Garnette's View

Why the funding of the military is fundamental to the US

garnette — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:32:43 +0000

Every once in a while when I get into a discussion about various issues that involve how DC is spending our money, the argument comes up that they don’t like the money going toward the military. I have decided to respond to this comment here. I admit I really didn’t know how to respond to it because I felt it was one of those things that we all have things that we wish the government didn’t pay for and we have to accept it for what it is. But, the problem with that argument about the government not funding the military goes back to one of the basic reasons we are the UNITED States of America. See, back then as we find continue to see now, the states wanted to keep as much decision making at that level rather than having someone in New Hampshire making decisions for Georgia (for instance.) I mean, unless you live in Wyoming, do you really think that the lawmakers from that state understand the needs for a state that has huge urban areas or a lot of farmland? It was the same then when the New England states were more industrialized than the states in the south. And while slavery was an issue it was the only issue that was up for debate as the founding fathers created our country. In fact, there really were only two reasons why they supported joining together the colonies. The two reasons were trade and defense. As you read the Bill of Rights, you can see how they limited the federal government in order to give the states the strength to make their own decisions. In fact, the whole reason for the 10th Amendment is to give the states all the rights not given to the Federal Government, which really were based on the need for a collective group to be able to defend the country from attacks from other countries, as happened with the War of 1812, and to be able to engage in trade with other countries, rather than having 13 colonies separately try to do so. So, isn’t it interesting that the one part of the budget that many on the left would like to not have is one of the few reasons we were formed as a country.

The other side to the argument about not funding the military came to me as I read something about pacifists and their desire to avoid World War II. I can understand that they don’t like the idea of fighting and don’t want to be around it. It reminds me of all the talk about trying to stop bullying. No matter what is said and done, bullying will exist. The most recent example of bullying I saw was a bird that would not allow other birds around the bird feeder. It is part of who we have been created to be. Sadly, sometimes I think the unspoken part of the message about not funding the military is that those who do want to have a strong military, do so because they want war and like the idea of going to war, thus the reason for wanting to fund the military.

Just as much as we would like to live in a crime free world, crime will exist. It was this idea that gave me the way I see the defense budget. I would love to live my life where I don’t have to worry about locking my house and that I could leave my keys in my car with it sitting in my driveway. Sadly, those days are over and we have to protect ourselves from those who would take a car with keys in it or go from house to house looking for an unlocked door. Women have to worry about being attacked and raped. Thus, the need for the military to protect us as a country as well as protect us as individuals in not something that we can avoid. It is something that allows us to have some degree of security that the door will stay locked at night when we go to bed and not be forced open by soldiers of another country.

So that is my two cents on why one of the few rights that the founding fathers gave to the Federal government was for the military.

Filed under: Congress, Defense, National Security, United States Constitution

Sen Schumer shuts down a meeting so citizens can’t meet with our elected officials

garnette — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 02:02:53 +0000

whose salaries we pay and are elected by WE THE PEOPLE to represent us in DC.

Well, a meeting is scheduled in a specific room in advance…and then Chuck Schumer decides that the meeting can’t have the room so they can’t meet…

From The Other McCain

Remember Chuck Schumer at one time held what had been Anthony Weiner’s seat and Anthony Weiner considered him to be his mentor and thought he would follow in his footsteps.

So why is it that the Occupy Wall Street group can act in civil disobedience and break the laws and are embraced by the Democrats but yet when a group of citizens arrange a meeting with members of Congress and ensure that everything is done to reserve the room, a Democrat decides to not allow them to meet. So, breaking the law is fine but following the rules is not?

Filed under: Congress, Tea Party

More thoughts on the Occupy groups

garnette — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 22:30:21 +0000

In some ways I don’t know quite what to say about the ongoing protests by the Occupy group. As you will see from previous posts, I felt that they didn’t quite get the idea of protesting against big corporations when they were using products of the groups they were protesting against. Then, I realized that they are somewhat like the Tea Party group, except there are a bunch of them that realize that they are being paid to protest by the liberal politicians. Then, I noticed how much the democrats are trying to align with the groups much as the republicans tried to do with the Tea Party. Both parties have tried to play others against these groups and because they are in some ways hijacked by politicians, it enables them to once again play us against each other while they attend cocktail parties together after work. While there are some things that the two groups disagree with at the same time there is one big issue that the two groups totally agree on politicians have forgotten that they are elected by WE THE PEOPLE and let themselves be controlled by special interest groups. Now, I might actually agree with the occupiers a bit more if they were not embraced by so many special interest groups. Sadly, this is not the projection that they have done on the truly grassroots that started the Tea Party. Granted I do think some people and groups have tried to tie themselves to the Tea Party they really haven’t gotten the support of the Tea Party.

Sadly, while I have watched some groups in some cities be able to work to have a crime free protest, most cities have had a high amount of crime associated with those who are part of the protest. Of course, they also say that they don’t want those 99%ers to be welcome at their protests. But, I read something yesterday that totally changed my mind about this group. There is one little thing that they don’t realize or perhaps a few do and that is when you look at how good even the poorest in this country have it, we are all the 5% of the world that are the wealthiest. As I hear them tell their hardships stories, I realize that it is all about what they don’t have and what others have. But, there are a lot of people who would think they have a lot more than a lot of people. What I don’t hear them talk about is something other than what they have identified as the problem, what are they doing to make changes to the situation. Even before they protested, do donate their money or their time to make a change? Perhaps, they want for themselves more than they really want for others.

Filed under: Wall Street Protests

When 99 becomes 1

garnette — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 00:37:22 +0000

Their signs say that they make up the 99%. I’m still not sure what 99% they make up but as the protests continue I am beginning to see them as a 1%. When they demanded to be able to break the laws that have been set as civil disobedience did they realize that they began to use resources that were being taken from the other 99%. Then, they were joined by others who made up the 99% that they said they made up. But, they didn’t exactly embrace those who joined them. Those who prepared the food began to feel like some moochers were beginning to take advantage of the protests. Then there was the entire thing about the process to decide how to use the donations that have been sent to them. I read about complaints by some of the 99% that felt that there was too much paperwork and a small group had control of money. Wow, are we seeing that there is a 1% in that group of the 99%? They feel like unproductive members of the protest are mooching food and causing problems. Could it be that they are not taking advantage of the lessons they could learn about how people interact even in a system that they think is the ideal communist situation.

But, then I read about the occupy group that wasn’t getting a lot of press until they began to talk to the press about things being stolen and fights breaking out in their group, which they felt were being caused by the homeless that were joining their groups because of the free food and blankets they had. Their biggest complaint was that the police were not making enough of a presence in their area. So, here is a group who are gathering in civil disobedience and not paying the fees or getting permits that would also include additional security and then decide that they want special attention from the police or should I say they need the police to babysit them. When it became evident from their own comments that things were beginning to get out of control, the state decided to save them from themselves because the state could not provide the attention they required. Or should I say at this point 1% of the population (the protesters) were expecting to have resources that were being taken away from the other 99% of the population in order that they could continue to protest with enough police protection to protect themselves from themselves. So, they are demanding to have special treatment during their protests that no one else is receiving or has received in the past. (Remember that the state has required the Tea Party protests to get permits, insurance and probably portapotties.) But, they expect the state to bow down to their requests and provide them with more police which means that other areas are not getting covered or tax payers are paying for additional police hours. But, it doesn’t matter because they are the 99% protesting against the 1% who make more money and pay more taxes. However, what really is happening is that the 99% is becoming a 1% because of their demand for special treatment.

Filed under: Wall Street Protests

Do the Wall Street Protesters see the big picture or consequences of their actions?

garnette — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:31:13 +0000

Today, I got a better understanding of what is in the Wall Street protesters minds. However, as I thought about it, they really don’t get the big picture. They get that there is a very small number of people who make a lot of money that aren’t the President of the United States or a member of Congress, who they think should make less money. I think most people think that there are a few who make way too much money. But, when you look at it in another way, most people have felt that a co-worker makes too much money. We can’t control how much others make. You don’t like the way a corporation is run then make other choices as in fight within the organization, run for office so you can try to make laws to change how things are done. Or you can decide to just hang out with your buddies on Wall Street. I have been wondering how they are charging their phones and going to the bathroom and taking care of other business. Could it be that they are borrowing it from corporations without paying for it. The other thing that came to mind and I wish I could find it but it was a comment where someone pointed out that in Egypt when a dictator came to power, the way he did it was to turn the mobs against corporations, the wealthy so that he could divide them and conquer them. As the hand is directed toward a false enemy (who the dictator to be probably paid off) he was able to take power. It is pretty much the way that others have done it as well, such as the Bolsheviks, Mao, Castro, and Chavez.

Then, I read a comment that Steve Gill said about the protest in Nashville. It was comparing the Tea Party to the American Revolution and the Wall Street protesters to the French Revolution. His big point was that America did it by individuals joining together while the French did it in mob rule. A Tale of Two Cities is a great read about what it was like in France during the revolution. But, what came to mind for me, was what I seem to remember about what happened after the French Revolution, which happened to occur because of the fact the Americans were able to fight and win against the British, it was that they didn’t get a democracy, they got Napoleon.

Sadly, I fear that the protesters don’t know history well enough to realize that they are being used just the way that others were used. They don’t seem to realize that the unions who are now supporting them are in bed with the corporations they are protesting. Actually, the unions want to take over the corporations, and what better way than to have some college students take down the corporations so they can take them over…along with all that money that the evil heads earn.

I have said it before and I will say it again. The big difference here is that in all the other countries who got a dictator to replace the tyrant who had been in control had never tasted freedom. We The People, love our freedom and we will fight for it rather than join those who want to take it away from us.

Filed under: Wall Street Protests

Yeah let’s protest against big corporations and post status updates using our ipads

garnette — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 22:48:48 +0000

I really wasn’t going to pay that much attention to the protests on Wall Street because all kids misguidely get behind some big issue and protest it. I know I did on several occasions. It is part of having a big heart and wanting to change the world. The problem is that without life experiences the world is not understood enough to get how to change it. You want to change how a corporation is run, become a shareholder and make your voice heard on who joins the board and how much the c level is paid. Learn accounting so you get what is going on so you can explain the changes you want to make to the tax code so that corporations can be fiscally responsible to this country. Finally, spend time learning the history of this country so that you can logically explain why you believe what you believe and why the changes you want to make would benefit the country. Here is a hint of how not to do it. Don’t go hang out on Wall Street with your friends wearing the latest $200 jeans and using your brand new ipad. Ask your parents what they gave up for you to have the latest electronic equipment and to get a good education. Maybe that education will help you see that you are protesting against the very brands you are using on a daily basis, including UPS since you are requesting donations to be sent to their office.

Great Post from Teresa Start the Revolution Without Me

Let’s look at his picture of how they are spending their time protesting on Wall Street at Legal Insurrection

Sadly, as I think about their protests, I am reminded of when Wall Street was bombed in 1920 and the World Trade Center in 1993 and 911. I wonder if these events even cross their mind while they are protesting.

Filed under: Banking and Finance, Economy, Wall Street Protests

Remembering 9/11/2011

garnette — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:19:57 +0000

The weirdest thing I remember is that the cable channels were broadcasting as news channels or they went dark, all except a network showing cartoons. I was relieved that children could have one channel to watch so they could avoid seeing the turmoil of the US being attacked. I am reminded today that those children are now old enough to understand what happened on that day. I hope they listen to the stories being told so they will never forget and be able to repeat the stories to their children.

Filed under: 9/11/2011

Is the government holding back the private sector from doing what they do best?

garnette — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 02:47:39 +0000

I saw part of a commercial on tv last night for a news channel. It bothered me, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on the reason why. It kind of reminded me about privatization, which was a really big topic back in the 90s. To put privatization in very simple terms, it is the idea that it is better for the government to contract for work to be done than to do it themselves because the government can’t be experts in everything. Thus, it makes more sense for an expert to provide the service. Also, it can be most cost effective. At the time one area where privatization was growing was in managing prisons. If you look at how a prison is run and how it makes sense for one company to provide the services in various areas rather than having each city, county, state have to basically provide the same services but on a much smaller basis then you can see why privatization was viewed as the direction governments needed to go.

So back to the commercial I saw. It had to do with a bridge that can only be built by the government, thus, the reason why we need to watch that channel because they see the need for the government to provide things like bridges for us. Finally, I realized the problem with this idea. Have you noticed what happens when a bridge is built or a road is built. The government contracts with a company that specializes in road building or building bridges to do the work. Perhaps a government will do basic work, but ultimately they will find an expert to do the work. Thus, while this commercial was about the need for government, government eventually needs the private sector to do the work. Come to think of it, sadly the point of the commercial was that the private sector wouldn’t invest in building bridges thus that is the reason the government is needed. Perhaps, if the government would allow the private sector to do what they do best, the private sector would invest in bridges. As a side note, if you look back at roads, ferries and bridges back in the Colonial times, they usually were built and maintained by private citizens.

Filed under: Economy, Government, Privatization

Here a plant, there a plant, here the union, there the union

garnette — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 22:12:57 +0000

Here are two news stories that happen to be headlines in the same paper on the same day. I haven’t quite decided how I want to connect them together so I decided to let you the reader do so.

The first is http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110731/NEWS0201/307310092/GM-collected-17-million-from-TN-jobs-then-left?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

The one thing that comes to mind with this is that if it was a grant, if it wasn’t used based on how they were supposed to use it, then shouldn’t the money be returned to the state?

http://www.tennessean.com/comments/article/20110731/BUSINESS/307310046/UAW-revving-up-unionize-South

The question that comes to mind regarding the union is that if a plant decides to unionize does that mean that the union can decide to support other union members with more seniority that want to transfer to this plant, thus causing current employees to be laid off to make room for union members with more seniority? It has been years since I studied unions so I don’t know the answer to it. However, you have to wonder how much the union will look after the current employees when they have union members who live in Tennessee and other states who are no longer employed. Also, I know that in right to work states, you don’t have to join an union but how does that work at an automotive plant if some are union members and some are not. It seems like it will cause more problems than it will solve, especially when it doesn’t seem like the employees are the ones who are looking for the union to help them…more like the union needs more members to help their pyramid structure, as in need more dues to feed the top echelon.

Filed under: Economy

Growth in states with no individual income tax

garnette — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:50:53 +0000

I wrote this comment on The Conservative Treehouse and after I posted it there, I realized that it would make a great post on this blog. It is a way to look at the effectiveness of lower tax rates. The thought started with me realizing that a great point to make in favor of lower tax rates is that the states that picked up the most seats in the Electoral College based on the 2010 census were Texas and Florida. When I wrote this comment, I checked my facts and figures and realized that the majority of seats gained were in states with no state individual income tax. Then, I wondered about the remaining states who do have a state income tax and noticed that they were all right to work states. Finally, I looked at the states that lost seats to see if they either had no state individual income tax or were a right to work state. Thus, the following comment was created.

When liberals talk about higher tax rates, look at the growth in states that have no individual income tax. A fast simple fact to use is that Texas, Florida, Nevada, Washington gained 8 seats in the electoral college because of growth over the last 10 years and the don’t have state individual income tax. Over 60% of the changes in the electoral college were gains by states that have no state individual income tax.

As a side note, the other states that each gained a seat were Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina and Utah, which are all right to work states. Interestingly, the only right to work states that lost seats were Iowa and Louisiana.

While checking the the states and their state income tax, I learned that Texas has no corporate income tax, but does have a gross margins tax. No wonder I have been hearing about so many corporations leaving California and New York for Texas.

Filed under: Taxes

By the way, inquiring minds want to know, where’s BO?

garnette — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 00:17:09 +0000

With his desire to not raise taxes but to increase revenues, I began to wonder more about how things are with his family. Then, I realized that I haven’t seen pictures of Bo lately. With all the traveling instead of cutting expenses, I began to wonder what is going on with Bo. Who is taking care of him with all the jet setting the Obamas are doing? I tried to find a recent picture of Bo with the family. The latest one I found was one of him participating in the Easter games. Hmmm, is Bo no longer needed as a photo op? I wonder about this for the simple reason that many say that you can see a lot about a man’s character by how they interact with their dogs. Now that the dog isn’t needed as much, we don’t see the photos of him. So, how does this tie into my comment about his promise in December not to raise taxes? Well, the language has changed to say increase revenues. Where do revenues for the government come from? Taxes or fees, which in a way are a form of taxation. So, unless they have figured out a way to raise raise revenue without raising taxes. Obama has once again gone back on his word. Just like he did when he said he was going to save a dog from death row rather than getting a pure breed. Sure, Teddy gave him this dog, but he could have still saved another dog’s life. Instead, he made this breed of dog into a hot ticket for others for a while. Until Bo wasn’t trotted out as often because he wasn’t needed. Just like when Obama needed to reach an agreement in December, he agreed to extend the current tax rates for two years. Now, just a few months later, when the lower tax rates are no longer needed, he is pushing to increase the tax rates as he wanted to do in December. Once again, just like Bo. He really didn’t want to get a dog but had to because of something he said. Now, that Bo did what he needed to do, he is only brought out when needed for pictures.

Just like Bo, so are the current tax rates.

Filed under: Barack Obama, Taxes

Wow, local public television stations have to pay dues?

garnette — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 01:27:56 +0000

I just read this post and I was shocked by this part of the article. I know it has been pledge time for the local PBS station so this really ticks me off. First of all, it seems like it is always pledge time on PBS. Second of all, they made a point of trying to keep it about local programming. While I think they do a good job of it, the big picture part of it ticks me off, especially because I do have a general understanding of accounting and the fact that unless when you make a donation you make it restricted, the money can be used for anything. There is more in the post about it, but it was a quote from another source, so I will use just this bit.

From www.sweetness-light.com Local Stations Are Canceling PBS Contracts

Who knew that local PBS affiliates even had to pay dues? This is the first we are hearing about it.

Yep, now that you realize that your tax dollars are supporting the liberal NPR and PBS, you can know realize that your pledge dollars do as well. Wow! I really don’t know what to think. Here we are asked to donate our hard earned money to support our local public television station, and now it appears that a large portion of their budget actually ends up being paid as “dues” to the national part of PBS. Sorry, after hearing this, I will no longer consider watching the channel or supporting it in any way. I thought the money was supposed to go in the other direction, as in our tax dollars are sent to the local PBS channels to support local programming.

I would really like it if someone can make me feel better by explaining this in terms that basically say there are no dues to the parent organization.

Filed under: Economy, Nonprofit agencies

Time Warp Picture time all the way back to 2004

garnette — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 18:47:50 +0000

Pictures of Sarah and Todd Palin eating at Panera in Pella reminded me of this event from 2004. Sadly, it turned out to be just a really bad photo op. (I know the same could be said about Sarah and Todd’s visit, but I do believe they enjoy eating at casual dining restaurants.

But, it was this part of the story that reminds us of how much a Democrat who says he is for the working man, is saying and doing one thing to the public and doing something else in private.

From Free Republic

When John Kerry, John Edwards and their wives descended on a Newburgh, N.Y., Wendy’s restaurant on Friday for a “light” lunch with the common people, it was all just a photo op.

Team Kerry-Edwards had already ordered their real lunches – consisting of five-star gourmet food from a tony local restaurant – with instructions to have the haute cuisine ready for pickup after the top Democrats ditched Wendy’s.

“A member of the Kerry advance team called Nikola’s Restaurant at the Newburgh Yacht Club the night before and ordered 19 five-star lunches to go that would be picked up at noon Friday,” MidHudsonNews.com reported on Sunday. “Management at the restaurant, which is operated by CIA graduate chef Michael Dederick, was told the meals would be for the Kerry and Edwards families and actor Ben Affleck who was with them on the tour.”

After tossing out their cheeseburgers and chili, Kerry and Edwards feasted on shrimp vindallo, grilled diver sea scallops, prosciutto, wrapped stuffed chicken and steak salad.

The meals came to about $200, MidHudson News said.

Filed under: Congress, John Edwards, John Kerry, Redistribution of wealth

Obama, when Carter taxed the rich, it hurt the middle class, why are you trying to do it again?

garnette — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:03:27 +0000

Sounds like Obama is taking a page out of the tax plans that Carter had in the 1970s, the only problem is that they didn’t work then and they won’t work now. I know I have written before about the impact that Carter’s tax plan to tax the rich by taxing them when they bought new yachts to raise more tax revenue. Guess what, it didn’t work. People would decide to stick with their current yacht or do without out. So, who did it impact, the middle class. Yep, all those companies that employed people to build the yachts could barely stay above water because no one was buying what they had made so they had to lay off workers. You know the workers who typically were middle class taxpayers. Got to say that Carter’s plan worked fantastically for improving the economy, if his plan had been how to increase unemployment.

Now, Obama has decided to go after the evil corporate jet owners and have them pay more taxes. If it is corporations, I will remind you that they don’t pay taxes because this is a cost of doing business and as an expense has to be offset by revenue, which is what they receive from their customers for providing products or services.

I found this interesting post that is a great explanation of the problems with taxing the rich.

Updated to add first post about Carter and the yacht taxes.

Filed under: Barack Obama, Economy, Taxes

Actions speak louder than words, Rep. Bachmann

garnette — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:40:40 +0000

What happened with the leadership position you decided to take on in the 112th Congress? You know, the one as head of the Tea Party Caucus, which you started in the House. How many other Congress members have joined the Tea Party Caucus? How have you worked with others in the Tea Party Caucus to put forward what those of us who embraced the idea of the Tea Party when it first started?

You gotta it, your actions are speaking a lot louder than the words you are speaking when you decide that you have enough leadership experience to run for President. Or are you planning on doing what Romney did in 2008 in which he stepped down so that McCain would be the nominee. Wasn’t there some suspicion that he did so with a promise of a VP nod and a promise to be the nominee in 2012? How did that work for Romney, who created Romneycare? He isn’t do too well in the polls, if Trump came close to his poll numbers as have you.

Let’s talk about who you actually seem to be the most like is Obama. Come to think of it, it isn’t that much of a jump for you to go from Romneycare to Obamacare. Yes, your words are that you want to repeal Obamacare, but as leader of the Tea Party Caucus what have you done to do so. You know, how have your actions matched up with your words? In the opinion of this voter, not well. But, you are trying to sell yourself as a new and improved Sarah Palin. However, you don’t have the executive experience or foreign relations experience to come close to being anything like Sarah Palin. In fact, after hearing your interview on Fox yesterday, you reminded me of pResident Obama. You came across as someone who will vote “present” so that you can say what you think people want to hear. The problem is that while you say you have all this experience, your actions don’t show it.

Filed under: Michelle Bachmann