Federal government must go on a diet
My apologies to the obese, but I think this works.
When someone is overweight, the way to lose weight is to eat less. Our country is “overweight.” The nation has sat a smorgasbord of excess, and the only way we can solve our problems is to cut spending.
You don’t lose weight by eating more. Is a diet fun? Not often. Is it hard? Always!
Think about what is going on now. Like a reluctant dieter, our government says give me food (tax dollars), and I promise to diet next year. Trouble is, from past experience of Democratic Congresses, this hasn’t happened.
Oh, they claim we’ve cut debt, but all they did was AT BEST cut the rate.
Let’s say you are $10,000 in debt. You go to buy a car. You have your heart set on a new luxury SUV, but instead buy a used minivan.
You have saved dollars, but your debt went up. Your bottom line may be better, but is your debt reduced or just less than the SUV’s? Congress would say we cut spending.
For every dollar the government spends, it borrows 46 cents. Yes, for every dollar spent almost half is borrowed. Proverbs says a borrower is slave to the lender.
Nobody denies reports that Americans are getting fatter. But when we shift to public spending, we ignore the reality of where we are heading. The beast, our spending, is a monster, and it cannot keep being fed at that rate and by the people who are feeding it.
Half of Americans do not pay federal income taxes. The top 2 percent of all taxpayers pay something approaching 30 percent of all tax revenue.
Is that fair? Will the beast say that 40 percent is a fair rate for the top 2 percent, or is it just fair today and when the beast gets hungrier it will force more?
When will the beast be happy? Never!
Mike Moran, Kokomo
51 percent choose a better economy
As part of the 51 percent who voted to re-elect President Obama, it puzzled me why conservatives seemed interested in the same talking points at the very same time.
Friends and family members adamantly pointed out President Obama was not born in the U.S and was a Muslim. Then they all talked up Sarah Palin as president. Then, just as adamantly, it was Herman Cain, and then Mitt Romney.
Now President Obama’s arrogance is their primary concern. Why, seemingly in lock step, have they changed their primary concern?
Then I saw on Fox News a picture of President Obama wearing a crown and being called an arrogant ruler. Is the news division of the Republican Party calling the shots?
President Obama, arrogant or not, doesn’t have the corner on arrogance. Just look at the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor. There’s enough arrogance to go around.
Looking past the arrogance factor and to motivations behind our political parties, the party in the Oval Office wants to look good to the voters while the other party attempts to make them look bad. In the current environment, looking good means economic improvement and looking bad means stiffled economic improvement.
If the economy improves dramatically, which I believe it will, the Democrats will lock up the 2016 election. If the ecomony doesn’t improve, the Republicans will lock up the 2016 election for themselves.
So, arrogance aside, I believe the 51 percent and many others would choose economic improvement by the party currently in the Oval Office over another four years of stiffled economic improvement by the party seeking to make them look bad, regardless of what it means to the 2016 elections.
Larry Brooks, Kokomo