So until I find a way to raise campaign dollars to afford to post more often, I have a day job helping to raise my little sister who will be one a month from now. Let me tell you, she is a walking handful getting into everything. She especially loves to get into my water. And because I am a good big sister I never ever bite her. Mostly I follow her around sniffing her diaper. I can't help it.
So back to politics and the Republican race for the nomination. Much has happened since my last post. Perry apparently had a chance and has been blowing it over and over since. Herman Cain actually appeared to have a chance and then blew it enough to drop out. I don't know one way or the other if those women are lying or not. But as a dog, I would never have a friendship that my family didn't know about. And I am instantly best friends with everyone I meet. I want to meet you all!!!!
So the replacement to Cain at this point seems to be Newt. Does he have too much baggage or is his baggage enough in the past that people don't care anymore? For sure Romney and Perry are going to try and remind you all of it as if they have no skeletons to be found. I have no idea but if they have any someone somewhere will find them and pull them out.
Does Perry have a chance still? I tend to think his latest add campaign was not genius. People will see it as a shot at gay people rather than what I think he was trying to portray that the rights of Christians are being picked away at. I admit, it took me a second or third listen to hear that. I don't think many people are hearing it that way. I originally heard it as 'it's a shame gay people can now serve openly in the military.' It comes across as that is what he believes at first so much so that most people won't bother to give it a second or third chance. That is why I think this ad is the nail in his coffin because even though they aren't paying to play it everywhere, people everywhere are hearing it.
Romney....I don't even know what to say about him. Since he won't support the fair tax, I don't like him. Not sure about the health care plan in Massachusetts either. I've heard/read conflicting opinions about success vs. disaster. I don't live there so I don't know how it's working for everyone and for the state budget. I will admit it was definitely interesting 4 years ago. Here's what bothers me about him. I have heard traditionally 'liberal supporting' people say they would be ok with Romney. So that makes me think he's going to be politics as usual. I don't know. I suppose he could surprise me. I hope, given that he looks like a shoo in at this point.
You still think these guys are better than me??? Seriously?!?! Who's more loyal to humans than a dog??? No one I tell you.....NO ONE!!!! Now spread the word.
Showing posts with label Lola For President. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lola For President. Show all posts
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Rick Perry: An Opinion from the Perspective of a Texan
So Rick Perry is finally in and you're super excited because he sounds so 'conservative.' In fact he sounds so libertarian for that matter with his talk of freedom, no taxes, and secession here in Texas. He brags about how many jobs he's brought to Texas. It's hard to argue that under his 'leadership' the Texas economy has fared better than most.
But here's the deal. The lieutenant governor has more responsibility for that than the governor in this state. This state has the ideal structure in that it has a weak governor. The most power he has is to veto legislation or not. He just gets to tout around the united states making speeches and taking credit for the positives. What's he's not telling you is that we faced a huge legislative short fall this last session that just ended. They made up for it with accounting tricks. Meaning we (state government) are only funded through the first half of the fiscal year 2013. (Texas operates/budgets on bienniums as the legislature meets once every 2 years). So there are 6 months that we're not funded for yet. They also deferred payment of many bills to the next biennium. Meaning the next legislature will have to find the money to pay for it. How convenient since Perry supposes he will be president by then and this fiasco will 'blow up' under someone else's watch.
These accounting tricks are all so he can run for president and tell people that Texas balance the budget unlike Washington. We might not be in as much trouble financially as Washington, but the political budgeting isn't all that different. And Texas isn't out of the hole yet.
What else has he done while here. One of the big recent items is that he's committed state funds ($25M/year to the owner) during a major budget shortfall to pay for the rights to have the formula one race come to Austin. Not really Austin but outside of Austin where there's a 2 lane road that is not prepared to handle the traffic for 150,000 people (more or less). Well maybe less if some people helicopter in from the airport. They originally planned the race during June or July. But I suppose the record triple digit heat during both of those months helped race organizers think better than to have a summer race.
He mandated the HPV vaccine for school girls. Not very libertarian of him. Luckily that fell through. He failed to veto a steroid testing bill which is testing high school kids for steroids, when there is clearly physical evidence to give clues to the abuse of steroids. The program is costing the state $6 million with about 24 in 150,000 kids testing positive. He also failed to veto a bill taxing tanning. Tanning is now a sin and deserves a sin tax associated with it. He had the chance to take a hard stance against illegal immigration and just kind of avoided it. He (and the legislature) also had the chance to stand up against the TSA airport searches but backed down when the federal government bullied their way in to that bill.
But here's the deal. The lieutenant governor has more responsibility for that than the governor in this state. This state has the ideal structure in that it has a weak governor. The most power he has is to veto legislation or not. He just gets to tout around the united states making speeches and taking credit for the positives. What's he's not telling you is that we faced a huge legislative short fall this last session that just ended. They made up for it with accounting tricks. Meaning we (state government) are only funded through the first half of the fiscal year 2013. (Texas operates/budgets on bienniums as the legislature meets once every 2 years). So there are 6 months that we're not funded for yet. They also deferred payment of many bills to the next biennium. Meaning the next legislature will have to find the money to pay for it. How convenient since Perry supposes he will be president by then and this fiasco will 'blow up' under someone else's watch.
These accounting tricks are all so he can run for president and tell people that Texas balance the budget unlike Washington. We might not be in as much trouble financially as Washington, but the political budgeting isn't all that different. And Texas isn't out of the hole yet.
What else has he done while here. One of the big recent items is that he's committed state funds ($25M/year to the owner) during a major budget shortfall to pay for the rights to have the formula one race come to Austin. Not really Austin but outside of Austin where there's a 2 lane road that is not prepared to handle the traffic for 150,000 people (more or less). Well maybe less if some people helicopter in from the airport. They originally planned the race during June or July. But I suppose the record triple digit heat during both of those months helped race organizers think better than to have a summer race.
He mandated the HPV vaccine for school girls. Not very libertarian of him. Luckily that fell through. He failed to veto a steroid testing bill which is testing high school kids for steroids, when there is clearly physical evidence to give clues to the abuse of steroids. The program is costing the state $6 million with about 24 in 150,000 kids testing positive. He also failed to veto a bill taxing tanning. Tanning is now a sin and deserves a sin tax associated with it. He had the chance to take a hard stance against illegal immigration and just kind of avoided it. He (and the legislature) also had the chance to stand up against the TSA airport searches but backed down when the federal government bullied their way in to that bill.
As you should know by now he used to be a democrat, running Al Gore's campaign here in Texas. Many of us would call him a RINO (Republican in name only) which I believe was formerly referred to as a 'country club republican.'
But here's the deal with politics. We the people (as a whole not every individual) vote for good looks and what we want to hear. I'm not sure how I don't fit that mold yet as I'm cute as can be and am saying what perhaps I wish you wanted to here. Though I'm sure it has to do with my thoughts on Social Security and Medicare. So Rick Perry has mastered the art of telling us what we want to hear. Don't believe me? He keeps getting re-elected in a state full of people disgruntled by him. His big opponent last election was supposed to be Kay Bailey Hutchinson and she barely made a showing because he was running against Obama and Washington the whole time. And she represented Washington. Even then when he 'wasn't running for president' (well he was claiming he wasn't going to run) he was running. As evidenced as he barely acknowledged Kay Bailey and didn't need to his whole campaign. Though unless you live in Texas you probably won't remember that he said he had no plans to run for president during that campaign. He said that because he knew most of Texas wasn't paying attention or didn't care. He's the ultimate politician which should make you all wary of him. He's better at being a politician than even Obama was. And I'd say Obama was a pretty good politician while he was running for president. You should be wary of such politicians. We all should be. What happens if our options are one formerly great politician against another even better politician??? Trust me, nothing good.
So get out in the primaries and vote for Lola!!! Because I'm not in the news so apparently I'm a sucky politician. Which is what you should want. Wake up People!!
Sunday, June 26, 2011
The 2012 Republican Candidates
So what do you think of the Republican candidates so far? They are in no particular order:
Newt Gingrich - Campaign over before it began
Ron Paul - Unrefined libertarian with clueless supporters. Though I personally agree with most of what he says.
Herman Cain - Too logical to win. Again agree with most of what he says and if I weren't running, he might be my man.
Michele Bachmann - Ok we get it, you fostered and birthed lots and lots of children. But I don't cast my vote based on that.
Tim Pawlenty - Yawn...
Mitt Romney - hmmm how's he going to live down Romney care that's not unlike Obama care except a proven failure. Though I much prefer a business man for president.
Rick Santorum - No opinion one way or the other which means I neither like nor dislike him and therefore he would have to make more of an impression on America to win.
John Huntsman - Again don't know enough about him one way or another to have an opinion about him yet.
There are also list of others that have either declared or still exploring that include a bunch of unknowns by me or have no chances including Jimmy McMillian of "The Rent is too Damn High" party. How that makes him a republican is beyond me. Unless it's by default since there's no room elsewhere. I thought starting his own party was not a bad idea though. We need another viable party. It's just not going to have that name if you ask me.
The only person that's really caught my attention so far is Herman Cain, the guy I think is not electable. So perhaps I should change my campaign slogan to "...because electable humans can't be trusted." What do you think about that?
Does anyone on the above list make you want to get out and vote? Might I add if there is one person up there that tickles your fancy, you must vote in the primary to get to vote for them at least once. If you get your way, you'll get to vote twice for the same person.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Lola's In for 2012!!!
Apparently now is the time to announce one's candidacy for president. So in the event there was any doubt, I'm in!! I hope my campaign financiers will sponsor a bus tour for me and my family so I can get out and meet you all and kiss lots of babies. (That's how one wins right?)
Now which party's ticket am I running on? Well the Republicans are who's announcing or rumoring lately. The thing is I don't feel like a republican, but mostly because I don't believe any of them act what they preach on the campaign trail once they get into office. Rick Perry, rumored Republican candidate is a perfect example of this. I will go into more detail in the coming weeks if he officially puts his hat in the ring.
I could run as a libertarian, but we all know they get no where.
I can't run as a Democrat because as we are all aware from last elections that "liberal" is a bad word. That and I don't share most of their beliefs. Though we share a few that if talking on certain particular topics, one might think me a democrat. But I'm far from it.
I could run for the Green party nomination, but lets be honest, Ralph Nader has that locked up until he dies.
So I guess that leaves Independent. But here's the problem with that. When was the last time anyone other than a Democrat or a Republican got elected president? That said in order to make the point that neither party is living up to expectations, I'm going with Independent. Look at my platform page to see what I stand for.
A vote for Lola is a vote to take your country back. It's a vote for your liberty. It's a vote for personal pride. It's a vote against the lame humans that are screwing up this country's economy.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
How Was Your Tax Day?
Did you throw a party this April 15? Do you enjoy getting taxed for your hard work? Isn't that an odd concept? Getting taxed for hard work? (or not so hard in some cases but profitable)
According to taxfoundation.org the percentage of non income tax payers is on the rise.
According to taxfoundation.org the percentage of non income tax payers is on the rise.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/25962.html
There's a 47% of non income tax payers rumor floating around out there for 2009 taxes. I don't know if that's true or not, but the above graphic should be of concern to you and here's why.
1. Baby boomers are all in the process of retiring or making plans to retire and while many of them have saved a nest egg for retirement, they will all still be planning to get their social security checks and medicare benefits while retired. If we have fewer people paying into the tax system than are relying on benefits and programs that income taxes pay for, we have an unsustainable system.
2. Unsustainable systems encourage and result in negative population growth which makes the number receiving services to paying for the services get larger and larger over time. See Europe as an example which has had this problem since 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline for more information and sources.
3. Where there is a decrease income to the federal government from income taxes, there are 2 options; Make cuts to programs and services (which I'm on board with across the board including Medicare and Medicaid) and/or increase taxes. We currently don't have leadership willing to make cuts across the board to everything. We as a nation are apparently to dependant on the Government to privatize social security. Look at your SS statement next time it comes in. Big cuts are on the way in just a few years if it doesn't get fixed.
4. If the health care bill that was passed doesn't get overturned and is successfully funded, that will mean a lot more people will be receiving services from the government which is funded by we the people left paying taxes. I don't know about you, but I already pay more than my fair share. I don't want to pay any more. Those of you willing to pay more than your fair share, go right ahead. There's no law against paying more.
These are just some examples of why this statistic should concern you. What is my solution you ask? Please visit http://www.fairtax.org/. The fair tax repeals the income tax established in the 16th amendment and instates a consumption tax. That means everyone that consumes pays taxes whether they are here legally or illegally, doing business within the law or under the table, earning currently taxable income or not, and receiving government services or not.
Article I Section. 8. of the U.S. Constitution
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The 16th Amendment was ratified by the states in 1913 allowing for collection of income tax. I don't know about you, but this amendment sounds unconstitutional to me.
A vote for Lola is a vote for sanity that has been long absent from our government.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Contract From America
Check it out.
http://www.contractfromamerica.com/
"Welcome to the Contract From America initiative, where you can join your fellow Americans in a collaborative grassroots effort to create a document that offers real change in Washington, D.C. and the state capitals. This website provides you with the opportunity to offer your innovative free market, limited government solutions to our nation’s pressing problems and to vote and comment on the ideas of others. We believe that the result of this grassroots-generated marketplace of ideas will be a document that not only represents the will of the American people, but promotes unique ideas that will breathe new life into the economic conservative movement...."
Here's what you'll find on this website
*Information on Tea Parties in your area
* Suggestion for solutions that you can vote on and/or rate
*Opportunity to submit new ideas that don't exist on the any of the lists
*Basically speaking the opportunity to express your voice
You might be interested to know the top five vote getting ideas are
1. Implement the Fair Tax
2. Legislation shall contain no unrelated amendments
3. Congressional Term Limits
4. Abolish the Department of Education
5. Pass Nationwide Medical Malpractice Tort Reform
I agree with these 5 though I'm not sure they are all in my personal top 5. The Fair Tax and term limits definitely are. What do you think? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Check out the rest of the list and the site. I encourage you to voice your opinions. Even if you don't agree with me point for point.
http://www.contractfromamerica.com/
"Welcome to the Contract From America initiative, where you can join your fellow Americans in a collaborative grassroots effort to create a document that offers real change in Washington, D.C. and the state capitals. This website provides you with the opportunity to offer your innovative free market, limited government solutions to our nation’s pressing problems and to vote and comment on the ideas of others. We believe that the result of this grassroots-generated marketplace of ideas will be a document that not only represents the will of the American people, but promotes unique ideas that will breathe new life into the economic conservative movement...."
Here's what you'll find on this website
*Information on Tea Parties in your area
* Suggestion for solutions that you can vote on and/or rate
*Opportunity to submit new ideas that don't exist on the any of the lists
*Basically speaking the opportunity to express your voice
You might be interested to know the top five vote getting ideas are
1. Implement the Fair Tax
2. Legislation shall contain no unrelated amendments
3. Congressional Term Limits
4. Abolish the Department of Education
5. Pass Nationwide Medical Malpractice Tort Reform
I agree with these 5 though I'm not sure they are all in my personal top 5. The Fair Tax and term limits definitely are. What do you think? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Check out the rest of the list and the site. I encourage you to voice your opinions. Even if you don't agree with me point for point.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Do You Agree With the Polls?
Poll information from FoxNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html
Which I also found on Real Clear Politics Website which averages the various poll results.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
RCP Poll
President Obama Job Approval
RCP Average: +18.2% Details
Approve 56.2%
Disapprove 38.0%
Congressional Job Approval
RCP Average: -25.3% Details
Approve 32.0%
Disapprove 57.3%
Direction of Country
RCP Average: -19.4% Details
Right Direction 36.2%
Wrong Track 55.6%
I can tell you where I stand on each of these. I highly disapprove of the congress job approval and direction of the country, which have been clearly directed and supported by the President.
Here's the problem, when anyone is in office, be it congress or the president, they feel they have the right and duty based on the fact that they won an election to make decisions they think are best for us and this country, even if it's not what we the people want. We do have an opportunity here people to judge their work. It's called voting them out of office at all cost. Listen. Not every democrat is bad and not every republican is bad, just like they aren't all good on either side. Perhaps another party will emerge, or perhaps "decent" politicians will continue to choose the existing two parties. But in order for "decent" candidates to be considered, we have to get out of our mindset of only supporting Democrats or Republicans and get into the mindset of supporting those candidates who will listen to us even if they don't always agree with us. Even if that decent candidate isn't backed by the 2 major parties.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html
Which I also found on Real Clear Politics Website which averages the various poll results.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
RCP Poll
President Obama Job Approval
RCP Average: +18.2% Details
Approve 56.2%
Disapprove 38.0%
Congressional Job Approval
RCP Average: -25.3% Details
Approve 32.0%
Disapprove 57.3%
Direction of Country
RCP Average: -19.4% Details
Right Direction 36.2%
Wrong Track 55.6%
I can tell you where I stand on each of these. I highly disapprove of the congress job approval and direction of the country, which have been clearly directed and supported by the President.
Here's the problem, when anyone is in office, be it congress or the president, they feel they have the right and duty based on the fact that they won an election to make decisions they think are best for us and this country, even if it's not what we the people want. We do have an opportunity here people to judge their work. It's called voting them out of office at all cost. Listen. Not every democrat is bad and not every republican is bad, just like they aren't all good on either side. Perhaps another party will emerge, or perhaps "decent" politicians will continue to choose the existing two parties. But in order for "decent" candidates to be considered, we have to get out of our mindset of only supporting Democrats or Republicans and get into the mindset of supporting those candidates who will listen to us even if they don't always agree with us. Even if that decent candidate isn't backed by the 2 major parties.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
A Move in the Right Direction for Health Care
Health care is the big item on the White House agenda as of late. It's the hot topic we knew they were going to tackle ASAP and if they get their way, increases the power and influence of government in all of our lives. In my March 31, 2009 post I discussed a need for health care to move away from the current insurance system. This would take providers developing and alternative to working with insurance companies in much the same way Walmart has lead the way for low prices on generic drugs.
On Tuesday July 7, I found this article on msnbc.com. Take some time to read it as it is a great example of where I think health care should go.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31777054/ns/health-health_care/
Basically it discusses a Seattle Clinic that was started by doctors tired of dealing with insurance companies. The attract new doctors by offering stock options. They offer care to patients from $39-$119 a month depending on age and level of insurance. No one is rejected for preexisting conditions. It also covers round the clock unrestricted care and 30-minute appointments
It doesn't cover catastrophic care, but the article reports that a 30 year old person could expect to pay $133 per month for such coverage. Obviously that goes up with age.
Here's the thing, my employer sponsored premium is $350/month. They cover that but I have to pay deductibles, co-insurance, and co-pays. Every time I go to the doctor I pay $20 or $30 for a specialist. Just think, if my employer didn't have to pay $350 for my insurance and instead gave me a $350 raise to go out and buy my own insurance, the least I could pay anywhere from $172 - $252 a month for coverage. This leaves me an extra $100/month plus any of my copays and coinsurance to cover any medication I might need on occasion, or lab work that I usually have only once a year, or anything else that might not be covered in the services offered by their clinic.
This is a link to the clinic's services that they offer.
http://www.qliance.com/services.html
And while they don't offer all specialty services, they do offer the basic preventative care and disease management which is what most people are needing. They are an example of how specialty care providers could get together and offer their specialty services refusing to work with insurance. Prenatal and maternity care come to mind. Although I know from a previous job that many doctors and providers already have reduced rates for those paying cash for these services. But people always think they need insurance. Radiology groups could refuse to deal with insurance which greatly reduces the staff they need to run the business office, which reduces the costs to you the patient. I'm sure if they put their heads together they could come up with even more ways to reduce your costs, and to encourage people to use their services every once in awhile to help reduce costs over time.
In reality, insurance is just a method of prepaying for services you will use. But we have become so accustomed to our employers providing us insurance or the government doing these things for us that we don't want the responsibility of saving that $200-$300/month just for health care expenses. Trust me people you don't want the government in charge of your health care. If you want health care bad enough, if it becomes a priority to you, you will pay for it. And if you will pay for it, a doctor will see you and treat you. It just hasn't become a priority for most people and they are spending the money elsewhere and are under the impression that they can't afford quality coverage. The reality is they don't want to pay for it so the next step is to demand the government find a solution so they don't have to pay for it. They are just going to take it out of your check each month before you get paid.
What do you all think of what this clinic is doing? They are saving money on the office staff it would required to bill insurance companies, that also have to employ people to process your claims. The providers and the insurance companies are in the business of making money so who do you think ultimately pays for these 2 sets of people to process your claims? They go into the cost of health care provided to you. You pay for it. Don't kid yourself and say your company pays for it or the government pays for it. You're salary is probably a lot less over time because your benefits fall into your compensation package, and you pay taxes to the government to pay for everyone on government insurance. Unless the government is supporting you.
On Tuesday July 7, I found this article on msnbc.com. Take some time to read it as it is a great example of where I think health care should go.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31777054/ns/health-health_care/
Basically it discusses a Seattle Clinic that was started by doctors tired of dealing with insurance companies. The attract new doctors by offering stock options. They offer care to patients from $39-$119 a month depending on age and level of insurance. No one is rejected for preexisting conditions. It also covers round the clock unrestricted care and 30-minute appointments
It doesn't cover catastrophic care, but the article reports that a 30 year old person could expect to pay $133 per month for such coverage. Obviously that goes up with age.
Here's the thing, my employer sponsored premium is $350/month. They cover that but I have to pay deductibles, co-insurance, and co-pays. Every time I go to the doctor I pay $20 or $30 for a specialist. Just think, if my employer didn't have to pay $350 for my insurance and instead gave me a $350 raise to go out and buy my own insurance, the least I could pay anywhere from $172 - $252 a month for coverage. This leaves me an extra $100/month plus any of my copays and coinsurance to cover any medication I might need on occasion, or lab work that I usually have only once a year, or anything else that might not be covered in the services offered by their clinic.
This is a link to the clinic's services that they offer.
http://www.qliance.com/services.html
And while they don't offer all specialty services, they do offer the basic preventative care and disease management which is what most people are needing. They are an example of how specialty care providers could get together and offer their specialty services refusing to work with insurance. Prenatal and maternity care come to mind. Although I know from a previous job that many doctors and providers already have reduced rates for those paying cash for these services. But people always think they need insurance. Radiology groups could refuse to deal with insurance which greatly reduces the staff they need to run the business office, which reduces the costs to you the patient. I'm sure if they put their heads together they could come up with even more ways to reduce your costs, and to encourage people to use their services every once in awhile to help reduce costs over time.
In reality, insurance is just a method of prepaying for services you will use. But we have become so accustomed to our employers providing us insurance or the government doing these things for us that we don't want the responsibility of saving that $200-$300/month just for health care expenses. Trust me people you don't want the government in charge of your health care. If you want health care bad enough, if it becomes a priority to you, you will pay for it. And if you will pay for it, a doctor will see you and treat you. It just hasn't become a priority for most people and they are spending the money elsewhere and are under the impression that they can't afford quality coverage. The reality is they don't want to pay for it so the next step is to demand the government find a solution so they don't have to pay for it. They are just going to take it out of your check each month before you get paid.
What do you all think of what this clinic is doing? They are saving money on the office staff it would required to bill insurance companies, that also have to employ people to process your claims. The providers and the insurance companies are in the business of making money so who do you think ultimately pays for these 2 sets of people to process your claims? They go into the cost of health care provided to you. You pay for it. Don't kid yourself and say your company pays for it or the government pays for it. You're salary is probably a lot less over time because your benefits fall into your compensation package, and you pay taxes to the government to pay for everyone on government insurance. Unless the government is supporting you.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Time for A Second Revolution?
If you haven't seen this yet, it's worth a watch. It'll fire you up if you aren't already fired up. Send it to everyone you know!
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Is Teaching Your Kids to Beg A Good Thing?
I live in the Austin, TX metropolitan area and it is common in the Austin city limits to see people walking along the line of traffic at stop lights asking for money. These are generally presumed to be homeless people or unemployed people. I generally have a problem with this as most of them could go to the nearest fast food restaurant and get a job. I do understand that some of these people likely have mental problems and would be best suited in a state facility. But I don't think that is the majority based on the culture of acceptance of such behavior here. If they put as much effort into finding and doing a job as they do into asking for handouts, they might be worth $10-$15 an hour. It is apparently more profitable for them to ask for money from passers by than to get a job, hence why you tend to see the same people at the same intersections day after day.
Well one thing that we've noticed on Saturday mornings is groups, such as various kids sports groups out in the medians with their parents holding signs asking for money to help them go to some tournament or some other outing with their group. I have a fundamental problem with the parents who are obviously behind this form of fundraising. Whatever happened to car washes, bake sales, and garage sales etc.? When did teaching kids that they don't really need to do anything to earn money become appropriate? I'm just as appalled at the people that give money to them for nothing. I'm more inclined to give money to a homeless person than a child growing up in a 2 income family with plenty of money to send their kid if they had to, but cheap enough to beg for it rather than pay for it themselves because they are too lazy to bake cookies for a bake sale, or wash cars in a car wash or some other activity that might require a little bit of planning and effort. Walking around with a sign is lazy and shameful. I'm willing to pay for my kid to play in this select sports group, but too cheap and/or lazy to pay or teach them to earn the money they need to go on a special trip for being on this select team. Newsflash!!! Select leagues are a way of getting more money from you and you put them in it for bragging rights. EVERYONE'S kid is in select league and there are plenty of kids not on a select team that are better than your kid. Just so you know.
Quit teaching your spoiled kids to also be lazy. Teach them the value of a dollar by making them work for it. And people wonder what's going wrong in this world. People are learning they don't need to work for anything because the government will take money from the rich and give it to them. That's what's wrong. Quit looking to the government or anyone else for a handout. It's lame and screwing up our world!!! Get off your lazy butt and do something useful!!!By doing so, you'll teach your kids about personal responsibility as opposed to depending on handouts.
Well one thing that we've noticed on Saturday mornings is groups, such as various kids sports groups out in the medians with their parents holding signs asking for money to help them go to some tournament or some other outing with their group. I have a fundamental problem with the parents who are obviously behind this form of fundraising. Whatever happened to car washes, bake sales, and garage sales etc.? When did teaching kids that they don't really need to do anything to earn money become appropriate? I'm just as appalled at the people that give money to them for nothing. I'm more inclined to give money to a homeless person than a child growing up in a 2 income family with plenty of money to send their kid if they had to, but cheap enough to beg for it rather than pay for it themselves because they are too lazy to bake cookies for a bake sale, or wash cars in a car wash or some other activity that might require a little bit of planning and effort. Walking around with a sign is lazy and shameful. I'm willing to pay for my kid to play in this select sports group, but too cheap and/or lazy to pay or teach them to earn the money they need to go on a special trip for being on this select team. Newsflash!!! Select leagues are a way of getting more money from you and you put them in it for bragging rights. EVERYONE'S kid is in select league and there are plenty of kids not on a select team that are better than your kid. Just so you know.
Quit teaching your spoiled kids to also be lazy. Teach them the value of a dollar by making them work for it. And people wonder what's going wrong in this world. People are learning they don't need to work for anything because the government will take money from the rich and give it to them. That's what's wrong. Quit looking to the government or anyone else for a handout. It's lame and screwing up our world!!! Get off your lazy butt and do something useful!!!By doing so, you'll teach your kids about personal responsibility as opposed to depending on handouts.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Happy Memorial Day!!!
I'd like to say a big Thank You to the families of the many soldiers who have given their lives in service to this country defending the very freedom that we have and continue to fight for. Your sacrifice does not go unnoticed or unappreciated here. And thank you to all the soldiers who continue to fight.
Have a save and happy holiday weekend!
Have a save and happy holiday weekend!
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Is a Commencement Speech the Appropriate Time to Get Political?
The President gave the commencement speech at Notre Dame this weekend, and it's apparently very controversial because he chose this time to give a speech about abortion. When I was trying to figure out what to write about, (Pelosi's fiasco...everyone knows she's a nut-job liar, budget cuts...can you really brag about your cuts if the overall budget increases?) I was very hesitant to even discuss this as one of the two discussions to have about this story involves abortion, which I generally planned to stay away from. However, I decided to buck it up and have the two discussions. The first will be about the topic of abortion and what he said, and the second will be about the title of this post as that's what really drove me to discuss this, even though it's the shorter of the two discussions.
So the title of the referenced CNN article is "Obama calls for common ground on abortion at Notre Dame," and while I may agree with the sentiment, it's as idealistic as banning or outlawing abortion. This is because I think people are very passionate about this issue,which it's very black and white to most people; right or wrong. I am of the opinion that there are people that are so passionately for abortion rights that they get come across pro eugenics more than pro-choice. If you don't know what eugenics is, click on the link I've provided for a more in depth discussion on it. Basically it's the belief that the human species can or should be improved though the elimination of inferior members. I take great offense to this. I don't believe that all pro-choice people hold this belief, but I think it's a fine line some walk when they discuss reasons to have an abortion with someone who has simply proclaimed she wouldn't choose it for herself. Pro-choice should be as much about choosing not to have one as it is about choosing to have one.
Here are the comments Obama made in the speech that I agree with taken from the CNN article:
"He urged supporters and opponents of abortion rights to 'work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term.'"
"He also endorsed the drafting of a 'sensible conscience clause' to 'honor the conscience' of doctors and other medical workers opposed to abortion."
I think we need to focus on working to reduce the number of people that make the choice by encouraging, perhaps even incentivizing adoptions. I'm sure private citizens that are looking to adopt would be willing take part in some incentive program for girls trying to make up their mind. And while I believe that health care workers shouldn't be forced to participate in abortions if they don't agree with it, they also shouldn't got seeking employment in abortion clinics and then refuse to do the job based on their beliefs. They should be made aware of the situation surrounding the impending abortion, whether it is essentially "elective" or "medically necessary" for the life of the mother and make their decision from there, and appropriate staff should be available.
I also believe there should be intensive counseling for elective abortions that lasts longer than 20 minutes where alternative options are discussed as well as the reasons for the decision. There should be at the very least a 48 hr waiting period that involve 2 8 hour days of counseling. I abhor abortion as a form a birth control and eugenics, but people will use it for these two purposes and the decision shouldn't be made lightly. They need to understand in both cases, there are people that want to adopt. There are people that will adopt special needs kids and these parents need to be made aware of this. I think the ultimate decision is between them and God. Our job is to encourage the right decision, not demonize the wrong one. (this does not include abortions that happen to save the life of the mother, there is no right decision there as a baby will either die or grow up without a mother. Anyone self-righteous enough to condemn either decision made in a case like this will also have to answer to God...We all have to answer to God in the end for our actions and words)
Now onto the point that really riled me up to write about this story, which is discussing a political agenda during a graduation ceremony. Isn't that a downer? Isn't the commencement speech supposed to be about the graduates' futures as they are about to step into the "real world?" How is bringing politics into the day accomplishing this? Not to mention it's offensive to some people whether they agree with his views or not. I would feel robbed of what should be a perfectly joyous moment in my life.
What do you think? Should politics be a "hands off" topic for giving a commencement speech?
So the title of the referenced CNN article is "Obama calls for common ground on abortion at Notre Dame," and while I may agree with the sentiment, it's as idealistic as banning or outlawing abortion. This is because I think people are very passionate about this issue,which it's very black and white to most people; right or wrong. I am of the opinion that there are people that are so passionately for abortion rights that they get come across pro eugenics more than pro-choice. If you don't know what eugenics is, click on the link I've provided for a more in depth discussion on it. Basically it's the belief that the human species can or should be improved though the elimination of inferior members. I take great offense to this. I don't believe that all pro-choice people hold this belief, but I think it's a fine line some walk when they discuss reasons to have an abortion with someone who has simply proclaimed she wouldn't choose it for herself. Pro-choice should be as much about choosing not to have one as it is about choosing to have one.
Here are the comments Obama made in the speech that I agree with taken from the CNN article:
"He urged supporters and opponents of abortion rights to 'work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term.'"
"He also endorsed the drafting of a 'sensible conscience clause' to 'honor the conscience' of doctors and other medical workers opposed to abortion."
I think we need to focus on working to reduce the number of people that make the choice by encouraging, perhaps even incentivizing adoptions. I'm sure private citizens that are looking to adopt would be willing take part in some incentive program for girls trying to make up their mind. And while I believe that health care workers shouldn't be forced to participate in abortions if they don't agree with it, they also shouldn't got seeking employment in abortion clinics and then refuse to do the job based on their beliefs. They should be made aware of the situation surrounding the impending abortion, whether it is essentially "elective" or "medically necessary" for the life of the mother and make their decision from there, and appropriate staff should be available.
I also believe there should be intensive counseling for elective abortions that lasts longer than 20 minutes where alternative options are discussed as well as the reasons for the decision. There should be at the very least a 48 hr waiting period that involve 2 8 hour days of counseling. I abhor abortion as a form a birth control and eugenics, but people will use it for these two purposes and the decision shouldn't be made lightly. They need to understand in both cases, there are people that want to adopt. There are people that will adopt special needs kids and these parents need to be made aware of this. I think the ultimate decision is between them and God. Our job is to encourage the right decision, not demonize the wrong one. (this does not include abortions that happen to save the life of the mother, there is no right decision there as a baby will either die or grow up without a mother. Anyone self-righteous enough to condemn either decision made in a case like this will also have to answer to God...We all have to answer to God in the end for our actions and words)
Now onto the point that really riled me up to write about this story, which is discussing a political agenda during a graduation ceremony. Isn't that a downer? Isn't the commencement speech supposed to be about the graduates' futures as they are about to step into the "real world?" How is bringing politics into the day accomplishing this? Not to mention it's offensive to some people whether they agree with his views or not. I would feel robbed of what should be a perfectly joyous moment in my life.
What do you think? Should politics be a "hands off" topic for giving a commencement speech?
Sunday, May 3, 2009
More Evidence People NEED the Government to Step In
That title is meant sarcastically. Read on.
Take a look at this story from across the ocean in Wales.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Tanning-Burns-Girl-10-Suffers-70-Burns-At-An-Unmanned-Tanning-Studio-In-Port-Talbot-S-Wales/Article/200905115273238
This story caught my attention because the Texas legislature, currently in session, is considering a bill that will make it illegal for anyone under 16 1/2 to tan in a tanning salon. Apparently currently if they are under 18, they have to have a permission slip. As if they can keep them from frying themselves outside in the sun. Before you know some genius will propose legislation making it illegal for anyone under the age of 14 to be out in the sun during the day.
My point of bringing up this discussion is to bring up the point of passing laws to make other people responsible where parents should be. Do we really need a law to prevent anyone under the age of 16 1/2 from tanning? Can't parents make those decisions for their kids? Should parents be responsible for teaching their kids and instilling common sense in them? I'm not saying tanning is bad, but I don't know a teenage girl that didn't learn the "don't get burned" lesson either from a tanning bed or from the sun several times while growing up.
You might be asking why 16 1/2 as opposed to 18. The cynical opinion here in my neck of the woods has to do with moms of cheerleaders not only supporting this bill, but wanting their cheerleader daughters to be able to tan in their last couple of years on the varsity squad. Also, they need to be able to tan before prom. Because these moms are living vicariously through their daughters. So they came up with the magical age of 16 1/2. I guess at 16, some other girls might become competition for their daughters???
In the above story the mom doesn't want to use this as a lesson teaching opportunity for her 10 year old daughter. She just wants someone to sue if it happens again. Just as something happened here in Texas I'm sure to prompt this legislation. Someone wants to be able to sue a tanning salon if they're daughter gets burned. You know what's funny is that on the fiscal note that I could find for HB 1310 they are claiming no fiscal impact to the state. I'm not sure this is the final version of the bill, nor could I find the associated senate version. http://www.legis.state.tx.us/Search/DocViewer.aspx?K2DocKey=odbc%3a%2f%2fTLO%2fTLO.dbo.vwCurrBillDocs%2f81%2fR%2fH%2fB%2f01310%2f1%2fF%40TloCurrBillDocs&QueryText=hb1310&HighlightType=1
They say it can be absorbed into the existing budget. BS!!! If they are given an excuse to increase the budget, add an employee or two, they will use it. It may take some time, but they'll find a way to "justify" it. That's just the way government works. They will have to have someone take the phone calls, and investigate complaints. Gradually it will grow over time to start inspecting tanning salons and writing citations. That's just the way government works. So
I oppose laws like this. We have to take personal responsibility for the choices we make. What's your take?
Take a look at this story from across the ocean in Wales.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Tanning-Burns-Girl-10-Suffers-70-Burns-At-An-Unmanned-Tanning-Studio-In-Port-Talbot-S-Wales/Article/200905115273238
This story caught my attention because the Texas legislature, currently in session, is considering a bill that will make it illegal for anyone under 16 1/2 to tan in a tanning salon. Apparently currently if they are under 18, they have to have a permission slip. As if they can keep them from frying themselves outside in the sun. Before you know some genius will propose legislation making it illegal for anyone under the age of 14 to be out in the sun during the day.
My point of bringing up this discussion is to bring up the point of passing laws to make other people responsible where parents should be. Do we really need a law to prevent anyone under the age of 16 1/2 from tanning? Can't parents make those decisions for their kids? Should parents be responsible for teaching their kids and instilling common sense in them? I'm not saying tanning is bad, but I don't know a teenage girl that didn't learn the "don't get burned" lesson either from a tanning bed or from the sun several times while growing up.
You might be asking why 16 1/2 as opposed to 18. The cynical opinion here in my neck of the woods has to do with moms of cheerleaders not only supporting this bill, but wanting their cheerleader daughters to be able to tan in their last couple of years on the varsity squad. Also, they need to be able to tan before prom. Because these moms are living vicariously through their daughters. So they came up with the magical age of 16 1/2. I guess at 16, some other girls might become competition for their daughters???
In the above story the mom doesn't want to use this as a lesson teaching opportunity for her 10 year old daughter. She just wants someone to sue if it happens again. Just as something happened here in Texas I'm sure to prompt this legislation. Someone wants to be able to sue a tanning salon if they're daughter gets burned. You know what's funny is that on the fiscal note that I could find for HB 1310 they are claiming no fiscal impact to the state. I'm not sure this is the final version of the bill, nor could I find the associated senate version. http://www.legis.state.tx.us/Search/DocViewer.aspx?K2DocKey=odbc%3a%2f%2fTLO%2fTLO.dbo.vwCurrBillDocs%2f81%2fR%2fH%2fB%2f01310%2f1%2fF%40TloCurrBillDocs&QueryText=hb1310&HighlightType=1
They say it can be absorbed into the existing budget. BS!!! If they are given an excuse to increase the budget, add an employee or two, they will use it. It may take some time, but they'll find a way to "justify" it. That's just the way government works. They will have to have someone take the phone calls, and investigate complaints. Gradually it will grow over time to start inspecting tanning salons and writing citations. That's just the way government works. So
I oppose laws like this. We have to take personal responsibility for the choices we make. What's your take?
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Pimps and Unions; Aren’t They Really the Same?
This is actually a reprint of a post I made on another blog, but I believe it was before it was getting any regular traffic. I also thought it was appropriate in light of the continuous government decision (they don't ask us) to give GM billions of dollars just to make it a few more months. Whether you agree with trying to save the American car companies or not, I think we all have to agree that there's got to be a limit. And what point do we cut off the addict and say enough is enough?
The reason I'm reprinting this article is because from my perspective you can't place expectations on the car companies to succeed with the billions of dollars we are giving them, without giving them the freedom to restructure the way they do business. Being forced to deal with the union is what's hurting them and the employees that are getting let go. So here goes, I hope you like it...
The reason I'm reprinting this article is because from my perspective you can't place expectations on the car companies to succeed with the billions of dollars we are giving them, without giving them the freedom to restructure the way they do business. Being forced to deal with the union is what's hurting them and the employees that are getting let go. So here goes, I hope you like it...
So before I get to what I feel are the obvious similarities between Pimps and Labor Unions, I have a very important question that I know many of you have discussed or thought about and one time or another. How is it that Pimps talk themselves into a job in the first place? Do they go up to prostitutes on the street and say “I got a proposition for you. You go find work and give me 70% of your money, and I’ll beat the crap out of you when I feel like it.” Is that how the negotiation works? Because let me tell you, agents only get 10% if I’m correct, and they actually find you work. If I were that prostitute I’d slap that pimp upside the head and tell him “hell no. Why would I give you 70%, 50%, or even 10% when I can keep 100%?” That seems like the obvious response from all prostitutes to wanna-be pimps. But somehow, there’s still a profession of pimps out there. Makes no sense to me.
Now that we’ve established that Pimps will take your money and beat you senseless, let’s look at just exactly what labor unions do for people. So they tell you they that they will negotiate your salary and benefits on your behalf. But this is obviously not a free service. Rather than charging you a one-time finders fee, they charge you in the form of union dues. And this comes directly out of your pay check either every time you get paid or once a month. And correct me if I’m wrong, in most union run companies, you don’t get the opportunity to opt out of the union to handle your own negotiations. You’re either in or you’re unemployed. Correct?
Next comes the negotiations, so after they’ve been taking everyone’s money for so long they have to make it look like they are doing more than just collecting dues every month. They need to justify their existence. So they rile up the payers of the dues and convince them that they need more of this, that, or the other and if they don’t get it, it’s worth striking over. So the union leaders go to management and make generally unreasonable demands and insist on their way or the highway. This is all in spite of the fact that management is telling them they just can’t afford all of that. But the union leaders refuse to budge because they want to look like heroes in an effort to justify their existence. So they force a strike and all the dues paying workers are forced to walk the picket line, which means they are no longer earning a paycheck. Well most of these people can’t afford to go without a paycheck, but nonetheless, this is expected so strike they must.
What happens if you try to cross the picket line? Haven’t you all seen Hoffa? And isn’t that when they were actually doing the workers some good? They beat them senseless. But since they probably have media outlets and the cops on the payroll, it’s not a big story. The only story is that they are on strike and management is being unreasonable and the union won’t budge because it is only “fair.” I tell you this, is it fair for them to take your money and then force you to not take a paycheck for a while? Is it fair for them to bitch-slap you if you disagree with them?
So then they go back to the negotiating table after a few days, weeks, or months and concede some of their demands but miraculously strike a deal with management and they are heroes, who by the way weren’t technically on strike since they were working for the strikers. So their incomes didn’t take a hit. Had you not paid them one bit of dues and not gone without a check while on strike, you’d probably be better off financially than you are with their “help.”So let’s sum up the comparison between the two:
Pimps
-Take money from the hard working Prostitutes
-Force Prostitutes to do as they say
-Beat them if they try to run away
-Provide nothing of value for Prostitutes
Unions
-Take money from the workers actually doing the work for the company
-Force union workers to follow union rules
-Beat workers who dare cross the picket line
-Provide nothing of value for workers
I think I’ve made my point.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Keith Olberman and Janeane Garofalo...Really??
I really don't want to give these two the time of day, but I feel I must since they felt it was important enough to discuss in spite of declaring that only 10s of people showed up to the tea parties across the country. If you haven't seen it, feel free to watch otherwise I will address some of their quotes below.
JANEANE GAROFALO: "Thank you. You know, there's nothing more interesting than seeing a bunch of racists become confused and angry at a speech they're not quite certain what he's saying. It sounds right and then it doesn't make sense. Which, let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. And there is no way around that. And you know, you can tell these type of right wingers anything and they'll believe it, except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become -- it's like showing Frankenstein's monster fire. They become confused, and angry and highly volatile...."
I for one would like to know what her version of what the Boston Tea Party was about. But I find it interesting how she couldn't even address that and went straight to name calling and making up a ridiculous preposterous point that everyone there was ignorant, hateful, and mindless. They couldn't possibly be furious about the taxation without representation that has been going on in Washington prior to this administration as well as during this administration, on both sides of the aisle. If we don't agree with them and we assemble we are misinformed, hateful, morons. Never mind that beauty that we live in a country where we have a right to free speech even if we don't always agree with each other. Wait I suppose my disagreeing now is disrespecting their right to free speech huh???
GAROFALO: "I don't think you do, for most of them. This is a -- it's almost pathological or elevated to a philosophy or lifestyle. And again, this is about racism. It could be any issue, any port in the storm. These guys hate that a black guy is in the White House. But they immigrant bash, they pretend taxes and tea bags, and like I said, most of them probably couldn't tell you thing one about taxation without representation, the Boston tea party, the British imperialism, whatever the history lesson has to be. But these people, all white for the most part, unless there's some people with Stockholm syndrome there."
So now if you showed up and you were anything but white you suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. Which means you feel sympathy and empathy and an emotional attachment for your captors. Look up Stockholm syndrome if you're not familiar with it. But she's saying you're too stupid to have a mind of your own. I'm just a dog and I love everyone so I'm not an expert on racism, but is her comment racist? Is anyone offended yet? Well I'd like to emphasize that it is a beautiful thing to live in a country where we have the right to free speech. We don't want to loose this liberty so I will defend her right to say whatever she wants and I will defend your right to rebut with anything you want to.
GAROFALO: "Here's what the right-wing has in, there's no shortage of the natural resources of ignorance, apathy, hate, fear. As long as those things are in the collective conscious and unconscious, the Republicans will have some votes. Fox News will have some viewers. But what else have they got? If they didn't do that, who is going to watch -- you know what I mean? They have tackled that elusive clam -- you know, the clam, the 18 to 35 clam -- klan. Klan. With a k demo. But, you know, who else is Fox talking to? I mean, what is it urban older white guys? And the girlfriend, and, you know, the women who suffer from Stockholm syndrome gain. There's a lot of Stockholm syndrome, is what I'm saying ultimately. What else do you want to know?"
More with the Stockholm Syndrome and now it's women. Where is the feminist outrage??? Wait feminism is about how evil men are and the women that love them, depend on them, care for them, etc. are weak and mindless. So that explains why feminist groups aren't outraged. And women that don't identify with feminists are too busy having lives to care that Janeane Garofalo reverts to Stockholm syndrome to insult them and every other group that doesn't fit into the "white male" category. Come on...New material...
This isn't about hating Obama. This dates back to the original bill that was passed before the election that both of my senators voted for (my representative voted against it in the House) when me and my fellow Americans called and wrote their representatives and senators begging them NOT to bail out the banks. But they passed it anyways with the patronizing excuse that they had to do what was good for America. One of my senators was the face for Republicans that were going to vote for it. The only part Obama had to do with it was his vote for it. Bush is the one that was pushing it and our congressmen passed it. This is about a collective government spiting in the face of Americans and saying we don't care what you think, we are going to do what we want in the name of power. And now the government is in the banking business with your tax dollars and mine. And they will never get out of that business.
With all due respect Ms. Garofolo and Mr. Olberman, I'll keep my Stockholm syndrome and you can keep your wretchedly unhappy lives.
JANEANE GAROFALO: "Thank you. You know, there's nothing more interesting than seeing a bunch of racists become confused and angry at a speech they're not quite certain what he's saying. It sounds right and then it doesn't make sense. Which, let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. And there is no way around that. And you know, you can tell these type of right wingers anything and they'll believe it, except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become -- it's like showing Frankenstein's monster fire. They become confused, and angry and highly volatile...."
I for one would like to know what her version of what the Boston Tea Party was about. But I find it interesting how she couldn't even address that and went straight to name calling and making up a ridiculous preposterous point that everyone there was ignorant, hateful, and mindless. They couldn't possibly be furious about the taxation without representation that has been going on in Washington prior to this administration as well as during this administration, on both sides of the aisle. If we don't agree with them and we assemble we are misinformed, hateful, morons. Never mind that beauty that we live in a country where we have a right to free speech even if we don't always agree with each other. Wait I suppose my disagreeing now is disrespecting their right to free speech huh???
GAROFALO: "I don't think you do, for most of them. This is a -- it's almost pathological or elevated to a philosophy or lifestyle. And again, this is about racism. It could be any issue, any port in the storm. These guys hate that a black guy is in the White House. But they immigrant bash, they pretend taxes and tea bags, and like I said, most of them probably couldn't tell you thing one about taxation without representation, the Boston tea party, the British imperialism, whatever the history lesson has to be. But these people, all white for the most part, unless there's some people with Stockholm syndrome there."
So now if you showed up and you were anything but white you suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. Which means you feel sympathy and empathy and an emotional attachment for your captors. Look up Stockholm syndrome if you're not familiar with it. But she's saying you're too stupid to have a mind of your own. I'm just a dog and I love everyone so I'm not an expert on racism, but is her comment racist? Is anyone offended yet? Well I'd like to emphasize that it is a beautiful thing to live in a country where we have the right to free speech. We don't want to loose this liberty so I will defend her right to say whatever she wants and I will defend your right to rebut with anything you want to.
GAROFALO: "Here's what the right-wing has in, there's no shortage of the natural resources of ignorance, apathy, hate, fear. As long as those things are in the collective conscious and unconscious, the Republicans will have some votes. Fox News will have some viewers. But what else have they got? If they didn't do that, who is going to watch -- you know what I mean? They have tackled that elusive clam -- you know, the clam, the 18 to 35 clam -- klan. Klan. With a k demo. But, you know, who else is Fox talking to? I mean, what is it urban older white guys? And the girlfriend, and, you know, the women who suffer from Stockholm syndrome gain. There's a lot of Stockholm syndrome, is what I'm saying ultimately. What else do you want to know?"
More with the Stockholm Syndrome and now it's women. Where is the feminist outrage??? Wait feminism is about how evil men are and the women that love them, depend on them, care for them, etc. are weak and mindless. So that explains why feminist groups aren't outraged. And women that don't identify with feminists are too busy having lives to care that Janeane Garofalo reverts to Stockholm syndrome to insult them and every other group that doesn't fit into the "white male" category. Come on...New material...
This isn't about hating Obama. This dates back to the original bill that was passed before the election that both of my senators voted for (my representative voted against it in the House) when me and my fellow Americans called and wrote their representatives and senators begging them NOT to bail out the banks. But they passed it anyways with the patronizing excuse that they had to do what was good for America. One of my senators was the face for Republicans that were going to vote for it. The only part Obama had to do with it was his vote for it. Bush is the one that was pushing it and our congressmen passed it. This is about a collective government spiting in the face of Americans and saying we don't care what you think, we are going to do what we want in the name of power. And now the government is in the banking business with your tax dollars and mine. And they will never get out of that business.
With all due respect Ms. Garofolo and Mr. Olberman, I'll keep my Stockholm syndrome and you can keep your wretchedly unhappy lives.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Happy Tax Day!!!
Are you excited to have a national due date to pay your taxes??? How do you plan to celebrate tax day this year? Still love our tax policy? Have any ideas to change it? Until I hear a better idea, I support the fair tax. It eliminates income tax and institutes a national sales tax from a basic standpoint. Anyone who consumes in this country, legal or illegal, citizen or visiting, pays taxes. It eliminates all the loopholes that only the rich people seem to have access to and taxes those who have historically been tax evaders.
The only thing I don't like about it so far, is that it doesn't address the spending problem. But we the people have to take care of that by getting involved and voting out the good ol' boys and getting fresh blood in there. If they won't impose term limits on themselves, we'll do it for them!!! Let your congressmen know that you intend to impose a term limit on them.
The only thing I don't like about it so far, is that it doesn't address the spending problem. But we the people have to take care of that by getting involved and voting out the good ol' boys and getting fresh blood in there. If they won't impose term limits on themselves, we'll do it for them!!! Let your congressmen know that you intend to impose a term limit on them.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
The Effects of the Economy in my Neighborhood
Since tax day is rapidly approaching and how much you paid affects your own personal economy, I thought I'd discuss my observations of the effects of the economy in my own neighborhood. What does this have to do with tax day you ask? Well because the more taxes you paid last year, the less disposable income you had to save, pay off debt, or spend, which affects your own personal economy. And if you didn't pay any taxes, perhaps your family didn't earn enough to pay which may be abnormal for your family, which may have made your own personal economy very very tight.
So every holiday around my neighborhood you can walk through or drive through the various streets and see all kinds of decorations out in the yard. Easter is no exception. The one that floored me was the year I saw Valentines decorations out at one or two houses. Not everyone decorates their yard, but a few handfuls do including some of our neighbors surrounding us. Yesterday in really hit me that no one has decorated for Easter. Usually a few people have some kind of blow up monstrous easter bunny out in their yard with who knows what else.
You may be thinking what I was thinking at first, they just didn't put out their decorations from last year. Maybe they got lazy. My father was quick to point out that most of these people don't store their decorations, they have garage sales all spring and summer to get rid of all their crap so they can buy new crap for the next holiday. You might be able to conclude from that statement that our household doesn't waste money to put crap outside in the yard for every holiday. But those that do are more than welcome to. I just hope they aren't going into debt for it or already drowning in debt.
That may not seem like much, and to be honest Texas is one of the better places to be during this economic slowdown. But there are random foreclosures around here and there are people getting layed off. But Dell is always laying people off so you know you will get it if you don't leave first. There are jobs to be had here and it's not nearly the painful blow that some states are experiencing. Nonetheless, you do see people pinching their pennies and restraining their spending. Which most probably should have been doing all along.
So how do you see the economy affecting your neighborhood, office, or city? Do you think tax policies increasing taxes on income or goods and services that you consume will help your personal economic situation? Will that help you and your neighbors pay their mortgage, pay off their credit cards, or perhaps buy their next meal? Will it help employers add a job that perhaps you or your neighbor would love to have? Remember tax day isn't about refunds, it's about all the hard earned money that the government takes from hard working people to spend as they see fit. I'm not saying all functions of the government are bad. But how much is too much? What percentage did you end up paying? Are you ok with it? Are you ok with your employer's taxes going up? What if that means he has to let one person go as a result? Are you ok if that person is you?
There are alternatives to current tax policy, but that includes taking power away from the government and putting it back in the hands of the people. How do you feel about that? Would you just prefer the government take care of all your wants and the loss of your power and money? or would you prefer they not have as much power and you have more money?
Of course I support the Fair Tax at this point. But their are other solutions out there that I would be ok with. You can't just whine and complain about tax policy. You have to have a plan you can support. Then you have to nag your representatives and let them know what you support and what you want them to support. Let them know current policies are unacceptable to you and commit to voting them out of office if they support them.
So every holiday around my neighborhood you can walk through or drive through the various streets and see all kinds of decorations out in the yard. Easter is no exception. The one that floored me was the year I saw Valentines decorations out at one or two houses. Not everyone decorates their yard, but a few handfuls do including some of our neighbors surrounding us. Yesterday in really hit me that no one has decorated for Easter. Usually a few people have some kind of blow up monstrous easter bunny out in their yard with who knows what else.
You may be thinking what I was thinking at first, they just didn't put out their decorations from last year. Maybe they got lazy. My father was quick to point out that most of these people don't store their decorations, they have garage sales all spring and summer to get rid of all their crap so they can buy new crap for the next holiday. You might be able to conclude from that statement that our household doesn't waste money to put crap outside in the yard for every holiday. But those that do are more than welcome to. I just hope they aren't going into debt for it or already drowning in debt.
That may not seem like much, and to be honest Texas is one of the better places to be during this economic slowdown. But there are random foreclosures around here and there are people getting layed off. But Dell is always laying people off so you know you will get it if you don't leave first. There are jobs to be had here and it's not nearly the painful blow that some states are experiencing. Nonetheless, you do see people pinching their pennies and restraining their spending. Which most probably should have been doing all along.
So how do you see the economy affecting your neighborhood, office, or city? Do you think tax policies increasing taxes on income or goods and services that you consume will help your personal economic situation? Will that help you and your neighbors pay their mortgage, pay off their credit cards, or perhaps buy their next meal? Will it help employers add a job that perhaps you or your neighbor would love to have? Remember tax day isn't about refunds, it's about all the hard earned money that the government takes from hard working people to spend as they see fit. I'm not saying all functions of the government are bad. But how much is too much? What percentage did you end up paying? Are you ok with it? Are you ok with your employer's taxes going up? What if that means he has to let one person go as a result? Are you ok if that person is you?
There are alternatives to current tax policy, but that includes taking power away from the government and putting it back in the hands of the people. How do you feel about that? Would you just prefer the government take care of all your wants and the loss of your power and money? or would you prefer they not have as much power and you have more money?
Of course I support the Fair Tax at this point. But their are other solutions out there that I would be ok with. You can't just whine and complain about tax policy. You have to have a plan you can support. Then you have to nag your representatives and let them know what you support and what you want them to support. Let them know current policies are unacceptable to you and commit to voting them out of office if they support them.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Pet Tax Return
I thought I'd share this with you all for fun...My 1st or 2nd cousin once removed or however that works out...(my mom's 1st cousin)....She sent this to me. I think many of you all would love to fill one of these out. If you click on the image it should open it up into another page making it bigger and much easier to read.
Anyways I'd really like to call your attention to check box after the label at the top. "Pet Election Campaign" It doesn't say a designation of a particular candidate but I'll go ahead and say feel free to write in my name should you feel compelled to mark that box and make a donation to my campaign.
Hope you enjoy
Anyways I'd really like to call your attention to check box after the label at the top. "Pet Election Campaign" It doesn't say a designation of a particular candidate but I'll go ahead and say feel free to write in my name should you feel compelled to mark that box and make a donation to my campaign.
Hope you enjoy
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Political Parties - Constitution
Ok I'm going to break from my lecturing on contacting your representatives and caring about the economy and national debt and get back to reviewing the various political parties. Today I'm going to discuss the Constitution Party. Here's why this party is interesting to me. Politicians have to swear to uphold the constitution, so it seems to me that all politicians should be constitutionalists, but as we all know, that is not the case. What we do know, is that all parties have a few issues that they perceive are the most important and the Constitution party is no exception.
On the home page they list their 7 principles.
Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:
1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
4. Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people;
7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.
What I will say about the list is that I think that focusing on a couple of them (Ok I'll say it, 1 & 3) distract from the common good of people in our nation. It really doesn't matter if I agree with them or not, fighting over these issues distract from the importance of the other 5. Many people will say that 2 contradicts what they say about 1 & 3 and so they may want to rethink their approach or their focus on 1 & 3, unless they want to give up the importance of liberty, which is what this nation was founded on.
The full platform can be found here and I will discuss some of them in more detail. http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php
As always feel free to ask me my opinion on any that I don't call out here.
Bring Government Back Home
"Over time, the limitations of federal government power imposed by the Constitution have been substantially eroded. Preservation of constitutional government requires a restoration of the balance of authority between the federal government and the States as provided in the Constitution, itself, and as intended and construed by those who framed and ratified that document"
"We pledge to be faithful to this constitutional requirement and to work methodically to restore to the States and to the people their rightful control over legislative, judicial, executive, and regulatory functions which are not Constitutionally delegated to the federal government.We stand opposed to any regionalization of governments, at any level, which results in removal of decision-making powers from the people or those directly elected by the people."
I Lola for president, do completely agree with this. The representatives in the federal government have gotten so power hungry, on every side of the aisle, that average people feel powerless to do anything about it. Yeah you can go vote and you can contact your representatives, but the reality is they can ignore you if they feel like it. That said get out and vote and write your representatives and encourage your family and friends to do the same. If you elect me, I will work to fight this nonsensical abuse of power.
Cost of Big Government
"A legitimate and primary purpose of civil government is to safeguard the God-given rights of its citizens; namely, life, liberty, and property. Only those duties, functions, and programs specifically assigned to the federal government by the Constitution should be funded. We call upon Congress and the President to stop all federal expenditures which are not specifically authorized by the U. S. Constitution, and to restore to the states those powers, programs, and sources of revenue that the federal government has usurped."
.....
"We call for the systematic reduction of the federal debt through, but not limited to, the elimination of further borrowing and the elimination of unconstitutional programs and agencies.
We call upon the President to use his Constitutional veto power to stop irresponsible and unconstitutional appropriations, and use his Constitutional authority to refuse to spend any money appropriated by Congress for unconstitutional programs or in excess of Constitutionally imposed tax revenue."
"The debt could be more rapidly eliminated if certain lands and other assets currently held by the federal government were sold, and the proceeds applied to the debt. This policy should be employed, and funds from the sale of all such assets should be specifically applied to debt reduction."
I don't really have anything to add to this other than the sale of certain federal assets being applied to the debt is a fabulous idea. Too bad that takes away power/control in their minds, so the likelihood of that happening....pretty slim in this puppy's opinion. But I support it completely.
Health Care and Government
"The Constitution Party opposes the governmentalization and bureaucratization of American medicine. Government regulation and subsidy constitutes a threat to both the quality and availability of patient-oriented health care and treatment."
"Hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers should be accountable to patients - not to politicians, insurance bureaucrats, or HMO Administrators."
"If the supply of medical care is controlled by the federal government, then officers of that government will determine which demand is satisfied. The result will be the rationing of services, higher costs, poorer results - and the power of life and death transferred from caring physicians to unaccountable political overseers."
Don't kid yourselves, this is a fact. If you're deemed too old or you're not considered a "national hero," you'll be bumped down on the list for something you need that is in demand. You want to be able to make your own health care choices not depend on the government to make them for you. They can't do it as well as you can.
This is where I'm going to stop as these get long, but I encourage you to take a closer look at their platform. But these 3 are a start that would get this country on the right track. My theory is some of the issues will be a little hard for some of you to take since we have been brainwashed to drift further and further from the constitution. I even stated my concerns with the focus. So even people that consider themselves conservative might find themselves disagreeing with some of the stated positions. Whether you agree completely or not, it is a fact that elected officials are supposed to swear to uphold the Constitution and the fact is they haven't been for years and years and years. Long before many of you were born.
On the home page they list their 7 principles.
Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:
1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
4. Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people;
7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.
What I will say about the list is that I think that focusing on a couple of them (Ok I'll say it, 1 & 3) distract from the common good of people in our nation. It really doesn't matter if I agree with them or not, fighting over these issues distract from the importance of the other 5. Many people will say that 2 contradicts what they say about 1 & 3 and so they may want to rethink their approach or their focus on 1 & 3, unless they want to give up the importance of liberty, which is what this nation was founded on.
The full platform can be found here and I will discuss some of them in more detail. http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php
As always feel free to ask me my opinion on any that I don't call out here.
Bring Government Back Home
"Over time, the limitations of federal government power imposed by the Constitution have been substantially eroded. Preservation of constitutional government requires a restoration of the balance of authority between the federal government and the States as provided in the Constitution, itself, and as intended and construed by those who framed and ratified that document"
"We pledge to be faithful to this constitutional requirement and to work methodically to restore to the States and to the people their rightful control over legislative, judicial, executive, and regulatory functions which are not Constitutionally delegated to the federal government.We stand opposed to any regionalization of governments, at any level, which results in removal of decision-making powers from the people or those directly elected by the people."
I Lola for president, do completely agree with this. The representatives in the federal government have gotten so power hungry, on every side of the aisle, that average people feel powerless to do anything about it. Yeah you can go vote and you can contact your representatives, but the reality is they can ignore you if they feel like it. That said get out and vote and write your representatives and encourage your family and friends to do the same. If you elect me, I will work to fight this nonsensical abuse of power.
Cost of Big Government
"A legitimate and primary purpose of civil government is to safeguard the God-given rights of its citizens; namely, life, liberty, and property. Only those duties, functions, and programs specifically assigned to the federal government by the Constitution should be funded. We call upon Congress and the President to stop all federal expenditures which are not specifically authorized by the U. S. Constitution, and to restore to the states those powers, programs, and sources of revenue that the federal government has usurped."
.....
"We call for the systematic reduction of the federal debt through, but not limited to, the elimination of further borrowing and the elimination of unconstitutional programs and agencies.
We call upon the President to use his Constitutional veto power to stop irresponsible and unconstitutional appropriations, and use his Constitutional authority to refuse to spend any money appropriated by Congress for unconstitutional programs or in excess of Constitutionally imposed tax revenue."
"The debt could be more rapidly eliminated if certain lands and other assets currently held by the federal government were sold, and the proceeds applied to the debt. This policy should be employed, and funds from the sale of all such assets should be specifically applied to debt reduction."
I don't really have anything to add to this other than the sale of certain federal assets being applied to the debt is a fabulous idea. Too bad that takes away power/control in their minds, so the likelihood of that happening....pretty slim in this puppy's opinion. But I support it completely.
Health Care and Government
"The Constitution Party opposes the governmentalization and bureaucratization of American medicine. Government regulation and subsidy constitutes a threat to both the quality and availability of patient-oriented health care and treatment."
"Hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers should be accountable to patients - not to politicians, insurance bureaucrats, or HMO Administrators."
"If the supply of medical care is controlled by the federal government, then officers of that government will determine which demand is satisfied. The result will be the rationing of services, higher costs, poorer results - and the power of life and death transferred from caring physicians to unaccountable political overseers."
Don't kid yourselves, this is a fact. If you're deemed too old or you're not considered a "national hero," you'll be bumped down on the list for something you need that is in demand. You want to be able to make your own health care choices not depend on the government to make them for you. They can't do it as well as you can.
This is where I'm going to stop as these get long, but I encourage you to take a closer look at their platform. But these 3 are a start that would get this country on the right track. My theory is some of the issues will be a little hard for some of you to take since we have been brainwashed to drift further and further from the constitution. I even stated my concerns with the focus. So even people that consider themselves conservative might find themselves disagreeing with some of the stated positions. Whether you agree completely or not, it is a fact that elected officials are supposed to swear to uphold the Constitution and the fact is they haven't been for years and years and years. Long before many of you were born.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
The Economic Stimulus Plan
Link to the House bill.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.00001:
$819 billion which is almost equal to the cost of an entire year of federal spending according to Wall Street Journal.
The Senate bill version is almost $900 billion at the time of that article.
We know that the no Republicans voted for it in the house version. My question is where were they on the bailout? Are they suddenly supporting fiscal restraint since their guy didn't win? Don't get me wrong, they need to oppose this to the grave and they need to oppose it in the senate. But that's from my perspective. Democrats should also be opposing this and taking into considerating the effects of such excessive spending.
Let me tell you what happens when the government's goal is to "create more jobs." Big fat bureaucracy that grows and grows and grows. How is that being fiscally responsible with the tax payers dollars? I'd rather leave it to the private sector to create more jobs by cutting corporate taxes. At least that doesn't cost the taxpayers anything. Right I know "big evil corporations" we have to "stick it to them." The US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. I think we could afford to put this theory to the test.
It's important for us as Americans to know what's in the bill. I know what you're thinking, "it's really long!!!! How am I supposed to get through that?" Find summaries of it. The above link to the bill will bring up a table of contents that you can go through and look for sections of interest. Also the above link as the letter from the Congressional Budget Office that discusses the estimates of how much it will cost. Let's remember that's just an estimate. Leave it to the government to reserve the right to let spending get out of control.
I am of the view point that the government needs to stay out of the economy to let it recover and instead work towards paying off the national debt and encourage policies of personal responsibility and minimal debt, thereby setting an example to the general public.
Just remember if the strong middle class becomes dependent on the government, they are no longer strong. The government has succeeded at making them weak, ignorant, and oblivious. If we want to maintain a strong middle class, we must take personal responsiblity to stay educated and to fight government intrusion in our lives.
I know this is not eloquently written today, but I wanted to bring up the topic to encourage discussion and to encourage you all to write your Senators to let them know your opinion. Even if you don't agree with mine.
Please take the time to vote in the poll on the left as well. Previous poll results can be seen below.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.00001:
$819 billion which is almost equal to the cost of an entire year of federal spending according to Wall Street Journal.
The Senate bill version is almost $900 billion at the time of that article.
We know that the no Republicans voted for it in the house version. My question is where were they on the bailout? Are they suddenly supporting fiscal restraint since their guy didn't win? Don't get me wrong, they need to oppose this to the grave and they need to oppose it in the senate. But that's from my perspective. Democrats should also be opposing this and taking into considerating the effects of such excessive spending.
Let me tell you what happens when the government's goal is to "create more jobs." Big fat bureaucracy that grows and grows and grows. How is that being fiscally responsible with the tax payers dollars? I'd rather leave it to the private sector to create more jobs by cutting corporate taxes. At least that doesn't cost the taxpayers anything. Right I know "big evil corporations" we have to "stick it to them." The US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. I think we could afford to put this theory to the test.
It's important for us as Americans to know what's in the bill. I know what you're thinking, "it's really long!!!! How am I supposed to get through that?" Find summaries of it. The above link to the bill will bring up a table of contents that you can go through and look for sections of interest. Also the above link as the letter from the Congressional Budget Office that discusses the estimates of how much it will cost. Let's remember that's just an estimate. Leave it to the government to reserve the right to let spending get out of control.
I am of the view point that the government needs to stay out of the economy to let it recover and instead work towards paying off the national debt and encourage policies of personal responsibility and minimal debt, thereby setting an example to the general public.
Just remember if the strong middle class becomes dependent on the government, they are no longer strong. The government has succeeded at making them weak, ignorant, and oblivious. If we want to maintain a strong middle class, we must take personal responsiblity to stay educated and to fight government intrusion in our lives.
I know this is not eloquently written today, but I wanted to bring up the topic to encourage discussion and to encourage you all to write your Senators to let them know your opinion. Even if you don't agree with mine.
Please take the time to vote in the poll on the left as well. Previous poll results can be seen below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Shop to Support the Campaign
Subscribe
Posts
All Comments
