Monday, October 19, 2015

Protecting the Status Quo Washington D.C. Cartel---At All Cost

In a recent article from Politico, (titled: “When Donald Trump Quits”), the author “surmises” that Donald Trump might “bail out” on his quest to be the next President of the United States, based on his past business practices.  The author, (Ben Schreckinger) makes the assumption the Trump might quit because the risk will outweigh the rewards.

“Throughout his career, Trump has demonstrated wild enthusiasm at the start of big projects, and ruthlessly pursued a profit agenda that, in many cases, has led him to ditch the deal when the risks, whether financial or reputational*, start to outweigh the prospective reward.”

Would that our federal government operate under these same parameters---weighing the cost vs. a profitable, (or, at least a neutral), outcome in making the proper decision, that the cost, (to the taxpayers), far outweighs the benefits, then perhaps this nation wouldn’t be on such a debt collision.   This nation recently took in record tax revenues, yet our government still outspends the income.  This nonsense has to stop. 

The problem with the Federal Government and our legislators, (on both sides of the isle), is that they have carelessly wielded the power of the purse, while at the same time inserting written legislation that guarantees they are not held responsible for the outcomes, including that they are all exempted from the very LAWS AND LEGISLATION they create.  It’s all good for us peons, but not good enough for these elite-minded politicians.  This, [procedure of exemption], also has to stop, along with the “blank-check” mentality of unlimited funds.

Could Donald Trump rein in these reckless spending procedures that has been the status quo for our government?  Would he?  When was the last time ANY PRESIDENT seriously went through the books--- decades of laws and spending legislation---and said, “this program is worthless, is not benefiting the taxpayers, and needs to be eliminated”?  The short answer is NEVER, because every bill (real money yearly extracted from the federal coffers), is some legislator’s pet project that’s bringing home the bacon for their district.  Cost, or effectiveness is never a consideration.

I would submit that this, [actually examining, and cutting wasteful and out of date federal programs] may be a primary concern for the Establishment Cartel in Washington, who fear Donald Trump would upset their status quo of uncontrollable spending practices, again, by both Democrats and Republicans.

Would running our federal government like a business, (who are answerable to their investors and shareholders), that CAN NOT spend beyond their means/incomes, really be bad for this nation?  Ask YOUR LEGISLATORS, “when was the last time you considered to ditch the deal when the risks, whether financial or reputational, start to outweigh the prospective reward.  Again, the answer is NEVER.

Put Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush in charge, and I’ll guarantee we will get more of the same status quo spending practices that have gone on for far too long. And, you can bet the power-brokers in Washington will do everything loaded into their arsenals to guarantee one of these candidates owns the White House to maintain this corruptive status.

Maybe, just maybe, Donald Trump plans on changing this, and the power the Washington Cartel has wielded relentlessly for decades.  It's no wonder the folks at Politico hopes he quits.  

1 comment:


    Did you ever notice that those who question the purpose of Christian baptism never doubt the reason for the baptism of John The Baptist?

    Mark 1:4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.(NKJV)

    There are no "faith only" believers who claim that John was baptizing people because their sins were already forgiven, yet they are quick to claim that Christian baptism is performed because sins have already been forgiven.

    Luke 3:7 Then he said to the multitudes that came to be baptized by him, "Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?(NKJV)

    If the multitudes could escape the wrath of God by being baptized by John, then would it not be so, that believers in Christ can escape God's wrath by submitting to Christian baptism?

    Luke 7:29-30 And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God for themselves not having been baptized by him.(NKJV)

    Luke 7:29-30 And all who heard John preach---even the most wicked ,of them---agreed that God's requirements were right, and they were baptized by him. 30 All, that is, except the Pharisees and teachers of Moses' law. They rejected God's plan for them and refused John's baptism.(The Living Bible-Paraphrased)

    Are the modern day pharisees and their followers rejecting God's plan for themselves by deny that water baptism is essential to salvation? Are contemporary church leaders rejecting God's plan by claiming the sprinkling and pouring water on unbelieving babies and sprinkling and pouring water on believing adults is Christian baptism?

    Jesus gave us God's plan for salvation. (Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.(NKJV) Why do modern day teachers reject God's plan for themselves?

    John's baptism has been obsolete since AD 33, on the Day of Pentecost.(Acts 19:1-4)(Acts 2:38)

    Christian baptism is only obsolete in the eyes of modern day pharisees who teach man-made doctrines concerning water baptism.