I had a brief text session with a friend recently and it reminded me that my last post did not address the larger issue. Specifically, my last post was about politicians playing games with the sole intent of 'gumming up the works.' in Washington. What I failed to note was that it was the political drive for 'Universal Healthcare' that brought us to this point.
Ms. Fluke's testimony regarding contraception was not really about contraception. No, it was about free access to a 'service' since the service is now being provided by our government. I have heard numerous arguments regarding women's healthcare as opposed to men's healthcare and why the disparity in the services provided. This morning I stumbled across the article that highlights my concerns from the beginning. The article is all about access to men's ED medications and vasectamies.
I think the combination of Ms. Fluke's testimony and the lawmakers trying to manipulate the public's consciousness regarding healthcare is serving as the perfect example of what I feared would happen. The government is no longer talking about providing healthcare to the citizenry - instead they are focused directly on how to manipulate the masses. You don't believe me? Prior to Universal Healthcare (even though it still has not been implemented), we did not have discussions of forcing citizens to undergo additional procedures if they wanted access to a specific drug/service. Now that the government is the only supplier - we see the unintended consequences of such a plan. Unintended is being nice as I personally believe this was the plan all along.Very directly the government can tell us what steps we must take to receive the medication or service that we need. We must meet certain criteria before being allowed to have the procedure or drug and our ability to argue or disagree has been muted.
Let me be clear - I am opposed to government run healthcare. I am opposed to the government providing for ED medication and services. I am opposed to the government providing for contraceptive services. I am fully in support of private companies building products and services and inviting private citizens to purchase and subscribe to those. Please remember - the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act is not about providing healthcare it is about access to healthcare. What discussion would we be having right now if the government was not taking over access to healthcare? The economy? Education? Defense of our nation? Immigration? Drugs? Safety of our children?
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Just because you can ... doesn't mean you should.
If you have a radio, or television than you have recently heard of Pastor Terry Jones and his plans for a 'Burn a Koran Day'. There is an argument to be said for his freedom of speech and his ability to make a political statement regarding his views of Islam.
At the same time we are all well aware of the plans to build the Ground Zero Mosque, and the controversy surrounding Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Comments by our own President clearly state that everyone has a right to worship in their own way, to include the right not to worship at all. Specifically, President Obama stated:
Instead, I am asking everyone who reads this to ask yourself 'Do I agree that Pastor Terry Jones has the right to do what he is planning?', and 'Do I agree that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's group has the right to build the mosque they are planning to build?' . I would bet that most people will agree with one half of the question. You either support the burning of the Koran or you support the building of the mosque. Yes, I can make the argument for either half of the controversy because I truly believe that the rights of all Americans must be protected. However, there is something much larger to consider - Just because you can, does it mean you should? .
I believe that both issues are grounded in that very question. Both issues create strong sentiment for and against. Both issues are steeped in 'rights' of individuals and organizations. Both issues, on their own, are capable of further dividing families and this nation as a whole. And, both are absolutely and incredibly insensitive to large portions of this democracy.
Unfortunately, at this time we lack, as a country, the leadership to stand up and do the right thing. Our government officials are ill-equipped to deal with the real problems in this country and set the example for all to see. There was a time when we had great men (and women) who would set the example for all to follow. The time of great leadership has apparently passed us by. There is not solid example of how to act or even govern in this country.
It is up to each and every one of us to just Do the right thing.
At the same time we are all well aware of the plans to build the Ground Zero Mosque, and the controversy surrounding Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Comments by our own President clearly state that everyone has a right to worship in their own way, to include the right not to worship at all. Specifically, President Obama stated:
"But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure."Indeed freedom of worship and freedom of speech are two cornerstones to the founding of this great nation. In fact, they are both part of the same amendment to the Constitution. So where does this leave us, as Americans? For starters - let us parse the semantics of what is actually in the Constitution. The First Amendment, which to many is considered the most important portion of the Constitution guarantees certain liberties but has also been misused and abused over time by those on both side of the two issues previously mentioned. The amendment very simply reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievancesSo, the amendment is written in a way to preclude the government from 1) 'dictating' a religion, 2) blocking an individual's right to speak freely, 3) blocking the press from publishing and 4) blocking the people of the nation to assemble peaceably. At this point, I could craft an argument to show where the president's comments are not supportable by the First Amendment but the Pastor in Florida is well within his right to perform his intended act. That is not my intention - No, as the first line in this post said ' Just because you can, doesn't mean you should'.
Instead, I am asking everyone who reads this to ask yourself 'Do I agree that Pastor Terry Jones has the right to do what he is planning?', and 'Do I agree that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's group has the right to build the mosque they are planning to build?' . I would bet that most people will agree with one half of the question. You either support the burning of the Koran or you support the building of the mosque. Yes, I can make the argument for either half of the controversy because I truly believe that the rights of all Americans must be protected. However, there is something much larger to consider - Just because you can, does it mean you should? .
I believe that both issues are grounded in that very question. Both issues create strong sentiment for and against. Both issues are steeped in 'rights' of individuals and organizations. Both issues, on their own, are capable of further dividing families and this nation as a whole. And, both are absolutely and incredibly insensitive to large portions of this democracy.
Unfortunately, at this time we lack, as a country, the leadership to stand up and do the right thing. Our government officials are ill-equipped to deal with the real problems in this country and set the example for all to see. There was a time when we had great men (and women) who would set the example for all to follow. The time of great leadership has apparently passed us by. There is not solid example of how to act or even govern in this country.
It is up to each and every one of us to just Do the right thing.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
What do you stand for ?
What do you stand for? I mean really stand for. In this politically divided time in which we live, have you taken a serious look at what you believe in, desire and will stand for? There are three primary groups within the United States {progressives, independents, and conservatives} that individuals identify themselves with. I can only really define my own beliefs and connect to the group that most closely relates those beliefs. I challenge you to do the same - be honest with yourself. If you can't be honest with yourself in the assessment - do me a favor and stop judging others, you have no leg to stand on.
Everyone that knows me understands that I like keeping things simple. Does this overlook certain aspects of a situation? Absolutely. However, if you can simplify things right - you can get by with the bulk of what is before you and have reasonably good insight to the ancillary information that you otherwise overlook. So, what about the three political groups? My simple definitions: Conservative - those that strive to protect or revert back to the principles that founded this country. Progressive - those that strive to change what is into something that differs from what is/ or was. Independent - those that are caught somewhere between the two; longing for some of what was but desiring something different.
The Constitution set forth a number of principles that over time have been changed. The men that created this document / blueprint did so based on on their life experiences and out of a belief that all men are fallible. To that end, limits were placed on what the governing body was authorized to do to the citizenry. Did they get everything right? No, but they did set forth a method for changing the laws when the failings were discovered. Somehow, the limits and methods for change appear to have been pushed to the side.
Unfortunately, we are now at a point that the Constitution is being shredded by the the failings of a few, overly aggressive legislators. Those legislators sit on both sides of the isle and mislead the rest of the government as well as the governed, those whom they have sworn an oath to protect and represent. At the time the Constitution was drafted and signed - a man's word was the representation of his life. His signature represented his beliefs for all of history to witness. Now, a signature or an oath's value is not worth the paper it is written on and is not meant to exist beyond the time it took to expel it from the individuals mouth. While I am most concerned with the misappropriations of the citizenry by their elected Congress, our President recently made a statement that I could not agree with more : "I think part of what our constitutional values promote is the notion that individuals have protection in their privacy, and their bodily integrity, and women are not exempt from that" . How is it that the President of the United States can make a comment like this just a few short weeks after signing the abominibal health care act into law? The law violates the individuals right to privacy! The law violates the individuals bodily integrity! As I said - I agree with the words he used, I just can't agree with the actions he takes.
By way of example, I am a firm believer that the President's ability to appoint judges should not be inhibited. There should be a level of investigation done for all person's appointed to positions of trust but the use of the fillibuster should not be used. Not that it is un-constitutional, just out of respect for the office of the President. However, since there is no statute stating when/where a fillibuster should/should not be used - Congress should pass a law to govern their own actions in this area. Until then, perhaps a constant fillibuster should be used .... This type of common sense work will never happen in Washington, D.C. . Why? Simply because our Congress is not made up of a group of honest individuals.
Term limits for the legislator is the solution - but not by passing law. I am 100% opposed to a legislated limitation. Individuals need to exercise their right to vote and express their opinions to the elected. Do so by following the law, expressing your thoughts and feelings directly and respecting that others have those same rights.
As an individual, hold me to my word. As a citizen, hold me to the laws that have been put in place for me to follow. As a tax payer - keep the promises you made to me, respect the law that we are all governed by and if you want to change the law - do it the right way.
Everyone that knows me understands that I like keeping things simple. Does this overlook certain aspects of a situation? Absolutely. However, if you can simplify things right - you can get by with the bulk of what is before you and have reasonably good insight to the ancillary information that you otherwise overlook. So, what about the three political groups? My simple definitions: Conservative - those that strive to protect or revert back to the principles that founded this country. Progressive - those that strive to change what is into something that differs from what is/ or was. Independent - those that are caught somewhere between the two; longing for some of what was but desiring something different.
The Constitution set forth a number of principles that over time have been changed. The men that created this document / blueprint did so based on on their life experiences and out of a belief that all men are fallible. To that end, limits were placed on what the governing body was authorized to do to the citizenry. Did they get everything right? No, but they did set forth a method for changing the laws when the failings were discovered. Somehow, the limits and methods for change appear to have been pushed to the side.
Unfortunately, we are now at a point that the Constitution is being shredded by the the failings of a few, overly aggressive legislators. Those legislators sit on both sides of the isle and mislead the rest of the government as well as the governed, those whom they have sworn an oath to protect and represent. At the time the Constitution was drafted and signed - a man's word was the representation of his life. His signature represented his beliefs for all of history to witness. Now, a signature or an oath's value is not worth the paper it is written on and is not meant to exist beyond the time it took to expel it from the individuals mouth. While I am most concerned with the misappropriations of the citizenry by their elected Congress, our President recently made a statement that I could not agree with more : "I think part of what our constitutional values promote is the notion that individuals have protection in their privacy, and their bodily integrity, and women are not exempt from that" . How is it that the President of the United States can make a comment like this just a few short weeks after signing the abominibal health care act into law? The law violates the individuals right to privacy! The law violates the individuals bodily integrity! As I said - I agree with the words he used, I just can't agree with the actions he takes.
By way of example, I am a firm believer that the President's ability to appoint judges should not be inhibited. There should be a level of investigation done for all person's appointed to positions of trust but the use of the fillibuster should not be used. Not that it is un-constitutional, just out of respect for the office of the President. However, since there is no statute stating when/where a fillibuster should/should not be used - Congress should pass a law to govern their own actions in this area. Until then, perhaps a constant fillibuster should be used .... This type of common sense work will never happen in Washington, D.C. . Why? Simply because our Congress is not made up of a group of honest individuals.
Term limits for the legislator is the solution - but not by passing law. I am 100% opposed to a legislated limitation. Individuals need to exercise their right to vote and express their opinions to the elected. Do so by following the law, expressing your thoughts and feelings directly and respecting that others have those same rights.
As an individual, hold me to my word. As a citizen, hold me to the laws that have been put in place for me to follow. As a tax payer - keep the promises you made to me, respect the law that we are all governed by and if you want to change the law - do it the right way.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Positive thoughts on Obama and the health care debate
Again, I have been quiet. Nothing nice to say - don't say anything.
That has changed. The debate on health care in the United States has a tremendously positive side to it that I am thankful to those in Washington for. What could a generally conservative individual have to say about this situation that was positive? Quite simply - this single item has brought many people to the party. Yes, people are investigating the information that Washington has been putting out and they are discussing it.
For a society that was told that President George Bush was the most devisive president in recent history, the current environment which we live in has seen a new champion. I think it fair to conclude that the current elected body (House and Senate combined) along with President Barack Obama, have divided this country further and quicker than any that I can remember. This time, the people are fighting back. Not a physical fight - but a political one. People are informed at an ever increasing rate and they are discussing the topics with a renewed vigor. All the while - they are realizing that we have been lied to. Yes, lied to by our government and backed up by the media.
I also wanted to thank President Obama for showing me how to view expenses and what to do when they are not focused on what I care most about. President Obama has shared with us that 16% of our GDP is spent on health care and if left unchecked it could move to 25% very quickly. So, I went back and looked at the family funds to see where our money is spent and if it was in-line with what we want to be focused on. Not surprising - we are at odds with some expenditures and I am now looking at ways to reduce those that I don't feel are appropriate percentages of the family income. For starters - my family spends more on state income tax than car payments, car insurance and gasoline .... combined. My family spends more on Social Security (that program that won't exist when I actually get ready to use it) and Medicare than we do on food, clothing and entertainment. Can I opt out of those? The family household spends more money on taxes (not including the sales tax, property tax, gas tax, utility tax and all the other taxes that are 'built in' to the price of everything we consume) than our mortgage and private school bill - COMBINED.
Yes, my family decided to send our children to private school. This is an expense that we opted to pay and believe it is the best use of our money. Unfortunately, we don't seem to get a vote in where the majority of our money is actually going. In the end - I could choose to move to a less expensive home, drive a less expensive car, elect to purchase less expensive insurance (life, health, automobile, property), donate less to my church, use my time to make more money instead of volunteering or even contributing less to my 401K plan .... but those are my choices. With a government focused on spreading the wealth, and burdening my children and their future families with debt - I have no choice.
But then again, I do. I vote. I also will exercise my rights under the Constitution. Specifically, my right to free speech.
That has changed. The debate on health care in the United States has a tremendously positive side to it that I am thankful to those in Washington for. What could a generally conservative individual have to say about this situation that was positive? Quite simply - this single item has brought many people to the party. Yes, people are investigating the information that Washington has been putting out and they are discussing it.
For a society that was told that President George Bush was the most devisive president in recent history, the current environment which we live in has seen a new champion. I think it fair to conclude that the current elected body (House and Senate combined) along with President Barack Obama, have divided this country further and quicker than any that I can remember. This time, the people are fighting back. Not a physical fight - but a political one. People are informed at an ever increasing rate and they are discussing the topics with a renewed vigor. All the while - they are realizing that we have been lied to. Yes, lied to by our government and backed up by the media.
I also wanted to thank President Obama for showing me how to view expenses and what to do when they are not focused on what I care most about. President Obama has shared with us that 16% of our GDP is spent on health care and if left unchecked it could move to 25% very quickly. So, I went back and looked at the family funds to see where our money is spent and if it was in-line with what we want to be focused on. Not surprising - we are at odds with some expenditures and I am now looking at ways to reduce those that I don't feel are appropriate percentages of the family income. For starters - my family spends more on state income tax than car payments, car insurance and gasoline .... combined. My family spends more on Social Security (that program that won't exist when I actually get ready to use it) and Medicare than we do on food, clothing and entertainment. Can I opt out of those? The family household spends more money on taxes (not including the sales tax, property tax, gas tax, utility tax and all the other taxes that are 'built in' to the price of everything we consume) than our mortgage and private school bill - COMBINED.
Yes, my family decided to send our children to private school. This is an expense that we opted to pay and believe it is the best use of our money. Unfortunately, we don't seem to get a vote in where the majority of our money is actually going. In the end - I could choose to move to a less expensive home, drive a less expensive car, elect to purchase less expensive insurance (life, health, automobile, property), donate less to my church, use my time to make more money instead of volunteering or even contributing less to my 401K plan .... but those are my choices. With a government focused on spreading the wealth, and burdening my children and their future families with debt - I have no choice.
But then again, I do. I vote. I also will exercise my rights under the Constitution. Specifically, my right to free speech.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Biden is soooooo generous
I am still trying to not bash the current administration but it is getting more and more difficult. After all, according to DHS I may be viewed as a rightwing extremist because I oppose illegal immigration, oppose abortion, believe in states rights as outlined in the Constitution and believe that all citizens of this great country should be protected and provided for without being judged based on race, creed, color or financial background. So, in an effort to speak up without arguing that our country is headed down the wrong path - I will take the time to reflect on the day itself - April 15, 2009 - TAX DAY.
Today, the White House released pieces of the President and Vice President's taxes. President Obama did very well for himself this year ($2.5M) with his recent book. It is interesting to note that he paid roughly 32 per cent of that back to the federal government in the form of Federal tax and 2.9 per cent in State taxes. President Obama also reports that he paid approximately 6.5% of his income to charities. Very impressive Mr. Obama.
On the other hand, Vice President Biden earned $269,256 (including income from his memoirs). Compare his contribution to the tax system with the President. Mr Biden paid roughly 17 per cent to Federal Tax and 4% to his home state of Delaware. Now for the kicker. Mr. Biden makes reference constantly to his Roman Catholic faith. However, when it comes to giving back to charity he apparently missed the 10% tithe that is present in virtually every Catholic church. No, Mr. Biden missed by an order of magnitude and donated .7% (less than 1 per cent) to charity.
Why is this an issue? From one of my previous posts I stated that Joe Biden reports a net worth of $63,000 . Net worth was a big issue during the election of 2008 (Palin is out of touch as her net worth dwarfs her constituents). Why did no one ask 'Why is Joe Biden only worth $63K when he has been collecting a salaray as Senator for 35 years.?' . One could assume that he was being philanthropic with his income and living a modest lifestyle. At less than 1 per cent being donated to charitable organizations - I think we can rule that out.
So, if Joe Biden is not overly generous with his money - where did it all go? Again I ask - is someone who makes in excess of $150,000 a year for a number of years and is worth less than $100,000 really the person we want a heartbeat away from the presidency when the economic future of our country is in such peril?
Today, the White House released pieces of the President and Vice President's taxes. President Obama did very well for himself this year ($2.5M) with his recent book. It is interesting to note that he paid roughly 32 per cent of that back to the federal government in the form of Federal tax and 2.9 per cent in State taxes. President Obama also reports that he paid approximately 6.5% of his income to charities. Very impressive Mr. Obama.
On the other hand, Vice President Biden earned $269,256 (including income from his memoirs). Compare his contribution to the tax system with the President. Mr Biden paid roughly 17 per cent to Federal Tax and 4% to his home state of Delaware. Now for the kicker. Mr. Biden makes reference constantly to his Roman Catholic faith. However, when it comes to giving back to charity he apparently missed the 10% tithe that is present in virtually every Catholic church. No, Mr. Biden missed by an order of magnitude and donated .7% (less than 1 per cent) to charity.
Why is this an issue? From one of my previous posts I stated that Joe Biden reports a net worth of $63,000 . Net worth was a big issue during the election of 2008 (Palin is out of touch as her net worth dwarfs her constituents). Why did no one ask 'Why is Joe Biden only worth $63K when he has been collecting a salaray as Senator for 35 years.?' . One could assume that he was being philanthropic with his income and living a modest lifestyle. At less than 1 per cent being donated to charitable organizations - I think we can rule that out.
So, if Joe Biden is not overly generous with his money - where did it all go? Again I ask - is someone who makes in excess of $150,000 a year for a number of years and is worth less than $100,000 really the person we want a heartbeat away from the presidency when the economic future of our country is in such peril?
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Give Obama a little credit
When I see a positive - I will say so. On the 20th President Obama's press secretary stated that the administration would NOT support the Vehicle Miles program. If this is true - I agree with the President. The idea behind the program is to tally what times, which roads and how many miles an individual has driven and then bill them for the use of the roads. While the intended spirit of this program is to have those that use the roads pay for them - 1) I don't trust them and 2) this is an assault to all those not living in the inner city.
Once the group in Washington figure out what kind of data they are able to capture - I can only begin to see what they will want to do with that information moving forward. 1984 has nothing on what these 'lawmakers' can come up with. Time based tax policies for using certain roads, annual reporting of travel to specific areas to the Chamber of Commerce, tracking mileage versus fuel consumption to insure we the public are driving 'economical' cars. No - I don't trust them at all!
The assault on those of us living out side of the city limits where 'public' transportation is available could not be more direct. Lawmakers fail to recognize that in addition to driving to and from work - some of us use the roads and our vehicles for more than our own capitalist endeavors. Yes, some of us drive our children and other children to school. Some of us volunteer to run youth sports programs that the local government actually does very little to support (including blocking the use of public fields for youth sports use). Some of us volunteer in public schools - mentoring, tutoring and advising the youth in the community. Some of us volunteer with local churches and the programs those churches provide that the local communities can not live without. Some of us even drive in to the city to volunteer in the ways listed above.
So, President Obama - THANK YOU. On this topic - you have defended freedom.
Once the group in Washington figure out what kind of data they are able to capture - I can only begin to see what they will want to do with that information moving forward. 1984 has nothing on what these 'lawmakers' can come up with. Time based tax policies for using certain roads, annual reporting of travel to specific areas to the Chamber of Commerce, tracking mileage versus fuel consumption to insure we the public are driving 'economical' cars. No - I don't trust them at all!
The assault on those of us living out side of the city limits where 'public' transportation is available could not be more direct. Lawmakers fail to recognize that in addition to driving to and from work - some of us use the roads and our vehicles for more than our own capitalist endeavors. Yes, some of us drive our children and other children to school. Some of us volunteer to run youth sports programs that the local government actually does very little to support (including blocking the use of public fields for youth sports use). Some of us volunteer in public schools - mentoring, tutoring and advising the youth in the community. Some of us volunteer with local churches and the programs those churches provide that the local communities can not live without. Some of us even drive in to the city to volunteer in the ways listed above.
So, President Obama - THANK YOU. On this topic - you have defended freedom.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
We are accelerating down the wrong road.
When the government started planning for TARP 1, the hair on the back of my neck stood up. Face it - the banks in the U.S. were in a difficult position but it was the government that helped them get there so perhaps they should help bail them out. I was against the 'covering of the tracks' by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts but knew that I did not have a vote in the outcome. The government decided to spend 'my money' because they are smarter than the common man (tongue firmly planted in cheek at this point) and they gave the banks the first $350 billion dollars .... with absolutely no strings.
Follow along:
Mistake number 1 - all the garbage pressure place on the banking industry to loan money to those that can not afford to purchase a home.
Mistake number 2 - TARP 1 .
Mistake number 3 - Failure to control, watch, manage or even track where TARP 1 funds actually went.
Mistake number 4 - Requesting TARP 2 funds.
( up to this point this has been on President Bush' watch, except mistake number 1 that started back during the Carter administration)
Now, in addition to the proposed 'stimulus' package which is nothing more than a big list of pet programs, bailouts for states that can't manage their own budgets, and a justification to spend more taxpayer money now and in the future, President Obama is raising the concerns about how banks spend their money. Face it - the banks are making huge political mistakes with the way they continue to spend money. BUT - IT IS THEIR MONEY! It is very easy to be swept up in the anti-Wall street sentiment if we allow our jealousy to get the better of us, but consider what this means. How much is enough? How much is too much? I am no longer talking about Wall street - I am talking about an individual or corporation - in the eyes of the government. There are plans to limit executive compensation to any bank that received funding to $500,000. Granted that is a lot of money to someone who makes less than $100,000 but what business is it of the government to dictate how a business operates? If they want to start setting limits and controlling compensation - perhaps they should look at themselves first - Fannie Mae anyone and this is a government 'corporation'?
So now consider that a corporation is no different than a citizen in this country. Does the government have the right to regulate how much money you make? Yes the incrementalism argument begins to build at this point. What if the government decided that any individual, organziation or company that has ever received government assistance was then beholden to any regulation on compensation they want to impose (after award of the assistance )? If BIG GOVERNMENT wants to start down this path - let's start by limiting compensation for any artist (actor) that ever participated in any activity paid for by the NEA. Next, any athlete that attended school on any form of government paid scholarship can only receive compensation of $150,000 (roughly 5 times that of the average American according to U.S. Department of Labor)? University professers are limited on compensation and length of employment - afterall they are paid for partly from the government trough. I can continue ..... but won't.
The point of my argument is taxes are a voluntary (according to Harry Reid) contribution to the government. The government(at least the legislative branch in this blog entry) has completely lost site of this simple fact. The money is not theirs - it is ours. Our founding fathers knew this and warned against a government becoming too powerful for the common good. We are heading down the wrong road and someone is standing on the gas pedal. How do you get off of this ride?
Follow along:
Mistake number 1 - all the garbage pressure place on the banking industry to loan money to those that can not afford to purchase a home.
Mistake number 2 - TARP 1 .
Mistake number 3 - Failure to control, watch, manage or even track where TARP 1 funds actually went.
Mistake number 4 - Requesting TARP 2 funds.
( up to this point this has been on President Bush' watch, except mistake number 1 that started back during the Carter administration)
Now, in addition to the proposed 'stimulus' package which is nothing more than a big list of pet programs, bailouts for states that can't manage their own budgets, and a justification to spend more taxpayer money now and in the future, President Obama is raising the concerns about how banks spend their money. Face it - the banks are making huge political mistakes with the way they continue to spend money. BUT - IT IS THEIR MONEY! It is very easy to be swept up in the anti-Wall street sentiment if we allow our jealousy to get the better of us, but consider what this means. How much is enough? How much is too much? I am no longer talking about Wall street - I am talking about an individual or corporation - in the eyes of the government. There are plans to limit executive compensation to any bank that received funding to $500,000. Granted that is a lot of money to someone who makes less than $100,000 but what business is it of the government to dictate how a business operates? If they want to start setting limits and controlling compensation - perhaps they should look at themselves first - Fannie Mae anyone and this is a government 'corporation'?
So now consider that a corporation is no different than a citizen in this country. Does the government have the right to regulate how much money you make? Yes the incrementalism argument begins to build at this point. What if the government decided that any individual, organziation or company that has ever received government assistance was then beholden to any regulation on compensation they want to impose (after award of the assistance )? If BIG GOVERNMENT wants to start down this path - let's start by limiting compensation for any artist (actor) that ever participated in any activity paid for by the NEA. Next, any athlete that attended school on any form of government paid scholarship can only receive compensation of $150,000 (roughly 5 times that of the average American according to U.S. Department of Labor)? University professers are limited on compensation and length of employment - afterall they are paid for partly from the government trough. I can continue ..... but won't.
The point of my argument is taxes are a voluntary (according to Harry Reid) contribution to the government. The government(at least the legislative branch in this blog entry) has completely lost site of this simple fact. The money is not theirs - it is ours. Our founding fathers knew this and warned against a government becoming too powerful for the common good. We are heading down the wrong road and someone is standing on the gas pedal. How do you get off of this ride?
"There are two distinct classes of men...those who pay taxes and those who receive and live upon taxes." -- Thomas Paine (1737–1809)
Monday, January 19, 2009
Proud to be an American. The price is worth it.
Tomorrow, January 20, is a day that makes me truly proud to be an American. No, this is not another gushing review of President-elect Barack Obama. No, this is not another notification to the world that we will swear in the first African-American President. No, the day marks one of the things that makes this country truly great. The peaceful transition of power from one elected official to the next - I could not be more proud of this legacy that our country leaves to the world.
If you have read any of my posts on the election you can see that I am no fan of our future President. I disagree with virtually everything he campaigned for on the basis of ideology alone - I make no judgement on the man himself as I do not know him. That being said - beginning tomorrow he will be my President and I will stand behind him, if called to do so. Elections have consequences but as a citizen of this country, I have a responsibility to support and defend her and that starts with support for our president. I have not been a big fan of the political leaders in our country over the past several years but as a citizen - I do support them. I also support the citizens of this country by voicing my opinion (even though I do not do it as often as I should).
President Bush will not go down as my favorite President but he will be remembered, by me, as a man of character and as a selfless man that did for the world what he believed he was called to do. Any person that stands on principle, regardless the cost, is a man worth remembering and modeling (atleast a small amount) in your own life.
I used to speak to high school kids about succeeding in life and one portion of the talk was about 'who is the most successful person you can think of'. The idea of the talk is to define success in your terms and not be trapped in to the traditional view of success. As the kids would throw out all the big names that you expect (Gates, James, Jordan, Manning, Woods) they would eventually start calling out parents, brothers, clergy .... The point of having them call out names was to prove that there is no one definition of success. President George W. Bush is one of those people that I would bring to their attention today. He is a man that, on principle, took on the world. Ridiculed at home. Despised around the world. He stood on principle that those with the ability to affect change, have the responsibility to do so. THANK YOU Mr. President for your service.
To our soon-to-be President. I wish you well and I offer you my support. I will stand and defend you and our country. I will support you both by defending and disagreeing with you. I only hope that others will do the same.
If you have read any of my posts on the election you can see that I am no fan of our future President. I disagree with virtually everything he campaigned for on the basis of ideology alone - I make no judgement on the man himself as I do not know him. That being said - beginning tomorrow he will be my President and I will stand behind him, if called to do so. Elections have consequences but as a citizen of this country, I have a responsibility to support and defend her and that starts with support for our president. I have not been a big fan of the political leaders in our country over the past several years but as a citizen - I do support them. I also support the citizens of this country by voicing my opinion (even though I do not do it as often as I should).
President Bush will not go down as my favorite President but he will be remembered, by me, as a man of character and as a selfless man that did for the world what he believed he was called to do. Any person that stands on principle, regardless the cost, is a man worth remembering and modeling (atleast a small amount) in your own life.
I used to speak to high school kids about succeeding in life and one portion of the talk was about 'who is the most successful person you can think of'. The idea of the talk is to define success in your terms and not be trapped in to the traditional view of success. As the kids would throw out all the big names that you expect (Gates, James, Jordan, Manning, Woods) they would eventually start calling out parents, brothers, clergy .... The point of having them call out names was to prove that there is no one definition of success. President George W. Bush is one of those people that I would bring to their attention today. He is a man that, on principle, took on the world. Ridiculed at home. Despised around the world. He stood on principle that those with the ability to affect change, have the responsibility to do so. THANK YOU Mr. President for your service.
To our soon-to-be President. I wish you well and I offer you my support. I will stand and defend you and our country. I will support you both by defending and disagreeing with you. I only hope that others will do the same.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Mandate? I don't think so
Now that the presidential election of 2008 is almost behind us the news media is headed off on their own again. 'The election of Barack Obama signifies a mandate for change.' - Where do they come up with this stuff. Yes, Mr. Obama won the election, but I don't think you can call less than 6% popular vote a mandate. Personally, I fear what this country has in store for it with the democratic controlled House, Senate and Oval Office - what we can't afford is a media that begs at their feet encouraging even more sweeping change.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Who are you?
I feel compelled to share a bit more about how I came to be the person I am and characterize this blog by what is really behind it. Some who are reading this may think I am a strong McCain supporter. You could not be more wrong. John McCain was not my choice - no, he is far from the representative that I was interested in electing to the office of President. That being said, he is the strongest candidate for that office at least on the areas that I care deeply (national security, the sanctity of life, individual rights, responsibility) about. Again, I said he is the best still standing.
The media in this country took away my chance to vote in the primary for the candidate that I thought would be best for this country. How? Why? They did it by backing John McCain and Barack Obama and by the time it was my turn to vote .... well, the choices had been dwindled down. Yes, the media did it. So why would the media back John McCain and Barack Obama? And what happened to that support (at least for McCain)? Quite simply put - John McCain was the closest thing to a Democrat that the Republican party had to offer and they saw this as the closest to an acceptable outcome as possible. Once the rest of the candidates were run off - the press' true colors came through and they showed that even an 'isle crosser' from the Republican party would not be acceptable. Why Obama? Because he is the most liberal candidate to ever step forward ... in the history of this great country. The press loves this and is the sole reason they continue to block and tackle for the candidate as he inches closer to the most powerful and most prestigious job in the entire world.
Why does any of this matter? If you have children you already understand this. Take the position of parent as you watch your child or children grow. When they are small you encourage them to take steps, you follow behind to pick them up when they fall. When they are taking steps on their own, completing sentences without your assistance and beginning to find and make friends your job as parent takes on another role. Now, you are looking out for who/what will interact with your child and you do things help to shape who your child is. I am specifically referring to monitoring and at times controlling who your child interacts with. We all know the 'Do not talk to strangers' part of this, but what is even more important is the investigating that we all do to know who our children are associating with. Who do they play with on the playground? Who do they eat lunch with at school? What are their parents like? What circle does my child run with?
This continues throughout the life of your child. Why? It is the associations that we have in life that make us the people we are. We all have found good and bad in people and we make judgement calls as to whether or not to continue the relationship. As a child we can't understand why we are or are not allowed to play with certain kids. As adults we understand that we are 'the company that we keep'. Character matters and part of that character is understanding who we should and should not associate with.
Back to politics .... or did we never leave. Barack Obama's associations are not ones that I wish for my children to have. To that end, they are not associations that I wish for my country to have. To many - comments such as these would be considered negative but the inverse could not be more true. It is simple honesty and innocent report of facts that should measure the tenor of the commentary.We need to grow up and be the parents. We need to stand up when we see something that is wrong in our society. We need to find ways to fix what is broken. We need to participate to insure we have the opportunity.
God Bless the United States of America!
The media in this country took away my chance to vote in the primary for the candidate that I thought would be best for this country. How? Why? They did it by backing John McCain and Barack Obama and by the time it was my turn to vote .... well, the choices had been dwindled down. Yes, the media did it. So why would the media back John McCain and Barack Obama? And what happened to that support (at least for McCain)? Quite simply put - John McCain was the closest thing to a Democrat that the Republican party had to offer and they saw this as the closest to an acceptable outcome as possible. Once the rest of the candidates were run off - the press' true colors came through and they showed that even an 'isle crosser' from the Republican party would not be acceptable. Why Obama? Because he is the most liberal candidate to ever step forward ... in the history of this great country. The press loves this and is the sole reason they continue to block and tackle for the candidate as he inches closer to the most powerful and most prestigious job in the entire world.
Why does any of this matter? If you have children you already understand this. Take the position of parent as you watch your child or children grow. When they are small you encourage them to take steps, you follow behind to pick them up when they fall. When they are taking steps on their own, completing sentences without your assistance and beginning to find and make friends your job as parent takes on another role. Now, you are looking out for who/what will interact with your child and you do things help to shape who your child is. I am specifically referring to monitoring and at times controlling who your child interacts with. We all know the 'Do not talk to strangers' part of this, but what is even more important is the investigating that we all do to know who our children are associating with. Who do they play with on the playground? Who do they eat lunch with at school? What are their parents like? What circle does my child run with?
This continues throughout the life of your child. Why? It is the associations that we have in life that make us the people we are. We all have found good and bad in people and we make judgement calls as to whether or not to continue the relationship. As a child we can't understand why we are or are not allowed to play with certain kids. As adults we understand that we are 'the company that we keep'. Character matters and part of that character is understanding who we should and should not associate with.
Back to politics .... or did we never leave. Barack Obama's associations are not ones that I wish for my children to have. To that end, they are not associations that I wish for my country to have. To many - comments such as these would be considered negative but the inverse could not be more true. It is simple honesty and innocent report of facts that should measure the tenor of the commentary.We need to grow up and be the parents. We need to stand up when we see something that is wrong in our society. We need to find ways to fix what is broken. We need to participate to insure we have the opportunity.
God Bless the United States of America!
Thursday, October 30, 2008
A lesson on taxation
I was recently sent an email from a friend that I thought was simple enough that most people could understand. I have pasted it below verbatim:
UNDERSTANDING ECONOMICS (OR) BAR STOOL ECONOMICS
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all 10 comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for all of you will now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so:
The first four men were unaffected, they still pay nothing and will drink for free. The other six men -the paying customers had to decide how to divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share". They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then the fifth and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so,
Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20" declared the sixth man he pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10" "Yeah, that right" exclaimed the fifth man 'I only saved $1 dollar too" "It's unfair that he got ten times more than I" That's true! shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2".
"The wealthy get all the breaks!!!
" Wait a minute' yelled the first four men in unison "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the Poor" We didn't get anything at all" The nine men surrounded the 10th and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him.
But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them, for even half of the bill!!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction!! Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible-they will go ahead and vote for Obama.
UNDERSTANDING ECONOMICS (OR) BAR STOOL ECONOMICS
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all 10 comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
- The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
- The fifth would pay $1
- The sixth would pay $3
- The seventh would pay $7
- The eighth would pay $12
- The ninth would pay $18
- The tenth man ( the richest) would pay $59
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for all of you will now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so:
The first four men were unaffected, they still pay nothing and will drink for free. The other six men -the paying customers had to decide how to divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share". They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then the fifth and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so,
- The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving)
- The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings)
- The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings)
- The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
- The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings)
- The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 ( 16% savings)
Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20" declared the sixth man he pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10" "Yeah, that right" exclaimed the fifth man 'I only saved $1 dollar too" "It's unfair that he got ten times more than I" That's true! shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2".
"The wealthy get all the breaks!!!
" Wait a minute' yelled the first four men in unison "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the Poor" We didn't get anything at all" The nine men surrounded the 10th and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him.
But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them, for even half of the bill!!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction!! Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible-they will go ahead and vote for Obama.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Preparing for the 'unfiltered' Obama
I personally think the idea of buying up all of the air time so that a politician can 'sell' his message to the world is a great idea. I find it humorous that Mr. Obama is the one doing it. Why? Hasn't he had the time that he wanted without ever spending a dime already? With the main stream media taking the cues and input from his campaign and running with every positive story he thought important, what could he have possibly missed?
Apparently, he has not gotten his message out - so now he is taking a half hour spot on a number of networks to tell the world exactly what he wants us to hear. I will not be able to listen to it as I will be traveling home from a business trip - but I am sure it will be rebroadcast over and over again with his lap dogs carrying it to the finish line. While it is combative to bring it up - I thought McCain-Feingold had a provision that restricted air time as we edged closer to elections ... in an effort to stop what is about to happen. John McCain started working on this years ago because he saw what was possible.
Lastly, Mr. Obama appears to have more money than he could possibly know what to do with it. I wonder how that philosophy (raise as much as possible and make sure you spend all of it) will translate to a Obama presidency? The heir-apparent has already started campaigning to have people stay home from work and skip school to help 'make history'. This is not what this country needs and is 100% focused on Obama the individual instead of the citizen of this great country.
Apparently, he has not gotten his message out - so now he is taking a half hour spot on a number of networks to tell the world exactly what he wants us to hear. I will not be able to listen to it as I will be traveling home from a business trip - but I am sure it will be rebroadcast over and over again with his lap dogs carrying it to the finish line. While it is combative to bring it up - I thought McCain-Feingold had a provision that restricted air time as we edged closer to elections ... in an effort to stop what is about to happen. John McCain started working on this years ago because he saw what was possible.
Lastly, Mr. Obama appears to have more money than he could possibly know what to do with it. I wonder how that philosophy (raise as much as possible and make sure you spend all of it) will translate to a Obama presidency? The heir-apparent has already started campaigning to have people stay home from work and skip school to help 'make history'. This is not what this country needs and is 100% focused on Obama the individual instead of the citizen of this great country.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Where is the honesty?
Not that there are many of you out there reading my posts, but if you have read them you sense that I am rather annoyed with the media in the U.S. . Politics is a simple area to see how one-sided, skewed and self-promoting the media is in this country. There was a time, I have been told, that the media (print, radio, television) actually reported the news. They investigated all aspects of a story and provided that information for the world to consume.
That time is definitely either a dream, a point in history that has been passed by, or simply a creative thought that my parents shared with me as a child and I believed them. The news media, specifically print and television, is so focused on getting their story out there that they often create news instead of merely reporting it. Reading about Sarah Palin (you name the topic) it is very clear that a team of investigators took their charge to dig up information very seriously. This is something that the media should do. However they failed to do the same research on Joe Biden, Barack Obama and John McCain. Perhaps they think that everyone knows how much each of them spends on their wardrobes or how much money they have tied up in family business ....
That being said - it appears that they simply have a plan to report every negative aspect of the governors life in an effort to create/sway public opinion instead of simply reporting it. If they really were about informing the public they would have gone through the same level of investigation and speculation about Joe Biden. Something as simple as :"How can a United States Senator, for several years, be in a position to only be worth $63,000?". Talk about judgement - if he has nothing more that $63K saved after all those years living on the public dime, then how ready is he to be President? Balance a budget? Get us out of this economic crisis that he helped get us in to?
So, until the press decides to act as an unbiased observer and researcher - I will not recommend them for anything other than lining my daughter's rabbit cage and another reason to limit the amount of time my children watch television.
That time is definitely either a dream, a point in history that has been passed by, or simply a creative thought that my parents shared with me as a child and I believed them. The news media, specifically print and television, is so focused on getting their story out there that they often create news instead of merely reporting it. Reading about Sarah Palin (you name the topic) it is very clear that a team of investigators took their charge to dig up information very seriously. This is something that the media should do. However they failed to do the same research on Joe Biden, Barack Obama and John McCain. Perhaps they think that everyone knows how much each of them spends on their wardrobes or how much money they have tied up in family business ....
That being said - it appears that they simply have a plan to report every negative aspect of the governors life in an effort to create/sway public opinion instead of simply reporting it. If they really were about informing the public they would have gone through the same level of investigation and speculation about Joe Biden. Something as simple as :"How can a United States Senator, for several years, be in a position to only be worth $63,000?". Talk about judgement - if he has nothing more that $63K saved after all those years living on the public dime, then how ready is he to be President? Balance a budget? Get us out of this economic crisis that he helped get us in to?
So, until the press decides to act as an unbiased observer and researcher - I will not recommend them for anything other than lining my daughter's rabbit cage and another reason to limit the amount of time my children watch television.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Tired of the future
How far have we come? Not very far if you ask me. What am I talking about? What ever happened to keeping your word? Standing up for what you believe in? Standing up for those that can't stand up for themselves?
When I was growing up, my parents along with their neighbors taught us to honor your word. Keep your commitments, respect each other and above all understand that you are part of something larger. With the current political situation in the United States it is obvious that the lessons of yesterday have been thrown out the window.
After watching the debates last night and listening to the morning after quarterbacks - either I did not watch the same debate, or I am living in an alternate universe. Neither candidate is clean in this election. They have both been a part of the failed economic decisions that have brought the financial crisis on the world. Yet, they both claim to have done something in the past that should have averted it. Mr. Obama - sending a letter to a chairman DOES NOTHING. If you really believed what you wrote a year and a half ago - why didn't you do something as senator? Mr. McCain - if the Republicans held congress when you signed on to the bill that went down in defeat - WHY COULDN'T YOU GET IT PASSED? Failure to lead is failure to act!
The facts are the facts. The corruption in Washington brought us to this point. Yes, greed on Wall Street played a part, but it is the underhanded actions of the Washington insiders that started this ball rolling. Once moving in a direction they wanted - they were all too willing to support whatever promoted their cause. Now, they want to place the blame on President Bush and anyone who ever voted in support of one of his policies. Well, I hate to break the news to you but for as many failures as the Bush administration has had you can't pile this crisis on them.
This started long ago with well-intentioned individuals trying to bring the American dream to those that were less fortunate. While admirable, it only goes to show the law of unintended consequences is alive and well. Lowering the barrier to home ownership is looking out for the little guy (or girl). Forcing institutions to make risky loans was the wrong approach to take. Now, piling on to those that were told to do it and found a way to make money in the process (which is the goal of business in the first place) is down right immoral.
Stand up for what you believe in! Work towards solutions that help everyone instead of pitting groups against each other! Take the blame for what you did ... or did not do! Honor your words and actions if you want us to support your future plans!
When I was growing up, my parents along with their neighbors taught us to honor your word. Keep your commitments, respect each other and above all understand that you are part of something larger. With the current political situation in the United States it is obvious that the lessons of yesterday have been thrown out the window.
After watching the debates last night and listening to the morning after quarterbacks - either I did not watch the same debate, or I am living in an alternate universe. Neither candidate is clean in this election. They have both been a part of the failed economic decisions that have brought the financial crisis on the world. Yet, they both claim to have done something in the past that should have averted it. Mr. Obama - sending a letter to a chairman DOES NOTHING. If you really believed what you wrote a year and a half ago - why didn't you do something as senator? Mr. McCain - if the Republicans held congress when you signed on to the bill that went down in defeat - WHY COULDN'T YOU GET IT PASSED? Failure to lead is failure to act!
The facts are the facts. The corruption in Washington brought us to this point. Yes, greed on Wall Street played a part, but it is the underhanded actions of the Washington insiders that started this ball rolling. Once moving in a direction they wanted - they were all too willing to support whatever promoted their cause. Now, they want to place the blame on President Bush and anyone who ever voted in support of one of his policies. Well, I hate to break the news to you but for as many failures as the Bush administration has had you can't pile this crisis on them.
This started long ago with well-intentioned individuals trying to bring the American dream to those that were less fortunate. While admirable, it only goes to show the law of unintended consequences is alive and well. Lowering the barrier to home ownership is looking out for the little guy (or girl). Forcing institutions to make risky loans was the wrong approach to take. Now, piling on to those that were told to do it and found a way to make money in the process (which is the goal of business in the first place) is down right immoral.
Stand up for what you believe in! Work towards solutions that help everyone instead of pitting groups against each other! Take the blame for what you did ... or did not do! Honor your words and actions if you want us to support your future plans!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
