Political Doctrine
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By -
Editor, Times-Union:
So let me see if I understand you right, Bennie Hively. You actually have a problem with candidates who ran for office in order to strengthen capitalism? Explain to me how that is a bad thing. What do you want, socialism?
There are people in the United States who actually believe that the government is spending too much money and racking up a large enough debt and something needs to be done and soon. Now will the upcoming Congress have all the answers? I hope so, but I am wary of people who claim they are for limited government but have been bought by the Washington establishment.
This government has increased its power over the last 10 years and it is time for a reversal of that power. The government has spent money on wars that angered one group of people, two "stimulus" bills that did not stimulate the economy, taken over a car company that still is not competitive in the marketplace, and passed a health care bill that a majority of Americans do not want.
Now I have to ask Robert Betances if he would be upset if these "Tea Party" candidates were running for office as Democrats. I hardly doubt it because I have not found a Democrat who is in favor of limiting government. At the same time, I have yet to find an established Republican in favor of limiting government. If I am wrong about it, will someone who knows Mr. Betances have him please answer me because I believe that he does not read the paper because I have asked him many questions for which I have received no reply.
What people like Bennie Hively and Robert Betances do not understand is that it is the political parties who are the problem with this country. Candidates running on the platform of limited government realize that they have to enter government under the banner of one of the two major parties in order to win because voters looks at party while voting for a candidate. Will some candidates who won sell their souls to Washington establishment groups? The answer is probably. Marco Rubio accepted nearly $250K from a PAC linked to Karl Rove, someone who is just as part of the problem as the current president. At the same time, Michael Bennett, a Democrat, took almost $1 million from a Democratic Party PAC. Was the Tea Party supposed to win every race, of course not.
Lastly, I have to ask you, Tom Metzger, why did you forget to mention that the Social Security age is suggested to be raised to 69 in 2075? First, it was from a Debt Commission ... started by a Democrat. Second, it was a recommendation that is not binding, and Congress will probably reject. And third, you will theoretically be dead by 2075. If you would have ran a campaign by admitting you would be as effective as the bozos currently in Congress, you would have received double digit votes for sure.
Gary Eppenbaugh
Warsaw, via e-mail[[In-content Ad]]
Editor, Times-Union:
So let me see if I understand you right, Bennie Hively. You actually have a problem with candidates who ran for office in order to strengthen capitalism? Explain to me how that is a bad thing. What do you want, socialism?
There are people in the United States who actually believe that the government is spending too much money and racking up a large enough debt and something needs to be done and soon. Now will the upcoming Congress have all the answers? I hope so, but I am wary of people who claim they are for limited government but have been bought by the Washington establishment.
This government has increased its power over the last 10 years and it is time for a reversal of that power. The government has spent money on wars that angered one group of people, two "stimulus" bills that did not stimulate the economy, taken over a car company that still is not competitive in the marketplace, and passed a health care bill that a majority of Americans do not want.
Now I have to ask Robert Betances if he would be upset if these "Tea Party" candidates were running for office as Democrats. I hardly doubt it because I have not found a Democrat who is in favor of limiting government. At the same time, I have yet to find an established Republican in favor of limiting government. If I am wrong about it, will someone who knows Mr. Betances have him please answer me because I believe that he does not read the paper because I have asked him many questions for which I have received no reply.
What people like Bennie Hively and Robert Betances do not understand is that it is the political parties who are the problem with this country. Candidates running on the platform of limited government realize that they have to enter government under the banner of one of the two major parties in order to win because voters looks at party while voting for a candidate. Will some candidates who won sell their souls to Washington establishment groups? The answer is probably. Marco Rubio accepted nearly $250K from a PAC linked to Karl Rove, someone who is just as part of the problem as the current president. At the same time, Michael Bennett, a Democrat, took almost $1 million from a Democratic Party PAC. Was the Tea Party supposed to win every race, of course not.
Lastly, I have to ask you, Tom Metzger, why did you forget to mention that the Social Security age is suggested to be raised to 69 in 2075? First, it was from a Debt Commission ... started by a Democrat. Second, it was a recommendation that is not binding, and Congress will probably reject. And third, you will theoretically be dead by 2075. If you would have ran a campaign by admitting you would be as effective as the bozos currently in Congress, you would have received double digit votes for sure.
Gary Eppenbaugh
Warsaw, via e-mail[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092