Michah3's comment history

Michah3 said...

Mr. Bratton's letter amuses me. He defends Obama's regime as "not socialist" all while championing Marx's ideology. If no one favors take over of industry, why did he do it to several banks, the student loan industry, the healthcare industry, and two major car companies? If he thinks people aren't clamoring for a repeal of medicare, medicaid, and social security then he either isn't listening or lives under a rock. The older generation should be allowed to collect these programs because they paid in their whole lives. Young people like me, however, (who understand that social security will be broke long before I can collect it) would disenroll so fast it would make Obama's head spin. There is NOTHING I would like better than to keep my money and invest it as I see fit for my own retirement. As for tax cuts? You can't get one if you don't pay taxes. The bottom 48% of wage earners don't pay federal income tax. (It's all at www.irs.gov if you don't believe me). Most people who earn over $250,000 are small business owners who have to report the entirety of their business income as their own even though they only get to keep a small chunk of that. Raising taxes on them only hurts their business and cripples their ability to hire or expand. Bush's tax cuts helped everyone who paid taxes. If they are not extended my husband and I will owe another $2,000 in 2011 that we will not pay in 2010. The kicker? We don't even earn over $100k, much less $250k.

'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is a fundamentally Marxist idea. If you believe in that, then you believe in socialism. Before you spout off about how things aren't socialist you should do a little reading into the topic. I suggest The Communist Manifesto as a good place to start. Although no doubt Mr. Bratton would agree with the book.

December 3, 2010 at 7:56 p.m.
Michah3 said...

The jobs are not going overseas. Aventis is keeping the manufacturing and marketing of Chattem's products in Chattanooga. The brand names will remain the same and they will still be sold under the corporate name of Chattem. Aventis does not know much about selling and marketing OTC products. They are allowing Chattem to maintain their people and autonomy. This will actually result in an uptick of jobs here in Chattanooga as more people are hired to produce and sell Allegra.

This is actually an example of capitalism by the way, not socialism...since the government doesn't own either company.

December 22, 2009 at 11:14 a.m.
Michah3 said...

The jobs are not going overseas. Aventis is keeping the manufacturing and marketing of Chattem's products in Chattanooga. The brand names will remain the same and they will still be sold under the corporate name of Chattem. Aventis does not know much about selling and marketing OTC products. They are allowing Chattem to maintain their people and autonomy.

December 21, 2009 at 5:46 p.m.
Michah3 said...

DSS-

That might just be the most comprehensive, easy to understand, and well said statements about the cartoon. Bravo to you! I was going to comment but I can't say it any better than that.

November 19, 2009 at 8 p.m.
Michah3 said...

It doesn't matter if Mr. Decosimo wears Gucci or Armani, it's not the government's place or responsibility. The tenth amendment clearly gives the federal government only those powers that it states it can have. The government does not have the power to redistribute wealth. That is completely unconstitutional. It isn't any of your business (or the government's business) what Mr. Decosimo (or anyone else for that matter) makes for a living. Capitalism is not a zero sum game. If Mr. Decosimo makes a million dolllars a year so can you. He has not taken a million dollars from you to get it. The Constitution hearalds private property. This includes the money that I earn from my hard work. It is theft for the government to take it from me and give it to someone else in the form of "healthcare" (or social security, or medicare, or medicaid, or welfare...the list goes on).

October 15, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.
Michah3 said...

I'm pretty sure he's being sarcastic. The difference between the GOP and the Dems is that we expect when our leaders do things like this that they step down. You guys herald your immoral leaders and the best and brightest of your party (Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, I could keep going if you want.)

October 15, 2009 at 9:23 a.m.
Michah3 said...

Limbaugh said that in jest because the lady interviewing him asked him if that's why he did it. He responded that he did sarcastically and then went on to say why he really did it. Leave it to Letterman to only have the clip of him saying he did it for the money. If you're not going to listen to all of Rush's statements you're going to be misled by the media as to what he really said.

October 15, 2009 at 9:19 a.m.
Michah3 said...

What the founders meant by not establishing a religion was that Congress can't say, "Ok hotdiggity, you're now a Catholic, enjoy!" They did not mean that you would be free from having to witness other people engaged in their religion. States are still free to establish religions, it is only the U.S. Congress who is forbidden to do it. The founders intended for the states to hold more power than the federal government. Something that the states have sadly forgotten.

October 10, 2009 at 5:49 p.m.
Michah3 said...

Actually, it's you guys who have a short term memory. It wasn't until 2006 that the spending got completely out of control. That would be....oh yeah, the year the Dems got control of congress. People love to forget that it's congress who holds the purse strings, not the president. Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton set us up for this financial mess by demanding that banks lend money to people who couldn't pay it back. This drove up the cost of housing beyond what the market could support by increasing the number of "buyers." When these buyers started defaulting in droves when the interest rates rose they triggered the recession. It's really not rocket science, I don't understand what is so hard to understand about that.

October 10, 2009 at 5:42 p.m.
Michah3 said...

To add to my previous comment, no one is suggesting anarchy like what is happening in Somalia. Conservatives have no problem with a government that is functioning within the bounds placed on it by the Constitution. What Conservatives are mad about is the fact that the government has grown much larger than the founders ever intended for it to be. The Constitution does not give the government the power to redistribute wealth through programs like welfare, social security, and medical care. It does not give the government the power to own private businesses or fire CEOs of private companies. It does not grant the government the power to have czars or for judges to make law through litigation. The list goes on and on. Being angry about the government spending far more money than it takes in on things not approved by the Constitution is not a call for anarchy.

October 8, 2009 at 10:33 p.m.
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.