-"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,they may take the care of religion into their own hands;they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
-"Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations; but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes."
-"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
-"A popular Government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance...."
-"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree. "
-"Every man who loves peace, every man who loves his country, every man who loves liberty ought to have it ever before his eyes that he may cherish in his heart a due attachment to the Union of America and be able to set a due value on the means of preserving it."
-"How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation? "
-"It is a principle incorporated into the settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute."
-"I own myself the friend to a very free system of commerce, and hold it as a truth, that commercial shackles are generally unjust, oppressive and impolitic — it is also a truth, that if industry and labour are left to take their own course, they will generally be directed to those objects which are the most productive, and this in a more certain and direct manner than the wisdom of the most enlightened legislature could point out."
-"In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example ... of charters of power granted by liberty. This revolution in the practice of the world, may, with an honest praise, be pronounced the most triumphant epoch of its history, and the most consoling presage of its happiness."
-"That the most productive system of finance will always be the least burdensome."
-"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."
Friday, November 7, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
Socialized Healthcare
I wonder how many of you out there really think that national health care is the answer to our health care needs. My follow up question to those of you that think it's a fabulous idea is "have you been to the emergency room lately for stitches, whiplash, sprained ankle or anything of the likes?" Depending on the area you live in, you probably had to wait a long time just to go back to see a doctor. And then once you got back there you probably had to wait some more. The reason being, the ER is filled with people that should be going to a doctor, but the reason they go to the ER is because;
1. The ER cannot turn them away by law
2. Many of them have no intentions of paying their bill hence why they go to the ER rather than a doctor. Because a doctor can ask for payment up front and refuse to see a patient if they haven't paid.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a socialized as you want your medicine to get. And I question the logic in allowing people to get away with not paying their ER bills because they don't care about their credit or they give a false social security number. I question the logic in telling ERs that they must treat everyone that comes into the ER regardless. They ought to be able to tell people with colds to go see their doctor along with other ailments.
But I'm sure those of you for socialized medicine think that doctors should have to treat everyone that comes to them regardless of their ability to pay. Let me tell you what happens under this system. More and more people refuse to pay which means more and more accounts go to collections, many of which are deemed noncollectable, and doctors no longer find it worth their while to stay in business. So they retire earlier, find other lines of work and advise kids not to bother going to medical school because the risks now outweigh the reward. So there are fewer and fewer professionals to treat more and more patients. But now these professionals are also employees of the government. And as the government realizes there are fewer professionals to meet the demand of the health care needs and wants, they start rationing health care.
So that elective radical mastectomy you want to prevent breast cancer because it runs rampant in your family will have to wait until it becomes cancer. Anything now considered elective, will no longer be an option until it threatens your life. So you will have to learn to live with the pain, discomfort, and even embarrassment your condition causes you. And if it does turn life threatening and you are over the age of 55, good luck on getting moved up on the priority list. The reasoning; you've lived a decent long life and are close to retirement so it's better for the government if you die before retirement so they don't have to take care of you after you stop work. They need the younger viable workers with 20-30 years of work left in them to keep working to pay taxes, so they'll take priority over an older person.
But this is what you all want. Because you naively think it's free. Nothing is free. it's only free to the person that refuses to pay taxes. But then again if you don't work to pay into their tax system, I'm sure you'll be moved down on the priority list for care as well. Because what good are you if you refuse to work so the government can take all your money to give you "free" nationalized health care?
1. The ER cannot turn them away by law
2. Many of them have no intentions of paying their bill hence why they go to the ER rather than a doctor. Because a doctor can ask for payment up front and refuse to see a patient if they haven't paid.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a socialized as you want your medicine to get. And I question the logic in allowing people to get away with not paying their ER bills because they don't care about their credit or they give a false social security number. I question the logic in telling ERs that they must treat everyone that comes into the ER regardless. They ought to be able to tell people with colds to go see their doctor along with other ailments.
But I'm sure those of you for socialized medicine think that doctors should have to treat everyone that comes to them regardless of their ability to pay. Let me tell you what happens under this system. More and more people refuse to pay which means more and more accounts go to collections, many of which are deemed noncollectable, and doctors no longer find it worth their while to stay in business. So they retire earlier, find other lines of work and advise kids not to bother going to medical school because the risks now outweigh the reward. So there are fewer and fewer professionals to treat more and more patients. But now these professionals are also employees of the government. And as the government realizes there are fewer professionals to meet the demand of the health care needs and wants, they start rationing health care.
So that elective radical mastectomy you want to prevent breast cancer because it runs rampant in your family will have to wait until it becomes cancer. Anything now considered elective, will no longer be an option until it threatens your life. So you will have to learn to live with the pain, discomfort, and even embarrassment your condition causes you. And if it does turn life threatening and you are over the age of 55, good luck on getting moved up on the priority list. The reasoning; you've lived a decent long life and are close to retirement so it's better for the government if you die before retirement so they don't have to take care of you after you stop work. They need the younger viable workers with 20-30 years of work left in them to keep working to pay taxes, so they'll take priority over an older person.
But this is what you all want. Because you naively think it's free. Nothing is free. it's only free to the person that refuses to pay taxes. But then again if you don't work to pay into their tax system, I'm sure you'll be moved down on the priority list for care as well. Because what good are you if you refuse to work so the government can take all your money to give you "free" nationalized health care?
Labels:
Health Care,
Socialized Medicine
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Can't We All Just Get Along???
I've been wondering for quite awhile now, why political issues are so divisive. Do they have to be? I mean candidates seem to focus most of their time and effort towards pointing out what they will do and how disastrous the other person's plan is. Which may or may not be true but in the end it seems that only the group of people who's candidate got elected feel like they get anything out of it.
Why can't we be more diplomatic with each other in our own country? Which is to say why can't we look for common ground rather than focus on where we disagree? Surely we can find some common ground on most if not all issues. Which is what a Lola presidency will work for. It's not about "reaching across the aisle," it's about adjusting perspective and creativity in approaching each and every issue.
Issue One: Global Warming
We get so caught up in which group is right or wrong about whether or not global warming or temperature cycles, is man made. When in reality at the heart of the global warming issue is the environment and being responsible with it. We all can agree that we'd like to breath clean air, and that it's our responsibility to take care of our planet. That said it isn't the responsibility of the U.S. to take care of the entire planet, but we should vigilant to help educate other countries and assist them within reason to help them become environmentally responsible members of this planet. I think we can also agree that using force on other countries for this issue is also unreasonable.
Issue Two: The War
I keep hearing arguments about whether or not we should have gone into Iraq in the first place. The past is the past, we can't change that now. We can argue now about whether or not to pull the troops out immediately or to let them finish their job. But that will just get us mad at each other because we are so hell-bent on being right. In reality I'll bet most of us agree regardless of political leanings that Iraq should be taking on more and more financial responsibility for themselves, for paying the forces we've helped train, for rebuilding their country, and any other expenses they have that we have been or still are paying for. I think we have a vested interest in seeing them be fiscally responsible for themselves and maintaining that in the future so leaving them out to dry isn't in theirs or our best interest either. But they can take on more financial responsibility now and should. I think we can agree on that point.
Issue Three: Oil
We can argue about drilling or not but I think there are 2 points here we can come to an agreement on if we all approach the subject with an open mind. We need to work towards energy independence and stop sending loads of money to the middle east for oil when we could be investing that money into our own economy. 2nd, It's silly that other countries are drilling a mere 60 or 90 miles off of our coast while we just stand there and let them suck what should be our resources out of the ground without any kind of reimbursement for it. From these to points we can start to find solutions that are acceptable to most people again if we will be open minded.
I would say there's a 3rd issue we can agree on, and that is that we don't want to end up paying $5 a gallon or more for gas, but I don't know if that's true or not. Pardon my cynicism.
Issue Four: The Economy
This is such a large topic affected by so many other issues that in order to come to any kind of agreement, it will require everyone to make an effort to read an economics book or two. Take an economics class if you want. My mom said she learned the most and had a better understanding of the economy after her MBA Economics class. She says she had a brilliant teacher who not only cleared things up, but taught her how to think critically about the economy rather than just take the word of every joe schmoe out there touting their agenda. So the agreement we can come to, is that unless we all bother to educate ourselves or get a better understanding about the economy, we will never know how to make our own personal economic situation better. There's no shame in asking questions of people you know that do have a good grasp on economics.
I could keep going but it's time for me to go to the Dog park and campaign. The point is we might ought to change our perspective about how we approach politically charged issues, to work together to find where we agree rather than try and "convert" people to our side. Because if you're so close minded that you think your side is perfect, then how are we ever going to accomplish anything? And if your side really is perfect, how have you not been able to articulate your beliefs in terms that convince everyone you meet to come over to your side?
Why can't we be more diplomatic with each other in our own country? Which is to say why can't we look for common ground rather than focus on where we disagree? Surely we can find some common ground on most if not all issues. Which is what a Lola presidency will work for. It's not about "reaching across the aisle," it's about adjusting perspective and creativity in approaching each and every issue.
Issue One: Global Warming
We get so caught up in which group is right or wrong about whether or not global warming or temperature cycles, is man made. When in reality at the heart of the global warming issue is the environment and being responsible with it. We all can agree that we'd like to breath clean air, and that it's our responsibility to take care of our planet. That said it isn't the responsibility of the U.S. to take care of the entire planet, but we should vigilant to help educate other countries and assist them within reason to help them become environmentally responsible members of this planet. I think we can also agree that using force on other countries for this issue is also unreasonable.
Issue Two: The War
I keep hearing arguments about whether or not we should have gone into Iraq in the first place. The past is the past, we can't change that now. We can argue now about whether or not to pull the troops out immediately or to let them finish their job. But that will just get us mad at each other because we are so hell-bent on being right. In reality I'll bet most of us agree regardless of political leanings that Iraq should be taking on more and more financial responsibility for themselves, for paying the forces we've helped train, for rebuilding their country, and any other expenses they have that we have been or still are paying for. I think we have a vested interest in seeing them be fiscally responsible for themselves and maintaining that in the future so leaving them out to dry isn't in theirs or our best interest either. But they can take on more financial responsibility now and should. I think we can agree on that point.
Issue Three: Oil
We can argue about drilling or not but I think there are 2 points here we can come to an agreement on if we all approach the subject with an open mind. We need to work towards energy independence and stop sending loads of money to the middle east for oil when we could be investing that money into our own economy. 2nd, It's silly that other countries are drilling a mere 60 or 90 miles off of our coast while we just stand there and let them suck what should be our resources out of the ground without any kind of reimbursement for it. From these to points we can start to find solutions that are acceptable to most people again if we will be open minded.
I would say there's a 3rd issue we can agree on, and that is that we don't want to end up paying $5 a gallon or more for gas, but I don't know if that's true or not. Pardon my cynicism.
Issue Four: The Economy
This is such a large topic affected by so many other issues that in order to come to any kind of agreement, it will require everyone to make an effort to read an economics book or two. Take an economics class if you want. My mom said she learned the most and had a better understanding of the economy after her MBA Economics class. She says she had a brilliant teacher who not only cleared things up, but taught her how to think critically about the economy rather than just take the word of every joe schmoe out there touting their agenda. So the agreement we can come to, is that unless we all bother to educate ourselves or get a better understanding about the economy, we will never know how to make our own personal economic situation better. There's no shame in asking questions of people you know that do have a good grasp on economics.
I could keep going but it's time for me to go to the Dog park and campaign. The point is we might ought to change our perspective about how we approach politically charged issues, to work together to find where we agree rather than try and "convert" people to our side. Because if you're so close minded that you think your side is perfect, then how are we ever going to accomplish anything? And if your side really is perfect, how have you not been able to articulate your beliefs in terms that convince everyone you meet to come over to your side?
Labels:
Economy,
Global Warming,
Lola For President,
Oil,
Open-Minded,
The Iraq War
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Meet the First Member of My Cabinet
Meet Zoe E Katz. Kitty extraordinaire. She is going to head up the Department of Veterans Affairs. As Secretary, her main order of business will be to build up a pet therapy programs at all VA Hospitals and all other facilities providing veterans services. We are both passionate about the healing powers animals bring to the injured, disabled, and distressed whether through participation in physical therapy or just bringing a kiss and companionship.
Zoe is just the cat to put this plan into action and spread it nation wide and world wide to our various military hospitals around the world. She's a no-nonsense kind of gal and won't let bureaucracy get in the way of getting the job done.
I'm very excited about this choice and the work she will accomplish for the heroes fighting and who have fought for this country's freedom.
Labels:
Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Zoe E Katz
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Thanks For Saying it John Stossel

This isn't the first time I've heard this. Neal Boortz often says it. But maybe not everyone should vote. Here's a link to the video segment of the story John Stossel did on 20/20.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5985719&page=1 Since more people probably watch John Stossel than listen to Neal Boortz, I'm glad he pointed out the problem with anyone and everyone voting.
In summary it points out the fact that many average people of all ages when randomly asked know little to nothing about our government or politics. And they don't bother to educate themselves before picking a candidate. While Neal Boortz believes certain people shouldn't be allowed to vote (i.e. people receiving welfare, and I'm inclined to agree with that), John Stossel merely points out the fact that maybe it's your civic duty not to vote if you don't bother to read up on the issues and the stand each candidate takes on them and the implications of their position.
No one's asking you to be able to name all 100 senators or all 435 Representative, but you should at least know who your senators are (Mine are John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson) and who your representative is (mine is John Carter, the only person that actually bothered to represent me on the bail out bill). Maybe you also ought to bother to learn who's 3rd in line for the presidency. Maybe you ought to have a general understanding of the Constitution. At least look at it once it awhile. Know how to find it so when you hear someone make a claim of constitutionality or unconstitutionality on a particular subject, you can look it up and learn for yourself.
There are many more things I think you ought to have a basic understanding of, like personal responsibility, before voting. But I'm just glad there are people talking about the civic duty NOT to vote.
Labels:
John Stossel,
Neal Boortz,
Voting
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





