This is my view on several articles that I have recently read. One by Michael Reagan, one by Kevin Raypholtz and one by John DeGroff. All have been taken from recent copies of The Times-Union.In reply to "Comedy": Much of that was pure BS. As for the governor with "highest approval rating," I assume you mean Daniels. If he has done so much, why are we facing a one billion-plus shortfall? Where's the money he promised to schools, etc: He may well have planned for it, but he has not delivered on his promises.
Other parts of this letter is humorous if you understand that our government is one of the most corrupt in this world. Our leaders will chip away at the "little man" a bit at a time. Each chip may not seem like much, but add them up and you'll find the "little man" is being driven to poverty.
What will happen is simple. Our nation will be crafted into the rich and the working poor. As for GW Bush: He trampled our constitution, and he raised our nation's indebtedness at the rate of more than a trillion dollars a year. Just where did this money go that he said was for the war effort, if the war has only cost close to nine hundred billion (so far)? You say we're headed toward a full-blown depression. Are you aware that by our nation's standards of our economy, that we have been in a depression since December 2007? Bush spent over $11 trillion and you complain the President Obama wants to spend 3.5 trillion. Why weren't you complaining before our current leadership? (rhetorical).
You don't show any manners when you tag your "holier than thou" titles on our current leaders. Or is it that you don't know how to use them? Daniels is a Bushite, he does what he wants and couldn't care any less about us.
In reply to "Scary Policies": I agree with your opinion that we are overspending on presidential travel. Bear in mind the many, many other excesses with tax money. (The next statement applies to the above article also.) President GW Bush didn't fight two wars. He fought his war, which was not Afghanistan because he was not interested in Osama. He only wanted the man "that tried to kill my daddy." Personally, I believe that if we ever capture Bin Laden, he will disclose things so monstrous about the administration that was in office at that time, that it will be a total horror story. Why do I think this? Because GW Bush did not go after him. (Osama could have been brought down in less than a week.)
Michael Reagan: He is a die-hard, blind Republican. His father's Reagonomics was nothing more than the ancient program of corporate globalization. In theory, it's great. Can it work? Yes! But, as usual the program never "trickles down." Why? Because once the big guy on top gets the revenue, he keeps it all. This was/is the motto of the party ... "Keep the rich, rich or richer."
Now Michael is slandering our present administration, calling it a "sorry Conglomeration of far-out liberal confederates polluting the government." But at least he called the president by his rightful name and not "King Obama" or "President Hussein." Not to mention the Queen and the Court Jester. But, Michael would not call him "President Obama." I just love these not so subtle insinuations. (Kids play from "idiots.") His main point is that it's our current administration that is killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Just where in the hell were you blowhards when GW Bush was in office? GW Bush put us in our mess. He stood at the threshold of national ruination and he escaped when the new president took over.
