Now We Know Whose Fault It Isn't
Now We Know
Whose Fault It Isn't
On one thing, Obama is consistent: It's Bush's fault.
When Bush came into office, we were in a recession, which was never said to be Clinton's fault. The bursting of the tech bubble, which also caused the increased revenues and budget surplus in the previous years, caused it. Bush set about to get us out of the recession and did. He gave tax monies back to those who paid them, and it was spent or invested with no strings.
Two things caused the recession we are in now. The price of gas during the summer of 2008 finally got high enough to stop consumer spending. That was the last straw for the precarious credit situation in which the banks had been placed, when they were forced by the government to make loans to minorities who couldn't afford to pay them back (the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 began the process, and Congress, during the Clinton administration, accelerated it), so the housing bubble burst.
As Bush showed us twice, during his eight years, when the people feel confident about their future, they spend and invest money, which starts the economic recovery. As Obama has shown us, when people feel that the government is going to take more of our money to waste in government indulgences and regulate businesses or simply take them over, they don't, and the economy gets worse.
Now that we know whose fault it is not, let's be clear about whose fault it is. It is Congress that spends money and levies taxes. It was Congress that changed in 2006 to Democrat control. The control was large enough that they were better able to overcome the attempts to filibuster than the Republicans had been, and spend too much. We need to give the keys back in November.
Letter Made Assumptions
It is always of interest to turn to the Public Speaking section of The Pilot to read the thoughts of others in print.
Bob Bramwell submitted his thoughts (July 21) on our religious heritage and his insight on matters of God, our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which must cause readers to ask, "Where is this man coming from?" You decide.
He was right in saying that those coming to our shores were escaping from a state religion but wanted a Christian religion and the religion of their choice.
But then he assumes that at that time, some were Christians and some were not. And then he assumes that there were almost no atheists in that crowd. I do not believe that unbelievers were called atheists then. The ACLU did not raise its ugly head until much later.
He makes these assumptions to make his point. His letter allows your readers to make their own assumptions and ends with his assumption that we (Christians) have lost our moral compass and adds, "What's the stink?" Anyone want to respond to that?
Bramwell is uncertain whether to laugh or cry, and is concerned about the amount of ink The Pilot uses on us being a Christian nation. He could start a nonreligious ACLU paper and save The Pilot a little ink.
Robert E. Luhrs
I have a wonderful idea for your -editorial/graffiti artist Carlson: How about a cartoon showing a dumb donkey (i.e., jackass) with a pronounced -overbite advocating "Trickle-Up Poverty?" Isn't that where the Democrats/progressives are taking us?
More like this story