Sunday, March 5, 2017

Trump Should Be President and Not The Man From La Mancha!

One has every right to ask whether the federal government should even be involved in health care.

Conversely,one can argue every legal citizen is entitled to the right to pursue happiness and ask can one do so without enjoying good health?  If we agree you are constitutionally entitled to pursue the right to happiness and  that equates with good health does that also imply you have any personal responsibility for your own health or, once again, abdicate to government. Smoke all you want, eat all the fried food you want and let the non-smokers and health nuts pay for your bad habits.

Historically, whenever government intrudes, the problem is either made worse and/or whatever solution is mandated generally costs more than intended meanwhile,  program growth and personal dependency grows amoebic-ally.

This is true of any welfare program initiated to date whether it be food stamps to social security. I daresay you can name a federal welfare program that has accomplished its intended target and at the projected cost.

When the department of education was founded subsequently the public school system deteriorated and the money per pupil allocated exploded.  When the government began Pell Grants subsequently the cost of a college education exploded and the debts of students did as well. When the energy department was established it was not the government that expanded our energy resources, it was public corporations that developed the technology, unearthed energy reserves from oil sands. Yet, are we energy independent?

Even when the government develops equipment for military purposes, cost over runs reach enormous proportions and levels even Trump cannot successfully tackle or dent.

I have always been in favor of allowing the market place to allocate resources and initially address solutions to our societal problems and where disparities occur then, and only then, should the government determine whether it has a role and, if so,  a limited/restricted one at that.

Allowing government to solve problems generally results in negative trade offs.  The most recognizable are a loss of freedom, unimaginable deficit spending and eventually a decline in public support. People are wise enough to recognize failure and in time they reject that which consistently promises and fails to deliver. Polls consistently reveal this fact.

Progressive thinking and legislation is synonymous with expanded government, government solutions, have been mostly anti-capitalism, have scoffed at adherence to those who embrace a religious faith and have presided over and/or caused the destruction of the family unit.  These circumstances have now laid the foundation for a growing tide seeking socialism to supplant capitalism, produced deficits that will eventually prove crushing, spawned resistance to/hatred of anyone wishing to push back the expansionary tide (Trump) and even resist the sole reason for government - protection of its citizens. If these conditions are not disheartening enough  there is a rising cacophony favoring that our laws not be enforced. This, for a nation whose very establishment was based on the rule of law.

I find this both unacceptable and dangerous because this creates fertile ground for fascism's rise and there are those who would love nothing better than to preside over America's fall. There are those who make their wealth from chaos.

The current opposition party and its most senior members are engaged in what they believe is a legitimate game of pay-back.  They care more for political gain at the expense of America.  They are engaged in shameful behaviour based on any standard of decency.  By attacking Trump and his personnel they are preventing him and his team from functioning and to what purpose - his ultimate failure, his impeachment? Trump has not helped his own case by chasing windmills and jousting with the irrelevant which detracts from necessary support.

If proposed legislation begins to surface, laws eventually become enacted and within a reasonable time sequence these various imposed detours will pass. Trump's display of a lack of discipline undercuts him at every turn and provides ammunition to those who wish to bring him down and who claim he is unhinged etc..

That Trump responds to his mass media detractors does not bother me because he has every right to set records straight, to freeze out access to those who purposely target him with organized lies etc.
What does concern me is his incessant need to tweet beyond using it as a means to communicate above the "lying press."  Trump is a president not the "Man From La Mancha."

If his unsubstantiated tweets are a planned  ruse to draw attention from the current attack perhaps I can give him a modest pass but if they reflect his inability to discern the rational from the ridiculous then we have something that should concern us. (See 1 below.)
Today is our 45th anniversary.  Lynn has truly earned her place in heaven for putting up with me all these years.
1) Most Say Democrats Hurt Themselves With Anti-Trump Strategy

Most voters agree that it’s bad for America and bad for the Democratic Party if Democrats continue to flat out oppose everything President Trump does. Even Democrats are conflicted about their party’s scorched earth policy.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that only 29% of all Likely U.S. Voters think it’s better for the country if Democrats oppose the president in every way possible. Sixty-three percent (63%) say it’s better for the country if Democrats try to work with the president instead.  (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The findings are identical when voters are asked about the impact of the Democrats’ reported strategy on the fortunes of their own party. Just 29% say it’s better for the Democratic Party if Democrats oppose the president in every way possible. Sixty-three percent (63%) disagree and think it’s better for the party if Democrats try to work with Trump.

Forty-four percent (44%) of Democrats feel it’s better for both the country and their party if they oppose the new president as much as possible. But 46% say it’s better for America if Democrats try to work with Trump, and 45% say it’s better for their party, too.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls).  Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on February 26-27, 2017 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all 

Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Most voters blame disagreements between Trump and congressional Democrats on politics alone but don’t think the ongoing protests against the new president are going to make any difference.

Sizable majorities of Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party agree that the country and the Democratic Party are better off if Democrats try to work with the president.

Most voters in nearly every demographic category think it’s bad for the country and bad for Democrats if they totally oppose Trump and his agenda.

Most self-described politically liberal voters, however, believe it is better for America and better for the Democratic Party to fight the president in every way possible. An overwhelming majority of conservatives and most moderates disagree.

Over 90% of voters who Strongly Approve of the job the president is doing say it’s bad for the country and for Democrats to totally oppose Trump. Among voters who Strongly Disapprove of the president’s job performance, 60% say it’s better for the country and 58% think it’s better for the Democratic Party if Democrats oppose the president in every way possible.

Just after the election in November, 64% of Democrats said it is more important for their party to stand up for what it believes in rather than work with the new president.  Thirty-two percent (32%) disagreed and said Democrats should work with Trump.

But a majority of all voters - including half of Democrats - say Democrats in Congress won't be able to halt the president’s agenda.

Forty-five percent (45%) of voters say the country is headed in the right direction. That compares to 29% a year ago and is higher than during any week of Obama’s presidency.

Bernie Sanders has the edge, but it’s a close contest when Democrats are asked who should be the party’s nominee against Trump if he seeks reelection in 2020.  One-quarter of all voters, however, say the party should look for a new face.


No comments: