The Democratic Party Left The Chavez Family
Oct 30, 2008 Political
The Democratic party was once a great party in this country. It stood for the common man and it laid claim to proud veterans who served this country in uniform and then as civilian elected officials. The party might have had positions that ran contrary to what I and most other conservatives believe but they had a platform and they stuck to it. Then the party started to go downhill. They were infiltrated by Communists in the 50s and after JFK (who was not great, just popular) they have had platforms that have become increasingly Socialist. Under decades of Democrat control of government welfare has increased and social spending has skyrocketed. Items that they promise to fix never get attention. Education, health care, poverty and any number of other things are discussed before the election but then forgotten after. Their social policies created the environment where this economic meltdown occurred and now that money is tight they want to cut defense spending by 25%. Defense spending is about 25% of the entire budget. Most goes to social programs. Top this off with their horrific stance on the murder of unborn children and it is easy to see that the party has left its better days behind.
Ronald Reagan was a Democrat but he became a Republican and he declared that he did not leave his party, his party left him. I read a letter to the editor of the University of New Mexico Daily Lobo that was written by an alumnus named Steve Chavez. It is a telling letter and I think it expresses the same sentiments that Reagan did with regard to the Democratic Party:
Editor,
For the first time since the big bang, all my immediate family are defecting from the Democratic Party to vote for John McCain and Republicans for Congress and Senate. Why?
The Republicans had a wide variety of candidates to choose from, which included the far right to McCain, who was labeled as “too liberal” by the Republicans. The Democrats, on the other hand, seemed to stack the deck with presidential and congressional candidates such as Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich, who started on the left, reached to the far left and then went beyond to the Twilight Zone. Take for instance the top three presidential candidates: Barack Obama voted No. 1 Liberal, Hillary Clinton No. 2 and Biden at No. 3. But what’s interesting is who is No. 4. He is Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont who is also an admitted socialist and a frequent speaker at Communist Party USA conventions along with many other Democrats in Congress, including Maxine Waters, of the “Out of Iraq Caucus,” who meets with peace groups like United for Peace & Justice, which is run by Leslie Cagan and Judith LeBlanc of the Communist Party USA.
Another issue concerning my Catholic family is Obama’s stance on abortion. Two in my family have been pro-choice until now. Our Republican sister brought up a serious point during our last Easter picnic. She told us the story of Jill Stanek, a Chicago nurse who found a baby from a botched abortion in a janitor’s room left to die alone. She could not help the choking baby survive due to the extreme policy of the hospital, so she held the baby and had to watch it suffer for 45 minutes until the baby died. How many other babies are left in the closet to die alone after being born? Stanek has been revealing that Obama voted “no” to the Born Alive amendment four times. That’s beyond pro-choice when a baby is born, isn’t it? You can read more about her story at JillStanek.com and the exact Obama votes and excuses.
Many in my family are veterans, and in 2004, they voted for President Bush and the Iraq War. They will now vote for a fellow veteran, McCain, who was tortured by Communists in Vietnam while Jane Fonda, John Kerry and the Communist-led peace movement were literally spitting on them. They couldn’t possibly vote for Obama since he is aligned, supported and funded by the same movement that continues to spit on the troops. When they heard the leaders of the peace movement say, “the terrorists are the real freedom fighters,” they took that as a stab in the back, as those “freedom fighters” are killing their fellow Americans.
My informed Republican sister asked, “Name me one moderate Democrat?” After an afternoon of Easter egg hunting, us life-long Democrats couldn’t think of one. She mentioned Joe Lieberman, Al Gore’s vice presidential candidate in 2000. He was kicked out of his own party for supporting the Iraq War. He is a liberal on 99 percent of issues, but that one issue was enough for him to be kicked out? He now supports McCain. Therefore, since McCain is a liberal Republican, which would be close to a moderate Democrat – which seems is a contradiction of terms – we must vote for the nearest thing to the middle road where most of us are. If you are voting for change for change’s sake, you will be voting for a ticket to the left of an admitted socialist. How can you be to the left of a socialist?
S. James Chavez
UNM alumnus
It would appear that the Chavez family feels that the party has, as it did Reagan, left them. The candidates for president were among the most liberal in the party and the eventual winner, Barack Obama, is the most liberal Senator in the country. He is 3 spaces left of a Communist supporter.
Barack Obama might very well become the next president of this country but I believe there are many families like the Chavez family that will decide that Barack Obama is not the right person for the job and that his views are too radical for this country.
The Chavez family is telling the Democratic party and its nominee to keep the change…
Where was Hillary When Bush Wanted This
Mar 25, 2008 Political
In an interview in Pittsburgh Hillary was asked about Social Security and here is what she said:
On Social Security:
“We need to have a bipartisan commission much like President Reagan and Tip O’Neill had in the ’80s where they worked together, and we have lived off of those efforts. But we need to do something now. One of the caveats that I would have is that people that are presently on Social Security or about to go on Social Security not be affected.”
George bush has said that Social Security is broken and that it needed to be fixed. He wanted to privatize it or at least part of it. His plan would not affect those already on SS or those about to go on SS. It would have allowed younger people to put away THEIR money instead of giving it to the government so it can be spent on everything but SS.
Hillary stated in the past that SS was on the way to being solvent until 2055 (not accurate) until Bush squandered that. Bush did not spend the SS money. Congress has been dipping into the money forcibly removed from workers for years. SS has been declining because of the growing number of people drawing it and the declining number of people paying in and because the members of Congress cannot keep their grubby little hands out of the till.
Bill Clinton wanted to privatize SS because he knew that it was in bad shape. Congress (all parties) cannot let this happen because they lose the cash cow. Most of them will be dead before the IOUs are ever paid back (as if they ever will be). Hillary wants to fix SS because it is always a problem and in bad shape when republicans run the place and it always needs Democrats to fix it. Hillary kind of suggests that the fix (privatization) would be OK if people on it or about to be were not affected.
If we had done this when Bill Clinton wanted to or when Bush wanted to then there would be a lot of people saving and earning more money for retirement and we would not be talking about running out of money. SS could be invested so that say 50% is invested for the worker and the other 50% pays for the benefits already being dispersed. As recipients under the old system die off the amount workers are allowed to invest would increase until it hit 100%. This would allow workers to start investing for themselves and eventually lead to them investing 100% of the money in their own accounts that no member of Congress could EVER touch.
The money would belong to the worker for retirement and could be passed on as part of the estate. No matter what liberal groups say the end result would be retirees with quite a bit of money. They would live better and not depend on the government to dole out a measly portion of money each month. people would not be tied to a political party for fear that something bad would happen to the money. people would actually be responsible for their own retirement.
The rate of return, even in down markets, would be better than the less than 1% the government gets and the maintenance costs would be less than what it costs to run the boondoggle that is SS today. I know that I have been working for 37 years and I have made more from my investments than i have accumulated in SS. Even a bad market outperforms the government.
Hillary is playing coy because she did not come out and say that privatization was best but she, as well as all members, know SS is in serious trouble and taking more money from higher wage earners to give it to retirees is not the solution to the problem. They just have trouble letting go of a cash supply that they do not have to account for and that they can tap into when they need money.
Our government is not good with money and we should never trust them with any. We are getting rebate checks (well i won’t but non taxpayers will). The government spent $43 million to send letters telling us about the program. That was a judicious use of our money…
Maybe Hillary can take credit for Bill’s idea about privatizing SS. Hell, what’s another lie? And did she invoke Reagan’s name? Let’s see if she catches hell like Obama did.
Tags: bush plan, Hillary, privatize, reagan, social security