Comments by gaetani
Posted on November 7 at 10:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Richard Moody Jr., I don't understand why so many people still believe in man-made climate change (global warming). It has been debunked and proven to be just a political idea. There is a highly respected meteorologist named Joe Bastardi who used to work for Accuweather but now works for WeatherBell Analytics LLC as a Chief Forecaster. He also worked at Penn State where a lot of this global warming fallacy was generated.
He says that Hurricane Sandy was a result of the Atlantic Ocean being warm like it was in the 1950's when there were far many more Atlantic east coast storms than today. He asserts that the world was likely warmer in the 1930s than today, that human contribution of carbon dioxide is too small to have any effect, and warming is caused by sun spots and exchange with warmer oceans. Bastardi has also argued that carbon dioxide cannot cause global warming, because this would violate the first law of thermodynamics. He expects that over the next 30 years, the global average temperature will return to levels seen in the late-1970s due to a so-called "triple-crown of cooling" comprising oceanic temperature cycles, solar radiation cycles, and volcanism.
As as 53 year old who grew up in the 60's and 70's, I remember those years as cold and snowy in the winters and cool in the summer. Back then they were talking about another ice age because of pollution. Then it was changed to warming and now it is just called climate change because they neither cooling or heating has taken place. There hasn't been any so-called warming in 16 years. You should all realize that the earth is a living planet. There are volcanoes (both above ground and under the sea) and earthquakes. In fact, the Japan earthquake shifted that island country and move the earth's axis. What I am trying to say is the earth's climate is not constant and is affected by many things, the least of which is man-kind.
Posted on November 5 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Richard Alvarez: You had better learn your history. President Hoover believed in Keynesian economics and as such increased government spending to levels unseen before for any peace time period after the 1929 stock market crash. That was the primary reason the economy did not recover and sent the nation into a depression. President Franklin Roosevelt actually ran against all of that spending but when he got elected he doubled down on the government spending. Can you say LIAR! That only prolonged the Great Depression, which wouldn't have been "great" at all if the government didn't spend so much.
Merrie Wardell: You don't think that Social Security and Medicare are going bankrupt because you are getting yours and to hell with those younger than you. Can you say selfish? And let me get this straight, despite the fact that all of your working life you paid Medicare taxes on your wages, you still have to pay a Medicare premium out of your Social Security check. Why do you think that is? And guess what? With Obamacare, your Medicare Advantage coverage is going to be gone.
Social Security is unsustainable in its present form because it wasn't properly funded and the people put in is not invested in anything so it can earn interest and dividends like a regular pension is. That is how a pension grows but Social Security relies on more people paying in more money so those that are collecting it can get paid. Eventually, there will not be enough people paying enough money into the system to sustain it unless there is a huge population growth and more people working. With so many people out of work now and for the last two years those working have paid 2% less in contributions, the Social Security fund is in precarious financial position.
Posted on November 5 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Please tell me where in our Constitution is says that the government and by extension the people, are responsible for any social safety nets. I know that you will not find it anywhere. Don't get me wrong. As a Roman Catholic, I believe in helping those who are less fortunate than me or have been hit by a hardship. But I would much rather give them money or food or clothing or even better than all of those, training for them so they can do the things they need to do to become self-sufficient. And after they help themselves, they can then help others who need help.
Let me tell you a story. I was in a grocery store yesterday in line to check out. In front of me were three people. It looked like a husband and wife and their female friend. They looked like any average American. Their clothes were typical clothing of anyone, you know not rags or something you might think of as a stereotypical person on welfare. But the friend had an EBT card. She was also going to give the man money for her share of the groceries. He declined so she offered her EBT card. He declined saying he would have to give her money for it. He then asked her when the card gets replenished. She said the 2nd of each month. As I watched him I could see his mind churning and then he said, that was two days ago. Then he asked it is empty now? The friend said oh yes, I spent all the funds but I can spread out the food for the month. The man then told her that last year he and his wife got $138 in food stamps and that they only paid $4.06 for groceries out of pocket. That was because they utilized a food bank. The friend said that she used to use food banks too and mentioned she offered someone (I think her daughter) the used of her car to go to the food bank but the person never goes. I was amazed that this woman had a good amount of money on her to give to her friends for her share of groceries. What I came away with was that this is what President Obama has reduced our nation to. A dependency society instead of what we used to be - self-reliant.
I am going to tell you something that you may not understand. The more the government gives to people, the more they will expect. And when the government can't afford to give people any more and start to cut back, the people will be very unhappy. If you don't believe me just take a look at what is going on in Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain to name a few places.
Posted on July 27 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Fritzdawg: I don't know where you get your information from but your PPACA percentages are way wrong. wmarincic isn't quite right either but he is closer. The actual percentages are about 70% opposed and 25 - 30% in favor of the PPACA. Fritzdawg I also take umbridge with your numbers about red and blue states and so what? wmarincic wasn't talking about states he was talking about people. Just because a state is overall conservative (red) or overall "liberal" (blue) doesn't mean anything. For instance both California and NY are "blue" but if you took away the large cities, they would be "red". Which is wmarincic's point.
Fritzdawg, here is the reality of the PPACA. It will cost everyone more, there are 20 new and additional taxes, you will lose your current health insurance, you will lose your current doctor, anyone over the age of 76 will not get treated for any diseases especially cancer or other life threatening diseases (that is in the law), anyone over 76 will be required to have end-of-life counseling, there will be a panel of 15 bureaucrats who decide what doctors are allowed to do to treat their patients, hospitals will not be allowed to expanded, new and improved medicines and medical equipment will not be coming on the market, you will have long waits to see specialists. Shall I go on?
This is all in the law. Read it.
Posted on July 27 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Exactly right. I sent a letter into the paper with similar sentiments but it hasn't been published yet.
Posted on June 15 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Great letter Mr. Cazer! Why hasn't anyone else written about this? And why does such a rich company like Golub need to get any money from the government?
Posted on June 8 at noon (Suggest removal)
Ms. Kimble: I wrote a similar letter to yours to The Gazette but they didn't publish it (yet). You said pretty much what I said although I also mentioned the Federalist Papers which explained the role of the Supreme Court more clearly. Anyway, thank you for setting Mr. Reilly straight.
Posted on June 8 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. DeSantis: Let me start off with I never voted for President Bush and I haven't voted for a Republican candidate for President since 1988. I am not a registered Republican either.
People such as yourself have no idea of the facts. First, President Bush did not have a $10 trillion debt. The amount of debt accumulated under President Bush was roughly $5 trillion. Secondly, yes President Bush had the cost of the wars off the books for good reason. If that cost was added to the budget, it would then become part of the baseline budget for the successive year. What this means is Congress would see how much was spent in the previous year to use that to base the next year's spending on thus keeping the high spending into perpetuity. President Obama has not included the cost of the wars in his spending but he is trying to claim the ending of the wars as spending reductions going forward. And under his administration, the debt has risen more than $5 trillion dollars in only 3.5 years as compared to President Bush in 8 years.
You then claim that the low in employment is due to some made up 30-year experiment in deregulation and free-for-all capitalism. This is so far from the truth it is laughable. What 30-year experiment are you talking about? What capitalism are you talking about? Do you even know what capitalism is?
The housing market collapsed because the government forced banks to give mortgages to unqualified people. And then was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. But guess what? That was all done during the end of the Clinton Administration. And our "illustrious" Governer who was Secretary of HUD, was jubilant over this.
You next blame the downgrade of our nation's debt on T.E.A. Party Republicans which is totally false. It was the Democrat controlled Senate that refused to even discuss any options. And the President who commissioned the Boles-Simpson Debt Commission, refused to even consider any of its proposals. I believe that is the so-called "Grand Bargain" you mention. The Democrats want nothing to do with reforming Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The Republicans have put several reform measures on the table.
Your last point that the Keystone pipeline is not stopped is true but that is misleading. That proposal has been in the works for more than four years. It has been revised to alleviate the environmental concerns and yet the President still refuses to give it a yes or a no. The reason is purely political and I will bet you a million dollars that after the election he will give it a thumbs up. There is not less dependency on foreign oil today and any increase in oil production is due to the permits that President Bush approved and oil production on private lands. What is being exported is gasoline and that is because out economy is so weak we don't need it here.
Posted on June 7 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Spencer: You only know about half your history. In 1912, there were four candidates. There were two Progressives - winner Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt, the incumbent Republican William Howard Taft, and the Socialist Debs. Yes there was a strong socialist and populist current in the nation's politics. But you are wrong that it was the workers' response to Fascism. Do you even know what Fascism is?
It is the state controlling the government and the economy. Just because businesses were using force to try to stop unionization and police were used to stop the riots, doesn't mean it is Fascism. In fact, the NAZIs full name is National Socialists. Socialism and Fascism are close but not the same. The Russians and Hitler were one time close allies. President Franklin Roosevelt admired both Hitler and Musonlini because of the way they ran their countries so efficiently. As with Fascism, Socialism and Progressive-ism the leaders of the government control all aspects of society.
Mr. Seeman was not trying to facetious. He was serous about taking a little Marx and others. If he was being facetious, he would have meant Groucho Marx and his brothers. I take that back, that wouldn't be so facetious because I could go for that.
To you last point that people on the right won't accept compromise. You are right because for too long we have been compromised by the left who in reality have never, ever compromised and have taken this country in the wrong direction. So, in order to get it back to center, the country needs a hard right turn but one that doesn't over correct. But that is alien to you people on the left.
Posted on June 7 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Blunt: While it is true that President Obama inherited two so-called wars, a bad economy, and large debt which did indeed nearly double over eight years of the Bush administration, here is the truth that you and your fellow cool aid drinkers don't want to see. Mr. Obama promised to end the wars as soon as he got into office. What did he do? Followed the time table of Bush for both of them. Mr. Obama promised to keep the unemployment rate below 8%. It has never ever been there since he has been President. Mr. Obama said that it is unpatriotic to have such large national debt and that he would cut it in half by the end of his term. He must be unpatriotic because not only has he not cut the debt in half, he has increased by more in 3.5 years than President Bush did in eight years.
For your information, the Democrats controlled Congress the last two years of the Bush Presidency and the first two years of the Obama Presidency. Guess what happened during that period? The deficits ballooned and they made the economy worse. Still the Democrats control the Senate and they refuse to do anything. In fact, they haven't passed a budget in three years.
So Mr. Blunt, it is not that Mr. Romney and others have amnesia, it is that you and the people who think like you are blind to the facts. And by the way, I never voted for Bush and I will probably not be voting for Romney.