Forever An Optimist

Too bad that there isn’t a way (or is there) of imbedding a song into one’s post so that it plays as one reads the post. Were it so, I would choose the song by Patrick O’Hearn entitled “Forever An Optimist.” But, I’m also really sure I would be in trouble with copyright laws. Oh, well. I’ll just listen as I type this instead.

Richard Secor, an artist of worth in New Mexico, occasionally comments on my posts and the one he made on yesterday’s blog post deserves an answer to show my reason for optimism. In fact, he deserves something that perhaps will give him more confidence in the future of this nation.

It has been my good fortune to be acquainted with people who always tended to be optimistic, and perhaps that is because most of them have been Christians. At any rate, my experiences and the knowledge I’ve gained from them have given me a different perspective than others. I hope that Richard does not mind my quoting him in this blog entry. (If he does, well it sucks to be him…it’s my blog.) His comment:

“I don't think there is an honest politician among the whole lot. They lie to get into office - they lie while they are there and they lie on their way out. Obama surrounded himself with idiots and spent too much time on the late shows wallowing in the self-inflicted glory of being the first Black President. So much that he lost sight of what he promised the American people and the world. George Bush brought American and the World to its knees and I doubt there is a person alive today who can bring any type of normal economy back within the next 15 years. The people are a majority but allow themselves to be a minority due to being too damn lazy to THINK”

First of all, I cannot necessarily agree with the statement that the “whole lot of politicians” are dishonest. We in Oklahoma have had the good fortune of being represented by some pretty damn good men and women. Currently, our Senators are James Inhoff and Tom Coburn. James Inhofe has been in the vanguard of those fighting against the “global warming” crowd and Tom Coburn has been in the vanguard of those seeking more fiscal responsibility and commitments to morality.

While I can’t speak for all of our members of the House of Representatives, they all seem to be pretty good people, most of whom I would vote for if they were in my district. The really sad part is that the good, honest ones tend to NOT go looking for the media to get their “spin” out to the people.

And that now brings us to the crux of many of the woes of this country. When I was a young man, I had an interest and earned a college scholarship for Journalism. At that time, journalism was a noble field with its “representatives” being dedicated to the belief that journalism had a duty to be objective and print the truth. I can tell you that the majority of the media has no desire to be objective in today’s reporting. The few that do are constantly denigrated by their enemies.

When students of journalism are asked why they want to be journalists, the majority have the answer that they “want to make a difference and change the world.” Sorry, but a journalist’s job is to be objective and search out and print the truth, not try to “change things.” So, we now have journalists with a Socialist agenda that ignore the truth and actively seek to do harm to those with whom they disagree. They are effective enough to be able to convince “the masses” that the media’s enemies are also the enemies of “the masses.” What is that statement….if you repeat something enough times then people will begin to believe it?

Let’s start with the most prominent one, one still used in the second year of Obama’s presidency. “It is all George Bush’s fault.” Excuse me, but while I don’t agree with everything Bush did, he didn’t destroy this economy. For the last two years of Bush’s terms, he had a Democratic Party controlled Congress and it is Congress that controls most of the purse strings. While Bush should have used his veto power more, he didn’t, but he doesn’t deserve full blame.

With the economy, keep in mind that the ones advising Bush were Henry Paulson, the Treasury Secretary, and Timothy Geithner, both of whom are Democrats and have long held Keynesian economic philosophies. Both still do in spite of seeing their efforts completely fail. Thus, Democrats advised the President in the wrong way. Sadly, it isn’t them that get the blame, because the media is still out there saying, “It’s George Bush’s fault.”

Remember from yesterday’s post, that tax cuts stimulate the economy and massive government spending, adding to debt, are harmful to the economy as a whole. Side question: with all of TARP and the Stimulus monies, how much of that actually got to the people? You know, the “masses.”

Now, I remember the time of Reagan the best, and he came in after Jimmy Carter. You know, the man who (along with Congress) gave us double digit interest on credit cards and mortgages. I remember at the time that many felt that the country would NEVER recover from Carter’s policies and decisions. But, Reagan came in with conservative beliefs and proved that tax cuts were a means of increasing the revenue to the government.

An interesting read as to a comparison of Reagan and Obama policies is located at the link below. Both “received” an economy in much the same state, but with policies opposite of each other, there are differing outcomes.

http://www.therightsphere.com/2011/06/reagan-vs-obama-the-consequences-of-economic-policy-choices/

Reagan’s policies led to a long term economic growth, even into the years of George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George Bush. (Those continued because those presidents didn’t really do very much different than Reagan. It is even said that Clinton enjoyed a good economy simply because he “didn’t get in the way” of growth.)

Obama’s policies brought high unemployment and massive debt. And, what effect would 2 to 3 million more people unemployed have on tax revenue generation? Richard referred to Obama’s promises in his comment. However, from what I remember of Obama’s speeches and town hall meetings, he didn’t promise anything other than “hope” and “change.” He did say that he was going to try to “fundamentally change” the United States. To me, that meant he wanted a Socialist government and economy, neither of which are a good thing.

I will contend that if the United States were to get back onto a conservative philosophy and elect conservative representatives to Congress and elect a conservative (don’t necessarily read ‘Republican’) President, we could again see a growth in the economy to be greater than that of Reagan’s effect. Remember, Reagan had a Democratic Party controlled Congress. If we had those kinds of people in office in Washington, I don’t think it would take but a few years to completely recover.

The other major change Americans need to make is to be a lot more careful of their sources of news. With the “mainstream media” being one with an agenda instead of an objective attitude, we must look elsewhere. If one wants an interesting book to read in regards to this topic, read Bernard Goldberg’s book, “Bias.” Goldberg was a CBS journalist and exposed the networks for the liberals that they really were.

In my own case, I seldom watch network news and surprisingly, the same with FOX News. I tend to use alternative news sources such as talk radio and the internet. What I hear on the radio, I can verify on the internet. Oddly enough, the Drudge Report is hailed as a “RIGHT WING” source of information. While Drudge is a conservative, his Drudge Report is made up primarily of links to left wing sources. There was even a UCLA study done that rated the Drudge Report as “Liberal” because so many of his stories came from liberal sources. Drudge just lets the liberals demonstrate who they are in a “local” market and put it out there nationally.

In light of the long known adage, “believe nothing that you hear and only half of what you see”, I tend to be skeptical of both politicians AND the media. To be better informed citizens, I suggest others be the same way.