One of the more hotly debated topics in the country these days is whether or not legislation should be passed, making English the official language of the United States. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 47 million people age 5 and over, or 18% of our entire population, spoke a language other than English at home (1). With almost 1 out of every 5 Americans speaking another language at home, some are concerned with the long-term consequences if our country keeps heading in its current direction. For the sake of each individual, as well as the benefit of the nation as a whole, it is imperative that we make English the official language of the United States.
Those who are against English becoming the official language of the U.S. have many reasons for believing so. In a letter written regarding making English the official language in Brown County, Wisconsin, Micabil Diaz-Martinez of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) states that passing this legislation would violate the rights of non-English speaking Americans. In his words:
The ACLU opposes proposed Constitutional amendments or legislation which will characterize English as the official language of the United States or any state or local jurisdiction therein to the extent that such amendments or legislation would mandate or encourage the erosion of or have the effect of eroding the rights of language minority persons. The ACLU believes English-only laws that make English the "official" language of government and particularly those which broadly restrict the government's ability to use languages other than English in communicating and delivering services to non-English speaking Americans, violate civil rights and liberties. (2)
How does it violate civil rights and liberties? First, Diaz-Martinez writes that “by restricting the government's ability to communicate with and provide services to non-English speaking Americans, many of whom are children and elderly citizens, English-only laws deny fair and equal access to government.” Diaz-Martinez also states that “English-only laws are based on assumptions predicated on false and disparaging stereotypes about today's immigrants. Thus, they foster anti-immigrant bigotry and intolerance and exacerbate ethnic tensions” (2).
While I understand the concern regarding government communicating with its citizens, sometimes we just need to use common sense. According to some estimates, there are as many as 300 different languages being spoken in the United States (3). There is no way we can expect our government to print legal documents or just be able to readily communicate with all these people. While this may be an extreme example, we can even look at some of the more common languages spoken. The 2000 U.S. Census asked respondents if they spoke a language other than English at home and, if so, which one. There were twelve non-English languages that had over 500,000 people claim that was the language they spoke at home (including over 28 million Spanish) (1). Is it realistic that our government must cater to all of these people who speak another language? Should our government be responsible for printing legal documents in Portuguese, Arabic, Russian, Vietnamese, etc.?
I believe the answer is simple. There is no way our government can appease every individual. We can’t pick and choose some languages, like Spanish, that will get preferential treatment. It’s a slippery slope. Passing legislation to make English the official language would actually solve the problem. Only then will everyone be clear as to what is expected, English. And in order to function in society and be able to communicate with government, everyone should speak it. It is then, and only then, that no one would be denied “fair and equal access to government.”
As for Diaz-Martinez’s assertion that English-only laws “foster anti-immigrant bigotry and intolerance and exacerbate ethnic tensions,” I think nothing could be further from the truth. Just like his last argument, I believe the exact opposite is true. The truth is bigotry and intolerance does exist. Yet I would argue that it is because they are not speaking English.
Let’s look at history as our example. Most people look at all “white” people as the same. But that was not always the case. When the Irish, Polish, and Germans came to the United States, they were seen as lazy, dirty, and basically classless by the “native” English and French. Over time, that went away. Why? All were unified by their language. And all were considered American. A law encouraging all citizens to speak English would speed up the process, and make all people in our country feel united as Americans.
Passing legislation to make English the official language of the U.S. would not be an unprecedented move by our country. Most countries have an official language (4). And many that have different languages, especially in if they’re spoken in different areas of the country, run into problems with communication and elitism by one or more of the groups (see: Africa).
Another thing to consider is if the role was reversed. Sometimes it’s easy to be hypocritical and have expectations for others, yet have different rules if it applies to you. But here that is definitely not the case. I put myself in those shoes. What if I moved to France for work? Would I be so egotistical that I demand that everyone speak to me in English? That signs and papers be written in English so it would be convenient for me? No. I would expect to learn French, and I’d try to do it rather quickly to make it easier on myself. And I would do it because I would be there for a reason. I would be grateful for the opportunity the country was offering, and my goal would be to try to blend in to their society.
One last thing to consider is the sectionalism that is happening in this country. For the first 100 or so years of this country, our country was divided, while not literally the whole time, between North and South. Even before the Civil War, it was divided because they had different needs and ideals. Manufacturing in the North, farming in the South. Slavery in the South, not in the North. At this time, people’s loyalties lied more with their region than their country. And frankly I am concerned that at some point down the road the Southwest United States will decide that they have a different language, a different society, and different needs than the rest of the country. This is not a section of New York City, or Dearborn, MI. It’s an entire chunk of our country. Will it end up in secession and war? I can’t claim I know, but I believe it’s a real concern.
In the end, the idea that we shouldn’t pass legislation to make English the official language is about being politically correct. It’s about people making you believe that if you want English as the official language, you are anti-immigrant and/or racist. This couldn’t be further from reality. Encouraging all to become fluent in English is to their benefit. It will be easier to find a job, communicate with others, and altogether assimilate into society. But more importantly, it’s better for the country. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices for the greater good. And learning the language that most people in the country speak, is not too much to ask.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Is the GOP listening?
Click title to link to article:
"ALBANY, N.Y. – Fighting plunging support, Republican Dierdre Scozzafava abruptly suspended her campaign Saturday in the 23rd Congressional District special election that has exposed a rift among national factions of the party."
"The announcement comes after a Siena College poll found she was in third place with 20 percent of the vote in the heavily Republican district that has been safe ground for the party for more than 100 years. Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman and Democratic nominee Bill Owens were too close to call with 35 percent and 36 percent, respectively."
Scozzafava was a Republican In Name Only (RINO). Her voting record says she's more liberal than most Democrats. And the people could see through that.
Newt Gingrich supported Scozzafava, saying:
“I just think it is a mistake for the conservative movement to think splitting in the special election is a smart idea,” Gingrich said. “If we give that seat to the Democrats, shame on us.”
Well I say shame on you Gingrich. The people want a conservative, and the GOP are not listening to their base. Didn't they figure it out when we didn't come out and vote for McCain?
This is great news for the conservatives. Maybe they're listening now.
"ALBANY, N.Y. – Fighting plunging support, Republican Dierdre Scozzafava abruptly suspended her campaign Saturday in the 23rd Congressional District special election that has exposed a rift among national factions of the party."
"The announcement comes after a Siena College poll found she was in third place with 20 percent of the vote in the heavily Republican district that has been safe ground for the party for more than 100 years. Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman and Democratic nominee Bill Owens were too close to call with 35 percent and 36 percent, respectively."
Scozzafava was a Republican In Name Only (RINO). Her voting record says she's more liberal than most Democrats. And the people could see through that.
Newt Gingrich supported Scozzafava, saying:
“I just think it is a mistake for the conservative movement to think splitting in the special election is a smart idea,” Gingrich said. “If we give that seat to the Democrats, shame on us.”
Well I say shame on you Gingrich. The people want a conservative, and the GOP are not listening to their base. Didn't they figure it out when we didn't come out and vote for McCain?
This is great news for the conservatives. Maybe they're listening now.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Liberals and our School System
Recently there's been discussion on how to increase education and scores in the U.S. (again...). Obama and other liberals think the answer is more school. Longer hours. Clearly, more government involvement.
But when you look at the top countries in the world, like Japan and South Korea, there's one thing the libs are ignoring.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/2…
They still are CONSERVATIVE in their values. They value hard work and education.
They understand the importance of having two parents in the home, evidence by their low divorce rate. They actually SACRIFICE for the sake of their children. Noble thought, huh?
http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/sta…
Teenage pregnancy (births and abortions) are low because they value life and marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pre…
The answer is simple. Two parents in the home. Morals. Values.
So are liberals blind to this, or they don't care because their selfish agenda is more important?
But when you look at the top countries in the world, like Japan and South Korea, there's one thing the libs are ignoring.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/2…
They still are CONSERVATIVE in their values. They value hard work and education.
They understand the importance of having two parents in the home, evidence by their low divorce rate. They actually SACRIFICE for the sake of their children. Noble thought, huh?
http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/sta…
Teenage pregnancy (births and abortions) are low because they value life and marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pre…
The answer is simple. Two parents in the home. Morals. Values.
So are liberals blind to this, or they don't care because their selfish agenda is more important?
Friday, September 18, 2009
I wonder if this has anything to do with health care costs?
Researchers from the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston compared the results of two large-scale surveys of the U.S. population regarding adherence to five healthy lifestyle habits.
According to their findings (click title to link to article), between 1988 and 2006:
The percentage of obese adults between 40 and 74 (determined by body mass index of 30 or higher) increased from 28% to 36%, reinforcing findings of many studies indicating Americans are getting fatter.
Physical activity 12 times or more per month among people in that age group declined from 53% to 43%.
Smoking rates remained essentially flat, going from 26.9% to 26.1%.
Those people eating five or more fruits and vegetables daily dropped from 42% to 26%.
Moderate alcohol use increased from 40% to 51%. Moderate use was defined as having up to one drink daily for women and two for men.
I keep hearing about our life expectancy compared to other countries. That if our health care was so great, we'd be the healthiest country in the world. It's very easy to blame "the big bad insurance companies" or the "wealthy doctors," but isn't the real problem us? Aren't insurance prices soaring because, not only do we cover all the uninsured ER visits, but the rise in costs to take care of the "smoke, drink, and eat bacon double cheeseburgers" society we live in?
According to their findings (click title to link to article), between 1988 and 2006:
The percentage of obese adults between 40 and 74 (determined by body mass index of 30 or higher) increased from 28% to 36%, reinforcing findings of many studies indicating Americans are getting fatter.
Physical activity 12 times or more per month among people in that age group declined from 53% to 43%.
Smoking rates remained essentially flat, going from 26.9% to 26.1%.
Those people eating five or more fruits and vegetables daily dropped from 42% to 26%.
Moderate alcohol use increased from 40% to 51%. Moderate use was defined as having up to one drink daily for women and two for men.
I keep hearing about our life expectancy compared to other countries. That if our health care was so great, we'd be the healthiest country in the world. It's very easy to blame "the big bad insurance companies" or the "wealthy doctors," but isn't the real problem us? Aren't insurance prices soaring because, not only do we cover all the uninsured ER visits, but the rise in costs to take care of the "smoke, drink, and eat bacon double cheeseburgers" society we live in?
Anger in Politics
The first thing I'll say is that it definitely seems as if it's gone too far. There really seems to be no middle ground.
What I don't get are the Democrats who "can't believe" the conservative Right would use rhetoric like "Hitler" and "Fascist" and "Socialism."
Politics has always been divisive. But it was in fact the Democrats who took it to a whole new level during the Bush Administration. As a matter of fact, these were the first times the "Fascist" and "Hitler" terms started being tossed around.
They mocked his speeches. They booed at the State of the Union. They sang "nana nana, hey hey, goodbye" at the Obama inauguration.
So while of course it doesn't make it right to do, isn't it the Democrats that took classlessness to a whole new level in politics, and Republicans are just giving it back? The Democrats created the current political climate that they're suddenly shocked by.
What I don't get are the Democrats who "can't believe" the conservative Right would use rhetoric like "Hitler" and "Fascist" and "Socialism."
Politics has always been divisive. But it was in fact the Democrats who took it to a whole new level during the Bush Administration. As a matter of fact, these were the first times the "Fascist" and "Hitler" terms started being tossed around.
They mocked his speeches. They booed at the State of the Union. They sang "nana nana, hey hey, goodbye" at the Obama inauguration.
So while of course it doesn't make it right to do, isn't it the Democrats that took classlessness to a whole new level in politics, and Republicans are just giving it back? The Democrats created the current political climate that they're suddenly shocked by.
Friday, September 11, 2009
What is the real Health Care Crisis?
We've heard the numbers thrown around. 50 million. 47 million. Last time Obama talked, he said 30 million.
I found a good article that breaks down the actual numbers (click on title to link to full article).
"A closer look at that report reveals the Census data include 9.487 million people who are “not a citizen.” Subtracting the 10 million non-Americans, the number of uninsured Americans falls to roughly 37 million."
"Many of the same people pushing the incorrect numbers of uninsured Americans also claim that these people cannot “afford” insurance."
"But according to the same Census report, there are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. That’s roughly 17 million people who ought to be able to “afford” health insurance because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326."
"So what is the true extent of the uninsured “crisis?” The Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit frequently quoted by the media, puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 13.9 million and 8.2 million."
So ultimately we're talking about roughly 10 million. And how many of those are uninsured for 6 months, say between jobs?
That being said, I have no problem coming up with a solution to help those in need. But do we need over 1,000 pages of bureaucracy? And do we need to continue to lie about how many are uninsured and can't afford it? Let's put away the "guilt" that the democrats love and try to solve a problem that leaves roughly 10 million Americans uninsured.
I found a good article that breaks down the actual numbers (click on title to link to full article).
"A closer look at that report reveals the Census data include 9.487 million people who are “not a citizen.” Subtracting the 10 million non-Americans, the number of uninsured Americans falls to roughly 37 million."
"Many of the same people pushing the incorrect numbers of uninsured Americans also claim that these people cannot “afford” insurance."
"But according to the same Census report, there are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. That’s roughly 17 million people who ought to be able to “afford” health insurance because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326."
"So what is the true extent of the uninsured “crisis?” The Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit frequently quoted by the media, puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 13.9 million and 8.2 million."
So ultimately we're talking about roughly 10 million. And how many of those are uninsured for 6 months, say between jobs?
That being said, I have no problem coming up with a solution to help those in need. But do we need over 1,000 pages of bureaucracy? And do we need to continue to lie about how many are uninsured and can't afford it? Let's put away the "guilt" that the democrats love and try to solve a problem that leaves roughly 10 million Americans uninsured.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Change and Transparency
How often did we hear about "change" and "transparency" from Obama leading up to the 2008 election? And while he promised both, and many sorry saps fell for it, it looks like he will deliver on neither.
Despite his promise that the stimulus plan would be transparent and free of politics, it appears that once again special interests and lobbying groups will be the ones who benefit. According to this AP article (click link to read):
•A sleepy Montana checkpoint along the Canadian border that sees about three travelers a day will get $15 million under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan. A government priority list ranked the project as marginal, but two powerful Democratic senators persuaded the administration to make it happen.
• A border station in Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's home state of Arizona is getting $199 million, five times more than any other border station. The busy Nogales checkpoint has required repairs for years but was not rated among the neediest projects on the master list reviewed by the AP. Napolitano credited her lobbying as Arizona governor for getting the project near the front of the line for funding under the Bush administration. All it needed was money, which the stimulus provided.
• A checkpoint in Laredo, Texas, which serves more than 55,000 travelers and 4,200 trucks a day, is rated among the government's highest priorities but was passed over for stimulus money.
• The Westhope, N.D., checkpoint, which serves about 73 people a day and is among the lowest-priority projects, is set to get nearly $15 million for renovations.
• Whitetail project, which involves building a border station the size and cost of a Hollywood mansion, benefited from two key allies, Montana Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester. Both pressed Napolitano to finance projects in their state. Tester's office boasted of that effort in an April news release, crediting Baucus and his seat at the head of the "powerful Senate Finance Committee."
Unfortunately the only response any Democrat would have for this is the old "Bush did it too." My pointing this out has nothing to do with Democrat v. Republican. It's that all politicians are more interested in the rich lobbying groups than those who vote them in. Yes, even your precious Democrats who are "for the people." And even your precious Obama, who many believed was different, and that he would bring "change." Looks like politics as usual, in the White House. Except this time it's gonna triple the debt.
Despite his promise that the stimulus plan would be transparent and free of politics, it appears that once again special interests and lobbying groups will be the ones who benefit. According to this AP article (click link to read):
•A sleepy Montana checkpoint along the Canadian border that sees about three travelers a day will get $15 million under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan. A government priority list ranked the project as marginal, but two powerful Democratic senators persuaded the administration to make it happen.
• A border station in Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's home state of Arizona is getting $199 million, five times more than any other border station. The busy Nogales checkpoint has required repairs for years but was not rated among the neediest projects on the master list reviewed by the AP. Napolitano credited her lobbying as Arizona governor for getting the project near the front of the line for funding under the Bush administration. All it needed was money, which the stimulus provided.
• A checkpoint in Laredo, Texas, which serves more than 55,000 travelers and 4,200 trucks a day, is rated among the government's highest priorities but was passed over for stimulus money.
• The Westhope, N.D., checkpoint, which serves about 73 people a day and is among the lowest-priority projects, is set to get nearly $15 million for renovations.
• Whitetail project, which involves building a border station the size and cost of a Hollywood mansion, benefited from two key allies, Montana Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester. Both pressed Napolitano to finance projects in their state. Tester's office boasted of that effort in an April news release, crediting Baucus and his seat at the head of the "powerful Senate Finance Committee."
Unfortunately the only response any Democrat would have for this is the old "Bush did it too." My pointing this out has nothing to do with Democrat v. Republican. It's that all politicians are more interested in the rich lobbying groups than those who vote them in. Yes, even your precious Democrats who are "for the people." And even your precious Obama, who many believed was different, and that he would bring "change." Looks like politics as usual, in the White House. Except this time it's gonna triple the debt.
3-D ultrasounds banned in Connecticut
With all the hub-bub about health care, this news got little attention earlier this year. And many might think this is of little consequence. But this is a big deal.
"Gov. M. Jodi Rell has signed a bill that bars anyone from performing ultrasounds on pregnant women unless a doctor orders them for medical or diagnostic purposes."
Seems to make at least a little sense at first glance. But there are a couple issues with it. First, making it illegal is a bit much? If you'd like to attempt to regulate these places that offer "keepsake" ultrasounds, maybe. But banning them?
Maybe they could be harmful though, right? According to webmd,
"A prenatal ultrasound test uses high-frequency sound waves, inaudible to the human ear, that are transmitted through the abdomen via a device called a transducer to look at the inside of the abdomen. With prenatal ultrasound, the echoes are recorded and transformed into video or photographic images of your baby. Studies have shown ultrasound is not hazardous. There are no harmful side effects to you or your baby. In addition, ultrasound does not use radiation, as X-ray tests do"
So ultrasounds just use sound waves and have never been shown to have any effects on the mother or the baby. So why the ban?
In 2005, a bill was introduced in the Illinois General Assembly to ban ultrasounds unless ordered by doctor. Guess who was behind the bill? Planned Parenthood, of course. The largest pro-abortion group in the country claimed to be concerned about the mother and the baby. I wonder if anyone told Planned Parenthood that abortion is much more harmful to the mother and the baby than an ultrasound is?
Truth is, this news that slipped through is a win for pro-abortion groups. A survey conducted by Focus on the Family in 2003 indicated that 79 percent of abortion-minded mothers changed their minds after viewing their baby’s ultrasound. These 3-D ultrasounds show features of the baby and disspell the myth that the baby is "just a clump of cells."
A loss in the war to defend the unborn child. We must do more to let our liberal politicians know that this is unacceptable.
"Gov. M. Jodi Rell has signed a bill that bars anyone from performing ultrasounds on pregnant women unless a doctor orders them for medical or diagnostic purposes."
Seems to make at least a little sense at first glance. But there are a couple issues with it. First, making it illegal is a bit much? If you'd like to attempt to regulate these places that offer "keepsake" ultrasounds, maybe. But banning them?
Maybe they could be harmful though, right? According to webmd,
"A prenatal ultrasound test uses high-frequency sound waves, inaudible to the human ear, that are transmitted through the abdomen via a device called a transducer to look at the inside of the abdomen. With prenatal ultrasound, the echoes are recorded and transformed into video or photographic images of your baby. Studies have shown ultrasound is not hazardous. There are no harmful side effects to you or your baby. In addition, ultrasound does not use radiation, as X-ray tests do"
So ultrasounds just use sound waves and have never been shown to have any effects on the mother or the baby. So why the ban?
In 2005, a bill was introduced in the Illinois General Assembly to ban ultrasounds unless ordered by doctor. Guess who was behind the bill? Planned Parenthood, of course. The largest pro-abortion group in the country claimed to be concerned about the mother and the baby. I wonder if anyone told Planned Parenthood that abortion is much more harmful to the mother and the baby than an ultrasound is?
Truth is, this news that slipped through is a win for pro-abortion groups. A survey conducted by Focus on the Family in 2003 indicated that 79 percent of abortion-minded mothers changed their minds after viewing their baby’s ultrasound. These 3-D ultrasounds show features of the baby and disspell the myth that the baby is "just a clump of cells."
A loss in the war to defend the unborn child. We must do more to let our liberal politicians know that this is unacceptable.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Bill Maher and I have something in common!
As a matter of fact, it may be two things.
Very recently, Maher took some heat for saying something to the affect of "American people are stupid." When it comes to politics, I tend to agree. Now his reasoning was that people may actually vote for Sarah Palin. I, on the other hand, would point to the "Democrats" in Harlem that were interviewed on the Howard Stern Show. Before the election, the show went around asking people who they were voting for. When they inevitably responded, "Obama," they were asked if they agreed with his policies, but used McCain's policies. Like if they were okay with him having a female as a Vice Presidential Candidate, or if they supported his Pro-Life stance. Of course, they were. Here's the link. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5p3OB6roAg
I'd also point to the countless people who believe that a woman killing her baby is a "choice," or that the people that believe "words speak louder than actions." You know, like welfare is good, and the Democrats are "for the people" and for the minorities, when looking at the facts says otherwise. But I guess, in principal, we agree.
I also agree with him on one other topic. The other night he said on the Tonight Show (w/Conan) that there needs to be a Progressive Party. That would be for all the Leftwing nut jobs who hate America and think we need to appease all foreign countries, that hate religion, and hate the rich and think if you have a lot the government should take it from you to take care of those who they apparently don't have enough respect for to think that they could take care of themselves. People like Maher, Janeane Garofalo, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi,and Barack Obama. While of course I would have no part of it, the idea of a strong 3 party system is a good one. Currently in the U.S., when asked what people consider themselves politically, the breakdown is about:
Conservative: 35%
Moderate: 45%
Liberal: 20%
With the two party system we have in place now, what happens is this: Republicans, knowing they won't lose many conservatives, try to appeal to the moderates to try to win an election. Democrats, knowing they won't lose many liberals, try to appeal to the moderates to try to win an election. So you've got two parties that aren't very different. Both try to appeal to the middle, meaning the very conservative and very liberal are many times happy with neither.
If we were able to employ a strong 3 party system, people would have choices. The Progressive Party could cater to the liberals, the Democrats would be the moderates, and the Republicans could then actually follow their ideologies. And better yet, extreme liberals like Obama would have little chance of being elected at all. A win, win for everyone!
Very recently, Maher took some heat for saying something to the affect of "American people are stupid." When it comes to politics, I tend to agree. Now his reasoning was that people may actually vote for Sarah Palin. I, on the other hand, would point to the "Democrats" in Harlem that were interviewed on the Howard Stern Show. Before the election, the show went around asking people who they were voting for. When they inevitably responded, "Obama," they were asked if they agreed with his policies, but used McCain's policies. Like if they were okay with him having a female as a Vice Presidential Candidate, or if they supported his Pro-Life stance. Of course, they were. Here's the link. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5p3OB6roAg
I'd also point to the countless people who believe that a woman killing her baby is a "choice," or that the people that believe "words speak louder than actions." You know, like welfare is good, and the Democrats are "for the people" and for the minorities, when looking at the facts says otherwise. But I guess, in principal, we agree.
I also agree with him on one other topic. The other night he said on the Tonight Show (w/Conan) that there needs to be a Progressive Party. That would be for all the Leftwing nut jobs who hate America and think we need to appease all foreign countries, that hate religion, and hate the rich and think if you have a lot the government should take it from you to take care of those who they apparently don't have enough respect for to think that they could take care of themselves. People like Maher, Janeane Garofalo, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi,and Barack Obama. While of course I would have no part of it, the idea of a strong 3 party system is a good one. Currently in the U.S., when asked what people consider themselves politically, the breakdown is about:
Conservative: 35%
Moderate: 45%
Liberal: 20%
With the two party system we have in place now, what happens is this: Republicans, knowing they won't lose many conservatives, try to appeal to the moderates to try to win an election. Democrats, knowing they won't lose many liberals, try to appeal to the moderates to try to win an election. So you've got two parties that aren't very different. Both try to appeal to the middle, meaning the very conservative and very liberal are many times happy with neither.
If we were able to employ a strong 3 party system, people would have choices. The Progressive Party could cater to the liberals, the Democrats would be the moderates, and the Republicans could then actually follow their ideologies. And better yet, extreme liberals like Obama would have little chance of being elected at all. A win, win for everyone!
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Thank you, President Obama.....for proving our point.
“UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.” -- Barack Obama, Aug. 11, 2009
A friend sent me this article (click on link). Here are some quotes:
"The only way the post office can stay in business is its government subsidy. The USPS lost $2.4 billion in the quarter ended in June and projects a net loss of $7 billion in fiscal 2009, outstanding debt of more than $10 billion and a cash shortfall of $1 billion. It was moved to intensive care -- the Government Accountability Office’s list of “high risk” cases - - last month and told to shape up."
"When Obama compared the post office to UPS and FedEx, he was clearly hoping to assuage voter concerns about a public health-care option undercutting and eliminating private insurance.
What he did instead was conjure up visions of long lines and interminable waits. Why do we need or want a health-care system that works like the post office?
What’s more, if the USPS is struggling to compete with private companies, as Obama implied, why introduce a government health-care option that would operate at the same disadvantage?"
"But back to our storyline. Everyone makes a mistake or flubs a line when asked questions on the spot, including the president of the United States. We can overlook run-on sentences, subject and verb tense disagreement, even a memory lapse when it comes to facts and figures.
The proliferation of Obama’s gaffes and non sequiturs on health care has exceeded the allowable limit. He has failed repeatedly to explain how the government will provide more (health care) for less (money). He has failed to explain why increased demand for medical services without a concomitant increase in supply won’t lead to rationing by government bureaucrats as opposed to the market. And he has failed to explain why a Medicare-like model is desirable when Medicare itself is going broke.
The public is left with one of two unsettling conclusions: Either the president doesn’t understand the health-insurance reform plans working their way through Congress, or he understands both the plans and the implications and is being untruthful about the impact."
So I'd like to again thank Mr. President for giving the best example as to why so many are opposed to government run health care.
A friend sent me this article (click on link). Here are some quotes:
"The only way the post office can stay in business is its government subsidy. The USPS lost $2.4 billion in the quarter ended in June and projects a net loss of $7 billion in fiscal 2009, outstanding debt of more than $10 billion and a cash shortfall of $1 billion. It was moved to intensive care -- the Government Accountability Office’s list of “high risk” cases - - last month and told to shape up."
"When Obama compared the post office to UPS and FedEx, he was clearly hoping to assuage voter concerns about a public health-care option undercutting and eliminating private insurance.
What he did instead was conjure up visions of long lines and interminable waits. Why do we need or want a health-care system that works like the post office?
What’s more, if the USPS is struggling to compete with private companies, as Obama implied, why introduce a government health-care option that would operate at the same disadvantage?"
"But back to our storyline. Everyone makes a mistake or flubs a line when asked questions on the spot, including the president of the United States. We can overlook run-on sentences, subject and verb tense disagreement, even a memory lapse when it comes to facts and figures.
The proliferation of Obama’s gaffes and non sequiturs on health care has exceeded the allowable limit. He has failed repeatedly to explain how the government will provide more (health care) for less (money). He has failed to explain why increased demand for medical services without a concomitant increase in supply won’t lead to rationing by government bureaucrats as opposed to the market. And he has failed to explain why a Medicare-like model is desirable when Medicare itself is going broke.
The public is left with one of two unsettling conclusions: Either the president doesn’t understand the health-insurance reform plans working their way through Congress, or he understands both the plans and the implications and is being untruthful about the impact."
So I'd like to again thank Mr. President for giving the best example as to why so many are opposed to government run health care.
Kennedy asks for speedy replacement
Wow. Some politicians have no shame. This article (click on title) is about the very ill Edward Kennedy. The first paragraph reads:
"A cancer-stricken Sen. Edward M. Kennedy has asked Massachusetts leaders to change state law to allow a speedy replacement if it becomes necessary for him to surrender his seat, fearing a months-long vacancy would deny Democrats a crucial vote on President Barack Obama's health care overhaul."
Okay. So it's a very self-serving reason. But it gets better. The law is there because of the Democrats. This, also from the article:
"Kennedy's letter acknowledges the state changed its succession law in 2004 to require a special election within five months to fill any vacancy. At the time, legislative Democrats — with a wide majority in both chambers — were concerned because then-Republican Gov. Mitt Romney had the power to directly fill any vacancy created as Democratic Sen. John Kerry ran for president."
So when it served their needs, the Democrats wanted the law there so Republican Mitt Romney could not quickly add a replacement. But now that it's Edward Kennedy, he'd like that law off the books so he could quickly add a Democrat. Classic.
"A cancer-stricken Sen. Edward M. Kennedy has asked Massachusetts leaders to change state law to allow a speedy replacement if it becomes necessary for him to surrender his seat, fearing a months-long vacancy would deny Democrats a crucial vote on President Barack Obama's health care overhaul."
Okay. So it's a very self-serving reason. But it gets better. The law is there because of the Democrats. This, also from the article:
"Kennedy's letter acknowledges the state changed its succession law in 2004 to require a special election within five months to fill any vacancy. At the time, legislative Democrats — with a wide majority in both chambers — were concerned because then-Republican Gov. Mitt Romney had the power to directly fill any vacancy created as Democratic Sen. John Kerry ran for president."
So when it served their needs, the Democrats wanted the law there so Republican Mitt Romney could not quickly add a replacement. But now that it's Edward Kennedy, he'd like that law off the books so he could quickly add a Democrat. Classic.
How Obama got elected
Many of us who follow politics are not suprised at what we are seeing from the Obama administration only 8 months in. If you listened to what he was saying before the election, you would not be shocked. In just about all he said, he showed that, if elected, he would be one of, if not the most, extreme liberal President ever elected.
But many didn't listen that intently. Many heard "we need Change." Or the "Audacity of Hope." And they felt good about changing direction after President George W. Bush, without considering what direction that might be. And, let's be honest, a lot of people felt great about electing a minority President for the first time ever. I think many white people felt good about voting for Obama because they could tell themselves and the world that they're not racist. Whether you like it or not, that race thing still hangs over people's heads. As you saw with the conflict between an arresting officer in Cambridge, Mass. and a Harvard professor, any conflict that happens to be between a white person and a black person is blamed on race. And unfortunately our President, instead of doing the whole country some good and saying something like "We need to stop looking at the race of people every time there's a conflict. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said that we should "judge a man not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character." And that goes both ways.
But instead, Obama said, with little information, that it was clear the "police acted stupidly." Many thought electing our first minority President would help bring the country together. I guess Obama has other plans.
But anyways, back to the topic at hand. Even many liberal democrats, especially Hillary Clinton supporters, will tell you that the media fell in love with Barack Obama during the primaries and up through the election. While it’s okay for the nation to fall in love with a particular candidate, it is downright irresponsible for the mainstream media to do so, failing to do it’s job of providing information to the people. And don't get me wrong, I'm not in support of the "Fairness Doctrine." I have no problem having a Fox News for the conservatives and an MSNBC for the liberals. But you have to go actively search out those channels on cable. I'm talking about the ABC, NBC, CBS, channels that are watched by the masses.
One of the big questions leading up to the 2008 election was the relative inexperience of Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Obama served only 36 months as Senator from Illinois, while Palin was only elected Governor of Alaska in November of 2006. While I’d much rather have an inexperienced Vice President than an inexperienced President with no executive experience, I thought the concerns were legitimate. And when I tuned in to ABC’s Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin, it was clear he thought he should ask the tough questions the people wanted to know. Excellent! Here’s the questions, taken right from the excerpts of the Gibson-Palin interview from Sept. 11, 2008:
• Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say "I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?"
• And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"
• Didn't that take some hubris?
• But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?
• I know. I'm just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.
• Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?
• Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
• I'm talking about somebody who's a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?
• You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?
Wow. It almost seems as if he’s trying to embarrass her. Asking her if it was arrogant of her to accept the nomination, and asking her questions he knows the answers to but wants her to admit on television. Tough. But that’s okay. Because the people need to be educated on who they’re voting for. So these questions needed to be asked. The problem is less than a month later Gibson interviewed Obama and was not quite as tough. But don’t let me tell you. You be the judge. Here are Gibson’s questions to Obama, taken from the Gibson-Obama interview from Oct. 8, 2008:
• We've talked to a lot of people as we've traveled around the Midwest. One woman in Dayton said to me, if either one of these guys could tell me succinctly, simply, how they're going to get us out of this mess, that guy would win. It's still to be won. And she said neither has, and it seems as if neither can.
• Somebody else said to us where's the passion in these guys. Where's the anger? People that lost trillions of dollars in their stock accounts, in their pension plans, in their 401(k)s. You said out there at this rally fear and panic cannot pervade us.
• And yet fear does right now. And people look to leaders to turn that around or to counter that.
• You also said at this rally we need new direction, we need new leadership in Washington. What would you be doing right now that's any different than what the Bush Administration has done and is doing?
• That's puts you in a position -- that puts you in a position of essentially saying trust me. I'm a 47-year-old guy with one term in the Senate.
• You got to put your faith in me.
• Change the subject for a moment. John McCain has unloaded on you in the last 72, 96 hours as has Sarah Palin. McCain is saying, essentially, we don't know who Barack Obama is, where he came from. I'm an open book, he's not.
• Were you surprised, A, that he didn't bring it up last night at the debate and use that line of attack? And, B, since you must have prepared for it, what were you going to say?
• And, finally, she's come at you, Sarah Palin has come at you because of the Bill Ayers connection.
What happened to our hard-hitting reporter with all the tough questions? Wouldn't the people want to know if Obama was experienced enough? If he knew enough about international affairs? If it took some "hubris" to accept the Democratic nomination? If he had ever met a foreign head of state? Not only does he not ask them, Gibson even says McCain and Palin “unloaded” and “attacked” Obama, and gives him an opportunity to answer questions that he didn’t get to answer “last night at the debate.” Care to take a guess which way Charlie Gibson from ABC “News” leans?
I think it's very clear that Obama's executive inexperience is already showing. Look at health care. He tries to pass through a 1,000 page health care reform before congress goes home in August. He's getting extreme pressure from the American people at town hall meetings, so now his cabinet is floating out there that the "public" option may not be necessary. Now his own liberal Democrats are threatening to vote against him if the "public" option is not included. He is clearly not leading at this point.
Being a history teacher, I see my job similar to the media in many ways. I have an audience, my students. My job is to present the facts, on both sides, and encourage my students to use all of the information they have to make an informed decision. In early U.S. History I teach that Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson had two very different views of the role of government. But I don’t teach the one I like the most. I teach both, and ask the students to explain who they believe and why. When I teach the electoral college, I produce the positives and negatives and let the students decide. I present the facts and let my audience make an informed decision. This should be the role of the media, but clearly it’s not.
The problem is, many people get their information from television, and wrongfully assume that they are getting all of the information they need to make an informed decision. And of course, they’re not. I am not saying that if everyone educated themselves than they would be conservative. I know there are liberals out there that truly believe that there way is correct. What I am saying is that it is flat out misleading to let the media get away with this blatant favoritism, and I do believe that people should be given all the facts and be allowed to make an educated decision on their own. Not just the facts that make the liberal media feel right.
But many didn't listen that intently. Many heard "we need Change." Or the "Audacity of Hope." And they felt good about changing direction after President George W. Bush, without considering what direction that might be. And, let's be honest, a lot of people felt great about electing a minority President for the first time ever. I think many white people felt good about voting for Obama because they could tell themselves and the world that they're not racist. Whether you like it or not, that race thing still hangs over people's heads. As you saw with the conflict between an arresting officer in Cambridge, Mass. and a Harvard professor, any conflict that happens to be between a white person and a black person is blamed on race. And unfortunately our President, instead of doing the whole country some good and saying something like "We need to stop looking at the race of people every time there's a conflict. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said that we should "judge a man not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character." And that goes both ways.
But instead, Obama said, with little information, that it was clear the "police acted stupidly." Many thought electing our first minority President would help bring the country together. I guess Obama has other plans.
But anyways, back to the topic at hand. Even many liberal democrats, especially Hillary Clinton supporters, will tell you that the media fell in love with Barack Obama during the primaries and up through the election. While it’s okay for the nation to fall in love with a particular candidate, it is downright irresponsible for the mainstream media to do so, failing to do it’s job of providing information to the people. And don't get me wrong, I'm not in support of the "Fairness Doctrine." I have no problem having a Fox News for the conservatives and an MSNBC for the liberals. But you have to go actively search out those channels on cable. I'm talking about the ABC, NBC, CBS, channels that are watched by the masses.
One of the big questions leading up to the 2008 election was the relative inexperience of Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Obama served only 36 months as Senator from Illinois, while Palin was only elected Governor of Alaska in November of 2006. While I’d much rather have an inexperienced Vice President than an inexperienced President with no executive experience, I thought the concerns were legitimate. And when I tuned in to ABC’s Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin, it was clear he thought he should ask the tough questions the people wanted to know. Excellent! Here’s the questions, taken right from the excerpts of the Gibson-Palin interview from Sept. 11, 2008:
• Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say "I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?"
• And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"
• Didn't that take some hubris?
• But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?
• I know. I'm just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.
• Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?
• Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
• I'm talking about somebody who's a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?
• You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?
Wow. It almost seems as if he’s trying to embarrass her. Asking her if it was arrogant of her to accept the nomination, and asking her questions he knows the answers to but wants her to admit on television. Tough. But that’s okay. Because the people need to be educated on who they’re voting for. So these questions needed to be asked. The problem is less than a month later Gibson interviewed Obama and was not quite as tough. But don’t let me tell you. You be the judge. Here are Gibson’s questions to Obama, taken from the Gibson-Obama interview from Oct. 8, 2008:
• We've talked to a lot of people as we've traveled around the Midwest. One woman in Dayton said to me, if either one of these guys could tell me succinctly, simply, how they're going to get us out of this mess, that guy would win. It's still to be won. And she said neither has, and it seems as if neither can.
• Somebody else said to us where's the passion in these guys. Where's the anger? People that lost trillions of dollars in their stock accounts, in their pension plans, in their 401(k)s. You said out there at this rally fear and panic cannot pervade us.
• And yet fear does right now. And people look to leaders to turn that around or to counter that.
• You also said at this rally we need new direction, we need new leadership in Washington. What would you be doing right now that's any different than what the Bush Administration has done and is doing?
• That's puts you in a position -- that puts you in a position of essentially saying trust me. I'm a 47-year-old guy with one term in the Senate.
• You got to put your faith in me.
• Change the subject for a moment. John McCain has unloaded on you in the last 72, 96 hours as has Sarah Palin. McCain is saying, essentially, we don't know who Barack Obama is, where he came from. I'm an open book, he's not.
• Were you surprised, A, that he didn't bring it up last night at the debate and use that line of attack? And, B, since you must have prepared for it, what were you going to say?
• And, finally, she's come at you, Sarah Palin has come at you because of the Bill Ayers connection.
What happened to our hard-hitting reporter with all the tough questions? Wouldn't the people want to know if Obama was experienced enough? If he knew enough about international affairs? If it took some "hubris" to accept the Democratic nomination? If he had ever met a foreign head of state? Not only does he not ask them, Gibson even says McCain and Palin “unloaded” and “attacked” Obama, and gives him an opportunity to answer questions that he didn’t get to answer “last night at the debate.” Care to take a guess which way Charlie Gibson from ABC “News” leans?
I think it's very clear that Obama's executive inexperience is already showing. Look at health care. He tries to pass through a 1,000 page health care reform before congress goes home in August. He's getting extreme pressure from the American people at town hall meetings, so now his cabinet is floating out there that the "public" option may not be necessary. Now his own liberal Democrats are threatening to vote against him if the "public" option is not included. He is clearly not leading at this point.
Being a history teacher, I see my job similar to the media in many ways. I have an audience, my students. My job is to present the facts, on both sides, and encourage my students to use all of the information they have to make an informed decision. In early U.S. History I teach that Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson had two very different views of the role of government. But I don’t teach the one I like the most. I teach both, and ask the students to explain who they believe and why. When I teach the electoral college, I produce the positives and negatives and let the students decide. I present the facts and let my audience make an informed decision. This should be the role of the media, but clearly it’s not.
The problem is, many people get their information from television, and wrongfully assume that they are getting all of the information they need to make an informed decision. And of course, they’re not. I am not saying that if everyone educated themselves than they would be conservative. I know there are liberals out there that truly believe that there way is correct. What I am saying is that it is flat out misleading to let the media get away with this blatant favoritism, and I do believe that people should be given all the facts and be allowed to make an educated decision on their own. Not just the facts that make the liberal media feel right.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Democrats, party of the......rich and elite?
Yes, it's true. If you want to know you're talking politics with someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, let them spew the standard "Democrats are for guys like me, the working man, and Republicans are for the rich and the corporations." That has been said so much, it's assumed true. But let's look at the facts.
---See welfare statistics below. Welfare has done more harm than good, yet the poor, urban continue to vote Democrat.
---In 2002, A Washington Times editorial reported that "rich or deep-pocketed givers" supported the Democratic Party. By how much? Of the donations of $1 million dollars or more, $36 million went to the Democratic party. How much went to the Republicans? $3 million. Clearly, the rich and elite in this country favor the Democratic party, and by a 12:1 margin. (credit: Rush Limbaugh).
---The Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer (D-NY), blocked legislation to make hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as the rest of us (currently we pay up to 35%, while hedge fund managers pay only 15%). Why? According to Fortune Magazine, "these new Greenwich/Manhattan billionaires happen to be donors, friends and constituents of Democrats-not Republicans" (credit: Dick Morris/Eileen McGann in Book Fleeced.
---In the 2008 election, the highest financial demographic ($200,000+) voted for Obama (52%) according to CNN exit polls.
---The 10 wealthiest states (CNN, 2007), and how they voted:
Maryland...Obama
NJ.........Obama
Conn.......Obama
Hawaii.....Obama
Mass.......Obama
NH.........Obama
Alaska.....McCain
Cali.......Obama
Virginia...Obama
Minn.......Obama
---Okay, so you're thinking it was a landslide vote and many states voted Obama. Here are the 10 poorest states (CNN, 2007), and how they voted:
NM.........Obama
Montana....McCain
Tenn.......McCain
Kentucky...McCain
Louisiana..McCain
Alabama....McCain
Okla.......McCain
Ark........McCain
WV.........McCain
Miss.......McCain
---So 9 of the 10 wealthiest states voted Democrat, and 9 of the 10 poorest states voted Republican.
Looks like it's time, once again, to put away our perceptions and look at facts. Democrats, the party of the elite in our country.
And while both parties are filled with self-serving politicians, if there's a party of the "people," it's the Republican party.
---See welfare statistics below. Welfare has done more harm than good, yet the poor, urban continue to vote Democrat.
---In 2002, A Washington Times editorial reported that "rich or deep-pocketed givers" supported the Democratic Party. By how much? Of the donations of $1 million dollars or more, $36 million went to the Democratic party. How much went to the Republicans? $3 million. Clearly, the rich and elite in this country favor the Democratic party, and by a 12:1 margin. (credit: Rush Limbaugh).
---The Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer (D-NY), blocked legislation to make hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as the rest of us (currently we pay up to 35%, while hedge fund managers pay only 15%). Why? According to Fortune Magazine, "these new Greenwich/Manhattan billionaires happen to be donors, friends and constituents of Democrats-not Republicans" (credit: Dick Morris/Eileen McGann in Book Fleeced.
---In the 2008 election, the highest financial demographic ($200,000+) voted for Obama (52%) according to CNN exit polls.
---The 10 wealthiest states (CNN, 2007), and how they voted:
Maryland...Obama
NJ.........Obama
Conn.......Obama
Hawaii.....Obama
Mass.......Obama
NH.........Obama
Alaska.....McCain
Cali.......Obama
Virginia...Obama
Minn.......Obama
---Okay, so you're thinking it was a landslide vote and many states voted Obama. Here are the 10 poorest states (CNN, 2007), and how they voted:
NM.........Obama
Montana....McCain
Tenn.......McCain
Kentucky...McCain
Louisiana..McCain
Alabama....McCain
Okla.......McCain
Ark........McCain
WV.........McCain
Miss.......McCain
---So 9 of the 10 wealthiest states voted Democrat, and 9 of the 10 poorest states voted Republican.
Looks like it's time, once again, to put away our perceptions and look at facts. Democrats, the party of the elite in our country.
And while both parties are filled with self-serving politicians, if there's a party of the "people," it's the Republican party.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Breakdown of the "liberal"
Growing up in a blue-collar city just outside of Detroit and becoming a teacher, I have always known the liberal, union way. That doesn’t even include the message we are given from the “news.” The message I got growing up was as follows:
• If you’re a Republican, you are a rich elitist.
• If you are Democrat, you are for the middle class and poor. The “working man.”
• If you are not pro-welfare, you are a racist.
• If you are not pro-choice, you do not support women’s rights.
• If you are not for gay marriage, you are a homophobe.
And what came along with all of these messages was the guilt trip. My family was not well off by any means. My dad worked, my mom stayed home and raised four kids. They got divorced when I was still in elementary school, and both struggled for quite a few years before getting re-married. But still I was lead to believe that a compassionate person could not possibly disagree with any of these ideals.
Of course, I was also naive enough to believe that none of these affected me. Who am I to tell a woman what she can do with her body? Who am I to tell someone who they can and can’t marry? Who am I to think that because I may be lucky enough to find a job, that my taxes shouldn’t help those hard working people who can’t find work? Republicans were just the people who were well-off in the country and didn’t want to share with the rest of us. They believed that they had all the answers and believed they were better than “us.”
It wasn’t until I got married and became a teacher that I started to question these ideals. As a parent who tries to instill in my children values that will make them successful adults, and as a teacher who does the same with my students, it just wasn’t meshing with the value system I once thought I believed in. While I’m telling my kids and my students about:
• personal responsibility
• there are consequences to your actions
• hard work and perseverance pay off
I was voting for Democrats who believed just the opposite:
• The poor in this country are “victims” of the system and can’t do anything on their own. They need the government’s help.
• There are no consequences for your actions. If you make mistakes, we’ll clean up the mess for you.
What I realized is that liberalism is easy. It feels good. It makes people feel like they are helping each and every individual. What I also realized was that all of these “feel good” ideals have brought us to where we are today. A selfish society who thinks about themselves instead of the good of others. A lazy society which no longer values hard work and education. A society that holds no one responsible for their actions. A politically correct society that has trickled down into our school systems.
So that was me, before I started to think and educate myself. And I think many liberal Democrats are the same. But not all. Just like there are many types of conservatives (including some, I'm sure, that ARE rich and don't want to help the poor), there are different types of liberals. So I've attempted to break them down into categories.
The Naive/Uninformed- That was me. No need to go into much more description than what's written above. Everything sounds good. They don't educate themselves. Just kind of go with what sounds right, or what the media leads them to believe. Generally the youth (18-24) who want to see politics through rose colored glasses and don't realize that the Democrats are actually the party of the rich and elite now (more on that later). They don't realize that social programs actually do more harm than good.
The Victim- The benificiary of many of the social programs that liberals push. These are the people who think that they cannot control their own life. Everything that goes wrong is the fault of someone else. Women who make poor choices and do not hold men accountable (i.e. giving up the milk for free), then want to either abort the baby or have the government take care of him/her. Men who do not lead by example and show themselves and/or their family that hard work and education pay off. These are the parents of some students I've had who want to blame a teacher or school if their child is failing. Now of course the school is an integral part of student success. But the child must be taught to value hard work and education from his parents. Then, the student himself must take the initiative in school to pay attention in class, read, do his work, and learn. The teacher can make learning interesting, encourage the student further, and help develop those behaviors. But only if they’re there in the first place. Yet there’s no personal responsibility.
The Moral Elite- These are the people who like to let everyone know that their Democrats. Generally well-off, they like to think that they're better than others by "supporting" women and the poor. This person can be seen walking down the street in a rich area of town with an Obama t-shirt on and bumper sticker on his/her electric car, as to say "I get what's going on with global warning. And I'm not racist" (see: Hollywood). This makes him/her feel morally superior to some of his/her friends who happen to be conservative.
The Kennedy liberals- There is a large faction of “baby boomers” who have stayed Democrat (just watch the evening news). Why is this? My best guess is that it all goes back to the hero of all liberal heroes, John F. Kennedy. President Kennedy served as President from 1961 until 1963, when he was assassinated. This is precisely the time these baby boomers were young and impressionable themselves. And while the Bush-bashers of the last 8 years forget about the Vietnam mess we were in during the Kennedy years, many remember fondly on the Civil Right era that Kennedy presided over. What many also seem to forget, either through selective memory or because they don’t really care to know, is that Kennedy, like most politicians, was more concerned with getting votes than the Civil Rights Movement. That he backed away from trying to push any Civil Right laws on the fear that it would anger many Southern white Democrats (yes, Democrats). The same Kennedy administration agreed to allow the FBI to wiretap Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on the allegations that he was a communist. But these facts are irrelevant to some. The success of Civil Rights in the United States has been credited to Democrats and Kennedy. And who cares about facts?
So think for a minute about your liberal friend. Which category does he/she fall under?
• If you’re a Republican, you are a rich elitist.
• If you are Democrat, you are for the middle class and poor. The “working man.”
• If you are not pro-welfare, you are a racist.
• If you are not pro-choice, you do not support women’s rights.
• If you are not for gay marriage, you are a homophobe.
And what came along with all of these messages was the guilt trip. My family was not well off by any means. My dad worked, my mom stayed home and raised four kids. They got divorced when I was still in elementary school, and both struggled for quite a few years before getting re-married. But still I was lead to believe that a compassionate person could not possibly disagree with any of these ideals.
Of course, I was also naive enough to believe that none of these affected me. Who am I to tell a woman what she can do with her body? Who am I to tell someone who they can and can’t marry? Who am I to think that because I may be lucky enough to find a job, that my taxes shouldn’t help those hard working people who can’t find work? Republicans were just the people who were well-off in the country and didn’t want to share with the rest of us. They believed that they had all the answers and believed they were better than “us.”
It wasn’t until I got married and became a teacher that I started to question these ideals. As a parent who tries to instill in my children values that will make them successful adults, and as a teacher who does the same with my students, it just wasn’t meshing with the value system I once thought I believed in. While I’m telling my kids and my students about:
• personal responsibility
• there are consequences to your actions
• hard work and perseverance pay off
I was voting for Democrats who believed just the opposite:
• The poor in this country are “victims” of the system and can’t do anything on their own. They need the government’s help.
• There are no consequences for your actions. If you make mistakes, we’ll clean up the mess for you.
What I realized is that liberalism is easy. It feels good. It makes people feel like they are helping each and every individual. What I also realized was that all of these “feel good” ideals have brought us to where we are today. A selfish society who thinks about themselves instead of the good of others. A lazy society which no longer values hard work and education. A society that holds no one responsible for their actions. A politically correct society that has trickled down into our school systems.
So that was me, before I started to think and educate myself. And I think many liberal Democrats are the same. But not all. Just like there are many types of conservatives (including some, I'm sure, that ARE rich and don't want to help the poor), there are different types of liberals. So I've attempted to break them down into categories.
The Naive/Uninformed- That was me. No need to go into much more description than what's written above. Everything sounds good. They don't educate themselves. Just kind of go with what sounds right, or what the media leads them to believe. Generally the youth (18-24) who want to see politics through rose colored glasses and don't realize that the Democrats are actually the party of the rich and elite now (more on that later). They don't realize that social programs actually do more harm than good.
The Victim- The benificiary of many of the social programs that liberals push. These are the people who think that they cannot control their own life. Everything that goes wrong is the fault of someone else. Women who make poor choices and do not hold men accountable (i.e. giving up the milk for free), then want to either abort the baby or have the government take care of him/her. Men who do not lead by example and show themselves and/or their family that hard work and education pay off. These are the parents of some students I've had who want to blame a teacher or school if their child is failing. Now of course the school is an integral part of student success. But the child must be taught to value hard work and education from his parents. Then, the student himself must take the initiative in school to pay attention in class, read, do his work, and learn. The teacher can make learning interesting, encourage the student further, and help develop those behaviors. But only if they’re there in the first place. Yet there’s no personal responsibility.
The Moral Elite- These are the people who like to let everyone know that their Democrats. Generally well-off, they like to think that they're better than others by "supporting" women and the poor. This person can be seen walking down the street in a rich area of town with an Obama t-shirt on and bumper sticker on his/her electric car, as to say "I get what's going on with global warning. And I'm not racist" (see: Hollywood). This makes him/her feel morally superior to some of his/her friends who happen to be conservative.
The Kennedy liberals- There is a large faction of “baby boomers” who have stayed Democrat (just watch the evening news). Why is this? My best guess is that it all goes back to the hero of all liberal heroes, John F. Kennedy. President Kennedy served as President from 1961 until 1963, when he was assassinated. This is precisely the time these baby boomers were young and impressionable themselves. And while the Bush-bashers of the last 8 years forget about the Vietnam mess we were in during the Kennedy years, many remember fondly on the Civil Right era that Kennedy presided over. What many also seem to forget, either through selective memory or because they don’t really care to know, is that Kennedy, like most politicians, was more concerned with getting votes than the Civil Rights Movement. That he backed away from trying to push any Civil Right laws on the fear that it would anger many Southern white Democrats (yes, Democrats). The same Kennedy administration agreed to allow the FBI to wiretap Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on the allegations that he was a communist. But these facts are irrelevant to some. The success of Civil Rights in the United States has been credited to Democrats and Kennedy. And who cares about facts?
So think for a minute about your liberal friend. Which category does he/she fall under?
Friday, August 14, 2009
Britons defend their health care from U.S. criticism
Interesting article on Yahoo! about how Britons are "outraged" about criticism of their health care (click title to link to article). Looks great for libs, unless you actually read the whole article. Buried in the last paragraph is this little tidbit of information:
"British officials acknowledge that their system has been struggling to cope and faces a 15 billion pound ($24 billion) deficit. Hospitals are often overcrowded, dirty and understaffed, which means some patients do not get the care they are promised."
So other than all of the things conservatives are worried about, like increased debt, rationing of service, and a downgrade in quality, it's perfect! Why would people be upset?
EDIT: It appears the article has changed to say "Doctors and nurses warn..."
"British officials acknowledge that their system has been struggling to cope and faces a 15 billion pound ($24 billion) deficit. Hospitals are often overcrowded, dirty and understaffed, which means some patients do not get the care they are promised."
So other than all of the things conservatives are worried about, like increased debt, rationing of service, and a downgrade in quality, it's perfect! Why would people be upset?
EDIT: It appears the article has changed to say "Doctors and nurses warn..."
Thursday, August 13, 2009
The poison that is the Welfare State
As a compassionate person, I must admit I’ve struggled with the idea of the welfare state. I mean, the rich in the country live very well. Why shouldn’t they pay taxes and give some money to programs that help the poor? It’s eventually in their best interest as well, right? Less crime, less poverty. Isn’t that what’s in the best interest of the country as a whole? What I’ve realized is that not only is not in the best interest of the country as a whole, it’s not even in the best interest of the people who “benefit” from these social programs. And this is where conservatism gets twisted. I don’t believe “I worked hard for what I have and if you didn’t, you get what you deserve.” I not only believe, but I know, that welfare is actually bad not only for America, but for the poor who collect welfare. It does nothing to instill any values that will help these people long term. It does not value hard work or education. It actually perpetuates poverty.
What if I told you the rules of my classroom were as follows: No one gets a grade lower than a C-. Ever. You may work hard and get an A, but those people who earn As have the most points in my class, so I’ll take some of the points they’ve earned and give them to those students who “need” them the most. So those points will boost up the lower kids into the C- range. I don’t want a kid to fail. Who could argue with this? Only hateful elitists, probably A+ students themselves, who don’t want to help others. See where I’m going here?
While there may be some fruitcakes who praise this because all the kids will feel good about themselves, most of you would think this was ridiculous. What’s wrong with it? Well for starters, there would be very little incentive to work hard in my class. Some students who were raised to work hard still would, but there’d be a general lack of effort among many in the class. What about the students who have to work to get a C-, while others are given a C-? Fair? Of course not.
How about as a parent? Do liberal ideas work there? I guess it depends. You have an adult child who can’t hold a job, and is constantly in need of money, has to continually move back in with mom and dad, and still spends money irresponsibly. I think all of us would try to help our child. As a parent, do you continue to give money to your child, or do you eventually cut that child off, knowing that in the long run it is in the best interest of your child that he/she learns responsibility and learns to stand on his/her own two feet. I don’t think anyone would doubt that in these examples, both parents love their child. But most would agree that teaching someone how to succeed on their own is best. As the saying goes; Give a man a fish, and he’ll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he’ll eat for a lifetime.
I don’t believe that liberals are evil. I just think they come up with a lot of answers to problems, without considering the long-term ramifications. Are these simplistic examples that don’t show all aspects of the welfare debate? Admittedly. But there’s no question for the most part, these examples go hand in hand and show exactly what we are doing to our poor people in this country.
POVERTY
Let's look at the poor in America. While I am not trying to minimize what some poor people in America have to go through, especially our homeless, let’s be realistic. Even the poorest in our country live better than many in the world, especially in places like Africa and Asia. About 1% of children in the United States suffer from chronic malnutrition, in comparison to 50% of children in southeast Asia. About two-thirds of all the malnourished children in the world are in Asia, with another one-fourth in Africa. So in these places, handouts are necessary. They’re necessary to keep people alive. But even in these places there is concern and criticism because eventually the handouts run out, and the people who need help are in the exact same spot they were before. The poor in the United States are not dying of starvation. They are generally able to get clean water, food, and shelter. So we can bypass the “handouts” that don’t work anyways, and skip right to the next step. The step where we actually get these people working, educate them, and allow them to live self-fulfilling, productive lives on their own. Yet we refuse to do it. We keep them in the cycle of poverty.
In Robert Rector’s paper How Poor are America’s Poor? Examining the “Plague” of Poverty in America.” In it, Rector looked at the conditions of who the government deemed to “poor.” He found that part of the problem seems to be expectations. “Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.” Some other facts he found:
• Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
• Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
• Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
• The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
• Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
• Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
• Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
• Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Rector goes on to say, “Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs.”
But probably most telling is that “In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year—the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year— nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.”
CRIME AND WELFARE
When our welfare program was first started, many believed that welfare would help rid the country of crime and poverty in our country. “People rob and kill because they have little” was the thought. If the government were to set up a program where these people were taken care of, they would have no reason to commit crimes. And truthfully I don’t blame people for believing this at the time. It seems like an overly optimistic, yet plausible goal. But to believe it now is just plain foolish. Again, let’s forget about what we “think” or how we “feel.” Let’s look at the facts.
The United States had just lived through the “Lawless Years,” roughly the 1920s until the early 1930s. There is no doubt that it is more than just coincidence that this time coincides with prohibition, the 18th Amendment which banned liquor in the United States. The Amendment was ratified in 1919 and put into law one year after ratification. And while it prohibited the manufacture, sale, and transportation of liquor, it also created an underground culture of blind pigs (illegal bars which sold alcohol), bootlegging, smuggling, and organized crime. In 1933 the 21st Amendment was passed, repealing the 18th Amendment. Since the repeal of the ban on alcohol coincided with the start of welfare, you could effectively argue that either made the difference in the drop of crime rate afterwards. So I looked at the U.S. Crime rate over a 47 year period from 1960 to 2007.
According to the crime statistics gather by the Disaster Center, crime has fluctuated throughout this time, but hasn’t gotten better and for the most part gotten worse.
Since 1960 murder and burglary are up, forcible rape has tripled, and robbery has more than doubled, per capita. So while there have been many changes over the last almost half century, one constant has been our welfare system. There is no way you can look at the statistics and come away thinking welfare is somehow limiting crime. And while in no way am I claiming welfare actually causes crime, I think that you could look at the statistics and reasonably argue that welfare may encourage crime because it gives many the notion that they are “owed” something. That you don’t have to work hard for what you get.
What if I told you the rules of my classroom were as follows: No one gets a grade lower than a C-. Ever. You may work hard and get an A, but those people who earn As have the most points in my class, so I’ll take some of the points they’ve earned and give them to those students who “need” them the most. So those points will boost up the lower kids into the C- range. I don’t want a kid to fail. Who could argue with this? Only hateful elitists, probably A+ students themselves, who don’t want to help others. See where I’m going here?
While there may be some fruitcakes who praise this because all the kids will feel good about themselves, most of you would think this was ridiculous. What’s wrong with it? Well for starters, there would be very little incentive to work hard in my class. Some students who were raised to work hard still would, but there’d be a general lack of effort among many in the class. What about the students who have to work to get a C-, while others are given a C-? Fair? Of course not.
How about as a parent? Do liberal ideas work there? I guess it depends. You have an adult child who can’t hold a job, and is constantly in need of money, has to continually move back in with mom and dad, and still spends money irresponsibly. I think all of us would try to help our child. As a parent, do you continue to give money to your child, or do you eventually cut that child off, knowing that in the long run it is in the best interest of your child that he/she learns responsibility and learns to stand on his/her own two feet. I don’t think anyone would doubt that in these examples, both parents love their child. But most would agree that teaching someone how to succeed on their own is best. As the saying goes; Give a man a fish, and he’ll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he’ll eat for a lifetime.
I don’t believe that liberals are evil. I just think they come up with a lot of answers to problems, without considering the long-term ramifications. Are these simplistic examples that don’t show all aspects of the welfare debate? Admittedly. But there’s no question for the most part, these examples go hand in hand and show exactly what we are doing to our poor people in this country.
POVERTY
Let's look at the poor in America. While I am not trying to minimize what some poor people in America have to go through, especially our homeless, let’s be realistic. Even the poorest in our country live better than many in the world, especially in places like Africa and Asia. About 1% of children in the United States suffer from chronic malnutrition, in comparison to 50% of children in southeast Asia. About two-thirds of all the malnourished children in the world are in Asia, with another one-fourth in Africa. So in these places, handouts are necessary. They’re necessary to keep people alive. But even in these places there is concern and criticism because eventually the handouts run out, and the people who need help are in the exact same spot they were before. The poor in the United States are not dying of starvation. They are generally able to get clean water, food, and shelter. So we can bypass the “handouts” that don’t work anyways, and skip right to the next step. The step where we actually get these people working, educate them, and allow them to live self-fulfilling, productive lives on their own. Yet we refuse to do it. We keep them in the cycle of poverty.
In Robert Rector’s paper How Poor are America’s Poor? Examining the “Plague” of Poverty in America.” In it, Rector looked at the conditions of who the government deemed to “poor.” He found that part of the problem seems to be expectations. “Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.” Some other facts he found:
• Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
• Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
• Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
• The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
• Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
• Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
• Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
• Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Rector goes on to say, “Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs.”
But probably most telling is that “In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year—the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year— nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.”
CRIME AND WELFARE
When our welfare program was first started, many believed that welfare would help rid the country of crime and poverty in our country. “People rob and kill because they have little” was the thought. If the government were to set up a program where these people were taken care of, they would have no reason to commit crimes. And truthfully I don’t blame people for believing this at the time. It seems like an overly optimistic, yet plausible goal. But to believe it now is just plain foolish. Again, let’s forget about what we “think” or how we “feel.” Let’s look at the facts.
The United States had just lived through the “Lawless Years,” roughly the 1920s until the early 1930s. There is no doubt that it is more than just coincidence that this time coincides with prohibition, the 18th Amendment which banned liquor in the United States. The Amendment was ratified in 1919 and put into law one year after ratification. And while it prohibited the manufacture, sale, and transportation of liquor, it also created an underground culture of blind pigs (illegal bars which sold alcohol), bootlegging, smuggling, and organized crime. In 1933 the 21st Amendment was passed, repealing the 18th Amendment. Since the repeal of the ban on alcohol coincided with the start of welfare, you could effectively argue that either made the difference in the drop of crime rate afterwards. So I looked at the U.S. Crime rate over a 47 year period from 1960 to 2007.
According to the crime statistics gather by the Disaster Center, crime has fluctuated throughout this time, but hasn’t gotten better and for the most part gotten worse.
Since 1960 murder and burglary are up, forcible rape has tripled, and robbery has more than doubled, per capita. So while there have been many changes over the last almost half century, one constant has been our welfare system. There is no way you can look at the statistics and come away thinking welfare is somehow limiting crime. And while in no way am I claiming welfare actually causes crime, I think that you could look at the statistics and reasonably argue that welfare may encourage crime because it gives many the notion that they are “owed” something. That you don’t have to work hard for what you get.
What's wrong with Socialism?
You will not see me label myself as affiliated to any political party. Republicans talk the talk, but generally are just politicians who don’t do much different than Democrats. Both are more interested in being elected than their political values, so they try to tow the middle as much as possible. One thing I do know. I am not a Democrat. Why? Because Democrats have adopted the socialistic ideas that are poisonous to America and everything that made this country the richest, most powerful nation in the world in roughly 150 years. A very short time, historically speaking.
What is socialism? According to Merriam-Webster dictionary:
socialism- (n.) any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
And this is exactly what liberals want to do. The government collects, in the form of taxes, and distributes as they see fit.
U.S. TAX SYSTEM
So what is the history of the tax system in the United States? Most know that one of the main reasons we fought for our independence from Great Britain was the feeling that the colonists were being unfairly taxed. During the early years of our country, there were times when the government tried to tax Americans, like in 1791 when Congress passed a tax on American-made whiskey. This was Alexander Hamilton’s plan to raise money to pay back the federal debt. This angered many and by 1794 fighting had broken out in what was called the Whiskey Rebellion. Many refused to pay the tax, and even tarred and feathered some of the tax collectors. Though the rebellion went away fairly quietly, it was clear that the people did not believe taxes were fair. It wasn’t until the late 1790s, with America close to war with France, that the government passed the first direct taxes on the owners of houses, land, slaves, and estates. These direct taxes were abolished shortly after when Thomas Jefferson was elected President.
Taxes were needed again when the Civil War broke out. In 1862, a two-tiered tax structure was put in place. Those with income up to $10,000 were taxed at 3 percent, and those with higher incomes were taxed at a 5 percent rate. The need for Federal revenue declined sharply after the war and most taxes were repealed. By 1868, the main source of Government revenue derived from liquor and tobacco taxes. The income tax was abolished in 1872.
The 16th Amendment was passed by Congress July 2, 1909. By 1913, 36 states had ratified the 16th Amendment and in October, Congress passed a new income tax law. According to the U.S. Department of Treasury, the rates began at 1 percent, rising to 7 percent for those with incomes of over $500,000.
So where are we today? After Reagan lowered taxes, Clinton raised them again. First in 1990, setting the highest tax bracket at 31 percent and then again in 1993, raising the top tax bracket to 36 percent with a 10 percent surcharge, which effectively put that top bracket at 39.6 percent. Bush passed through the Economic Growth and Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2001 which brought the top bracket back down to 33 percent. While tax breaks like this are looked at by many as “tax cuts for the rich” and “Republicans looking out for corporations and not the common man,” let’s look at who it is who pays these taxes according to 2006 tax records provided by the IRS:
Percentiles Ranked by
Adjusted Gross Income Adjusted Gross Income
Threshold on Percentiles Percentage of Federal
Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%.....$388,806.....39.89%
Top 5%.....$153,542.....60.14%
Top 10%....$108,904.....70.79%
Top 25%....$64,702......86.27%
Top 50%....$31,987......97.01%
Bottom 50% Less than $31,987...2.99%
So when the top 1 percent of the country pays 40 percent of the taxes, and the top 50 percent pay 97 percent of the taxes, who else would get the tax breaks? Many people look at the recession in the late 80s and during Bush’s Presidency and believe that shows you that tax cuts don’t work. Well the mistake these Presidents made was that they did not reduce spending enough. Government spends too much of our money on social programs that don’t work, like welfare. The key is cutting the wasteful spending by our government, therefore lessening the need to tax so heavily.
WHY NOT SOCIALISM?
It’s a fair question. The richest in our country live extremely well. Why shouldn’t they pay taxes to the country which allows them to acquire that much wealth? There are many reasons that as a country we should’ve learned by now, which teach us that this system, while sounding virtuous, doesn’t work.
First, our current system rewards idleness and punishes the hard working. What if I told my oldest son that if he graduated college and got a good, high paying job, that I would take 40% of his check to give to his sister? But if he wasn’t making much money, I wouldn’t take much at all from him, because he would need it. Sound like a way to encourage my son to work hard to become successful and achieve his goals? Of course not. Yet this is the message our government sends.
Second, this policy of taxing the rich (by both Democrats and Republicans) is counter-productive. Other than government jobs, the rich in the country are the ones who create jobs for the rest of us. Why would we create a hostile environment for job growth by taxing the rich heavily? To see an example of a country that figured it out, look to Ireland. As recent as the early 1990s, the Republic of Ireland was one of the poorer nations in Europe, plagued by poverty and emigration. The Irish government implemented several policies, including reducing government spending and reducing taxes. What happened after, sometimes referred to “Celtic Tiger,” is that businesses came flocking to Ireland, and the economy boomed. Currently, Ireland has the second highest per capita income of any country in the European Union, and fourth highest in the world based on the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita.
Thirdly, look at some of the problems Americans complain about. Companies “outsourcing” (moving jobs out of our country) and/or illegal immigrants coming over the border and working. What I’ll tell you is that we would have neither problem if it were not for government involvement and high tax rates. Why? Because people in Asia are doing the jobs that people in the U.S. refuse to do. And illegals from Mexico are coming over and doing jobs that people in the U.S. refuse to do. Instead of putting people to work, we let the wealthy take care of our poor, which has sapped the work ethic out of an entire percentage of our population.
Many people look at companies that move their jobs overseas as greedy and evil. And they do that not because people won’t work, but because they can get people in other countries to do the work for much less. Well once again, you can thank your liberal government for coming up with an idea that sounded good for the people, but has been devastating to our nation.
Minimum wage laws were first introduced in the U.S. nationally in 1938. The law prohibits employers from paying employees below a certain rate, which is set by the government and adjusted occasionally for inflation. The problem—it’s done more harm than good.
Almost universally, economists will tell you that minimum wage laws are bad for an economy. Jobs are based on supply and demand. If an employer were offering fifteen cents an hour to work, likely no one would apply. So he must set it at a rate in which people are willing to the job. And there are many jobs that aren’t worth companies paying minimum wage to get done. So what do they do? Ship their jobs overseas, where the job can get done at a rate that doesn’t hurt the company.
People need to work. Not only for monetary reasons. Working for something gives you a sense of pride. A sense of self-worth. Even if it’s sewing clothing or picking fruit, there’s something rewarding about working hard all week and collecting your paycheck at the end of the week. But that something is quickly going away here.
THE NEW DEAL
So what started the United States’ fascination with socialism? In our history books we have learned about the New Deal and how Franklin Roosevelt used government spending to create jobs, create a welfare system, and get the country out of the Great Depression. Sounded like a great plan. And truthfully I’m not sure anyone could’ve known what the long-term results would be. Welfare clearly hasn’t worked, but at least he was able to kick start the economy, right? Not so fast. There are economists who have done research and say that not only did the plan not work as intended, but it likely prolonged the Depression.
Harold L. Cole, a professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania, and Lee E. Ohanian, a professor of economics and director of the Ettinger Family Program in Macroeconomic Research at UCLA, wrote an article in the February 9, 2009 edition of the Wall Street Journal and point out the “facts do not support the perception that FDR’s policies shortened the Depression.” When they researched actual employment (total hours worked) from before FDR took office and comparing it with the end of the 1930s (near the end of the New Deal), total hours worked was still about 21 percent below their 1929 level.
In the U.S. there have always been economic recessions, always followed by economic booms. Why wasn’t the Depression followed by vigorous recovery? Cole and Ohanian calculated that “on the basis of just productivity growth that employment and investment should have been back to normal levels by 1936.” They’re not the only ones. Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas and Leonard Rapping calculated “on the basis of just expansionary Federal Reserve policy that the economy should have been back to normal by 1935.”
So what stopped the usual recovery from ever starting? FDR’s New Deal policies. Many of the policies were anti-market policies which “violated the most basic economic principles by suppressing competition, and setting prices and wages in many sectors way above their normal levels.”
But my point to liberals would be this. If you believe in government taxes to “share the wealth” by taxing the rich the highest because they have the most to help out those who don’t, than let’s do it. But don’t pretend to be righteous when you’re really being hypocritical. I mean let’s not just be snobby Americans. People are born all around the world in way worse situations than even the worst off in America. They don’t choose where they’re born. And Americans have luxuries that others will never have. So let’s share the wealth. All of us should get taxed somewhere between 90-95 percent of our income, with that tax money getting shipped to those who really need it. Third-world countries in Asia and Africa, where even a couple hundred dollars would equal years of salary. Because for those who want to tax the rich….it’s all relative. To much of the rest of the world, we’re all rich. So unless you believe Americans have more value than the lives of others, you’ll be on board.
What is socialism? According to Merriam-Webster dictionary:
socialism- (n.) any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
And this is exactly what liberals want to do. The government collects, in the form of taxes, and distributes as they see fit.
U.S. TAX SYSTEM
So what is the history of the tax system in the United States? Most know that one of the main reasons we fought for our independence from Great Britain was the feeling that the colonists were being unfairly taxed. During the early years of our country, there were times when the government tried to tax Americans, like in 1791 when Congress passed a tax on American-made whiskey. This was Alexander Hamilton’s plan to raise money to pay back the federal debt. This angered many and by 1794 fighting had broken out in what was called the Whiskey Rebellion. Many refused to pay the tax, and even tarred and feathered some of the tax collectors. Though the rebellion went away fairly quietly, it was clear that the people did not believe taxes were fair. It wasn’t until the late 1790s, with America close to war with France, that the government passed the first direct taxes on the owners of houses, land, slaves, and estates. These direct taxes were abolished shortly after when Thomas Jefferson was elected President.
Taxes were needed again when the Civil War broke out. In 1862, a two-tiered tax structure was put in place. Those with income up to $10,000 were taxed at 3 percent, and those with higher incomes were taxed at a 5 percent rate. The need for Federal revenue declined sharply after the war and most taxes were repealed. By 1868, the main source of Government revenue derived from liquor and tobacco taxes. The income tax was abolished in 1872.
The 16th Amendment was passed by Congress July 2, 1909. By 1913, 36 states had ratified the 16th Amendment and in October, Congress passed a new income tax law. According to the U.S. Department of Treasury, the rates began at 1 percent, rising to 7 percent for those with incomes of over $500,000.
So where are we today? After Reagan lowered taxes, Clinton raised them again. First in 1990, setting the highest tax bracket at 31 percent and then again in 1993, raising the top tax bracket to 36 percent with a 10 percent surcharge, which effectively put that top bracket at 39.6 percent. Bush passed through the Economic Growth and Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2001 which brought the top bracket back down to 33 percent. While tax breaks like this are looked at by many as “tax cuts for the rich” and “Republicans looking out for corporations and not the common man,” let’s look at who it is who pays these taxes according to 2006 tax records provided by the IRS:
Percentiles Ranked by
Adjusted Gross Income Adjusted Gross Income
Threshold on Percentiles Percentage of Federal
Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%.....$388,806.....39.89%
Top 5%.....$153,542.....60.14%
Top 10%....$108,904.....70.79%
Top 25%....$64,702......86.27%
Top 50%....$31,987......97.01%
Bottom 50% Less than $31,987...2.99%
So when the top 1 percent of the country pays 40 percent of the taxes, and the top 50 percent pay 97 percent of the taxes, who else would get the tax breaks? Many people look at the recession in the late 80s and during Bush’s Presidency and believe that shows you that tax cuts don’t work. Well the mistake these Presidents made was that they did not reduce spending enough. Government spends too much of our money on social programs that don’t work, like welfare. The key is cutting the wasteful spending by our government, therefore lessening the need to tax so heavily.
WHY NOT SOCIALISM?
It’s a fair question. The richest in our country live extremely well. Why shouldn’t they pay taxes to the country which allows them to acquire that much wealth? There are many reasons that as a country we should’ve learned by now, which teach us that this system, while sounding virtuous, doesn’t work.
First, our current system rewards idleness and punishes the hard working. What if I told my oldest son that if he graduated college and got a good, high paying job, that I would take 40% of his check to give to his sister? But if he wasn’t making much money, I wouldn’t take much at all from him, because he would need it. Sound like a way to encourage my son to work hard to become successful and achieve his goals? Of course not. Yet this is the message our government sends.
Second, this policy of taxing the rich (by both Democrats and Republicans) is counter-productive. Other than government jobs, the rich in the country are the ones who create jobs for the rest of us. Why would we create a hostile environment for job growth by taxing the rich heavily? To see an example of a country that figured it out, look to Ireland. As recent as the early 1990s, the Republic of Ireland was one of the poorer nations in Europe, plagued by poverty and emigration. The Irish government implemented several policies, including reducing government spending and reducing taxes. What happened after, sometimes referred to “Celtic Tiger,” is that businesses came flocking to Ireland, and the economy boomed. Currently, Ireland has the second highest per capita income of any country in the European Union, and fourth highest in the world based on the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita.
Thirdly, look at some of the problems Americans complain about. Companies “outsourcing” (moving jobs out of our country) and/or illegal immigrants coming over the border and working. What I’ll tell you is that we would have neither problem if it were not for government involvement and high tax rates. Why? Because people in Asia are doing the jobs that people in the U.S. refuse to do. And illegals from Mexico are coming over and doing jobs that people in the U.S. refuse to do. Instead of putting people to work, we let the wealthy take care of our poor, which has sapped the work ethic out of an entire percentage of our population.
Many people look at companies that move their jobs overseas as greedy and evil. And they do that not because people won’t work, but because they can get people in other countries to do the work for much less. Well once again, you can thank your liberal government for coming up with an idea that sounded good for the people, but has been devastating to our nation.
Minimum wage laws were first introduced in the U.S. nationally in 1938. The law prohibits employers from paying employees below a certain rate, which is set by the government and adjusted occasionally for inflation. The problem—it’s done more harm than good.
Almost universally, economists will tell you that minimum wage laws are bad for an economy. Jobs are based on supply and demand. If an employer were offering fifteen cents an hour to work, likely no one would apply. So he must set it at a rate in which people are willing to the job. And there are many jobs that aren’t worth companies paying minimum wage to get done. So what do they do? Ship their jobs overseas, where the job can get done at a rate that doesn’t hurt the company.
People need to work. Not only for monetary reasons. Working for something gives you a sense of pride. A sense of self-worth. Even if it’s sewing clothing or picking fruit, there’s something rewarding about working hard all week and collecting your paycheck at the end of the week. But that something is quickly going away here.
THE NEW DEAL
So what started the United States’ fascination with socialism? In our history books we have learned about the New Deal and how Franklin Roosevelt used government spending to create jobs, create a welfare system, and get the country out of the Great Depression. Sounded like a great plan. And truthfully I’m not sure anyone could’ve known what the long-term results would be. Welfare clearly hasn’t worked, but at least he was able to kick start the economy, right? Not so fast. There are economists who have done research and say that not only did the plan not work as intended, but it likely prolonged the Depression.
Harold L. Cole, a professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania, and Lee E. Ohanian, a professor of economics and director of the Ettinger Family Program in Macroeconomic Research at UCLA, wrote an article in the February 9, 2009 edition of the Wall Street Journal and point out the “facts do not support the perception that FDR’s policies shortened the Depression.” When they researched actual employment (total hours worked) from before FDR took office and comparing it with the end of the 1930s (near the end of the New Deal), total hours worked was still about 21 percent below their 1929 level.
In the U.S. there have always been economic recessions, always followed by economic booms. Why wasn’t the Depression followed by vigorous recovery? Cole and Ohanian calculated that “on the basis of just productivity growth that employment and investment should have been back to normal levels by 1936.” They’re not the only ones. Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas and Leonard Rapping calculated “on the basis of just expansionary Federal Reserve policy that the economy should have been back to normal by 1935.”
So what stopped the usual recovery from ever starting? FDR’s New Deal policies. Many of the policies were anti-market policies which “violated the most basic economic principles by suppressing competition, and setting prices and wages in many sectors way above their normal levels.”
But my point to liberals would be this. If you believe in government taxes to “share the wealth” by taxing the rich the highest because they have the most to help out those who don’t, than let’s do it. But don’t pretend to be righteous when you’re really being hypocritical. I mean let’s not just be snobby Americans. People are born all around the world in way worse situations than even the worst off in America. They don’t choose where they’re born. And Americans have luxuries that others will never have. So let’s share the wealth. All of us should get taxed somewhere between 90-95 percent of our income, with that tax money getting shipped to those who really need it. Third-world countries in Asia and Africa, where even a couple hundred dollars would equal years of salary. Because for those who want to tax the rich….it’s all relative. To much of the rest of the world, we’re all rich. So unless you believe Americans have more value than the lives of others, you’ll be on board.
George W. Bush.....the other side.
First was the 2000 election. In a tightly contested battle that came down to the electoral votes in Florida, Bush won by the slimmest of margins. And although he lost the popular vote, he won enough electoral votes and won the election. While it doesn’t happen often, it’s not like it’s never happened before. In fact, it was the fourth time in history that a Presidential candidate won the popular vote and lost the election. The others: John Quincy Adams, who lost the popular vote to Andrew Jackson in 1824 and tied in the electoral college, yet was voted into office by the House of Representatives, Rutherford B. Hayes, who lost the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden in 1876 but won the electoral college, and Benjamin Harrison, who lost the popular vote to Grover Cleveland in 1888 but won the electoral vote and the election. Now if you want to argue that the electoral college is an old, out-dated system that is an insult to American’s and their perceived ability to choose a President, that’s fine. But until it’s changed in the Constitution, it’s the system we have. News outlets everywhere were calling President-Select George Bush, as if he was placed there by some conspiracy. Many even pointed to the fact that his brother, Jeb Bush, who was Governor of Florida, as if he somehow cheated to get his brother in office (I’m not sure, but I don’t think Governors count votes).
Next was the criticism that Bush gave a no-bid contract to Halliburton for work in Iraq. Halliburton was run by Vice President Dick Cheney from 1995-2000. Looks like some good ‘ol favoritism by those Republicans and their corporate friends, right? What the news generally forgot to mention was that Halliburton was a great choice for this job because during the Clinton years Halliburton was given a no-bid contract for work in Kosovo. Vice President Al Gore even wrote a glowing report of how well they worked. Woops.
Well of course that didn’t matter anyways. The war wasn’t necessary. Bush lied to us all, because he wanted to get Saddam because his father never finished the job, right? Well I know a couple things about the war.
First, during the 2004 election, which was a tight race between Bush and Democrat John Kerry, those who were currently serving in the military supported Bush almost 4-to-1 according to a poll done by the USA Today. That’s when the war was much more popular though. Currently they are probably opposed to a Republican and “another four years”, right? Well in the 2008 election, a poll by the Military Times showed service members favored McCain by a 3-to-1 margin, even with 79 percent of the black military votes favoring Obama. Clearly they must believe in the war and their mission. Who am I to argue?
Second, weapons of mass destruction were never found in Iraq. It is assumed that because they weren’t there by the time the U.N. were done dragging their feet and we invaded, that Bush lied to push his own agenda. Well you or I do not have access to privileged information that might be available to our President, so we can only speculate. However, I would take the word of someone who had first-hand knowledge. And we’ve all heard of General Georges Sada, right? Former Iraqi General Sada wrote Saddam's Secrets. In it he states that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction prior to the U.S. invasion in 2003. He also states that Hussein ordered the WMD out of the country on several refitted commercial jets that flew to Syria. "Saddam realized, this time, the Americans are coming," Sada said about the former dictator in an interview with The New York Sun. "They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians." He also explains how close we may have been to World War III, as Hussein contemplated using these weapons against Israel. And he describes in detail the bribing and corruption of the U.N. officials who were pocketing millions themselves. Well of course most haven’t heard about this book. Because if the media shared his story, it would put a hole in all their theories about George Bush and the Republicans.
Thirdly, the war liberated the Iraqi people. It is not known exactly how many were murdered and tortured in Iraq during Saddam’s reign. But it is widely agreed that it was hundreds of thousands and likely more than one million. Those who claim that we are losing lives over there for no reason need a reality check. Too many people seem outraged when we lose American lives, yet don’t blink at the millions who are dying all over the world, especially in the Middle East and Africa. Living in a bubble and not worrying about the lives of others around the world is not so “righteous,” is it? The soldiers we’ve sent over there voluntarily signed up. And while no one wants to see anyone die, they are not dying in vain. They have freed the Iraqi people from tyranny. If you believe the lives of Americans have more value than the lives of other people around the world, then it is you with the problem.
Finally, during President George W. Bush’s Presidency, we have been safe. Under Bill Clinton the economy was great. But if you look at international terrorism, he was a complete and utter failure. The United States were repeated targets of Al-Qaeda during Clinton’s Presidency, attacking the World Trade Center in 1993, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, the attacks on two U.S. military barracks in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of two U.S. Embassies in Africa, and the attacks on the U.S. soldiers in Somalia. Al-Qaeda, and specifically Osama Bin Laden, declared a jihad, or holy war, against the U.S. in an interview in May of 1997. Larry Johnson, formerly with the CIA and the State Department, said he believes Clinton's weak response to the terrorist attacks that occurred during his presidency paved the way for the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. "The Clinton administration paid lip service to the notion of combating terrorism through some money added, but generally kept it as a very low priority," Johnson said.
Bush got aggressive. He knew that we had to fight back. He did what Clinton should have. Show the terrorists that America will fight back, and we will come and find you. Since September 11, 2001, while Bush was in office, there have been exactly zero terrorist attacks made against the United States.
What about the economy you say? During Bush’s final year in office, the housing market burst, forcing the values of homes to drop significantly and many homes to be foreclosed. While many blame Bush and the Republicans for this, let’s look at why this mess happened in the first place.
During the Clinton years, Clinton thought that every person should own a home. Like most liberal ideas, that sounds nice in theory. Sounds like the right thing to do. But like most of their economic ideas, it is a short-term solution that causes long-term problems. In 1995, Clinton added provisions to the Community Reinvestment Act (passed during the Carter years) that forced mortgage companies to issue $1 trillion in “sub-prime” loans. These were second-chance loans, or loans that went to people who were “less than prime” candidates. So many people who didn’t have the money or stability to purchase a home were now doing so. And others were taking advantage of these loans to purchase homes that were more expensive than they would normally be able to afford. See the trouble this might cause?
Vernon L. Smith is a professor of law and economics at George Mason University and the 2002 Nobel Laureate in economics. In an article in the December 17 edition of the Wall Street Journal, Smith says “Thank you President Bill Clinton for your 1997 action, applauded by the banks, the realtors and all citizens in search of half-millionaire status from an investment they could understand and self deceptively believe to be low risk; thank you for fueling the mother of all housing bubbles.” And in an article in BusinessWeek, Peter Coy writes about Clinton that “his administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes. It’s clear now that the erosion of lending standards pushed prices up by increasing demand, and later led to waves of defaults by people who never should have bought a home in the first place.” While you can argue that Bush didn’t do enough to stop the crash from happening, it’s clear that Clinton must shoulder some, if not most, of the blame.
If these last few paragraphs were the only information you had, you would probably think that Bush was a great President and Clinton was a horrible President. But really what I’m showing you is how bias works. This isn’t the portrait I expect the media to portray either. Clinton wasn’t all bad, but he did make what many consider some pretty sizable mistakes. I don’t think he did them with bad intentions. So why can’t we look at Bush the same way? Why can’t we hear about Bush’s successes, as clearly there were some. Bush is a two-term President who is constantly ridiculed for just about everything. From the way he handled the war in Iraq, to the economy, and even being mocked for the way he delivered speeches. I’m not claiming that Bush was the greatest President ever. He tripled the national debt, cutting taxes, but not reducing government spending. A terrible idea. But the man left the White House with a 38% approval rating. And that was up from 19% in February 2008. He was booed as he left Barack Obama’s Inauguration. The former President of the United States! Was Jimmy Carter booed by the conservatives at Reagan’s Inauguration? He was a pretty horrible President by most accounts, but I doubt it. Absolutely despicable, and an example of what can happen when people do not think for themselves, conduct their own research, and come to their own conclusions but instead rely on the newspaper and T.V. for all of their information
Next was the criticism that Bush gave a no-bid contract to Halliburton for work in Iraq. Halliburton was run by Vice President Dick Cheney from 1995-2000. Looks like some good ‘ol favoritism by those Republicans and their corporate friends, right? What the news generally forgot to mention was that Halliburton was a great choice for this job because during the Clinton years Halliburton was given a no-bid contract for work in Kosovo. Vice President Al Gore even wrote a glowing report of how well they worked. Woops.
Well of course that didn’t matter anyways. The war wasn’t necessary. Bush lied to us all, because he wanted to get Saddam because his father never finished the job, right? Well I know a couple things about the war.
First, during the 2004 election, which was a tight race between Bush and Democrat John Kerry, those who were currently serving in the military supported Bush almost 4-to-1 according to a poll done by the USA Today. That’s when the war was much more popular though. Currently they are probably opposed to a Republican and “another four years”, right? Well in the 2008 election, a poll by the Military Times showed service members favored McCain by a 3-to-1 margin, even with 79 percent of the black military votes favoring Obama. Clearly they must believe in the war and their mission. Who am I to argue?
Second, weapons of mass destruction were never found in Iraq. It is assumed that because they weren’t there by the time the U.N. were done dragging their feet and we invaded, that Bush lied to push his own agenda. Well you or I do not have access to privileged information that might be available to our President, so we can only speculate. However, I would take the word of someone who had first-hand knowledge. And we’ve all heard of General Georges Sada, right? Former Iraqi General Sada wrote Saddam's Secrets. In it he states that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction prior to the U.S. invasion in 2003. He also states that Hussein ordered the WMD out of the country on several refitted commercial jets that flew to Syria. "Saddam realized, this time, the Americans are coming," Sada said about the former dictator in an interview with The New York Sun. "They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians." He also explains how close we may have been to World War III, as Hussein contemplated using these weapons against Israel. And he describes in detail the bribing and corruption of the U.N. officials who were pocketing millions themselves. Well of course most haven’t heard about this book. Because if the media shared his story, it would put a hole in all their theories about George Bush and the Republicans.
Thirdly, the war liberated the Iraqi people. It is not known exactly how many were murdered and tortured in Iraq during Saddam’s reign. But it is widely agreed that it was hundreds of thousands and likely more than one million. Those who claim that we are losing lives over there for no reason need a reality check. Too many people seem outraged when we lose American lives, yet don’t blink at the millions who are dying all over the world, especially in the Middle East and Africa. Living in a bubble and not worrying about the lives of others around the world is not so “righteous,” is it? The soldiers we’ve sent over there voluntarily signed up. And while no one wants to see anyone die, they are not dying in vain. They have freed the Iraqi people from tyranny. If you believe the lives of Americans have more value than the lives of other people around the world, then it is you with the problem.
Finally, during President George W. Bush’s Presidency, we have been safe. Under Bill Clinton the economy was great. But if you look at international terrorism, he was a complete and utter failure. The United States were repeated targets of Al-Qaeda during Clinton’s Presidency, attacking the World Trade Center in 1993, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, the attacks on two U.S. military barracks in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of two U.S. Embassies in Africa, and the attacks on the U.S. soldiers in Somalia. Al-Qaeda, and specifically Osama Bin Laden, declared a jihad, or holy war, against the U.S. in an interview in May of 1997. Larry Johnson, formerly with the CIA and the State Department, said he believes Clinton's weak response to the terrorist attacks that occurred during his presidency paved the way for the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. "The Clinton administration paid lip service to the notion of combating terrorism through some money added, but generally kept it as a very low priority," Johnson said.
Bush got aggressive. He knew that we had to fight back. He did what Clinton should have. Show the terrorists that America will fight back, and we will come and find you. Since September 11, 2001, while Bush was in office, there have been exactly zero terrorist attacks made against the United States.
What about the economy you say? During Bush’s final year in office, the housing market burst, forcing the values of homes to drop significantly and many homes to be foreclosed. While many blame Bush and the Republicans for this, let’s look at why this mess happened in the first place.
During the Clinton years, Clinton thought that every person should own a home. Like most liberal ideas, that sounds nice in theory. Sounds like the right thing to do. But like most of their economic ideas, it is a short-term solution that causes long-term problems. In 1995, Clinton added provisions to the Community Reinvestment Act (passed during the Carter years) that forced mortgage companies to issue $1 trillion in “sub-prime” loans. These were second-chance loans, or loans that went to people who were “less than prime” candidates. So many people who didn’t have the money or stability to purchase a home were now doing so. And others were taking advantage of these loans to purchase homes that were more expensive than they would normally be able to afford. See the trouble this might cause?
Vernon L. Smith is a professor of law and economics at George Mason University and the 2002 Nobel Laureate in economics. In an article in the December 17 edition of the Wall Street Journal, Smith says “Thank you President Bill Clinton for your 1997 action, applauded by the banks, the realtors and all citizens in search of half-millionaire status from an investment they could understand and self deceptively believe to be low risk; thank you for fueling the mother of all housing bubbles.” And in an article in BusinessWeek, Peter Coy writes about Clinton that “his administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes. It’s clear now that the erosion of lending standards pushed prices up by increasing demand, and later led to waves of defaults by people who never should have bought a home in the first place.” While you can argue that Bush didn’t do enough to stop the crash from happening, it’s clear that Clinton must shoulder some, if not most, of the blame.
If these last few paragraphs were the only information you had, you would probably think that Bush was a great President and Clinton was a horrible President. But really what I’m showing you is how bias works. This isn’t the portrait I expect the media to portray either. Clinton wasn’t all bad, but he did make what many consider some pretty sizable mistakes. I don’t think he did them with bad intentions. So why can’t we look at Bush the same way? Why can’t we hear about Bush’s successes, as clearly there were some. Bush is a two-term President who is constantly ridiculed for just about everything. From the way he handled the war in Iraq, to the economy, and even being mocked for the way he delivered speeches. I’m not claiming that Bush was the greatest President ever. He tripled the national debt, cutting taxes, but not reducing government spending. A terrible idea. But the man left the White House with a 38% approval rating. And that was up from 19% in February 2008. He was booed as he left Barack Obama’s Inauguration. The former President of the United States! Was Jimmy Carter booed by the conservatives at Reagan’s Inauguration? He was a pretty horrible President by most accounts, but I doubt it. Absolutely despicable, and an example of what can happen when people do not think for themselves, conduct their own research, and come to their own conclusions but instead rely on the newspaper and T.V. for all of their information
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Race and voting- How the blacks are being hoodwinked.
Blacks in our country overwhelmingly vote Democrat. In the 2008 election, roughly 96% of black voters voted for Barack Obama. But it has very little to do with race. Over 90% of blacks were voting for Bill Clinton in the 1990s as well. It has to do with perception. The perception is that Democrats are the ones who want to help the black community. But what’s the truth? The black community has been hoodwinked. Many times by black leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Forget about what you think. How has welfare worked for the black community? Has it gotten people out of poverty, or has it created a cycle of poverty that has hurt all poor people, but especially black? And how about pro-abortion? Why is it that black women make up roughly 13% of the female population in the U.S., yet account for about 35% of all abortions? Ever notice where all the abortion clinics are located?
Living right next to Detroit my whole life (and considering myself a Detroiter, no matter what Martha Reeves thinks), it’s always pained me to see the crime and poverty that runs rampant there. Yet they seem to bring a lot of it on themselves, electing and re-electing corrupt mayors. So I was curious to see what Detroit had in common with other cities with high crime and/or poverty rates. So first I looked at the cities in the U.S. with the highest poverty rate according to the 2006 U.S. Census Bureau. My findings:
City % of people below poverty level Democrat or Republican Mayors
Detroit, MI......32.5.......Elected Democratic Mayors since 1961
Buffalo, NY......29.9.......Elected Democratic Mayors since 1954
Cincinnati, OH...27.8.......Elected Democratic Mayors since 1984
Cleveland, OH....27.0.......Elected Democratic Mayors since 1989
Miami, FL........26.9.......Has never elected a Republican Mayor
Skeptics might note that the top four cities listed are located in the “Rust Belt,” and the change of our economy is causing the poverty. But that does not entirely explain it when you have a city like Cincinnati, whose metropolitan area is currently home to ten Fortune 500 companies, ranking 6th in the U.S.
But to be fair, let’s look at the cities (pop. 500,000 or more) with the highest crime rate in the U.S. (Detroit happens to be #1 on both lists). The crime rankings factor in six different crimes as reported by the cities: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft.
City Democrat or Republican Mayor
Detroit, MI..........Elected Democratic Mayors since 1961
Baltimore, MD........Elected Democratic Mayors since 1967
Memphis, TN..........Elected Democrat Mayors for past 100 years
Washington, D.C......Elected Democratic Mayors since 1975
Philadelphia, PA.....Elected Democratic Mayors since 1952
Can you guess the demographics of these cities? Each city has a much higher percentage of blacks than the state they reside in. Buffalo, Cincinnati, and Philadelphia are the only cities that are under 50% black. Detroit is 80% black. Miami is 88% black and latino. Tell me again what Democrats are doing for minorities?
Now I can’t claim that these cities are full of crime and poverty because they vote Democrat. Because if it were all Republicans running these cities for all these years with absolutely no progress, I’d be asking the same questions. Why are people doing the same thing over and over again? Wouldn’t you try something new, just to see? Wouldn’t you demand change? It’s about accountability.
The people of these cities have made it known. We will vote Democrat. It doesn’t matter what you do. It doesn’t matter if you’re a crook, it doesn’t matter if you’re busted smoking a crack pipe, we will continue to vote Democrat. So these politicians have no reason to do what’s right, outside of their own morals, of course (ha!). And frankly if you continue to vote the exact same year after year and get the same results (or worse), than you get what you deserve.
Democratic politicians are like those parents that try to be the “cool parents.” Make decisions now based on what is popular, regardless of what is right. Regardless of the long-term consequences. You want to drop out of school? No problem, we’ll take care of you. You want to sleep around? No problem, we’ll take care of it. And many of us are sitting on the outside trying to be heard. You know this is not what’s best. You know this will do more harm than good, right? But just like those teenage kids drinking beers by the pool, many having a good time, enjoying the free ride, they don’t want to hear the truth.
Living right next to Detroit my whole life (and considering myself a Detroiter, no matter what Martha Reeves thinks), it’s always pained me to see the crime and poverty that runs rampant there. Yet they seem to bring a lot of it on themselves, electing and re-electing corrupt mayors. So I was curious to see what Detroit had in common with other cities with high crime and/or poverty rates. So first I looked at the cities in the U.S. with the highest poverty rate according to the 2006 U.S. Census Bureau. My findings:
City % of people below poverty level Democrat or Republican Mayors
Detroit, MI......32.5.......Elected Democratic Mayors since 1961
Buffalo, NY......29.9.......Elected Democratic Mayors since 1954
Cincinnati, OH...27.8.......Elected Democratic Mayors since 1984
Cleveland, OH....27.0.......Elected Democratic Mayors since 1989
Miami, FL........26.9.......Has never elected a Republican Mayor
Skeptics might note that the top four cities listed are located in the “Rust Belt,” and the change of our economy is causing the poverty. But that does not entirely explain it when you have a city like Cincinnati, whose metropolitan area is currently home to ten Fortune 500 companies, ranking 6th in the U.S.
But to be fair, let’s look at the cities (pop. 500,000 or more) with the highest crime rate in the U.S. (Detroit happens to be #1 on both lists). The crime rankings factor in six different crimes as reported by the cities: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft.
City Democrat or Republican Mayor
Detroit, MI..........Elected Democratic Mayors since 1961
Baltimore, MD........Elected Democratic Mayors since 1967
Memphis, TN..........Elected Democrat Mayors for past 100 years
Washington, D.C......Elected Democratic Mayors since 1975
Philadelphia, PA.....Elected Democratic Mayors since 1952
Can you guess the demographics of these cities? Each city has a much higher percentage of blacks than the state they reside in. Buffalo, Cincinnati, and Philadelphia are the only cities that are under 50% black. Detroit is 80% black. Miami is 88% black and latino. Tell me again what Democrats are doing for minorities?
Now I can’t claim that these cities are full of crime and poverty because they vote Democrat. Because if it were all Republicans running these cities for all these years with absolutely no progress, I’d be asking the same questions. Why are people doing the same thing over and over again? Wouldn’t you try something new, just to see? Wouldn’t you demand change? It’s about accountability.
The people of these cities have made it known. We will vote Democrat. It doesn’t matter what you do. It doesn’t matter if you’re a crook, it doesn’t matter if you’re busted smoking a crack pipe, we will continue to vote Democrat. So these politicians have no reason to do what’s right, outside of their own morals, of course (ha!). And frankly if you continue to vote the exact same year after year and get the same results (or worse), than you get what you deserve.
Democratic politicians are like those parents that try to be the “cool parents.” Make decisions now based on what is popular, regardless of what is right. Regardless of the long-term consequences. You want to drop out of school? No problem, we’ll take care of you. You want to sleep around? No problem, we’ll take care of it. And many of us are sitting on the outside trying to be heard. You know this is not what’s best. You know this will do more harm than good, right? But just like those teenage kids drinking beers by the pool, many having a good time, enjoying the free ride, they don’t want to hear the truth.
Abortion- Let's talk truths
While welfare is wrong and destructive to the human spirit, I understand how people can be fooled into thinking that it’s good. Abortion, on the other hand, is a liberal ideal I just can’t grasp as to why it has been aloud to be performed legally over the last 36 years. Americans look back in history at the horror of Hitler murdering 6 million Jews, blacks, handicapped, and others he felt were not worthy of life. We cringe when we hear stories of female infanticide in countries like India and China, where baby girls are purposely killed because males are preferred. Yet we foolishly have bought into the idea that if the baby isn’t out of the womb yet, the mother has the right to kill it if she pleases. And many don’t bat an eye at the over 40 million abortions that have been performed since 1973. There is no doubt in my mind that history books 100 years from now will wonder how such a “civilized” society could do something so barbaric.
EUGENICS
Eugenics, a term coined by Sir Francis Galton (half-cousin of Charles Darwin) in 1883, was defined as "the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations.” When people think of eugenics, many think of Nazi Germany and their systematic murder in order to create a Master Race. What many don’t know is that Hitler and the Germans became intrigued by this idea after hearing about the work that was being done in the United States. The sterilizing of those with “objectionable traits” in order to create a better, more productive society. Some of this work was being done by Margaret Sanger. Who is Sanger? Sanger was the founder of the American Birth Control League, which later became Planned Parenthood.
In the April 1932 Edition of Birth Control Review, Sanger’s “A Plan for Peace” was published. Her belief was that Congress needed to set up a special department for “population problems.” Among the main objectives she out lined for this department:
• to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.
• to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.
• to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
• to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.
• to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.
• to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.
So a liberal, women’s rights hero believed, much like Hitler, that it was in the best interest of the country that the United State should try to create a master race through sterilization. But instead of Jews, she wanted to effectively rid the country of the “feeble minded, idiots, morons, and epileptics.” And while she didn’t create gas chambers, she pushed for laws for “women’s rights” on “family planning.” That movement has dwarfed Hitler’s damage, with the death toll at 44 million+ and counting.
Abortion today is similar to the slavery debate 200 years ago. First, many choose to stay ignorant on the issue, pretend it doesn’t exist or it doesn’t affect them. Those who do personally oppose it, do nothing about it. I love this line, often used by politicians and now adopted by the general public as a way to skate around standing up for what’s right: “I don’t believe in it for myself, but it’s not my place to take that right away from other.” Is the exact same thing many whites in the North and South were saying during the debates over slavery. Instead of speaking out against a wrong, they responded like cowards. Many today do the same.
So what’s the major difference? People were able to visually see slavery. As difficult and horrible as slavery was, slaves were able to state their case (though they’d be beaten or killed for it). Slaves were able to revolt. With abortion, we don’t see the results. Unborn children can’t start an uprising. We can pretend it doesn’t happen. We can pretend it’s just a “clump of cells.” “Women’s rights” groups try to block the truths even from the women getting abortions. Like what it looks like, and what it will feel. The general public definitely is not aware. So these procedures are done quietly. Mostly in poor, urban areas.
It’s shocking to me any time I hear people argue for abortion. It’s never a well thought out, rational argument. It’s “keep your religion off my body,” or “Pro-lifers are hypocrites because they say they’re pro-life, but they’re for the death penalty,” or “Pro-lifers don’t want abortion, but they trash single mothers.” See what they do there? No reason for it. Only attacking the reasons against.
First, religion is not the only reason people are (or should be) against abortion. I’m opposed to murder. And that happens to be one of the Commandments. Does that mean this is a religious value, and should not be law? Separation of Church and State, right? I better be careful. I may have just given some lawyer an idea for a new lawsuit.
Secondly, I am actually opposed to the death penalty. But I’m not sure I could have a discussion with someone who couldn’t see that there might be a difference between putting to death a convicted murderer or serial rapist and the murder of an unborn child. Let alone the fact that over 40 million unborn babies have been sentenced to death, while less than 2,000 convicted criminals since 1976 have suffered the same fate.
Finally, most conservatives I know don’t trash single mothers either. But to ignore the obvious is dangerous. If you look at the statistics, the numbers are staggering. How many single mothers are on welfare, how many single mothers have kids who drop out of school, and how many prison inmates came from a home with a single mother. You can coddle them if you please, but it’s doing more harm than good. I’d rather look at a problem and try to solve it.
It’s a difficult thing to talk about. It’s definitely not a topic I enjoy writing about. But we can’t just go on ignoring the facts and not thinking about it. There is an innocent victim here. What we are doing is unjust and needs to be corrected. So let’s put to rest the debate over abortion. Here are the arguments for abortion, and why every single one is wrong:
• We can’t push our morals on other. In case people are unaware, all our laws are exactly that. There may be people who think murder is okay, stealing can be justified, and multiple wives is acceptable. Yet the morals of this country have decided that these are not in the best interest of the people and the country.
• Government controls the women’s body. It’s funny, liberals want government to control everything. Yet on this issue, they want government to stay out. Well if I argued that laws prohibiting murder prevented me from pulling a trigger and killing someone, would you argue that I should govern my body, not the government?
• The baby could not survive yet on it’s own outside the womb. Therefore, it is not a life. Once the baby is born, it could not survive on its own either. It needs its mother. Yet it is definitely a life.
• “Back Alley” abortions would increase, endangering mostly young women. So because it’s dangerous for people to do something illegal, yet they keep doing it, let’s make it legal. Rapists are getting diseases, so let’s set up a safe place where they can take their victims and rape them safely. We’ll hand out condoms.
• It’s a woman’ right to choose. As far as I know, there’s only been one woman in the history of the world who has gotten pregnant without the help of a man. Yet it becomes a women’s rights issue, and only the woman decides the fate of the child?
• One brief mistake can trap a woman for life. This is life. There are consequences to things we do. One bad decision about drinking and driving and you may end up dead. People need to have personal responsibility.
• Abortion is not murder because the fetus is not yet a person. At which point does a fetus actually become a person? There’s no gray area. Something is either alive, or dead. If something is growing, it's alive.
So let’s be frank and politically incorrect here. Women have the right to choose. They choose whether or not to keep their legs closed. They also get to choose whether or not they want to use one or more of the many forms of birth control. But you’re telling me that we can’t count on women to make these most basic of choices, yet we will give them the right to kill the growing child. I believe that it is the exact opposite of women’s rights. We treat women as if we need abortion as an option because they can’t seem to make good decisions. Maybe if women made better decisions about who they decided to sleep with, and held the man accountable if they did become pregnant, we wouldn’t have to worry about debating this heinous act.
EUGENICS
Eugenics, a term coined by Sir Francis Galton (half-cousin of Charles Darwin) in 1883, was defined as "the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations.” When people think of eugenics, many think of Nazi Germany and their systematic murder in order to create a Master Race. What many don’t know is that Hitler and the Germans became intrigued by this idea after hearing about the work that was being done in the United States. The sterilizing of those with “objectionable traits” in order to create a better, more productive society. Some of this work was being done by Margaret Sanger. Who is Sanger? Sanger was the founder of the American Birth Control League, which later became Planned Parenthood.
In the April 1932 Edition of Birth Control Review, Sanger’s “A Plan for Peace” was published. Her belief was that Congress needed to set up a special department for “population problems.” Among the main objectives she out lined for this department:
• to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.
• to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.
• to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
• to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.
• to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.
• to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.
So a liberal, women’s rights hero believed, much like Hitler, that it was in the best interest of the country that the United State should try to create a master race through sterilization. But instead of Jews, she wanted to effectively rid the country of the “feeble minded, idiots, morons, and epileptics.” And while she didn’t create gas chambers, she pushed for laws for “women’s rights” on “family planning.” That movement has dwarfed Hitler’s damage, with the death toll at 44 million+ and counting.
Abortion today is similar to the slavery debate 200 years ago. First, many choose to stay ignorant on the issue, pretend it doesn’t exist or it doesn’t affect them. Those who do personally oppose it, do nothing about it. I love this line, often used by politicians and now adopted by the general public as a way to skate around standing up for what’s right: “I don’t believe in it for myself, but it’s not my place to take that right away from other.” Is the exact same thing many whites in the North and South were saying during the debates over slavery. Instead of speaking out against a wrong, they responded like cowards. Many today do the same.
So what’s the major difference? People were able to visually see slavery. As difficult and horrible as slavery was, slaves were able to state their case (though they’d be beaten or killed for it). Slaves were able to revolt. With abortion, we don’t see the results. Unborn children can’t start an uprising. We can pretend it doesn’t happen. We can pretend it’s just a “clump of cells.” “Women’s rights” groups try to block the truths even from the women getting abortions. Like what it looks like, and what it will feel. The general public definitely is not aware. So these procedures are done quietly. Mostly in poor, urban areas.
It’s shocking to me any time I hear people argue for abortion. It’s never a well thought out, rational argument. It’s “keep your religion off my body,” or “Pro-lifers are hypocrites because they say they’re pro-life, but they’re for the death penalty,” or “Pro-lifers don’t want abortion, but they trash single mothers.” See what they do there? No reason for it. Only attacking the reasons against.
First, religion is not the only reason people are (or should be) against abortion. I’m opposed to murder. And that happens to be one of the Commandments. Does that mean this is a religious value, and should not be law? Separation of Church and State, right? I better be careful. I may have just given some lawyer an idea for a new lawsuit.
Secondly, I am actually opposed to the death penalty. But I’m not sure I could have a discussion with someone who couldn’t see that there might be a difference between putting to death a convicted murderer or serial rapist and the murder of an unborn child. Let alone the fact that over 40 million unborn babies have been sentenced to death, while less than 2,000 convicted criminals since 1976 have suffered the same fate.
Finally, most conservatives I know don’t trash single mothers either. But to ignore the obvious is dangerous. If you look at the statistics, the numbers are staggering. How many single mothers are on welfare, how many single mothers have kids who drop out of school, and how many prison inmates came from a home with a single mother. You can coddle them if you please, but it’s doing more harm than good. I’d rather look at a problem and try to solve it.
It’s a difficult thing to talk about. It’s definitely not a topic I enjoy writing about. But we can’t just go on ignoring the facts and not thinking about it. There is an innocent victim here. What we are doing is unjust and needs to be corrected. So let’s put to rest the debate over abortion. Here are the arguments for abortion, and why every single one is wrong:
• We can’t push our morals on other. In case people are unaware, all our laws are exactly that. There may be people who think murder is okay, stealing can be justified, and multiple wives is acceptable. Yet the morals of this country have decided that these are not in the best interest of the people and the country.
• Government controls the women’s body. It’s funny, liberals want government to control everything. Yet on this issue, they want government to stay out. Well if I argued that laws prohibiting murder prevented me from pulling a trigger and killing someone, would you argue that I should govern my body, not the government?
• The baby could not survive yet on it’s own outside the womb. Therefore, it is not a life. Once the baby is born, it could not survive on its own either. It needs its mother. Yet it is definitely a life.
• “Back Alley” abortions would increase, endangering mostly young women. So because it’s dangerous for people to do something illegal, yet they keep doing it, let’s make it legal. Rapists are getting diseases, so let’s set up a safe place where they can take their victims and rape them safely. We’ll hand out condoms.
• It’s a woman’ right to choose. As far as I know, there’s only been one woman in the history of the world who has gotten pregnant without the help of a man. Yet it becomes a women’s rights issue, and only the woman decides the fate of the child?
• One brief mistake can trap a woman for life. This is life. There are consequences to things we do. One bad decision about drinking and driving and you may end up dead. People need to have personal responsibility.
• Abortion is not murder because the fetus is not yet a person. At which point does a fetus actually become a person? There’s no gray area. Something is either alive, or dead. If something is growing, it's alive.
So let’s be frank and politically incorrect here. Women have the right to choose. They choose whether or not to keep their legs closed. They also get to choose whether or not they want to use one or more of the many forms of birth control. But you’re telling me that we can’t count on women to make these most basic of choices, yet we will give them the right to kill the growing child. I believe that it is the exact opposite of women’s rights. We treat women as if we need abortion as an option because they can’t seem to make good decisions. Maybe if women made better decisions about who they decided to sleep with, and held the man accountable if they did become pregnant, we wouldn’t have to worry about debating this heinous act.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
The media trying to tell us how to feel about health care
I sent an e-mail responding to Ms. Heller's article on phillynews.com (click title to link to article if you'd like to read).
Since I can't copy and paste, I'll highlight my points I wrote to her:
First, shame on you for falling into the liberal propoganda that "people aren't really angry about Nationalized Health Care. These protests are orchestrated." People are angry. Most people believe there should be some reform. But most are also against a National Health Care. That's fact.
Her article states that a public plan would be a more efficient competitor, to which I responded:
Two questions. One, how much more overhead/administrative paper work/bureaucratic red tape will there be if government is involved, and two, efficient competitor? When has the government ever run anything efficiently or effectively?
Finally I stated that I, like many, believe that all people should have the ability to go to the doctor. But more government involvement and more taxes is not the answer. My solution:
Less intervention. The problem is insurance companies, not free market. 20-30 years ago, before PPO/HMO, it was $30 to go to the doctor's office. You paid it right there. No overhead. No searching for paper work to figure out which insurance covers what. Insurance was for hospitalization. Right now, doctor's can bill an office visit at a high rate, knowing you won't care because insurance will pay most and you might pay a $10 co-pay. If we took insurance out of office visits, price would go down because we would be paying and they would have to compete with other offices for your business.
I also stated that it might help with these taxes Obama wants to put on things that are bad for us, like soda. People might actually take better care of themselves if they were paying out of pocket for every trip to the doctor's office.
I'll let you know if she responds....
Since I can't copy and paste, I'll highlight my points I wrote to her:
First, shame on you for falling into the liberal propoganda that "people aren't really angry about Nationalized Health Care. These protests are orchestrated." People are angry. Most people believe there should be some reform. But most are also against a National Health Care. That's fact.
Her article states that a public plan would be a more efficient competitor, to which I responded:
Two questions. One, how much more overhead/administrative paper work/bureaucratic red tape will there be if government is involved, and two, efficient competitor? When has the government ever run anything efficiently or effectively?
Finally I stated that I, like many, believe that all people should have the ability to go to the doctor. But more government involvement and more taxes is not the answer. My solution:
Less intervention. The problem is insurance companies, not free market. 20-30 years ago, before PPO/HMO, it was $30 to go to the doctor's office. You paid it right there. No overhead. No searching for paper work to figure out which insurance covers what. Insurance was for hospitalization. Right now, doctor's can bill an office visit at a high rate, knowing you won't care because insurance will pay most and you might pay a $10 co-pay. If we took insurance out of office visits, price would go down because we would be paying and they would have to compete with other offices for your business.
I also stated that it might help with these taxes Obama wants to put on things that are bad for us, like soda. People might actually take better care of themselves if they were paying out of pocket for every trip to the doctor's office.
I'll let you know if she responds....
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Nationalized Health Care
Let's start here, since this is the topic of the hour. The first thing I'd like to do is throw out all the crap you hear from the far left or far right. I've heard people talk about the "Republican scare-tactics." Well, they're politicians. Both sides use scare tactics.
I've had enough of what Canadians say. No matter which side you're on, you can find someone that says Canadian Health Care is either great or horrible.
Don't tell me about the 50 million people without Health Care in the U.S. Does that number include illegals? Does it include people who choose not to take health care at work? There are people who need to be taken care of, but these numbers are sketchy at best.
So what do we know. (1) There are problems with our current health care, as it stands, but (2) if you look at the quality of health care and the progress we make in medicine, ours is the best in the world.
So, what should we do? Overhaul the whole thing and let government run it? Of course not. That's ridiculous.
Let's look at what else we know. Why do we have the best research in the world, and the highest quality of health care? Because of capitalism. Because we have a system set up where there is competition. Does competition breed greed? Sure, sometimes. But we're where we are today because of that competition. Can the government be as efficient and effective without competition? The answer is no.
But many people in this country do not have health care. And we should make minor changes to make sure people are taken care of. But don't look to the Obamas for answers. Michelle Obama, while VP at the University of Chicago Hospital, helped get the Urban Health Initiative up and running. Patients who don't have health insurance many times end up in emergency rooms, where they won't be turned away. So the initiative set out to create community hospitals and clinics where those patients with "non-emergencies" would be sent. As with most liberal ideas, sounds great in theory. But what happened? Something dangerously close to illegal patient dumping, where people without insurance were sent to the clinics, including a boy who was mauled by a dog and needed surgery.
So what is the answer? Remove government from the equation. Those who state that government needs to step in and take over because they're not currently involved are dead wrong. Part of the problem right now is due to government involvement.
Dr. John Muney from New York, NY, decided he wanted to help people in his community, especially the unemployed. So he offered unlimited office visits for $79/month, plus a $10 co-pay, and will cover anything from mammograms to mole removal. Dr. Muney says he can charge such as small amount because he won't have to spend countless hours with paperwork and billing. "If they leave me alone, I can serve thousands," he said. But the state is trying to stop him from offering this service to his community, saying he is providing "insurance" to his patients.
So should the medical field be changed? Maybe a little. Oversight? Possibly. Salaried employees? Maybe. But National Health Care will mean more people seen, but lower quality. Less advancements in medicine with no competition. Less efficient. Less effective. Is that really what anyone wants? "The masses" seem to have a belief that conservatives don't care about the less fortunate. That couldn't be further from the truth. I want all people to be taken care of. I just want it done right.
I've had enough of what Canadians say. No matter which side you're on, you can find someone that says Canadian Health Care is either great or horrible.
Don't tell me about the 50 million people without Health Care in the U.S. Does that number include illegals? Does it include people who choose not to take health care at work? There are people who need to be taken care of, but these numbers are sketchy at best.
So what do we know. (1) There are problems with our current health care, as it stands, but (2) if you look at the quality of health care and the progress we make in medicine, ours is the best in the world.
So, what should we do? Overhaul the whole thing and let government run it? Of course not. That's ridiculous.
Let's look at what else we know. Why do we have the best research in the world, and the highest quality of health care? Because of capitalism. Because we have a system set up where there is competition. Does competition breed greed? Sure, sometimes. But we're where we are today because of that competition. Can the government be as efficient and effective without competition? The answer is no.
But many people in this country do not have health care. And we should make minor changes to make sure people are taken care of. But don't look to the Obamas for answers. Michelle Obama, while VP at the University of Chicago Hospital, helped get the Urban Health Initiative up and running. Patients who don't have health insurance many times end up in emergency rooms, where they won't be turned away. So the initiative set out to create community hospitals and clinics where those patients with "non-emergencies" would be sent. As with most liberal ideas, sounds great in theory. But what happened? Something dangerously close to illegal patient dumping, where people without insurance were sent to the clinics, including a boy who was mauled by a dog and needed surgery.
So what is the answer? Remove government from the equation. Those who state that government needs to step in and take over because they're not currently involved are dead wrong. Part of the problem right now is due to government involvement.
Dr. John Muney from New York, NY, decided he wanted to help people in his community, especially the unemployed. So he offered unlimited office visits for $79/month, plus a $10 co-pay, and will cover anything from mammograms to mole removal. Dr. Muney says he can charge such as small amount because he won't have to spend countless hours with paperwork and billing. "If they leave me alone, I can serve thousands," he said. But the state is trying to stop him from offering this service to his community, saying he is providing "insurance" to his patients.
So should the medical field be changed? Maybe a little. Oversight? Possibly. Salaried employees? Maybe. But National Health Care will mean more people seen, but lower quality. Less advancements in medicine with no competition. Less efficient. Less effective. Is that really what anyone wants? "The masses" seem to have a belief that conservatives don't care about the less fortunate. That couldn't be further from the truth. I want all people to be taken care of. I just want it done right.
Welcome All
This will be your place to go for common sense political ideals. Unfortunately too many people don't think. Sure, what a politician tells you might sound good. But what will be the result?
As a teacher, I'm seeing the result. At least two generations of people with a lack of work ethic, yet a sense of entitlement. Hmmmm.......wonder how we got there?
I will be blogging on many topics in the future. Socialism, the Welfare State, Abortion, Political Correctness, Nationalized Health Care, and anything else that may come up. Enjoy!
As a teacher, I'm seeing the result. At least two generations of people with a lack of work ethic, yet a sense of entitlement. Hmmmm.......wonder how we got there?
I will be blogging on many topics in the future. Socialism, the Welfare State, Abortion, Political Correctness, Nationalized Health Care, and anything else that may come up. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)