[TheRealVille]

I don't know much about his politics, but this is an email I received. Pretty cool, if true.

Harry Truman was a different kind of President. He probably made as many, or more important decisions regarding our nation's history as any of the other 32 Presidents preceding him. However, a measure of his greatness may rest on what he did after he left the White House.

The only asset he had when he died was the house he lived in, which was in Independence Missouri. His wife had inherited the house from her mother and father and other than their years in the White House, they lived their entire lives there.

When he retired from office in 1952, his income was a U.S. Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an 'allowance' and, later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year.

After President Eisenhower was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove home to Missouri by themselves. There was no Secret Service following them.

When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined, stating, "You don't want me. You want the office of the President, and that doesn't belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it's not for sale..."

Even later, on May 6, 1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, "I don't consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any award, Congressional or otherwise."

As president he paid for all of his own travel expenses and food.

Modern politicians have found a new level of success in cashing in on the Presidency, resulting in untold wealth. Today, many in Congress also have found a way to become quite wealthy while enjoying the fruits of their offices. Political offices are now for sale.

Good old Harry Truman was correct when he observed, "My choices in life were either to be a piano player in a ***** house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference!

I say dig him up and clone him!!

[Hoot Gibson]

Where have all the good, honest Democrats gone? As guys like Truman, Hubert H. Humphrey, Henry "Scoop" Jackson, and Sam Nunn either left public life or died, they have been replaced by the worst sort of thieving politicians that this nation has ever known. Truman would not recognize the Democrat Party today.

[TheRealVille]

Where have all the good, honest Democrats gone? As guys like Truman, Hubert H. Humphrey, Henry "Scoop" Jackson, and Sam Nunn either left public life or died, they have been replaced by the worst sort of thieving politicians that this nation has ever known. Truman would not recognize the Democrat Party today.

I'm proud to say that I'm an honest Democrat. I hate politics though. Of course, I don't lean near as far left as some either.

[Hoot Gibson]

I'm proud to say that I'm an honest Democrat. I hate politics though. Of course, I don't lean near as far left as some either.

No offense, RV, but if you still support Obama and his demonization of the people who pay more than their fair share of taxes, then you are not an honest Democrat, IMO. 47 percent of Americans now pay no federal income taxes and yet this Congress, along with Barack Obama are still raising tax rates on the 53 percent who do pay taxes. Income redistribution on such a scale is outright theft and the concept of providing a safety net has become lost in Democrats' greed and lust for political power.

If Truman were alive today he would be allied with the common folk pushing for smaller government and more accountability such as those who are active in the Tea Party movement.

[TheRealVille]

No offense, RV, but if you still support Obama and his demonization of the people who pay more than their fair share of taxes, then you are not an honest Democrat, IMO. 47 percent of Americans now pay no federal income taxes and yet this Congress, along with Barack Obama are still raising tax rates on the 53 percent who do pay taxes. Income redistribution on such a scale is outright theft and the concept of providing a safety net has become lost in Democrats' greed and lust for political power.

If Truman were alive today he would be allied with the common folk pushing for smaller government and more accountability such as those who are active in the Tea Party movement.

I'm for paying taxes, and do pay mine, without cheating, so I would say that I'm honest. You can't call someone dishonest just because you are for not paying a certain percentage of taxes. That amounts to the same thing as me calling you dishonest because you side with the party that is for giving tax breaks to the rich and not the poorer.

[TheRealVille]

You can't call people dishonest for political siding or we would be able to call all voters from both sides dishonest because both sides do thing to cheat honest people.

[Hoot Gibson]

I'm for paying taxes, and do pay mine, without cheating, so I would say that I'm honest. You can't call someone dishonest just because you are for not paying a certain percentage of taxes.

Liberal Democrats support forcing other people to pay an unreasonably high rate of taxes to support the 47 percent of Americans who have an effective federal income tax rate of 0% (or less for those receiving the EIC). Yes, I can call liberal Democrats dishonest and I can call them thieves. I support your right to sign your entire paycheck over to the federal government if that makes you happy, but I have a problem with you deciding that I should do the same.

Supporters of Obama - and I am not talking about those who realize that they made a mistake voting him into office - are like the store employee who leaves the back door unlocked so that armed robbers can hold up his coworkers. Obama may be sending armed thugs to rob honest Americans but his supporters unlocked the door for him.

How can you admire a man like Truman and yet support a socialist like Barack Obama? I just do not get it.

[TheRealVille]

Liberal Democrats support forcing other people to pay an unreasonably high rate of taxes to support the 47 percent of Americans who have an effective federal income tax rate of 0% (or less for those receiving the EIC). Yes, I can call liberal Democrats dishonest and I can call them thieves. I support your right to sign your entire paycheck over to the federal government if that makes you happy, but I have a problem with you deciding that I should do the same.

Supporters of Obama - and I am not talking about those who realize that they made a mistake voting him into office - are like the store employee who leaves the back door unlocked so that armed robbers can hold up his coworkers. Obama may be sending armed thugs to rob honest Americans but his supporters unlocked the door for him.

How can you admire a man like Truman and yet support a socialist like Barack Obama? I just do not get it.

I have never said I support him now, or ever again. To be honest, the other side rapes and piliages peoples money in different ways also. Obama isn't the first President and this isn't first congress that has raped us, they all do. Who do you think is going to pay for the wars Bush started 8 years ago at the tune of 10B a month?

[Hoot Gibson]

I have never said I support him now, or ever again. To be honest, the other side rapes and piliages peoples money in different ways also. Obama isn't the first President and this isn't first congress that has raped us, they all do. Who do you think is going to pay for the wars Bush started 8 years ago at the tune of 10B a month?

Look at the numbers. Obama has plunged this nation deeper into debt faster than any president in history. The unemployment rate is stuck near 10%, meaning 18 to 19% of Americans are unemployed. The number of federal employees has grown under Obama while the number of private sectors has shrunk.

Yet, Obama is still pursuing policies intended to cripple the coal and oil industries and drive up the cost of energy.

You do not have to say whether you support Obama. Your posts speak for themselves. Obama supporters always respond to criticism with the "George Bush was worse" defense, as if a person cannot have opposed the policies of both Bush and Obama.

There are currently 6 job applicants for every available job and that ratio is not getting any better. Finding jobs during most of the Bush administration was a relative piece of cake. I supported fighting Islamic extremists under Bush and I will support Obama's efforts as long as he remains resolute. However, I opposed Bush's expansion of the federal government during good economic times and I strongly oppose Obama's expansion of the federal government during a deep recession (or, if you prefer, a "jobless recovery").

My positions have been logically consistent over the past ten years. Yours? Not so much. You have fallen hard for the Obama, "It is Bush's fault" defense and it does not matter what "it" is.

[TheRealVille]

You do not have to say whether you support Obama. Your posts speak for themselves. Obama supporters always respond to criticism with the "George Bush was worse" defense, as if a person cannot have opposed the policies of both Bush and Obama.

My positions have been logically consistent over the past ten years. Yours? Not so much. You have fallen hard for the Obama, "It is Bush's fault" defense and it does not matter what "it" is.

See, this is where you are wrong Hoot. I did support Obama, but in most likelyhood will not do it again. In fact, my wife and I were ready to vote for McCain, a person that leans little to the left(which I like), until the day he chose his running mate. I was just saying that G.W. Bush stole just as much from the Americans. Like CM said, you are blind to anything conservatives do because of your world view. My whole point was, if you can call me dishonest because of Obama, I can call you dishonest because of Bush. FTR, Obama is the first Democrat President I have ever voted for. I am ashamed of all my Republican votes as much as I am ashamed of Obama. But, what I am not ashamed of, after being fed up with both sides, is that I will forever more vote for candidates that support my way of life, which is union.

[Hoot Gibson]

See, this is where you are wrong Hoot. I did support Obama, but in most likelyhood will not do it again. In fact, my wife and I were ready to vote for McCain, a person that leans little to the left(which I like), until the day he chose his running mate. I was just saying that G.W. Bush stole just as much from the Americans. Like CM said, you are blind to anything conservatives do because of your world view. My whole point was, if you can call me dishonest because of Obama, I can call you dishonest because of Bush. FTR, Obama is the first Democrat President I have ever voted for. I am ashamed of all my Republican votes as much as I am ashamed of Obama. But, what I am not ashamed of, after being fed up with both sides, is that I will forever more vote for candidates that support my way of life, which is union.

The difference in the 2000 and 2004 elections and the 2008 election was that Bush was the more fiscally conservative of the major candidates when he ran. No matter who had been president on 9/11, terrorists would have attacked - and Gore would have gone to war with the Taliban and Al Qaeda just the same as Bush did.

In 2008, Obama promised to send utility rates soaring and to punish people who would dare build new coal-fired power plants. In 2008, Obama promised to take over the health care industry, pass cap and trade legislation, and raise taxes on the nation's job producers. If you take a look at the chart below, it should be obvious how much more irresponsible Obama has been during his very brief time in charge of the budget.

For anybody who believes in individual liberty and responsibility, the Obama versus McCain choice was a no-brainer. I was not a McCain supporter, but except for voting for the bank bail-out, he has a long history of exposing government waste and abuse. I had no choice but to cast a vote against our first socialist president.

"Union" is not a way of life, it is an organization. Joining a union does not require one to put independent thought and their sense of justice on hold. It is an outrage that only 53% of Americans are footing the entire bill for the monstrosity that our federal government has become. But to Obama and his minions, those 53% are still not paying their "fair share." Do you think that is fair, RV?

[Image: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uplo...udget1.jpg]

[TheRealVille]

"Union" is not a way of life, it is an organization. Joining a union does not require one to put independent thought and their sense of justice on hold. It is an outrage that only 53% of Americans are footing the entire bill for the monstrosity that our federal government has become. But to Obama and his minions, those 53% are still not paying their "fair share." Do you think that is fair, RV?

Union is my way of life though. How long has the biggest majority of Americans footed the bill for the rest? I would like to see proof that 47 percent of Americans don't pay taxes. If true, the IRS isn't doing it's job. It didn't just start in the last few years, if true. Republicans try every thing posible to destroy unions, name one reason I should take food off my families table.

[Hoot Gibson]

Union is my way of life though. How lo ng has the biggest majority of Americans footed the bill for the rest?

I don't know the answer but 47% is the highest rate of non-payers ever. Here is a graph that shows the stead increase of non-payers through 2008. You can extrapolate it to 47 percent and see the impact that electing Obama to the presidency and giving him Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress has had on the country.

In summary, the budget deficit and projected deficits have exploded, the number of taxpayers has shrunk, and Obama is increasing taxes on the people who are already footing most of the bill and who create jobs in this country. Do you not recognize the threat to everybody's jobs and wage rates that a persistently high unemployment rate has? A union will not protect you from Obamanomics. Nothing will.

[Image: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/S5...0/tax1.jpg]

[TheRealVille]

You still haven't given me a reason to vote to take food from my family. I've honestly tried to understand your thinking Hoot, but you show no proof of your numbers. I'm honestly beginning to think that you are going to be a Republican hack no matter what. I need a reason to vote against unions, voting Republican, and taking money from my family. Why should I support Republicans, when they continue to try to break my job?

[Hoot Gibson]

You still haven't given me a reason to vote to take food from my family. I've honestly tried to understand your thinking Hoot, but you show no proof of your numbers. I'm honestly beginning to think that you are going to be a Republican hack no matter what. I need a reason to vote against unions, voting Republican, and taking money from my family. Why should I support Republicans, when they continue to try to break my job?

You can vote for whomever you like but your choice to post some wise words of Harry Truman while supporting socialist policies that will ultimately destroy our economy is a strange one.

Do you really agree with the political agenda that union bosses and Obama are pushing? Do you believe that granting amnesty to millions of low paid illegal aliens is going to put money into your pocket and food on your table in the long run? Do you believe in card check, where a person's vote for or against a union will be made public?

I remember the wildcat UMWA strikes in the 1970s and early 1980s and the thugs in ski masks armed with guns and clubs on the roving picket lines. I found myself in a situation of having to walk some of those picket lines myself at times when I worked in the UMWA as a student. I worked underground in a Martin County mine in the summer of 1976 and I was only able to work about every other day because of the illegal strikes. Undoubtedly, my union dues went to help Jimmy Carter spread his brand of misery.

Nobody can tell me that abandoning the current secret ballot process required for unionizing workers will not result in violence and intimidation by some union organizers - it will. If that is the kind of future you want for future generations, then by all means continue voting people like Obama into office because of their party affiliation.

[OrangenowBlue]

You can vote for whomever you like but your choice to post some wise words of Harry Truman while supporting socialist policies that will ultimately destroy our economy is a strange one.

Do you really agree with the political agenda that union bosses and Obama are pushing? Do you believe that granting amnesty to millions of low paid illegal aliens is going to put money into your pocket and food on your table in the long run? Do you believe in card check, where a person's vote for or against a union will be made public?

I remember the wildcat UMWA strikes in the 1970s and early 1980s and the thugs in ski masks armed with guns and clubs on the roving picket lines. I found myself in a situation of having to walk some of those picket lines myself at times when I worked in the UMWA as a student. I worked underground in a Martin County mine in the summer of 1976 and I was only able to work about every other day because of the illegal strikes. Undoubtedly, my union dues went to help Jimmy Carter spread his brand of misery.

Nobody can tell me that abandoning the current secret ballot process required for unionizing workers will not result in violence and intimidation by some union organizers - it will. If that is the kind of future you want for future generations, then by all means continue voting people like Obama into office because of their party affiliation.

I agree wholeheartedly that union votes should be kept secret because there would be violence by pro union groups. I do have some concern also that on a post you created concerning a docter who refused treatment for anyone who proclaim their support of Obama. I do not have a problem with the docter but on post #2 someone posted that Dennis Miller stated that businesses should fire anyone who voted for Obama. Is this stating that your employer has a right to know who you voted for. Everybody has the right to privacy. This sounds like a similar scenario, just different sides of the political aisle.

[Hoot Gibson]

I agree wholeheartedly that union votes should be kept secret because there would be violence by pro union groups. I do have some concern also that on a post you created concerning a docter who refused treatment for anyone who proclaim their support of Obama. I do not have a problem with the docter but on post #2 someone posted that Dennis Miller stated that businesses should fire anyone who voted for Obama. Is this stating that your employer has a right to know who you voted for. Everybody has the right to privacy. This sounds like a similar scenario, just different sides of the political aisle.

Everybody has the right to privacy where their votes are concerned but if a person voluntarily divulges that (s)he voted against the interests of his or her employer, then that employer should have the legal authority to fire that individual.

I am not saying that the employer should fire employees for political reasons, but they should have the right to do so. IMO, doing so would make it harder to recruit and retain good employees but the law should not prevent people from running their own businesses in a self-destructive way. Jobs ultimately belong to employers not to employees. Neither the union nor the government can create or save jobs in the private sector. They can only destroy them.

Also, such an employer could not legally terminate employees who are employed under a contract, union or otherwise, which prohibits firing for non-performance related issues like political activities on the employee's own time.

[LWC]

Everybody has the right to privacy where their votes are concerned but if a person voluntarily divulges that (s)he voted against the interests of his or her employer, then that employer should have the legal authority to fire that individual.

:yikes: Radical much?!?!?!

I am sure that you are talking about extreme circumstances but remember that there would be employers that would take a law like that and stretch it out of context.

[Hoot Gibson]

:yikes: Radical much?!?!?!

I am sure that you are talking about extreme circumstances but remember that there would be employers that would take a law like that and stretch it out of context.

Nothing radical about it. Although there are specific exceptions that vary from state to state, for the most part employees who are not hired under contract are employed "at will," meaning that the either the employer or the employee may end their association without obligation or further consequence. As I said, just because an employer has the right, or I believe that they should have the right, to fire employees for voting in a way that the employer deems detrimental to the business does not mean that it is a smart way to run a business.

To the contrary, I believe in nearly all cases that an employees or an employer's political beliefs should have no bearing on continued employment. But I strongly believe that the government should have no authority to protect an employee's job if the employer deems him or her unfit for the job for whatever reason.

[notamoocher]

I don't know much about his politics, but this is an email I received. Pretty cool, if true.

The Harry Truman book is a very good read. All the tax stuff could be another post. politicians like Truman don't exist anymore in either party.