By Ron Lee
The Verbal Assassin
ON BLOOMBERG SAYING GOVERNMENT SHOULD JUST KEEP SPENDING - Dana Rubinstein wrote an article titled 'It's not like your household,' Bloomberg says of the federal government that appeared in the Capital New York. It read:
Mayor Michael Bloomberg takes issue with the premise that United States needs to balance its budget like a household, a conceit Republicans frequently invoke in arguing for spending cuts.
"It's not like your household," he said, during his regular Friday appearance on John Gambling's radio show. "In your household, people always say, 'Oh, well, you can't spend money you don't have.' That is true for your household. Because nobody's gonna loan you an infinite amount of money. When it comes to the United States federal government, people do seem to be willing to lend us an infinite amount of money."
"It may not be good policy, but America can get away with it for a long time," he went on. "And our debt is so big and so many people own it, that it's preposterous to think that they would stop selling us more. It's the old story, if you owe the bank $50,000, you got a problem. If you owe the bank $50 million, they got a problem. And that's the problem for the lenders. They can't stop lending us more money. Long term, you do have to do something about it, because it hurts business confidence more than anything. But you don't have to overnight close everything down and raise everybody's taxes."
Bloomberg is a strong supporter of the Simpson-Bowles endorsed approach to deficit reduction, and has long argued that the federal government should eliminate all of the Bush-era tax cuts and reform entitlements, a stance he reiterated today. Gambling pointed out that there was also that issue of the "admitted hundreds of billions of dollars worth of waste."
Bloomberg called that nonsense.
"Listen, I've worked now in goverment for 11 years," he said. "One of the problems is the definition of waste. You think the programs that I want are waste, and I think the programs that you want are waste. So it's not like somebody's taking wheelbarrows full of dollar bills and throwing them out the window."
"It's so trivial, John," Bloomberg continued. "It costs you more to find it than what it would save ."
Are you BLEEPING kidding me?! It’s not like “your” household? How elitist can you get? How separate from your constituents can you be?
It is exactly this thinking that has gotten us into the position we are in today - spend, spend, spend.
If Bloomberg thinks that China won’t pull the plug and watch us spiral down the bowl, just because it will cause them a little irritation, the “good” mayor has never taken a healthy dump! The pain only lasts briefly, then ... AHHHH ... relief.
Mayor, just because someone WILL lend you money, it doesn't mean you should take it! Its like saying that because a loan shark is willing to give you a large sum of money, he won't feed you to the fishes if you don't repay. C'mon, Bloomberg, we kind of figured you'd know that one!
Bottom line, Bloomy, it IS a household - it is the American People's. Perhaps you should move on.
ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT - I love it when people step forward and say they are for a ban on weapons, like Ron Fournier in his March 20th article, Cowardly Congress, Ruthless NRA, and an Impotent Obama Conspire Against Assault-Weapons Ban. It shows them to be of the most uneducated of sorts; ignorant of our founding principles and the reasons for the founders' fight for freedom. The Second Amendment which may not be infringed (which by every definition says it can't ever be broken from - check its Latin base!) was adopted because at that moment in time we had just fought a war of independence against our own government to form a new one. Since these men were of greatintelligence, they knew they had to preserve the right for future generations to protect themselves from out-of-control government. How can anyone suggest otherwise? We don't have the Second Amendment because of our need to protect ourselves from others or to hunt, we have it because they needed arms to protect themselves from government and wanted to ensure the people had that ability in the future! That is the essence of the Constitution anyway, an absolute limit on government! The People's rights are inherent - not government's, they only get their power from us.
ON PROTECTION OF SELF FROM OTHERS - It is unfortunate that there is depravity in the world, and that individuals would seek to steal the freedoms, possessions and lives of others, but that will always be the case. However, it is absolutely asinine to believe that creating a law will result in no lawless behavior - you simply can not legislate sanity or reason or morals. Furthermore, it is even more absurd to think that stripping any law abiding person's ability to protect themselves is just. Passing a law does not make a law breaker (criminal) not break laws.. Let’s also be real for a moment... if someone were to be harming you, brutally, asking them to stop might be the nice thing to do, but it won’t work well. A gun does, however.
THE SIGN OF THE TIMES - I showed my 16 year-old daughter a sign. It read, "This is a gun free zone - all weapons are prohibited on these premises." I asked her if she thought it would stop someone from going to that place and harming others. She said, "no." Then, I showed her one that read, "Staff heavily armed and trained. Any attempt to harm children will be met with deadly force," and asked her the same question. Her response: "It might not stop everyone who wants to do something bad, but it would be a good reason not to try - especially if it were true.”