Let me start by saying that one of my pet peeves is the correct use (actually the lack thereof) of turn signals. Because of that, I found myself in a verbal altercation, mostly of my own making.
I was traveling east on Mechanicsville Turnpike and, as I approached the left turn lane for Lee Davis Road, I turned on my left turn signal.
The driver in front of me decided to move into the turn lane as well but failed to use his turn signal, so I beeped my horn at him. He shrugged as if to ask why I was beeping at him, so I yelled out the window that he did not use his turn signal. His reply to that was, “The light is red.”
Because of that nonsense reply, I was frustrated by his lack of understanding of the rules of the road and his total disregard of anyone’s safety. My reply was something to the effect that he needed to use the turn signal to change lanes and that he should learn to drive.
Now, I admit that I was not very nice, nor very ladylike, but, please, what kind of reply is “The light is red”?
When he did finally turn on his signal, it was after the light had turned green and we were approaching the light itself, but, at that point, why bother?
I, and all others around him, already knew that he was turning left.
So, I want to apologize to the man for cursing at him, but I’d also like him to learn from this. Turn signals are just that – signals. They let drivers all around you know that you will be making some kind of move.
So, regardless of the color of the light, a turn signal was required for you to move into the turn lane.
From the Virginia Driver’s Manual: “When you plan to change lanes, turn, or enter or exit a highway, first give the proper turn signal. Using your turn signal, which is required by law, communicates your intended movement to drivers around you. When you plan to turn, signal three or four seconds, 100 feet, ahead of your turn.”
According to House Bill 3202 (Chapter 896): ”Failing to give proper signals – A person shall be guilty of reckless driving who fails to give adequate and timely signals of intention to turn, partly turn, slow down, or stop, as required by Article 6 (§ 46.2-848 et seq.) of this chapter.”
This means that “if you turn without signaling properly, you’re guilty of reckless driving, which as of July 1st, 2007, carries a civil fee of $350 per year for three years, or $1,050.”
Please, for everyone’s safety, use your turn signals properly.
Lisa Lauer
Mechanicsville
Statistics in eye of the beholder
I’m sorry I missed Doug Smith’s letter that got Bob Shannon so up in arms (Letters, July 7), but it sounds like he touched some nerves.
Mr. Shannon’s response threatened facts, but seemed to only regurgitate statistics, which like all statistics are in the eye of the beholder.
I won’t write a book shooting off the opposing stats, but a couple of things should be pointed out about those “facts” he described.
First, like most progressives, *I* am a “productive member of society.” I work a full-time job and do some side work too. I pay a mortgage and a car payment and have two children in college. I get no government handouts, and pay plenty of taxes. Yet I’m still a progressive.
Just like there are plenty of Tea Party types who will rant all day against “government handouts” . . . until you actually try to take away their Social Security checks and Medicare benefits.
In other words, nothing is quite so black-and-white as the picture you would like to paint, and the hypocrisy you would aim at progressives exists just as much on your side.
This is also true of your statement, “the Obama administration’s $13 trillion national debt.”
Ten years ago, this country had a healthy surplus. Then we elected a Republican president, and that surplus evaporated faster than you can say, “tax break” — two unfunded wars, the decimation of financial regulation and a bunch of rich-folks tax reductions later, you have that debt you’re whining about.
To the extent that Obama has continued Bush’s misguided wars, he has contributed to that debt, though he has tried to pay for it more . . . but an extremely high percentage of the growth of that debt, about $12 trillion, can be laid squarely at Dubyah’s feet.
Trying to paint it as all Obama’s fault shows that, despite all the high-minded rhetoric about Tea Party principles, at bottom you’re just another Limbaugh-esque conservative.
But much more importantly, the vast majority of that debt you complain about was created not by the social programs you spend so much energy ranting against, but by those wars and the concurrent tax reductions.
You folks are part of the gung-ho, guns-n-god, kick butt first and take names later crowd, so why aren’t you willing to step up and help pay for the wars you promoted?
Here’s the “fact” part of my letter: you WILL. As will I. And our children. Whether you like it or not, even if you eliminated every single government giveaway program except Social Security and Medicare (which nobody, even in your wildest dreams, can eliminate), as long as you continue to fund the military at anything remotely close to current levels, you will still need to raise taxes significantly to pay off the wars and get us back to a balanced budget. Are you ready for that? Or do you live on the fantasy that magic will somehow fix it?
Steve Sneed
Mechanicsville
U.S. should accept help
The United States should consider and accept other countries’ experiences and aid to be able to handle this disaster (BP oil spill), because it’s going out of control and turned from the national into the world disaster already.
A giant amount of time was wasted already.
Oksana Shevchenko
Mechanicsville
Standing up for God-given rights
The Founders believed our nation’s success and survival was dependent upon God, a transcendent truth they embedded in the Declaration of Independence.
Indeed, the 56 signers declared that they are only subject to the “laws of nature and of nature’s God,” and that our “unalienable rights” come not from government, but from our “Creator.”
They appealed “to the Supreme Judge of the world” for the rightness of their cause and “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence” they “mutually pledged” their lives, their fortunes, and “sacred Honor.”
They stood up to the most powerful nation on earth, not as rebels, but as objects of injustice, prophetically standing for their God-given rights.
Glenn Lucy
Mechanicsville
Reader Comments
This is in reference to Mr. Sneed,
After reading your letter, and the two it referenced, I’d like to clarify a few points. First, most arguments against the left, progressives, or liberals (not sure what to use since it changes all the time) is about the philosophy, not individuals. The left-liberal philosophy is for equality of income, spreading the wealth (even Obama’s appointee to run Medicare says “We must redistribute wealth”), not the creation of wealth. Individuals who claim to be “progressives” may create wealth, the progressive philosophy doesn’t. It destroys wealth. Quite frankly, most people who vote democrat vote against their own interest.
Second, you’ve confused debt and deficit. You were debunking Obama’s 13 billion dollar debt with the deficit in the late 1990s. Those are 2 different things. The “surplus” you spoke about was $230 billion in 2000. Meanwhile, the debt was $5.7 trillion (yes, accumulated since the mid-60s with dems and reps). That surplus represented 4% of our actual debt.
Yes, the yearly surplus evaporated with Bush and our debt went up. However, by August 2008, it was 9.5 trillion, which is horrible. By Jan of 2009, it was 10.6 b/c of the bailout. Since then, it’s been upped to $13 billion. That’s a lot faster than Bush, and his deficits have been monstrous compared to any President. Progressives on your side think there should have been more spending (e.g. Paul Krugman). So today that $12 trillion of the 13$ trillion is Bush’s fault, is plain wrong. One of the things Tea Partiers and conservatives have complained about is the Bush spending. Now, Obama threatens to double it. So while conservatives have remained consistent in their complaints, “progressives” hate debt only when Republicans are in power.
Last, you claim the Defense Budget has caused the growth in debt, not social programs. Fact is, in 1965, Defense was 7.4% of our GDP and social programs were 2.5%. Now, Defense is 4.9% and social programs are 9.9%. Social Programs began to exceed defense in 1976 (27 years before the wars you talk about.)
Question is: what should our government focus on? Defense or social programs. Since there would be no social programs if we couldn’t defend ourselves, that seems like an easy answer.
Mike Hasley of Mechanicsville
Jul. 15, 2010 at 05:45 PM
Mike -
Thanks for a sane and civil response.
I would agree that the liberal philosophy is indeed based on the idea of redistributing wealth. *Some* wealth. Nowhere near all. Nor does that mean that liberals are against the creation of wealth - quite a few very-rich-and-working-for-more folks are liberals. I obviously can’t speak for all liberals but what I believe is that there are societal needs that are far too big for individuals and which the private sector has proven incapable of doing (or unwilling of doing in a honest and ethical manner) - such needs must be met by government. It is our responsibility, not only as citizens but as human beings sharing this one lifeboat we call Earth, to contribute our share. How “our share” is determined is the sticking point, and the ideas for that are like rear ends - everyone has one and all are imperfect. I would be completely happy with a flat tax with no exemptions for everyone as long as it applied the same way to businesses as it does to individuals, but everyone wants to cheat the system however they can, which is why we have a tax code the size of an encyclopedia and we fight over how much is too much at every level of society.
You said, “Quite frankly, most people who vote democrat vote against their own interest.” I know for me, and I think for most who vote liberal, we vote for MORE than just our self-interest - we see a bigger picture than just ourselves and we consider that bigger picture in our decisions. This in a nutshell is why most conservatives see progressives as “bleeding hearts” while most progressives see conservatives as “selfish & conceited.” I don’t just vote based on the financial impact to me - I vote for social and ideological reasons as well. Lately, the financial aspects are the least of my worries - I’m much more concerned about the tyranny conservatives would impose with the thinly-veiled theocracy they keep pushing.
On your financial items, there are a couple of minor points I would disagree with, but in general I’m not enough of a finance maven to argue the issues competently, so I’ll concede your points. But as for “progressives only hate debt when Republicans are in power”, seems to me the exact same can be said of conservatives, based on the spending swings in some of the last several decade’s republican admins - they just spend it on different things, many of which we see as just as frivolous as you see some of our programs. The reality is, if you want to control public spending, regardless of party, you have to end the influence of lobbyists, end the concept of constituent service by members of congress, and completely publicly fund elections… none of which is likely.
You said, “Since there would be no social programs if we couldn’t defend ourselves, that seems like an easy answer.” But the opposite is just as true - if our society breaks down, we will have nothing to defend. BOTH are just as necessary.
Steve
Steve Sneed of Mechanicsville
Jul. 15, 2010 at 08:05 PM
Steve,
I, too, would love to see the flat tax. I like Lobbyists (in the sense that it seems more efficient to have a representative body talk to your representative than just you), but I hate the money they have to influence politicians. I didn’t buy the Obama claim to end the influence of lobbyists because he’ll always allow lobbyists for issues he supports. Both camps do. Completely funded elections sounds interesting, but I haven’t thought about that much, so I don’t know.
I’d add that government unions are also destroying the fiscal programs of states and the federal government.
Sadly, fiscal conservatives are on the extinct list. I never liked the idea of “compassionate conservativism” but each side does have projects it likes to spend money on. I don’t think government projects are helpful, in general. Sure, a few benefit, but overall, it’s harmful.
I honestly believe the Great Society programs of LBJ created the urban mess we have today.
I don’t believe “Obamacare” will ever become cheaper and better than we have now. It will become more expensive and worse. Mass. is already seeing these problems, England as well, and Canada. Even the Swedes who have some great social welfare programs (managed much differently than our own) admit that their health care system is terrible.
Increasing minimum wage does nothing but keep those it’s intended to help out of jobs.
Those are just some examples of government spending that will just create or have created a worse situation. None of which were intended in the Constitution, rather interpreted years later.
Right now, I see the Democrats being run by leftists, not liberals in the JFK sense of the term. Liberals understand wealth creation. Leftists do not. I mention it earlier b/c liberal democrats keep changing what they are (e.g. Hillary Clinton).
Right now, you see Democrats trying to replicate the Tea Party Movement for a second time as One Nation, but it’s top down and wants to see more government spending.
My, and most conservative priorities are:
1) defense
2) public safety
3) infrastructure
4) state based monetary decisions
5) low taxes
Oh, you mentioned social security and medicare. The reason Tea Parties and most people don’t want that touched is b/c we’ve paid into that system. Most entitlements are for people who don’t. I haven’t met a conservative yet who wants people to suffer. We just don’t think government (esp. the national government) handles it the best.
To be honest though, if I could be guaranteed a Republic Congress and Obama in 2012, I’d vote for that hoping to see the 1997 - 2000 budgets again. I like my lame duck presidents.
Mike Hasley of Mechanicsville, VA
Jul. 15, 2010 at 08:34 PM
I think we’re going to have to just agree to disagree on most of your points. :) Especially the issue of government-employee unions - that’s been a straw-man target for years. There’s a nice piece on the subject in last week’s The Nation - you can find it on their web site.
As for Social Security, paying for it would take one simple, all-but-painless change: raising the cap on payroll deduction from this year’s $106,800 to a more realistic level. But there are quite a few conservatives, including avowed tea-partiers like Sharon Angle, who have been pushing cutting/“privatizing” SS & Medicare… so all that money can be taken out of the government’s hands and given to the big banks so they can steal it or lose it in another mismanaged crash. I really do understand the concept that private enterprise can manage things better than the government, but that assumes everyone is ethical and works in the best interests of all interested parties - if ever there was proof that such is not possible in the greed-driven world that is high finance, it is the crash we’re all trying to recover from. No, government is not perfect in this area either… but it’s a heck of a lot better than private for-profit companies.
As for healthcare, I’m the son of a doctor and used to be married to a primary-care provider, so I’ve seen that side of the equation up close. I firmly believe that single-payer is the only way to go, with *everyone* covered and *everyone* paying in to the best of their ability. That doesn’t mean it must be government run… but it would certainly have to be a non-profit, strict tort limitations would need to be in place, and the same non-profit would provide malpractice coverage for the providers and hospitals so that all three legs of the cost stool could be brought into line. (Another one of those things that’s too big for individuals and which private profit-driven business has proven it can’t do ethically and fairly.) The Obama healthcare bill has problems no doubt, most of which were created by watering down the bill to satisfy the right, but at bottom it does considerably more good than harm - for people if not everyone’s pocketbooks.
On your list of conservative priorities: I wish that list was accurate - if it was, then reasonable people might disagree on details but we could work together to find do-able answers. I’m sure that list is accurate for you, and it probably is for some, but the majority have another set of priorities that are nowhere on your list: imposing their religious, social and ideological beliefs on everyone else. They call these things “freedom”, but in fact they are the antithesis of freedom - they are the worst sort of tyranny, the tyranny of forced conformity.
That sort of tyranny is exactly what our Constitution is supposed to prevent.
This is where I get really angry. So often conservatives use the Constitution as a shield, yet so few of them have actually studied the document or the men who wrote it - they take what they’ve been told by pundits and preachers about the document and what it means, and assume that it’s factual when it’s complete rubbish. And so few of them support ALL of the Constitution - they’re quick to stand up for the 2nd and 10th Amendments, but the rest, especially that pesky 1st with its admonition about freedom of religion and separation of church and state… those parts they just try to spin to suit their narrow little belief set. They use the words “freedom” and “tyranny” as a club, when they have no understanding of what freedom or tyranny are.
OK, off my soapbox for tonight…
Steve
Steve Sneed of Mechanicsville
Jul. 15, 2010 at 10:18 PM
