In this morning's paper I read that :
"Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the first major world leader to face voters since the global financial meltdown, led his Conservative Party to victory Tuesday, Canadian media projected. It was predicted the Conservatives would win enough Parliament seats to at least form another minority government."
Italy, Germany, France and now this. Cool. Seems our foreign friends are beginning to reject what some in this nation strangely think is a good thing.
Also, a letter writer opines that these were the facts on June 12, 2007:
-Stock market and 401(k)s at all time highs
-Unempolyment was at a 25 yr low
-Federal tax revenue was at an all-time high
-Income taxes at an all time low
-Federal deficit was down 50% from previous year
-Interest rates were down
-Home values were up
-Gas was about 2.35 per gallon
The writer goes on to point out that Bush's policies haven't changed in the last year and a half. "The only change has been the Democratic takeover of Congress." He then re-iterates what conservatives have been saying for awhile, that Bush's mistake was not weilding the veto pen on all those massively pork-laden and earmark burdened bills that came across his desk. But yeah, let's vote in more Democrats. Because we need change. Because prosperity just doesn't work.
10 comments:
Excellent points, Marshall. It is amazing how the media and the Dems forgot that they took over congress with a whole bunch o' promises and have failed miserably.
Change!
Well, to be fair, I didn't check the letter writer's facts, but I recall these types of stats being mentioned on talk radio shows. (I know libs, you don't put any stock in that, but the thing is, I have no reason to doubt the words of the people to whom I listen and you only think you do. I'm quite comfortable if a Michael Medved makes such statements because he likes to research such stuff for his show. In fact, he's really good at it.) You won't find too many on the right who would disagree with the spending that went on in Congress before the midterms, nor Bush's weakness when it came to using the veto on pork and earmark filled bills. But overall, the economy was chugging along quite nicely for the bulk of his administration. The left, however, insisted on painting scary pictures for their suckers, and now we come to find just how much involved they were in bringing about the current mess.
Perhaps we need to move to cabada and let the United States of Obama implode upon itself. Then, we can move back and pick up the pieces.
OOPS. Forgot to mention I have a new post up about the debate.
cabada??? I meant Canada, of course.
Mark, if you decide to move to Canada, I will pay your way.
An important point to note about these foreign "conservatives" - they are farther to the left than most American liberal politicians. With the possible exception of Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, who is nothing more than a crook with crypto-fascist tendencies. Angela Merkel in Germany and Nicolas Sarkozy have been successful mostly for distancing themselves from the Bush Administration.
If you want to feel really good, you should know that the Tories are poised to take over in Britain. They would do so without a specific mandate from the voters, and while they have done well in by-elections, there is enough evidence that Labor under Gordon Brown has bungled a whole series of opportunities, not least was a more forceful statement of distance from Bush (and his miserable handling of Britain's own version of the collapse of investment banking).
Geoffrey,
Closer right is superior to farther left. We'll take it. And as Bush is leaving office, opinions regarding him are really irrelevant at this point. So it really doesn't matter what the foreigners think of him. At the same time, I doubt they'd hesitate to work with him over someone pushing the types of far left stuff of which they are relieving their countries. Just a hunch.
Marshall, prosperity happens when more people have more money, not rich get richer poor get poorer. That is why the middle class is(was) so important. I'm not looking for socialism. I'm looking for something that will work. Like better wages(you know, what you get when you WORK). Like less compensation at the top and more in the middle and the bottom. The company doesn't need to even make more money to do this. At least if we start at the top and work our way down. All could prosper that way. It's a change of direction not redistributing wealth. If that is wacky socialism then I will have to accept your semantics. Call it what you want.
Oh by the way. If you can get republicans to support and put some muscle behind what I believe needs to happen I will be more than happy to vote republican..joyfully. My problem with the democrats is they talk but they either don't want to or don't know how to make it happen. At least they seem to get it.
Ron,
It's none of your, or my, business how a company chooses to operate, who they choose to compensate and how, or anything else that they feel is in their own best interests. It is your business, and mine, what we do with the money we DO earn, how we live our lives and the choices we make for ourselves. THAT is where the focus of either party needs to be in terms of helping the needy who are able to help themselves. And should any of them rise above their station, as so many continue to do even in the worst economic times, I will support their success and their ability to choose how they use their dough in the very same way.
Post a Comment