Oh No!!!

Sorry about the title. It's my sarcastic way of adding to the hysteria over the Saturday night vote.

Let me tell you why the sarcasm. That vote was just to continue debating or not about the bill. Yeah Yeah Republicans didn't have any input in the bill. Well if you refuse to debate about it, you certainly won't get your points across.

I agree I don't want the bill to pass either but debate is debate and you better start debating it! That's your job!! So stop whining and start debating.

What I find interesting is how the following NY Times article talks about the cost of the Senate bill at $800+Billion like it's a bargain over the $1.03 Trillion House bill.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/health/policy/20health.html?_r=2&ref=health
Keep in mind that the federal government couldn't accurately estimate or even over estimate the cost of something like this. Trust me, it's well underestimated.

But who among us can actually imagine $800 billion? Let me break it down for you.
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
At the time of this post, the U.S. population is listed at 307,996,114. Keep in mind that number is not working adults only. It includes children, retirees, stay at home moms, the unemployed, etc etc. That comes out to more than $2,597 per person. So if your family has 2 people think $5,200 or for a family of 4 more than $10,400. That's on top of the taxes you currently pay for this that and the other government programs. But don't forget you have to pay for those people that aren't contributing tax dollars. So add some more money onto your family's total to cover their share.

I'm just saying $800 billion is NOT a bargain for health care that they say is only going to cover 31 million people as opposed to the Houses versions 36 million. So they expect me to believe that only about 11% of the population is going to need the governments help? What do they think I'm stupid? I guess they aren't concerned about me though, just about the masses.

On a related note, if you don't think senator's votes on specific pieces of legislation aren't bought.
Check this out how Senator Mary Landrieu's vote to support the health care bill was purchased.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html

Don't think your Senator can be bought on either side of the aisle? I'd like to remind you of TARP and the "Stimulus" bills.

Call your senators. Call other senators. Or Write them. Tell them what you think.

Fascism

I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert on Fascism. All I know is that Mussolini was a fascist, and I believe he was considered to be some sort of dictator. But I couldn't tell you what about his political policies made him a fascist. So I will be providing you with resources to study up on it as I will do as I put this post together.


From Websters:

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

For more clarity on what fascism is, this is a very good in depth explanation of it. The whole article is worth reading. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
"...Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions."

People (I'm not sure who these "people" are) like to equate Socialism to far left and Fascism to far right ideology. Where I sense they are relatively the same thing with fascism being easier to accomplish as it pulls the wool over the eyes of the sheep blindly following the government that is selling it, as the sheep pump their fists and demand the government take care of their needs.


I don't know if we should technically be worried about our country headed for fascism or socialism. I don't think it matters which one since they are both trying to accomplish Utopian societies in the eyes of their supporters. I do think we shouldn't trust any group of people (politicians) that are motivated by power, that want to "provide for our needs"with our money and not theirs. Though they seem to think what's ours is theirs to do with as they please. Utopia on earth can't be accomplished while man is running the place.

Health Care Passed the House

Well if you were sleeping last night and didn't hear the news, the House passed their version of "health care reform."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091108/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

From the article: "Nancy Pelosi compared the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later."

I agree with that, just maybe not with the joy behind it that she most likely has. Two entitlement programs that are contributing to the bankruptcy of this country. If you essentially extend Medicare to the entire county, it will speed that up. I'd like to know how comfortable you all are with putting this burden on my generation and the generations to follow? They keep extending out the "retirement" age to receive social security and Medicare benefits. Robbing from the future to get what you want now.

Now that everyone has been depending on Social Security and Medicare for so long, you wouldn't get anyone to touch eliminating those entitlements on either side of the aisle. I'm guessing 80-90% of most Americans would be opposed to privatizing both since they've been paying in already they've learned to "trust" that the government will continue to send them a check every month and pay for their Medicare needs. What many of you may not realize about the "free" entitled part of Medicare. It only applies to in patient coverage. If you want Medicare out patient benefits, you have to buy into it, and yet it's still bankrupting us. Why do you think that is? Because there's no incentive to run it efficiently. If they are short on money, congress will just increase the budget for it.

That's how they are going to get this passed if it passes. They are going to call it an extension of Medicare to all which everyone is under the illusion it works so well for seniors while alienating the care to seniors by cutting the budget to them. I'm all for cutting that budget, but let's be real; we're just moving money from one group of people to another and then spending more on that new group of people. So where's the savings? Where's the money in my pocket? They keep taking it. And no one seems to care that any of us are pissed off about it. Because when it comes down to it, 90% or more of people may not want the government to spend money on this, but they certainly want them to spend money on their special interest, whatever that may be.

Whatever happened to the basics of infrastructure (roads, highways, bridges) and and army for defense? Whatever happened to the freedom to take care of ourselves as we see fit? When did it become appropriate to demand the government take care of our personal lives?

If you oppose this bill, you still have time to voice your opinion as it's not in the hands of the Senate. Call and write your senators and the senators of other states. Let them know their jobs depend on it. And then vote them out next time anyways. Let's impose term limits on all of them. They shouldn't be able to make a career out of spending our money.

On a bright note, apparently this version has no chance in the Senate.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091108/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul
Doesn't matter, keep hounding your sentators and others and then vote them out!! I'm not kidding about imposing term limits on them. That's our job!

Are You Happy With What is Going on in Washington?

The reason for the title is because I have two topics I'd like to discuss in this post. I just got back from a short vacation and had no time to discuss both points as they came up at the end of last week.

1st topic: Hate Crime Law and the Defense bill.

So in case you weren't paying attention last week homosexuality got added as a defined "hate crime." I'm not going to go into further details that crime done against anyone regardless of race, gender, beliefs, sexual preference, etc is hateful and so the term "Hate Crime" is somewhat redundant from my point of view or it should apply to all victims of crime, not just defined groups. My real point is to discuss how something like this gets tacked onto the defense bill, which is defined (by me) as the bill to outline the defense of our country. What does a qualifying group of people that get hate crime designation have to do with the defense of our our country?

I'm not opposed to discussing/proposing such a bill in legislation that is in the same category, such as crime. But this goes on all the time with various bills and what really offends me is when they tack on what was commonly referred to as "pork" during the last campaign, to a bill that will pass that has nothing to do with the "pork" item, just to get it through since it might not pass otherwise. This is part of the dirty deal making that happens in congress that must stop!!

I propose that bills must stay on topic. Perhaps they'd all be shorter. I doubt it, since they want to drone on long enough so that no one will bother to read them.

Topic 2: Cash For Clunkers, Success or Failure?

Not too long ago I posted on what defined the success or failure of the cash for clunkers program. On Thursday Edumunds.com posted what I would consider to be my definition of success or failure of it.

If you haven't read the article, check it out.
http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press/159446/article.html

Basically speaking, they determined that as of a result of the program 125,000 additional vehicles were sold as a result of the program. All other vehicles purchased during the program would have been purchased whether they got the rebate applied to their new purchase or not.
The program cost a total of $3 billion. That comes out to $24,000/additional car sold.

To be fair they did determine that some people that were going to purchase cars had no intentions of trading in an old car, but this isn't quantified, nor are the reasons stated for why they wouldn't have traded in that old car. So this may or may not provide evidence supporting environmental successes.

So what do you think now? Is spending $24,000 per additional car sold worth it to you? Have you changed your mind on the success or failure of the program? Do you find this indicative of how the government runs things? I do.

I would like to see the same analysis done on the new home rebate program. And yet they intend to extend this. (If they didn't already do it while I was gone.)

Do you really want them in charge of health care? Let me know what you think about all of this.