To The Daily Sun,
I would like to make comments referring to letters to editor written on April 4 and 6, 2014. I don't think I have seen such hateful letters written in a week as this.
It is my opinion that Mr. Maloof, tired of seeing the President of the United states being referred to in such a matter in the past month and responded as I would when reading letters of hate, distortion and disrespect. The letter he wrote was honest, to the point easily verified.
A letter on Thursday stated his letter contained no evidence to back up his opinions, all truthful. To answer that "talking point" I will. The writer stated that 37 percent of white folks voted for the president, did not mention who the other 63 percent voted for. On Saturday another writer wrote, "droves of white people voted for Obama in 2008 and again in 2012. Which is it? I guess what number a drove is confusing.
In 2012 of the 10 poorest states, nine voted for Romney, New Mexico voted for Obama. Of the 10 richest states, nine voted for Obama, Alaska voted for Romney. Our state is seventh richest state in the union, unemployment dropped to 4.7 percent. I guess it's fair to blame that on the president also.
The point Mr. Maloof makes, and clearly stated, was the red states receive the most federal dollars. This one fact — and I repeat, fact — the right-wing party won't touch with a 10 foot pole. A writer on April 6th stated that president hated him his children and grandchildren. I can't imagine the president told him that. I think he meant to say that they will be saddled with the national debt as he often mentions.
If you live in a blue state, your tax dollar goes to Washington, red states take it home. That has nothing to do with the president. I can add here help for you is on the way. Read the Ryan budget.
The next "talking point" which is the easiest to prove wrong is, "When John Kennedy lowered tax rates and when George W. Bush did, in both cases revenues increased. Completely false. Google: Bush tax cuts 2002. Read Bush tax cuts reduced revenues by about $1.8 trillion between 2002-2009. Other points of interest, read "Bruce Bartlett Bush tax cut failure, three good reasons to let high-end Bush tax cuts disappear this year." Compare Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts, a good read.
In 2008 a looming recession prompted President Bush to sign a stimulus package. Google economic stimulus act 2008. I will be interested to see what the nitpickers write in a letter to the editor about this evidence. I now think the right should talk about their 2014 candidates, two recycled senators, a man from Alton running for governor who doesn't know whether he lives here or Maryland. The Democrats love this story, can't wait for the voting to begin.
I think it's time to talk about 2016 presidential candidates. Since President Obama, although elected twice isn't qualified, I can hardly wait to see the qualifications are for a eye doctor from Kentucky has, or a traffic director of New Jersey has.
I don't need talking points, facts only.
To close on a very happy note, a topic that was always on my mind was planes loaded with dead and seriously wounded military personnel landing in Dover Delaware. While sitting here half listing to Lou Dobbs on Fox News, he announced that no military personnel died in Afghanistan last month. God bless the troops and the president of the United States of America.
Last Updated on Monday, 07 April 2014 08:34
To The Daily Sun,
We are hearing in the news that Obamacare hit its objective of signing on 7-million people. And that is all we hear.
How many are under the Medicaid expansion? How many have made a payment and really are signed up? How many had insurance before and signed up for Obamacare and do not have the coverage that they had before?
But the real question is how many of the 7 million did not have insurance before? This was the whole purpose of Obamacare. . . wasn't it?
In New Hampshire, I think 20,000 people signed up for Obamacare. More than that had their insurance that they were happy with canceled. How many have had their insurance payments increased dramatically since the inception of Obamacare?
With all the billions we are paying for this new health coverage in the U.S., wouldn't it have been cheaper if we just spent the money and covered the people who did not have insurance and leave the rest of us 85 percent that were happy with our coverage alone?
And to think we now have the IRS involved in our health care.
Last Updated on Monday, 07 April 2014 08:28
To The Daily Sun,
George Maloof must have fallen into not just a puddle of Kool-Aid but a well, after reading his last pontifications from the academic towers. I do love reading Maloof... he provides my comic relief for the day. Let me say this, to get it out of my system. Your full of BS right up to the tip of your pointy cap, George. You wouldn't know what an individual, creative thought was if it bit you. All you know is whatever smoke the peer reviewed drones at the education, wasp nest blow.
When you're ready to MEANS TEST Medicare and Social Security, George, let's write Obama and demand it. I am all for it. I am calling your BLUFF... Just be aware doing so EXPLODES the DONKEY MYTH these programs were going to be paid for, IN FULL by the people who use them. WE can NOW IDENTIFY both as the INSOLVENT, WELFARE, BOONDOGGLES they always have been since the day they were born.
The quality of medical care in America is already on the slippery slope. Obamacare has just accelerated the down slide. When a person can not get into 15 of the 19 best cancer care hospitals in America because OBAMACARE STOPS THEM, the value of EVERY LIFE in America life just got DILUTED by Democrats. Are you ready George? We both SCREAM WELFARE every time someone gets a SS check or a health care bill paid by Sam. Come on George you opened the DEBATE with your usual demonizing style. Let's make these programs what they always were and are, WELFARE. Some poor stiff working and some Democrat collecting the fruits of that work.
You're concerned with the indignities suffered by Obama. Where were you SLEEPING during the Bush years. It was Bush's fault for eight years when he was in office and his fault the next four of Obama's term. Give it a brake George, your beginning to sound like a broken record of excuses. Face it, Obama has been totally in over his head with every economic matter. Worse, we now watch his foreign policy that instills feeling of the Cold War people thought were long dead. Obama's spineless and feckless handling of the Iran crisis, the Syrian crisis and Russian intervention have made us the laughing stock on the world stage. We can be sure our friends and allies wonder if we REALLY have their backs or is it what ever the POLLS SHOW that determines the action of the day for Obama. I am certain the Saudis and Israel are wondering. Obama's presidency is so bad he makes Jimmy Carter looks like he was from the Mensa society
Still stirring up racial discontent. Is that the ONLY way you see Democrats winning an election George? Democrats are going to get steamrolled In November. I am sure that scares the crap out of you, so lets stir the race pot. Is that what academics do? Create division and hate in Americas social fabric to further party gains. Right down there with the earth worms.
You mentioned Paul Ryan. Are you aware Barack Obama says many of the same things Ryan does. During a recent speech regarding "My brothers keeper", Obama's program to help black young adults he said this, "We are dealing with issues that run deep in our society, government can not play the only roll or primary role (in other words just keep handing out welfare). It is ultimately those young men who are out there to STEP UP and take RESPONSIBILITY for their own lives". I can assure you if RYAN spoke to young black men with the SAME WORDS as OBAMA, he would be labeled a racist, while Obama gets applause. What we have are idiots like George Maloof who seem to know racism when they hear it. . . it only depends the color of the person saying the words, even identical ones.
Last Updated on Monday, 07 April 2014 08:24
To The Daily Sun,
What a bumpy ride! The 4-cent state gasoline tax increase was passed, but with no help from my senator, Jeanie Forrester (N.H. Senate District 2). Her newsletter explaining why she was opposed was disingenuous at best. The increase doesn't provide enough, only $32 million, she says, for the Highway Fund to overcome its operating shortfall. Forrester opposed the original plan to increase New Hampshire's tax by 12 cents gradually over several years and then index it to inflation. (The tax had not been raised since 1991, when gasoline cost $1.14 per gallon.) So nothing is better than not enough?
Forrester voted against the $30 vehicle registration surcharge, then allowed it to "sunset," depleting the Transportation Department budget of $135 million. Highway funds were diverted by the Legislature to pay for deliberately underfunded agencies (e.g. Department of Safety, Judicial Branch, Department of Safety, etc.).
I do agree with Forrester that infrastructure funding levels should be studied and the raiding of the Highway Fund stopped. But her vote against the current 4-cent increase, when New Hampshire roads and bridges are in terrible shape, was unconscionable.
It was a safe vote — there were enough votes to pass it without her — to appease her “starve the beast” supporters.
Yet New Hampshire's economy, its tourism and business enterprises require safe roads and bridges as do her constituents. Deferred maintenance always costs more in the end, as we all know. Hit any potholes or frost heaves recently?
Sen. Forrester's contrary vote is just one example of the "penny wise, pound foolish" approach some folks tout as the New Hampshire advantage. Not I. New Hampshire doesn't have a spending problem but rather a revenue dilemma. District 2 needs a senator and Legislature willing to address it forthwith.
Last Updated on Monday, 07 April 2014 08:18
To The Daily Sun,
It is hard to believe that almost 90 years after the "Scopes Monkey Trial," there are those who still oppose the teaching of biological evolution in our public[ schools. These are almost always biblical literalists who promote a literal interpretation of the creation myth in the Old Testament book of Genesis. Since the courts have ruled that they cannot teach "creationism" as science in our public schools, creationists are now demanding that their view be given "equal time" with real science. Most recently, creation "scientists" have been demanding that the wonderful science show "Cosmos" promote their view as a "scientific alternative."
Neither "Cosmos" nor our public schools has any obligation to present creationism as an "equally valid scientific theory" because it is not. Creationism is faith, not science. Not only do these creationists deny evolution but they also deny such provable science as plate tectonics.
Most teach that contrary to real scientific evidence, the earth is only about 6,000 years old.
They teach that the earth and its life forms, including humans, were created in six literal, 24-hour days. Some go as far as to say Copernicus was wrong and that the earth is the center of our solar system. They believe humans and dinosaurs were contemporaries. At the Creation Science Museum in northern Kentucky, there is actually an exhibit portraying humans riding dinosaurs with saddles. They deny carbon dating and maintain that the reason fossils look millions of years old is that the weight of the flood in described in the Bible made the fossils look old.
I have attended their lectures and read their literature. It is slickly packaged as science, so slick in fact, that even intelligent people that do not understand what science really is will accept it. They have created a "scientific controversy" that does not really exist among legitimate scholars and this has resulted in a large number of Americans questioning real science. Is it any surprise that American students are lagging behind other countries in science?
Actually, the "science" they promote is a lot like that taught in medieval universities. The church had already constructed the models, and God help you if your data did not fit the model.
Similarly, creationists already have what they consider an infallible model — the Bible — and they "cherry pick" their data to fit that preconceived model. The modern scientific method involves collecting and analyzing the data and then creating the model. Creationism is not science.
Science can be empirically proved. Statements of faith cannot be so proven.
Does the biblical story of creation belong in schools? Certainly it does. So do a plethora of other wonderful foundation myths. But, they belong in a humanities class, not in science class.
The truth is that it is not an "either/or." There are many people of faith who believe in a creator and modern science. I know a lot of people who believe in God and in evolution, plate tectonics, and a heliocentric solar system.
It is important to remember that the Bible is a book (actually a number of different books) about faith, not science. For many (including this writer), modern science and cosmology does not threaten but instead strengthens their spirituality. Some creationists (including some writers to the Sun) claim that belief in evolution has led to moral decay, but I know a lot of very moral people who believe in evolution.
It seems that a fundamentalist religious minority is trying to force its beliefs on our students
and on the American public as "science."
E. Scott Cracraft
Last Updated on Monday, 07 April 2014 08:15