with cancer and growths that were unexplained within months of the first tests. Still the government said there was no problem. Children would be playing outside and become totally consumed with these clouds, yet nobody said a word. Leukemia, various cancers, cysts, and reproductive harm were the main side effects most people had to deal with from the "safe" clouds that went through their towns on a regular basis.
These tests actually sent the Geiger counters at NY's Rensselear Polytechnic Institute into a frenzy after the fallout made it all of the way across the nation. Statistics show a sharp national increase in certain cancers around the same time testing was taking place, then a steady decline after the extensive testing ended. From statistics alone you could argue that release of radioactive material into the atmosphere was to blame for the increase in cancer rates and deaths.
The point of my writing this is that to this day the government takes minimum accountability for their impacts on the people who have suffered from their actions. It's no secret that radioactive material is extremely harmful and causes cancer yet not one government agency has ever attributed the increased rate of cancer amongst Americans to the actions that took place in Nevada and Utah. The article below further backs up my position on this as no where does it even mention the area that will be contaminated for the next 50,000 years as a possible source. Its main focus is a company that took over the area, but notice how neither the government nor the EPA will force them to pay for the detoxification of the area and the state government claims ignorance. If you were to have the knowledge I do on this subject you would understand completely what I'm talking about, and I suggest you read up on it. This is one example of the government using the people of the nation as their "guinea pigs" and not stepping up to the plate and admitting it.
The next time you would like to tell me the government always has my best interests in mind and I disagree, I suggest you look back to this posting for your explanation. If they can do such a large scale experiment with no remorse as to what happens to us and get away with it, then what else can they do without our knowledge that may not have such a sever impact.
As far as their healthcare plan is concerned? I don't trust the same government that did what I just spoke of to manage how I will receive medical care, period.
Mine Pollutes Water With Uranium
By SCOTT SONNER
AP
YERINGTON, Nev. (Nov. 21) -- Peggy Pauly lives in a robin-egg blue, two-story house not far from acres of onion fields that make the northern Nevada air smell sweet at harvest time.
But she can look through the window from her kitchen table, just past her backyard with its swingset and pet llama, and see an ominous sign on a neighboring fence: "Danger: Uranium Mine."
RE: "2. You have to believe that governments create oppression and businesses create prosperity."
I certainly believe this. After all, businesses produce goods and services and exchange these goods and services VOLUNTARY for mutual benefit. Since govt has no wealth of its own, and everything the govt does requires the use of force against (typically) peaceful people, how can govts create prosperity?
RE: "3. You have to believe that the man wearing a turban in the airport is more of a terrorist than the white man carrying a concealed gun."
If you are saying that govt agents carrying guns are bigger terrorists than any foreign terrorist group, I completely agree.
RE: "4. You have to believe that federal funding is a handout and that disadvantaged people should be able to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps,” just like you and your daddy and his daddy before him."
All 'federal funding' comes out of someone's pockets. So, in order for the govt to 'help' someone, it must hurt someone first. Furthermore, charitable organizations, including church groups, do a far better job of helping people than inept govt organizations who misplace and misallocate billions due to fraud and waste.
RE: "5. You have to believe that someone made up global warming to scare you into not driving that gas-guzzling SUV."
Perhaps global warming 1,000 years ago (when it was warmer than it is today) scared the Vikings into not sailing their gas guzzling sailboats!
RE: "8. You have to believe that if schools don’t provide sex education and/or condoms, then kids just won’t think about sex and it will all just go away."
Isn't that the parents' responsibility?
RE: "10. You have to believe that if someone has fallen on hard times it is their own fault and they should be given no help."
Again, you mistake someone's opposition to COERCIVE govt 'help' as opposition to any charitable help. See, charities, churches, etc., collect their donations VOLUNTARILY, and volunteers offer their own time voluntarily. The govt, on the other hand, collects their money by force (at the point of a govt gun), with the implied use of force against dissenters (fines, jail).
RE: "11. You have to believe that God lives in your own little box and that He hates all the same things and people you do."
Not a reilgious person myself. But do you think this applies to all religions?
RE: "12. You have to believe that the ACLU is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the NRA is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution."
Again, more hypocrisy on BOTH sides. Each side picks and chooses the freedoms they like while opposing the ones they don't like.
RE: "13. You have to believe that the tax on your yacht is too high and that the homeless man isn’t being taxed enough."
I think all taxes are too high. Unfortunately, those on the left often support taxes that harm middle and lower classes the most.
RE: "14. You have to believe that the contributions to American history made by Caucasian men are more important than those made by women and African-Americans."
Actually, isn't this what public schools teach?
RE: "16. You have to believe that any war we fight is for a good reason, because the president said so."
Actually, if you look at US history, Dems are warmongers just as much as Repubs. LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin to expand the Vietnam War. Truman got us involved in the Korean War and dropped atomic bombs on Japanese civilian populations that led to the deaths of 350,000. And isn't Obama expanding the war in Afghanistan? Oh, I forgot, when Dems advocate war, it is for 'humanitarian' reasons (Clinton - Kosovo, Somalia, Haiti, etc.).
Just 28 companies received more than 90 percent of the funds so far disbursed to financial firms by the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.
Buffett's holding company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., did not directly receive any of that aid. But Berkshire is the largest shareholder of San Francisco-based Wells Fargo & Co., which got $25 billion – 91 percent of TARP funds invested in institutions headquartered in California.
Overall, Berkshire owns more than $13 billion of stock in the top recipients of TARP funds – including Goldman Sachs Group Inc., US Bancorp, American Express Co. and Bank of America Corp., all considered by analysts to be in deep trouble before the federal infusion. The more the bailout props up these financial companies, the more secure Berkshire's investments.
That total, The Bee found, ranks Berkshire fifth among all investors in TARP-assisted companies. Berkshire's TARP holdings constitute 30 percent of its publicly disclosed stock portfolio. That proportion reflects at least twice as much dependence on bailed-out banks as any other large investor.
Buffett increased his bank holdings in September, while openly pressing Congress to pass the bailout.
"If I didn't think the government was going to act, I would not be doing anything this week," Buffett told CNBC, after investing $5 billion in Goldman Sachs. "I am, to some extent, betting on the fact that the government will do the rational thing here and act promptly."
If a private company was responsible for the construction and maintenance of the levees, they would be liable for the damage. That creates a HUGE incentive to do things right. The Army Corps of Engineers, on the other hand, what responsibility do they have? They have no profits or losses at stake. They don't have to answer to insurance companies concerned with risk and who insist that premiums match the worst-case scenario.
There are lots of people who care whose fault it was, including the family members of those who lost their lives due to the failures of govt agencies and statist bureaucrats.
RE: "Really, it is as simple as this. It was the hurricanes fault, because it is what caused the flooding. No storm, no flood, that simple."
It's not quite that simple. Many people outside of the Army Corps warned of such a calamity if New Orleans suffered a direct hit from a hurricane, but the Army Corps ignored them.
It is very clear that you believe in an every man for himself America. We get it. You do not want to have responsibility for anyone else in your community, unless of course you get paid for it. You do not want to pay tax money to help those who are not in a position to help themselves. We get it, no matter how uninformed you are about the individuals or thier situation, you see it as all their fault. That they should have expected their employers of 20+ years to be disloyal douche bags when times were tough on their bonus checks.
Plain and simple Land of Confusion. You are just a selfish, uncaring, douche bag who, in the end will see the fault in placing blame instead of trying to help fix a problem. I bet you are the type who wanted to figure out who's fault it was that new orleans flooded BEFORE actually helping the people who, in your view, should have expected it and not lived there.
"In Tom Daschle's book, "Critical: What We Can Do About The Health-Care Crisis" (which is the blueprint for the Obama plan), Medicare will be modified from paying for treatments deemed safe and effective to a system of cost effectiveness standards applied by a federal council. The elderly will "bear the brunt" of healthcare reform. Per Daschle, they should accept their "hopeless diagnoses" and die quietly.
One additional mystery: Why does the supposedly nonprofit and nonpartisan AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) so strongly support government-run healthcare? Why are they lining up baby boomers like lemmings on a cliff? This seems to be self-destructive (i.e., masochistic) behavior. After all, doesn't having fewer members result in a loss of revenue? This puzzled me. After a minimal amount of detective work, it became apparent that AARP is very closely tied into the ultra-partisan (although they deny it) SEIU (Service Employees International Union) and ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). "Divided We Fail" is the lobby jointly founded by AARP and SEIU to promote elderly lemming healthcare.
AARP has also enjoyed a long-running relationship with ACORN. Just Google "AARP ACORN" to see how many times the two groups have worked in tandem to twist local politicians' arms to sponsor bills preventing "predatory lending practices". The result of this effort has been the housing meltdown and bank bailout of the century. AARP's official mission is now stated as leading "positive social change". "
I really don't know why you seem to think I haven't addressed any of the "points" you have been trying to make.. This seems to be your default answer when your tongue is tied.
Also, since you mentioned it...
There's quite a difference between highways, bridges, police forces, and other necessary functions of government and welfare, universal healthcare, job creation programs, bank bailouts, and other social programs. The main difference is that the necessary functions that deal with infrastructure, security, planning, and other aspects that deal with daily life help EVERYBODY and are not restricted to those who fit into certain income, race, or nationality demographics that are decided by bureaucrats based off of statistics alone.
Imagine what America would be like if the use of highways was restricted to those who didn't make over $25,000 a year, or you couldn't dial 911 unless you were a foreign national? Well, the way social and entitlement programs work is that a tax is imposed to fund it (like highways and the police force), the government then takes this money and gives it to someone who "needs" it at their own discretion based off of who fits into their predetermined categories. Hmmmm, well that helps whoever gets the money and hurts whoever pays the tax to fund it, does it not?
And FYI, I pay Time Warner for my internet access, not Uncle Sam ;)
Based off of your post, I would say that your knowledge of life is limited and "that much" isn't much at all. After hearing your reply I am definitely DONE with this conversation. How's that for self-righteous, condescending, and arrogant? ;)
America needs Obamacare like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask.
**********************
Q: Have you heard about McDonalds new Obama Value Meal?
A: Order anything you like and the guy behind you has to pay for it.
**********************
Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon?
A: A fund raiser.
**********************
Q: What's the difference between Obama's cabinet and a penitentiary?
A: One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society.
The other is for housing prisoners.
**********************
If Nancy Pelosi and Obama were on a boat in the middle of the ocean and It started to sink, who would be saved? .... America!
**********************
Q: What's the difference between Obama and his dog, Bo?
A: Bo has papers.
“We even have blacks voting against the healthcare bill,” Jackson said at a reception Wednesday night. “You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man.”
“The bold effort the present (central) bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it.” Andrew Jackson
“Every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add… artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society -- the farmers, mechanics, and laborers -- who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government.” Andrew Jackson
“Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! “You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, I will rout you out.”Andrew Jackson
“If Congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given to be used by themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations.” Andrew Jackson
“I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.” Andrew Jackson
Infowars.com
“History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance.”
James Madison
“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are preserved to the states or to the people.' ... To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill (chartering the first Bank of the United States), have not, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.” Thomas Jefferson
One postage stamp will mail up to 4 stickers and two stamps will mail up to 8 stickers.... but that's all that will fit into a regular envelope, so please don't request more than that :)
Choose from either design pictured below and let us know how many Bumper Stickers you want (limit of 4 since they get too heavy for 1 postage stamp).
To receive your BUMPER STICKERS for FREE, simply mail a stamped and self-addressed regular envelope to:
Free Bumper Stickers
18011 South Tamiami Trail
P.O. Box 16-150
Fort Myers, FL 33908
Please write a "1, 2, 3, or 4" on the outer-envelope to indicate how many Free Bumper Stickers you would like.... and write an "A" for the "pro-obama" sticker or a "B" for the "obama lied" sticker. (Remember, If you want up to 8 stickers, please put 2 stamps on the envelope and indicate up to "8" on the outside.
"For over 40 years, the Corps was aware that the Reach II levee protecting Chalmette and the Lower 9th Ward was going to be compromised by the continued deterioration of the MRGO. ... The Corps had an opportunity to take a myriad of actions to alleviate this deterioration or rehabilitate this deterioration and failed to do so. Clearly, the expression 'talk is cheap' applies here."
But Paul’s bill won’t get a stand-alone vote because House Democrats want to move Fed transparency legislation as part of their larger financial regulation overhaul bill (.pdf). The issue is being taken up as an amendment by the House Financial Services Committee this week, and the process has given finance-friendly Rep. Mel Watt [D, NC-2] a chance to undermine the “audit the Fed” movement with his own severely watered down version.
Ryan Grim at HuffPo reports:
Watt pitched his amendment in a letter to colleagues circulated Tuesday. “While my amendment will certainly fall short of demands by those intent on destroying the independence (if not the existence) of the Fed, the critics of my amendment will have to concede…that my amendment will provide transparency of the Fed’s financial operations that will be completely unprecedented,” he wrote.
In fact, the critics are conceding no such thing. “The Watt Amendment, as written today, actually places new restrictions on the little authority that exists, such as it is, for independent auditing of the Fed,” Grayson said. “It keeps in place all existing restrictions and adds four more. So I don’t see why anybody would reasonably think that it creates unprecedented authority to audit the Fed.”
Watt’s amendment calls for an audit of the Fed, but specifically leaves in place an area of existing law that blocks government agencies from looking into some of the Fed’s most important activities. The amendment would allow the Fed to remain secretive in regards to transactions with foreign banks, monetary policy matters matters, including discount window operations and transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee.
Furthermore, Watt’s amendment would add new restrictions to which Fed activities could be audited. The amendment specifically exempts the Fed’s loan and liquidity arrangements, and how they effect the Fed’s balance sheet, from audits.
The amendment could be voted on this week. Paul has said that he will continue to seek a vote on his version of Fed transparency legislation.
Watt’s district includes the headquarters for Bank of America, one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Fed’s secretive lending and loan guarantees during the financial crisis. According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, Watt’s top for donors for his 2008 re-election campaign were Bank of America, Wachovia, American Express and the American Bankers Association. Watt’s current leading campaign financer is Citigroup.
Little Sis adds that Watt’s former chief of staff for 12 years, Joyce Brayboy, has been a lobbyist for the American Bankers Association ever since leaving Congress.
"Land of Confusion (aptly named) then changed the nature of the conversation to The New Deal, and how it didn't work. I'll accept that as admitting (albeit indirectly) that the points in my post were accurate. "
"LoC now claims this topic to be "over." How arrogant and self-important. "
RE: "Some people are loyal to the 'free market' almost to the point of a religion. It is not the end-all and be-all of our economic system, but neither is the government. The latter is needed to keep the former in check, as business will jeopardize our safety, lives, and future, if left to its' own devices."
The reason that I am 'loyal' to the free market is because it is a system based upon VOLUNTARY, mutually beneficial exchange between buyer/seller, producer/consumer, employer/employee.
Can govt policies - ANY govt policy - help the economy and lower unemployment? Let's examine this question.
First, let's look at unemployment. If the government can magically 'create' jobs out of thin air, why is there ANY unemployment? Wouldn't it be in the best interests of the politicians to create an abundance of jobs in order to guarantee their re-election?
Alas, this is not the case, as the govt CANNOT 'create' a net amount of jobs. Since govt has no money of its own, it must take money away from private sector investment, spending, etc., in order to 'create' govt jobs (which are often politically motivate, not based upon satisfying the needs of consumers).
Can government magically increase the country's GDP (and, thus, improve the net wealth of Americans)? Not at all, when you realize where govt gets its money - from the people. The government cannot 'help' anyone without first harming someone else.
Govt welfare as a means to help others sounds great - until you realize that the money comes out of the pockets of the citizenry - by FORCE. This is no different than a private citizen stealing $100 from someone on the street and giving the money to the Red Cross or some other charitable organization. Of course, when a private citizen does this, they are accused of theft. When a govt bureaucrat does it on a much larger scale, they are applauded and, in many cases, re-elected!
Most govt 'stimulus' comes at the expense of DE-STIMULUS in the private sector. Any govt-induced job creation will, therefore, result in the (unseen) DESTRUCTION of private sector jobs.
There is an exception, though. Consider the sources of govt funding: taxes, borrowing, and printing money. An individual with an high limit credit card can live high on the hog by using that card - for a while, at least - until the bills come due. Then, he is screwed because he can't even pay the minimum payments on the card.
Our govt has done the same thing - borrowing and spending for short term gain. This is why we have a boom-bust economy. High tech bubble in 2002, housing bubble, etc., and subsequent busts are all results of govt's easy money policies.
But now, the bills are coming due. The US govt has a debt of $73 Trillion in unfunded liabilities to Medicare; $18 Trillion to the prescription drug benefit plan; $14 Trillion in unfunded liabilities to Social Security; $12 Trillion national debt. These will NEVER be paid off, and future generations will have a lower standard of living, thanks to the govt excesses of the last 100 years.
I recommend reading "The Broken Window Fallacy" for further confirmation of the common economic myth of govt 'creation' of wealth out of thin air.
http://freedomkeys.com/window.htm
Here's a link that doesn't state any hard evidence or facts behind their claims, but still states that those who say the New Deal prolonged the depression are insane:
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10609
This link is great. It's a site called the "New Deal Network" that's created for "educational and non-commercial purposes only", meaning it's used to educate children about the New Deal and FDR. It's sponsored by the "Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute" and funding is provided by the "National Endowment for the Humanities". Now the first link is to the main page, the second is to a lesson plan that can be found within the site.. With the information I provided above, isn't this lesson plan a little bit one sided?
This link is within the site I just mentioned. If this doesn't give step by step procedure to "indoctrinate" children and brainwash them to believe the government is the answer, then I don't know what would be.
Here's a direct quote from the link;
"Based on their research, do students think today's young people have a better chance of receiving help for their problems that their 30s counterparts? Does it seem likely that the government's expanded role in our lives today is a legacy of President Roosevelt's New Deal Programs?"
It included a link to an article that could provide content for the lesson plan and one of the first statements i the article was;
The first Depression President, Herbert Hoover, with his belief in limited government and economic individualism proved unresponsive. [3] Hoover did little to address the youth problem -- even as it worsened in the waning days of his administration. Hoover's youth record contrasted dramatically with that of his successor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
My point with the Liberal and educational links is that they fail to address factual information that solidifies the point they are trying to make, yet they make such claims with boldness.
Thanks for pointing out that "op" means "opinion", I needed that clarification to write the above post ;) Now, being a product of the public education system do you think it's possible based off of the 2 links I posted above (there's many, many more but I wanted to keep this relatively short), that you may be a little bit skewed on your views of Obama, his policies, and government as a whole being able to solve the problems you have to deal with because you were born? Do you think that your educational backround has taught you to believe that what Obama is doing is the ONLY way that America can pull out of this recession and ultimately achieve economic prosperity?
Open your mind beyond what you have been taught all of your life. The links I provided to the NDN are real and are part of the basis used to educate children of all levels, including you, and all the content contained within the lesson plans would be considered "op-ed" because they do not contain any hard facts to back them up.
Again, regardless of the original author of the post in question, everything he spoke of was based off of fact, except for a few statements which I will be glad to point out;
-The questioning of Obamas citizenship. It's a done deal and I truly don't believe that a non-American would be elected president, although there is good cause to question.
- I would say that the statement about Obama having our national security and well being as being his top priorities, but recent events have led me to believe otherwise. If you would like, we can start a separate thread debating this one which I would actually greatly enjoy.
- It is speculative to say that he is aiming to limit private property rights, individualism, and a private, free market system. However once again his actions speak louder than his words.
- While #'s 2 and 7 may seem contradictory, one states that his primary focus should have been and continue to be the banking industry. Unfortunately the banking industry is the backbone of our economy and the actions that have been taken to correct this industry have only increased government control over those who took "bailout". As credit became less available, spending decreased which put a further squeeze on the economy.
- I don't quite understand what the author meant when he spoke of townhall meetings as "fake". The only conclusion I could come up with is that those who administered questions were "planted" in the crowd and the answers were rehearsed. Either way this is a speculative statement based off of pure opinion.
- Obama has openly stated, and stands behind his remarks that he does not support the fairness doctrine.
- The authors claims to Obama using Alinski's book as his bible are also speculative, however Obama's tactics are quite close to those of Alinski and he was a community organizer after all. Below is a link to an overview of Alinski and his books, you should read it. Below that I listed Alinski's "Rules for Radicals" and the actions Obama has taken that have a great similarity to what Alinski believed.
1. "Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."
Assessment- Obama and his administration constantly give reports based off of polls that were given that show the "majority" of Americans support their views, visions, and goals. However there are many independent polls out there that show the contrary. Even though most polls show the majority of Americans do not support Obama, the administration touts these numbers as if they are fact, placing fear in the hearts of conservative and right leaning independents.
2. "Never go outside the experience of your people."
Assessment- Obamas appointment of "czars" expand the combined knowledge of his administration by bringing in people of different specialties for consultation to lawmakers who otherwise would have little, if any knowledge of the given task at hand. Examples would be; a "green jobs czar", "automotive czar", "Afghanistan czar", "AIDS czar", "Climate czar", etc. and each one has had a history in whatever field of expertise would be called upon to be such an adviser.
3. "Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy."
Assessment- By switching the war zone to Afghanistan, pushing healthcare reform, pushing America towards "green" energy, and other more Liberal items on his agenda, he has put Conservatives in a position where they do not have sufficient answers to the "issues" currently at hand.
4. "Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules."
Assessment- The double standard that is witnessed in Washington amongst those in power is obvious. One Senator called Obama a liar and the left went absolutely insane, yet his Democratic counterpart called an intern a "k-street whore" and not a peep was heard. This is just one of many double standards we have witnessed in the last 10 months.
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
Assessment- Should I even say anything? Pelosi calling tea party protesters "Nazis", "un-American", and a variety of other select names then Obama stating "those who called the problem need to keep their mouths shut". Ridicule? at the very least.. There' more too, and I will be glad to quote if challenged to do so..
6. "A good tactic is one that your people enjoy."
Assessment- Refer to number 3 for an explanation. The left is eating up his policies.
7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."
Assessment- With the exception of healthcare reform, this administration changes direction on a monthly basis.
8. "Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."
Assessment- Obama and company have used anything possible to relate to whatever the hot topic is. When Mexico was in a semi-civil war, it was our gun laws that were the problem. See what I'm saying?
9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
Assessment- With most of the proposed policies of this administration, they always start out radical and then get toned down. The mere threat of what they're trying to do makes the end result far more desirable than the initial idea, healthcare being one of those.
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."
Assessment- Janet Napolitano, Anita Dunn, Rahm Emmanuel, need I say more?
11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside."
Assessment- The only thing that I see that could relate to this statement is the economy. Still in the shitter, the slightest bit of improvement earns praise and cheers from the administration and supporters.
12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
Assessment- Healthcare, stimulus, cap and trade...
13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
Assessment- The GOP and Conservatives have both come up with solutions for healthcare reform, yet the administration has meetings behind closed doors, publicly states that the GOP is the party of "no", and calls out their mis-steps every time one happens and the left in this country eat it up...
Here's the list of rules for ethics. I'm not commenting on them however I added words in "[ ]" that will make all of this make a little more sense.
1. One's concern with the ethics[constitutionality] of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue.
2. The judgment of the ethics[constitutionality] of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
3. In war[political power grabs] the end justifies almost any means.
4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
5. Concern with ethics[constitutionality] increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical[constitutional] evaluations of means.
7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics[constitutionality].
8. The morality[popularity] of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition to be unethical[unconstitutional].
10. You do what you can[force your agenda] with what you have[false majorities] and clothe it in moral garments[what's best for the people].
11. Goals[agendas] must be phrased[disguised] in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace."
Don't EVER say that you can't change it...because you can if you stop limiting your mental capacity. Start looking at things from a different perspective instead of seeing things only the TV wants you to see it.
There is only one Race on this Planet : "The Human Race" Everything else is only your opinion...which is only based on what you think you know...not on what you don't know.
As an American physician who is Muslim, I feel a profound sense of anger and betrayal.
Anger that the alleged perpetrator of the heinous Fort Hood massacre was a Muslim. Anger that someone born and raised in this great land could do such a thing. And anger, above all, that a doctor reportedly did it — a man who had taken the solemn oath repeated by all of us upon graduation from medical school.
In declaring the Hippocratic Oath, we all proclaim our commitment to practice ethical and moral medicine. We all understand the fundamental precept taught in medical school — “primum non nocere,” a Latin phrase that means “first, do no harm.”
As an Army psychiatrist, Maj. Nidal Hasan was entrusted to ease the anguish and suffering of his fellow soldiers who witnessed firsthand the horrors of war. If the charges against him are proven, he betrayed these soldiers utterly and mercilessly.
I feel betrayed by the actions of Hasan on an entirely different level, however. I feel betrayed as a Muslim from a devout family.
Our beautiful faith teaches us compassion and mercy and is one of the main reasons I sought to become a physician.
As a first-year medical student, I joined my classmates — approximately 120 aspiring physicians — in purchasing a sphygmomanometer, a device used to measure blood pressure manually. I had the words “In the service of Allah” engraved on the gauge, serving as a constant reminder to me of this commitment.
I also feel betrayed as an Arab-American.
I am proud of my roots, my identity and my country. My immigrant parents raised my siblings and me to be proud of our heritage (Palestinian) and proud of our home (America). They raised six children, three of whom are physicians. If they were alive today, they would feel this wound even more sharply — as I am certain Hasan’s parents would, as well.
After the tragedy of 9/11, Arab-Americans and American Muslims have worked incessantly to clear the “guilt by association” with which our communities have been tainted.
"Why do we have to pay for the basic nesessites like our home, food, clothing, transportation etc...???"
Answer: You don't have to if you are willing and able to manufacture a home, clothing, food and transportation yourself. The reason I pay for these items is that someone can do it cheaper and better than me...I engage in trade for these items becasue my expertise does not lie in producing homes, food, clothing or transportation. If I had to do it myself, I would have no time to spend on what people pay me to do.
"Why do children on this planet have to starve because they don't have enough DIGITS on a computer screen?"
I don't understand this one.
Why is it that we care sooo much about MONEY and not about ourselves???
Answer: I care about money becasue it is the medium by which I pay others for their expertise , i.e. home building, clothing, food and transportation.
"Why do we fight wars and kill our own species just so a few old men in black suits can become richer and richer? Why do we do that? "
Response: Good question.
"When Exxon-Mobil, Citgo, Shell and BP pumps oil out of the ground...doesn't that oil belong to humanity? Why is it THEIR Oil??? That would imply that it is THEIR Planet, right??? "
Imagine a time when government work was exciting, widely admired and much sought-after.
It seems an outlandish thought at a moment when you cannot turn on your television without hearing government spoken of as almost an alien creature. It is cast as far removed from the lives of average Americans and more likely to destroy the achievements of private citizens than to accomplish anything worthwhile.
True, we don't apply our anti-government sentiments to at least one group of Americans who draw government paychecks: our men and women in uniform. All the polls show they are, deservedly, held in high esteem. But civilians who do the daily work of government are more likely to be referred to as "bureaucrats," "timeservers," and various unprintable names than as public servants.
This has not always been the American way. There were important eras in our history when citizens in large numbers were drawn to government service with a sense of mission and exhilaration. The New Deal was certainly such a time, as were the days of the New Frontier and (though it is unjustly derided now) the Great Society.
They came in part -- take note, President Obama -- because they were inspired by leaders who made it a point to call them into government. Caroline Kennedy has said that when she was growing up, "hardly a day went by when someone didn't come up to us and say: 'Your father changed my life. I went into public service because he asked me.' "
But inspiration is not enough. The military, after all, does not rely solely on patriotic feelings to build its force, and neither should the civilian parts of government. One of the most powerful incentives the military has is the Reserve Officers' Training Corps, which offers assistance to those seeking higher education. It's time for a civilian ROTC.
That's the idea of a bipartisan group of senators and House members, who are proposing to create a Roosevelt Scholars program, named after Teddy Roosevelt. Reps. David Price (D-N.C.) and Mike Castle (R-Del.) have introduced a bill in the House, and a similar measure is expected in the Senate this week from Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio).
Although there is sentiment to include undergraduates in the program, the House bill is aimed at graduate students because the federal government has a special demand for highly qualified employees who are otherwise attracted (and heavily recruited) by the private sector. In exchange for generous scholarships in fields such as engineering, information technology, foreign languages and public health, the scholars would commit to three to five years of service in an agency of the federal government.
"With the aging of the boomers and those who responded to Kennedy's call to service, we need to replenish the government workforce," says Max Stier, president and chief executive of the Partnership for Public Service.
Stier, a one-man evangelizing squad on behalf of government service, notes that the government must fill 273,000 "mission-critical" positions in the next three years. This will require vast improvements in the way government recruits and a new willingness on its part to invest in its workforce.
The military, Stier says, gets roughly 40 percent of its officer corps through the ROTC. It makes sense to undertake a comparable investment in the civil service.
In the small and underappreciated world of those who care passionately about improving government's performance and prestige, there are competing visions of how to achieve this. One group of activists and legislators has been pushing to create a public service academy, modeled after the military academies, to prepare a new generation of leaders in government.
It's a good idea and would send another powerful signal that government work is and should be valued. But with the extraordinary constraints on the federal budget, the prospects of the large investment that would be required to build a new institution are not exactly rosy. A civilian ROTC would be a good first step. The Roosevelt program would have the benefit of drawing on the entire higher education system's capacity to produce specialists.