President Obama, Democrats must stop demonizing success

Terry Garlock's picture

It is perhaps ironic that Steve Jobs, cofounder of Apple Inc., died last week at the same time anti-capitalist signs and chants were televised from the leftist protests called “Occupy Wall Street.” The demonstrators demanded jobs and railed against corporations, testimony to their own ignorance of where their jobs and the products they use come from.

To paraphrase some demonstrators’ sentiments, can’t we all just share our country’s bounty instead of some getting rich while others remain stuck in poverty?

Of course that implies we should be a collective society even though individualism is the founding principle of America. Those who truly believe in collectivism should visit Cuba or study the history of Jamestown four hundred years ago. Besides, the country’s bounty is not static, it multiplies in a growing economy.

One interviewed demonstrator spokeswoman insisted corporations should not be receiving so much money unless they use it to create jobs instead of enriching themselves, suggesting there must be a nanny in the sky passing out money, never mind the misunderstanding of how jobs are made.

I suppose the root problem is we have done a miserable job teaching to recent generations the virtue of capitalism and how it works, and if uneducated you have to overcome the tug of your heart and use your head to come to the right conclusion.

Steve Jobs was the demonstrators’ fellow liberal, but as a capitalist he was a titan, leaving huge footprints. I remember very well when he and his partner, Steve Wozniak, started what would become the personal computer revolution, creating in their garage the first product that would fulfill their dreams of making tons of money and in the process they changed the world. You and I were the beneficiaries of the tidal wave of products that followed and spread worldwide.

In more recent years Jobs and Apple have given us the iPod, iPad, touch phones and many other products. While Jobs and his partner became wealthy beyond your wildest dream, I wonder how many thousands of people had a job, or a career, not only at Apple, but in the tens of thousands of other companies that jumped into the ocean of opportunity created by these two men.

By their continued vision, these entrepreneurs created not just a successful product, they created an industry that kicked in the afterburner of human productivity.

What an epitaph – Steve Jobs made the world a better place!

And he did it all in the pursuit of more-more-more money. Call it greed if you like, but that is our capitalist system, harnessing the self-interest of each individual to motivate imagination, innovation and hard work.

New businesses are started when someone has a dream, the desire to take a risk and try to make a product or deliver a service, something that works so well it becomes profitable. Most new business ventures fail, but if it succeeds and blossoms, that new business owner will have to hire people to help get the job done as he hopes to make tons of money.

That, of course, is how jobs are created in America, no matter what the politicians say.

In many cases the entrepreneur needs funding (capital), so venture capitalists bring investors to the table to buy a piece of the business, to become shareholders in a corporation, each one hoping to make an obscenely handsome profit. Everyone who owns a 401k, IRA or pension is likely one of these investors.

If the business succeeds and grows very large, eventually it will need highly skilled executives to guide and execute the business strategy, to select, manage and motivate employees.

The problem is the pool of the best among these executives is small, and the ones desired are already employed elsewhere. So recruiters specializing in executive search find the right people and entice them with piles of money in salary and bonuses that would make Jed Clampett blush, and golden parachute packages that guarantee them many millions even if they are fired. These executives are the ones the public loves to despise, having no understanding of why they are paid so much.

There is much risk in a new business. Along the capitalist highway are littered bone-piles of failed and dead ideas. We know what motivates entrepreneurs to take the risk trying to make their visions come true – the pursuit of wealth – and investors buy shares of corporations for the same reason, weighing the risk of loss against the profit potential.

Visions, dreams, taking a risk of terrible loss in hopes of making lots of money, that is the American economic engine, a competitive process that has turned on the lights of the world, raised transportation and communication and entertainment to an extraordinary level, made our lives more comfortable in a thousand ways. And all this has happened as a by-product of people pursuing their own self-interest.

We need regulation to set boundaries for corporate behavior, but there is a delicate balance to strike. Anything that discourages these entrepreneurs and investors from taking those risks should be of grave concern to us, because if they put their visions on hold, if they withhold their investable capital to keep it safe on the sideline, America’s economic engine will slow down, just as it has in recent years. What are those things that put the brakes on our capitalist system?

• More and more regulation that slows productivity and increases costs

• Higher taxes

• Uncertainty in Washington, D.C., about more taxes and regulation

• Class warfare that demonizes success

• Anti-business government rhetoric

• Government intervention into industry, like the shutdown of oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Sound familiar? At least the Obama Administration is consistent – they do ALL the wrong things! This is why President Obama preaching about job creation is a farce of the highest order.

His administration is the most anti-business of any in my lifetime, creating mountains of new regulation and relentlessly trying to raise taxes on the high-income people who invest and create jobs.

Is it any wonder investors are keeping their capital on the sideline? Is it any wonder entrepreneurs have put their dreams on hold until the fog of uncertainty lifts? And with each postponed and withheld business move, jobs that would have been created ... are not.

All the stimulus spending in the world won’t break the jobs creation logjam. The dam will break only when this administration is gone, when the uncertainty is lifted in a more business-friendly environment.

It’s easy to demonize corporations, especially when our government is using our money to bail out banks, insurance companies, auto companies and state employee payrolls. It’s easy to demonize wealthy executives while we are paid so little by comparison. It’s easy to go too far with regulation and taxes that induce American companies to move jobs overseas.

It’s easy for President Obama to blame his predecessor, to blame Wall Street for causing our economic mess when in reality the cause was arguably decades-long liberal government policies requiring banks to lend to unqualified borrowers.

It’s easy for “Occupy Wall Street” demonstrators to forget that Wall Street is now Main Street where all of us are investors and should hope for entrepreneurs to succeed.

It’s easy for the President to point the finger of blame at high-income people demanding they pay more taxes even while Washington fails to eliminate duplicate, wasteful and unnecessary spending, even while his own administration has set new records in spending, even while politicians fail to tackle the unsustainable entitlement programs they have used to buy our votes.

The people marching in the streets demanding jobs might be enlightened if they give some thought to what President John F. Kennedy said about lowering taxes in order to promote business expansion, “A rising tide lifts all boats.”

It is that simple. Unleash entrepreneurs and investors, and the job creation machine goes to work.

This president working on jobs stimulus programs is the very definition of futility. There is only one thing President Obama can do to stimulate the creation of jobs.

Get the hell out of the way so we can celebrate success once again and stoke the fires of America’s business furnace.

[Terry Garlock of Peachtree City occasionally contributes a column to The Citizen. His email is terry@garlock1.com.]

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
kcandy & assignments in Germany

Bad Aibling 60-65 (3 tours of different lengths at DF Site at Memmingen in those yrs)
Bad Aibling 68-71 (whole tour as NCOIC at Memmingen)
Augsburg/Wobeck/Berlin 74-77 (10 months in Augsburg as WNCO, 17 Months in Wobeck as First Sergeant, rest of time in Berlin as WNCO)
Heidelberg 83-86 Civilian SIGINT Officer on G2 Staff.
Andy, there were no intel folks in Ulm. In Bad Toelz, only a 10-12 person Special Operations Detachment (all ASA guys) in spt of the SF Group there.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
AHG

I was born in Augsburg, all those many years ago.

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
I knew it.

It was clear you weren't from around here.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Terry, I Agree That

all able-bodied military veterans should be immediately stripped of their life-long pensions and medical plans, which are a HUGE unfunded liability for working taxpayers, their children, grand children, and great grand children. This falls under your notion that government should be run like a business, which means chopping the unfunded pension and medical plans of ALL government employees--past, present, and future; military and postal; republican, democrat, or TEA! When GM first ran into trouble, they shafted retirees by ditching their unfunded liabilities in an effort to save the company! And, as you and I know, what's good for GM is good for America! I applaud your continued efforts to try and stamp out socialism wherever it may be--in Vietnam or in the cozy retirement plans of military vets and other government workers! We need more like you!

Keep up the good work!

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
They're working on it, Ninja...

...as the latest popular iteration circling the Hill is a 401K-style 'pay-in' retirement that is matched by Uncle Sam, and for those who don't reach the 20-year mark the accumulated assets roll into their SS accounts. This plan allows non-career service members an incentive to serve but yet take something with them. Of course, these accounts are tied to the stock market, so in light of the recent dive(s), I don't believe most current DoD members are completely on board w/ it.

As for medical coverage, still a great benefit but co-pays & costs are ever-increasing. I imagine the solution here will be to keep raising the cost(s) for retirees. I'd prefer to see the civilian gov't workforce take the brunt any major increase, depending on what they do, i.e. the CIA & FBI put themselves at risk, too.

As for 'able-bodied' vets, I'd have to defer to your medical training to determine who or what that might be - is PTSD worth less than losing a leg? Is a crushed vertabrae from a airborne jump worth more than repaired knee from years of running? I dunno - I'll leave that to your expertise. Maybe combat zone service could be a requirement, but then the Ft. Hood victims would get zip...

Sorry the Falcons couldn't hang w/ the Pack; heck, they practically spotted the Birds 14 pts!!

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
KC Andy

Good to hear that someone is on the case for ending socialism among military retirees! Why fight it in foreign lands only to embrace it at home! As for able bodied, only Purple Heart winners get free medical for life!

As for the Falcons, I think they would be hard pressed to beat Our Lady of South Bend this year!

Go Chiefs!

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Terry. You are more intelligent than your work.

First, to bring up Steve Jobs in this discussion is just beneath you and everyone else that will comment here. Truly tasteless, mate.

You are a hyper partisan to be sure, but we all share facts. As you call a shift of tax structure to the Reagan era "demonizing the rich;" As you ignore Ronald Reagan's words, "It is crazy for a bus driver to pay a higher tax rate than a millionaire;" As you ignore that corporate profits are HIGHER under President Obama than they have EVER BEEN BEFORE, you show that you are more interested in spreading a false narrative than opening an honest discussion of how to help our jobless.

Terry, you have the blind audacity to say Occupy protesters are showing "their own ignorance of where their jobs and the products they use come from."

Who is ignorant here, Terry? Go turn your computer upside down. Look at the "Made in..." tag on your ceramic GOP Elephant. Heck, look where the American flags on your golfcart were made. C H I N A! That's where the Occupy Wall Street protesters' products come from. Come back to reality, Terry. You can push a narrative but you can't change the facts. You push the LIE that our President is so very anti-business, yet these businesses somehow are making HUGE profits, Exxon being a great example since you mentioned off shore oil drilling. Tell me when Exxon has made more profit than under President Obama. Give me the year.

A key question, Terry: Who paid a higher effective tax rate in 2010: You or Bank of America?

Answer that question, and you just may know why there is a liberal version of the Tea Party.

This is bird cage-lining material from you, Terry. We'll call it a Mulligan.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Kevink - Why

is it that we always talk about raising the effective tax rate for the rich and we never discuss the need to lower the secretary's effective rate?

Seems we have it backward, don't you think? Let's let everyone keep more of their money.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
kevin: here's another one

"Oil is $55 a barrel, oil companies don't need incentives." George W. He got that one right 100% and that was back in the "glory days" when oil was ONLY $55.

Can't agree on the Occupiers of Whatever. If they need a job, sleeping in public parks is probably not the best way to find one. They appear to be a bunch of neo-hippies with some of their ex-hippie parents going along for the ride. Cut your hair, take a bath, you stinky hippies, and get a job! The homeless are also really not supportive of the cause either since they are crowding them out of Woodruff Park. Why does anyone wonder why the APD said it was OK for them to stay? They prefer them over the homeless, though in a few days it may be hard to tell the difference by sight or smell. I expect most will go back home to the suburbs pretty soon because they miss their basement and World of Warcraft too much.

One group not against the Occupiers is the TPers. When you have one small group elected that wants govt gridlock, shutdown, and zero compromise on one side, what could be even better than a group that feels almost exactly opposite on the other side? Guaranteed cluster and govt couldn't do anything, which would make the TP(and a lot of others) pretty overjoyed.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
but nuk, how do they "get a job?"

How? Have you listened to any of their stories? There are unemployed PHDs in those parks. Check some of them out on youtube; quite compelling.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
kevin: seen the youtube vids...

..like the one "PhD" taking a dump on a cop car, ugh. Vive la Revolution!

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
NUK: My internet search filters have obviously kept me from

those links :-). You sure those weren't anti-police union GOP activists?

leonardp
leonardp's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/22/2005
Regulations

In regards to regulation, I would be interested in your response to this: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/regulation-and-unemployment/ written by Bruce Bartlett who held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.

The "Obamacare" plan is essentially a long standing Republican idea dating back to Richard Nixon and supported by the Heritage Foundation and nearly every prominent Republican in the 1980's.

It seems to me that what is now denounced as socialism is the mainstream Republican thinking of not that long ago.

After all, we do still worship the first great debtor president as a Republican icon.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Single payer insurance definitely has Repub origins

That was once a big part of the conservative platform a few decades ago and the Dems called the Repubs "socialists" for it too back then :) Gingrich was also a big proponent of single payer, mandated, universal health care. Buckley published several writers from the conservative side in the National Review that were proponents.

One reason why Romney isn't thrilling some Repubs is because he isn't backing down on Romneycare. For once, he's not flip-flopping and he's basically saying he's real happy it exists and he's proud, not ashamed. He's one of the few Repubs that still thinks along those lines these days. It doesn't appear that his competition is too eager to strongly challenge him on it either.

As far as other regulations, Obama's Blue Ribbon committee of the captains of industry addressed that in their recommendations this week pretty strongly. Unfortunately, about the only thing this administration will notice is the infrastructure bank idea and everything else like less regulations/bureaucracy(we love that!),dramatically lowering the corp tax rate(no!), fast-tracking skilled immigrants to citizenship(not fair!) will be totally ignored like his blue ribbon Boyles/Simpson committee's recommendations.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Hey, Nuk. How ya doin? I like your post; provokes thought.

As democrats ignore the "tax cutting" recommendations of the Blue Ribbon committee, Republicans yesterday, to a person, ignored the need for infrastructure repair. Amazing! There was a bridge protesters could not march on because authorities said it was in too poor a condition, yet each republican blocked the infrastructure-repairing, job creating bill yesterday. Only two democrats, Webb and Nelson, opposed it. But EACH and EVERY Republican opposed it, most likely to make Obama look bad; and our bridges, sewers, schools, and water systems go un-upgraded. This is troubling all around, man. This is bi-partisan broken government. I'm voting you and Mytmite to fix this!

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
kevin: NO!

If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve!

Obama or Romney....I do not envy them one bit because the mess the President will have to deal with(or is supposedly in charge of "fixing") has been cooking for decades and it's going to be real ugly.

The infrastructure bank idea has a lot of merit, even if Obama also likes it :) My issue would be how it is funded. Get rid of the damn oil subsidies and tax set-asides already. Stop subsidizing the stupid Ethanol program that even Al Gore admits is a huge failure. Dumping it has a lot of that elusive bipartisan support even, wow! Too bad ethanol states are also SWING STATES in Presidential elections. Maybe 2013 on that.How about rescind ALL the Bush tax cuts? How about reducing discretionary spending and pork projects that only benefit the few at the expense of the many? Legalize marijuana at least(that would be a HUGE job killer for law enforcement and all but oh well) and tax it? Legalize some gambling and end the monopoly of shady land-based operators in a few states, specifically Nevada(no worries Harry, you'll be retiring in 5 years)and tax that? You want revenues? There's plenty above to fund a Grade A infrastructure bank and plenty more. We can even bring in water hoses and bath the Occupiers when they get too ripe!

I'm waiting for the inevitable proposal coming from the Occupiers and some of the far lefties about a Tobin Tax. That idea is coming and soon. Maybe even from Obama since he's now Mr. Populist.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
LOL Nuk!

"If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve! "

You went full Christie :-D

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
KevinK & Voting

You forgot Tester, Manchin Lieberman!

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Democrats Athome?

I'm sure I've overlooked something though. Keep me straight brother.... um... you know what I meant :-D

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Well said Terry. It will probably start turning around next Oct.

By then the polls will show a clear victory for the Republican candidate for President and a strong distaste for Harry Reid's silly political games, which should indicate a Republican majority in the Senate and small businesses will begin hiring again. Once they know Mr. Hope and Change is out of business, things will improve. It is a shame that Obama will spend almost a billion dollars on his failed reelection effort. It would be better if he just didn't run and instead invested that money in creating jobs - just like he wants us to do with our tax dollars. Maybe when Holder gets indicted and Valerie Jarrett has to testify on Capitol Hill about her behind the scene shannanagins, Prezbo will see the writing on the wall and decide not to run - and that of course would move the recovery up several months. Even if Hillary steps up at that point, the country can't lose. Any Republican (except Bachman) vs. Hillary - no problem for most businesses.

I think the Republican candidate that has specific plans to do away with some of the sillier federal regulations and redundant agencies will carry the day. It really is time to assume victory and give some specific "hope and change" ideas to the actual working middle class and small business owners in this country and that includes the unemployed who want to be part of working middle class once again.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Mr. Garlock
Quote:

And he did it all in the pursuit of more-more-more money.

He did it in pursuit of 'how can I improve this'!! After a while - money is not that important. Money gave him the opportunity to continue his pursuit of improvement. He changed the world - as you said :

Quote:

harnessing the self-interest of each individual to motivate imagination, innovation and hard work.

There are millions of Americans/humans - whose self-interest has motivated imagination, innovation and hard work - and they are not rich. Money was/is not the motivation. There are those who have millions/billions - and aren't motivated to do anything but smoke another joint.

We have had lower taxes for businesses; less regulation; etc.,, etc., etc. - and look where we are. We were in trouble BEFORE the Obama administration. You, IMHO, have joined the 'let's get elected' group - without a substantive solution. Unleashing entrepreneurs and investors is a nice thought - except in this economy, where are the investors? If Obama gets out of the way - who has the answer to get us out of this mess? Nothing has come out of our 'do nothing' Congress. It will be interesting to see what happens when the jobs bill is tackled piece by piece. What will the sitting Republicans vote for / vote against in the interest of the American people who want jobs?

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
DM, you are partially right . . .

. . . in that money is not the only motivation. The American experience has proven that when people are free to chase their dreams and own the result, they are motivated to move mountains. Sometimes that motivation is altruistic. History also has many examples of collectivism stealing the human spirit, killing motivation to do anything more than the minimum required.

Looking at the big picture, what is the prime motivator of entrepreneurs? Wealth!

I'm afraid you are dead wrong, though, on regulation. We keep piling on layer after layer of regulation in America, despite the misleading rhetoric from the Democrats that our problems are caused by lack of regs. I daresay if Steve Jobs were alive today and trying to repeat his kickoff of the personal computer revolution, his ideas would drown in an ocean of regulatory barriers.

It is excess regulation, unreasonable union demands and taxes that drive American jobs overseas.

For those who argue for more regulation, I would counter that we need to use the laws and regs we have to fry the crooks. Instead, every time there is a "crisis," instead of prosecuting the culprits our politicians preach to the gullible masses that more regs are the answer. American business is drowning in regulation.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Terry, I Agree That

America is drowning in regulations. I am compiling a list of regulations to submit to our local representatives for immediate overturn! The thing is, I've thought about it a good while, but I just can't come up with any regulations preventing me from setting up any kind of business I want tomorrow! I know a smart fellow like you will have at least 10 readily available! Can you help me out by providing ten business-killing regulations! Even 5 will get me going!

We need more like you! Keep up the good work!

bladderq
bladderq's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/02/2005
Obama & Regulations

I don't believe that the biz environment is radically different in 2011 from 1996. Why didn't Ford, RAYguns, Daddy Bush, the NEWTster or Duby, straighten this mess out? It is most troubling that this Reactionary Right pandering to the TEAbagger vocal minority (replacing the Silent Majority) has chosen the EPA to be the preferred target. Good idea, Let's roll back 100 years of enforcement so that we can look like the former Soviet Union in terms of environmental disaster. Our corporate citizens have ALWAYS acted in OUR best interest vis-a-vis THEIR profits. Let's give the coyote in the keys to the hen house. Trust them. They won't come in...

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Terry G., take off your GOP cape for a moment.

If "regulations" are the problem, why did President Bush need a Troubled Asset Relief program? Did he over regulate? Did the mortgage industry bust because they were OVER regulated or UNDER regulated? What reality are your comments based in? Seriously? What regulations caused our economic recession in 2008?

rmoc
rmoc's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/22/2006
SCARY-no more blame GW Bush- Blame Jeri Ryan

If not for Jeri Ryan(actress 7 of Nine on Star Trek Voyager and current show Body of Proof) divorcing her husband we would not have Obama as president. Her husband Attorney General Jack Ryan had a significant lead on Obama for the Senate seat in Illinois but unfortunately his divorce case was unsealed and lots of unsavory details emerged of a "sexual" nature. If Obama had not gotten his few years in the US Senate he would not have had a chance for President. It is kind of one of those 7 degree moments. A second tier TV Actress led to the election of our current president...SCARY!!!

bladderq
bladderq's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/02/2005
Could of been/ Should of been

Jack Ryan wins and goes on to the Senate, where he and Sen Vitter [(Repug)La] are found in a twadry motel on Airline Hwy in NOLA engaged in sex role playing with 3 prostitutes dressed as Tribbles. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton wins the nomination and w/ her VP Barry Obama (based on his rousing speech at previous Demo Convention) sweep to a landslide win. With the death of Sen. Kennedy, the astute Clinton machine assures a win and with a 60 seat majority a wide ranging and encompassing Health Care Bill is passed. In Oct 2011 Duby Bush goes to Canada is arrested as a War Criminal and taken forthwith to The Hauge to stand trial w/ his co-conspirators Rummy & ShaChaney tried in absentia. TEAbaggers every where are appalled by these events. OH, Justice Long (d)Gong Thomas is impeached for "not knowing" it was required to report his wife's earnings and is replaced on the bench by Ms Prez Clinton w/ her husband Bill making him the 2nd ex-pres. to take the bench. I hear "I.G.Y." 'What a beautiful world this would be / What a glorious time to be free'

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
What regulations caused the 2088 recession, you ask?

Why that's an easy one Kevin. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 which required banks to make certain loans in certain areas that had previously been redlined or declare off-limits by the banks. Nothing much happened except for an acceptable number of bad loans that the banks could live with. Then in the 1990's Clinton's AG started pushing the banks for more "compliance" and then the low interest rates in the mid-2000's made it irresistable for banks to make these loans and fob them off on other investors - many overseas. The rest as they say is history.

That regulation was created by Congress in 1977. I believe Mr. Carter was the honcho then.

The reason Mr. Bush needed a TARP was that when he and his group warned Congress that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were unstable and would need to watched, Congress said no everything is fine. I believe the lead cheerleader on that one was Barney Frank.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
So Robert, you say a 1977 Act caused the 2008 recession?

And it was all the fault of democrats? And President Bush was where? Okay. Thanks for the info.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Mr. Garlock

Wouldn't it be more productive to take off the political labels and have business men and those 'government' officiaego who are concerned for our health and safety sit down and make some sense out of these 'regulations'? China had / has no regulations, and we had citizens/children who suffered from their products with high lead content. I understand that there is a bi-partisan committee working on regulations. Not much hope in any movement there. People need jobs. We have the money, the motivation, the entrepenuership, . . . .what's the problem? ( The president is the wrong color and the wrong party). Please show me where I'm wrong. Thanks.

T-Man
T-Man's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/16/2006
Tgarlock

The economy fell before we elected Obama. How did that happen in this great nation led buy Repub. Prez.. Oh wait a minute I know blame the Dem controlled congress for that. The jobs went with the down turn of our economy.

The money the oil companies made, more profits than ever before = highest gas prices Americans have ever paid. See the collation here. No regulation needed as you say.

Pay someone less than a $1/hr over seas or pay $7.35/hr here in America. That's how profit’s are made and the reason companies do business outside Amercia.

Don't blind yourself with party affiliation, see through the truth it's that simple. Each party will get people such as yourself in their corner and feed you what they want you to here. Your current Prez has put together a bill that was originally proposed by the Repub. The Repub. Say no to it because Obama presented it. Where is the Repub. controlled congress when Americans need jobs? Sitting back ready and waiting to say no to the Prez. We all see this and know that the Congress won’t do anything in fear it might help Obama look good. To @*## with America until we get back into the WH is their moto. And this is the party you follow TGarlock./ Sounds real American doesn’t it.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
He already told you, DM.

It's in his article. And plenty has come from the "do nothing Congress" - the beginnings of socialized medicine, record-setting spending, followed by record-setting debt, failure to pass (or even offer) a budget worthy of consideration, burden the military w/ coming homosexual demands, and those are just the highlights, so I think they've been quite busy. The question is more 'what will a Democrat-controlled Senate block' should the Republicans capture the WH?

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Kcchief andy. Puleeeaaassse

Homosexuals who were already in the military no longer having to lie about who everyone already knows they are is no "burden." Being allowed to exist as a human being is not a "demand." You, I believe, are stuck in a past that is forever dead and is now being burried, thankfully.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
They haven't had to lie...

...since the Clinton era. If you're not a part of the current military, then its really does not affect you, therefore your opinion is moot. The homosexual lobby has just begun shoving their agenda down DoD's throat (no pun intended)...

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
kchief andy, balogna.

they have had to lie and the only moot opinions are from those who's arguments are not worthy of public consumption. Luckily, no one appointed you the judge of that. So sorry.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Good job, Kev...

...you were soooo close to calling me a name - congrats on your composure! BTW, there's plenty of public who consume arguments like mine and consider it worthy. And for anyone in the know, 'they' don't have to lie, they just - previously - were restricted from flaunting it. It worked well, and the decent ones were/are well accepted and left alone; the homosexual lobby had to push it and plant their rainbow banner in the middle of the formation. Oh, and before you jump on the word 'decent', it goes for homos & heteros, too - promiscuity is a problem anytime, anywhere, by anybody.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Start putting your $ where your mouth is, Kev...

...here's the crack in the dike for the flood of gov't $$ that will be needed to assauge the homosexual lobby:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/13/disabled-navy-veteran-in-same-sex-m...

DoD needs to start cutting the R & D budget and shift it to personnel!

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Hey Kevin, you

really think that PJs will welcome Gays into their midst? I don't think so.
And neither will a number of other units--just can't ignore their culture and have them remain chohesive & effective. Just ain't gonna happen, in my view.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Athome. you'll be shocked.

There are gay soldiers, sailors, fighter pilots, cargo pilots, Air Traffic Controllers, Combat Controllers, football players, translators, medics, doctors, dentists, Civil Engineers, SPs, MPs, etc. We don't have to think in the hypothetical. Today is already here. You will not find a pilot who will ask if the TACP guiding him in is gay or straight. You will not find a SEAL who will want to know the orientation of the helo pilot dusting him off, or the Viper pilot supressing his threats. No one wants to know if the translator intercepting al qaida communications likes boys or girls. We are here already. And, from what I see on the news, our military is still fighting the fight.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Oh, I see now, Kev...!

YOU are part of the homosexual lobby! Ok, that really helps clarify where you're coming from - "We are here already. And, from what I see on the news, our military is still fighting the fight."

Got it; roger, wilco. Congrats on your win; can I now shower w/ women, since separating objects of sexual desire no longer matter? No? Ok, I guess they need to build heterosexual showers/locker rooms, both male & female, and then - I guess - homosexual locker rooms that men & women of that sexual persuasion can use together (I mean, why not? Not like those two types will excite each other, right?). Your narcissistic view is painfully limited, and not in the best interest of our military.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
kchiefandy: We means the American people.

DODT is dead. You lost the fight. I'm straight. That doesn't matter. I come from a long, long line of men and women who have and do serve. Military men and women will salute and follow the leadership's orders. Generals at the highest level support the reversal of DODT. Your opinion has lost. Your argument is moot. Again, sorry you aren't dealing with this well. those still wearing the uniform are. If you have a need to know more, you'll have to get it from the horse's mouth.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Here you go, Kev; might push Ninja to the edge!

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/10/ap-first-gay-troops-conference-hig...

As the homosexual lobby prepares it's assault on the DoD, prepare to double the outlays for 'spousal' support, medical benefits, housing, adoptions, heck, why not pay for invitro so these 'normal' couples can have kids?

Oh, fyi, the commonly know acronym for the repealed policy is 'DADT'.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
My mistake, Kev...

...read that wrong. 'Generals at the highest level' don't have to live w/ their decisions; it rolls downhill on the troops. Their subordinates will have to deal with the problems. They WILL have to come up w/ the $$ to pay for all the issues the homosexual lobby forces upon the DoD. Maybe you didn't see the link I posted where a 15-yr female homosexual vet is suing the VA for benefits for her 'wife' (how do they decide which one is which - flip a coin?). It is just the beginning of the coming costs of the 'Generals' decision. Oh well, raise taxes or erode some other section of the military budget to pay for it...

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
KCChief. You know why you need an excuse for everything?

Because reality has your mind twisted. You are upset that you can no longer influence the right of homosexual soldiers to behave EQUALLY to heterosexual soldiers; that a gay soldier's spouse would have the SAME rights of a straight soldier's spouse.

Now you say that Generals don't have to live with their decisions? Really? Tell you what. If you want a military that is not commanded and controlled by CIVILIAN leadership; if you want a military where airmen and PFCs give marching orders to Generals; you will have to create your own, cause that aint how America's fighting forces work my friend.

Remember this key point: IT IS AN ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE. If there are intolerant types like you who feel they can't serve their country next to gay people, they can quit. It's their right. Problem solved. Now wasn't that easy? They just need to know not to stop taking orders before their commitment is up like the Tea Part Army Officer that refused to deploy because he thought President Obama was born in Kenya. That dude's breaking rocks. So team intolerant soldiers probably want to finish out the old commitment before falling on their swords.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
No excuse, Kev, just a stance.

You seem to ignore the rights of the many in the DoD that find that morally offensive and don't want their families forced to be exposed to it. As it stands, homosexual partners have NONE of the same rights/benefits as married DoD heterosexuals, as it should be, just as a girl/boyfriend doesn't. Any such move is limited by the Defense of Marriage Act, and I hope it stays that way.

The Generals who ok'd this do not live & work day-to-day w/ many of their
policies & decisions, nor do the politicians; they've worked to positions
far above that. Operationally, it will hardly affect them. It has nothing
to do w/ the command & control of the armed forces. You missed the point.

And no, the problem(s) aren't solved, they're just beginning. And no where
in this string have I ever said homosexual can't/shouldn't serve, just the
rights of others are being trampled for a small minority group. I believe DADT worked very well.

Let's just leave it at you love homosexuals and their lifestyles, and I find it disgusting and morally offensive. Can I have my beliefs are will you deny them to me, as the homosexual lobby is forcing the DoD to do?

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
KC Andy & "stance"

Hey Andy, sure hope that "stance" isnt of the WIDE variety! Doesn't work too well in airport facilities for congresspeople!

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Once again a conservative's logic makes my brain bleed.

"You seem to ignore the rights of the many in the DoD that find that morally offensive and don't want their families forced to be exposed to it."

KcChief: Exactly what "right" do you have to keep another human being in the closet? How is it your "right" to force someone to keep their sexual identity a secret? To not invite their partner to the all ranks club? To have to lie (as soldiers did) when their personal emails are exposed and turned over to leadership? when their facebook pages are made public? What makes you think you have a God given right to keep someone from revealing who they are?

You're right. I love homosexuals. I love heterosexuals. I love hermaphrodytes. I love people regardless of who they choose to mate with.

You don't. that's fine. But DODT is D E A D. You're gnashing of teeth won't revive it.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Not really gnashing there, Kev...

...as I'm more concerned for our military when a small minority of people can lord their lifestyle and demands upon the majority (no official #'s to support that, of course, because we haven't been asking or telling), and threaten the day-to-day operations during a volatile period in our history. As I've said over, and over, and over, we've just seen the beginning. You've quoted me, but didn't say a thing about it, just ranted about 'rights' while ignoring mine.

I don't run the military, just espousing my concerns. If at an all-ranks club and I see homosexual acts, I'll probably leave. Being 'in the closet' or 'lie', et al, hasn't been necessary since Clinton's law, but some were unjustly exposed; it happens in many cases that leadership fails a service member and they are discharged - homosexuals just use it for ammo to prove they were 'picked on', when there are VOLUMES of incidents where a troop got a raw deal for one reason or another.

Congrats to the homosexual lobby, but I will not, or be forced to, attend any function where their personal sexual conduct might be on display; that is MY RIGHT. Are we done yet, or do we move on to pedophile acceptance, or bestiality lovers, because they were born that way, it's not their fault; they are SOOO getting picked on here lately. You must love them too.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Kevin & Situations

You very carefully pick situations that will purportedly boost your opinion--and they're not realistic. You know that I mean in every day shoulder-to shoulder ops, not situations separated by many land or air miles and controlled via radio traffic. Like Mike Huckabee, "That's my opinion and I'd love to hear yours"---but won't necessarily agree with it!
And BTW, "translators" don't do intercept--you have "Voice Intercept Operators" or "Morse Intercept (that's me) Operators or Intercept Operators of other modes of communication. Translators commonly take Foreign language printed material and convert or translate person to person spoken speech and translate from that foreign language to English.
More importantly, I now believe that I have not been to McCalls, but ate at Wilburs, which I believe is just down the road. I thought it good but not good enough to buy and bring home.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
OMG, AtHome...

...you were a Hawg (05H)?! Me too!

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Athome. They are on opposite sides of HWY 70

Head to head competition at its best my man! Your opinion is shared by many. so is mine. In the end, soldiers salute and march on.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
About kc and Joe

Sometimes I am required to visit the bottom feeder websites. These contributors often repeat what one finds there.
They think it represents 'intelligent' thinking. Oh well.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Speaking of bottom feeders...

...thanks for confirming the Left's penchant for name-calling. Speaking of the bottom, how is California doing these days? If that's the Democrat's plan for the future of the USA, I best look into joining that John Birch Society - and buy more ammo!

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Kchiefandy: "The left's penchant for name-calling"

LOL ROTF

Thanks. I needed that.

ps: What's a jaggoff? I've been called that alot here.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
here ya go, Diva

or Hack, kevin, or whatever you go by these days -

Definition of Kevin, Hack, Diva.....whatever

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Kev, I don't know...

...you guys are the experts - you tell me!! ;)

Yo
Yo's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/24/2007
I'm with chief fanny

Get rid of the gays, the blacks, the mexicans, orientals etc too. And women. And dogs. I hate dogs. We fight for freedom... For progress... Kinda funny

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Yeah, that's what I said, 'Yo'...

...your comment is what most call 'stupid'; smoke another bowl and have a nice night.