It's compassionate to increase taxes. We're having a holocaust each and every day because we cannot pass healthcare tax increases and reduce the incentive for actual advances in medical care. Such a savage people we are. Below link is to Cato's analysis on CBO report on the Baucus bill. The reason the bill is deficit neutral is because it raises taxes by 40% many healthcare plans.
http://tiny.cc/1ZwOr
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Gallup Results for Congress
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/10/07/polling/
The independents are abandoning the democratic party faster than expected. GOP now has 9 point lead over Dems among Indy's on who they're more likely to vote for in 2010 midterm.
The independents are abandoning the democratic party faster than expected. GOP now has 9 point lead over Dems among Indy's on who they're more likely to vote for in 2010 midterm.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Sen. Feingold challenges Admin. on Czars
Finally, a legit challenge from a democrat legislator on Obama's usurping of legislative power.
Sen. Feingold of Wisconsin holds a hearing questioning the President's unchecked expansion of the executive branch and consequential tipping of the tenuous balance of power at the federal level. A true liberal is not a bad thing, an opportunistic one like the vast majority in Congress who are overtly committed to the advancement of their party at the financial and political expense of the voters are.
http://tiny.cc/Hem9V
Sen. Feingold of Wisconsin holds a hearing questioning the President's unchecked expansion of the executive branch and consequential tipping of the tenuous balance of power at the federal level. A true liberal is not a bad thing, an opportunistic one like the vast majority in Congress who are overtly committed to the advancement of their party at the financial and political expense of the voters are.
http://tiny.cc/Hem9V
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Homecoming King to National Office: A Small Step Indeed
Did you really care about who was class president or homecoming king/queen? I sure didn't, and certainly would not base my judgment of a person based on such titles. If anything, you have to wonder about the type of person who would even allow themselves to be nominated for such a meaningless victory, where the only reward is a healthy dose of self-indulged and delusional popularity. To succeed in one's academic career, it takes a whole lot more than a popularity contest decided by indifferent, possibly intoxicated voters.
Oh wait, that's exactly how we've been deciding political elections for well over a century now.
In fact, I have little doubt a national random sample of homecoming king/queens would have done less damage to the financial security of our dear land than the past 20 or so Congresses. For the finance and budget committee chairs, lets have a couple of randomly selected high school accounting club member. Surely they would have a better grasp of simple to understand concepts such as balanced budgets and the inherent flaws of baseline budgeting.
I'd suggest a chess club champion for the senate intelligence chair. Rest assured, such a analytical mind would make better use of the pieces allotted to him, without leaning on constant funding hikes to stay ahead of the dark side.
Has anyone noticed how Yes We Can has turned into no, you really, really shouldn't. The thrill of electing a popular class President fades fast when the winner fails to take down the banners and posters from the halls. It's no small wonder why no one bothers to vote one election day anymore; who can remember which day is election day when Presidents never stop campaigning. Perhaps a national lottery would put a stop to this, simply have the winner occupy the Oval Office for a year with the original limitations set forth by the framers. What harm could he/she do? Statically, every ethnic group would have a "fair" chance of being represented; surely that's the aim of "social justice" right?
Oh wait, that's exactly how we've been deciding political elections for well over a century now.
In fact, I have little doubt a national random sample of homecoming king/queens would have done less damage to the financial security of our dear land than the past 20 or so Congresses. For the finance and budget committee chairs, lets have a couple of randomly selected high school accounting club member. Surely they would have a better grasp of simple to understand concepts such as balanced budgets and the inherent flaws of baseline budgeting.
I'd suggest a chess club champion for the senate intelligence chair. Rest assured, such a analytical mind would make better use of the pieces allotted to him, without leaning on constant funding hikes to stay ahead of the dark side.
Has anyone noticed how Yes We Can has turned into no, you really, really shouldn't. The thrill of electing a popular class President fades fast when the winner fails to take down the banners and posters from the halls. It's no small wonder why no one bothers to vote one election day anymore; who can remember which day is election day when Presidents never stop campaigning. Perhaps a national lottery would put a stop to this, simply have the winner occupy the Oval Office for a year with the original limitations set forth by the framers. What harm could he/she do? Statically, every ethnic group would have a "fair" chance of being represented; surely that's the aim of "social justice" right?
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The Last Stand? Only if Obama Chooses.
The left is circling the wagons, the right smells blood for the first time in a long time, and every side is hyping tomorrow night's address as the best and last hope for a successful Obama Presidency(in political terms, not factual).
Hold that thought.
The comparisons to the current healthcare debate to Clinton's effort in 93' have been used to the point of exhaustion by news analysis across the networks. Is Obama not being forceful enough with Congress as many in his party now whisper? Yet, Clinton is considered to have been too dictatorial towards Congress with Hillarycare.
Another complaint from the left is the back room deals made with prominent drug companies to secure their support for the healthcare push. Yet, such resistance from the drug companies is seen as being crucial for the defeat of Clinton's attempt in 93.
The fact is Obama is either not willing or unable due to paralysis from his party to have a truly bi-partisan bill become law. There is broad support for ending pre-existing conditions as a barrier to coverage, broad support outside the DNC headquarters for tort reform, and even a decent majority willing to support a healthcare bill that makes the billing process more transparent between doctors, patients, and insurance companies.
Unfortunately, such reforms can only be made possible with a closely divided Congress instead of a supermajority dem controlled. Like Clinton did with balanced budgets and welfare reform, Obama would be able to pass truly good legislation on healthcare in such an environment. Regulation sells, takeover doesn't. Unless the President is willing to sacrifice the sacred cow of public option/trigger/co-op, he won't get either. A successful Presidency after 10'and re-election depends on it.
Hold that thought.
The comparisons to the current healthcare debate to Clinton's effort in 93' have been used to the point of exhaustion by news analysis across the networks. Is Obama not being forceful enough with Congress as many in his party now whisper? Yet, Clinton is considered to have been too dictatorial towards Congress with Hillarycare.
Another complaint from the left is the back room deals made with prominent drug companies to secure their support for the healthcare push. Yet, such resistance from the drug companies is seen as being crucial for the defeat of Clinton's attempt in 93.
The fact is Obama is either not willing or unable due to paralysis from his party to have a truly bi-partisan bill become law. There is broad support for ending pre-existing conditions as a barrier to coverage, broad support outside the DNC headquarters for tort reform, and even a decent majority willing to support a healthcare bill that makes the billing process more transparent between doctors, patients, and insurance companies.
Unfortunately, such reforms can only be made possible with a closely divided Congress instead of a supermajority dem controlled. Like Clinton did with balanced budgets and welfare reform, Obama would be able to pass truly good legislation on healthcare in such an environment. Regulation sells, takeover doesn't. Unless the President is willing to sacrifice the sacred cow of public option/trigger/co-op, he won't get either. A successful Presidency after 10'and re-election depends on it.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Comfort
Is freedom is too much of a burden for us now? Should we us create a government that easies the pain of liberty in favor of the sweet silence of national socialism. How can one ever be truly free anyway? Freedom to vote, then you are free to be uninformed and not participate. Free to make a living, slave to the need of making a living. Free to choose one's health care, a slave to the need of health care. Have the ability to advance yourself with an education? You now are bound to the obligation to make something of yourself.
The debate between statism/progressivism, and libertarianism/conservatism boils down not to simply tyranny or freedom, but what kind of freedom do you what? To be free to make your own choices in life and be able to fail or succeed based on your own decisions, effort, and determination, or be free from the dangers such an undertaking inevitably create. It is not comtorable to be free, it hurts. Bad. You will fail, be taken advantage of, ignored, and even die trying to make your mark in this life. However, I still believe it is best for us all and thus our government to take that risk, let the people keep their right to succeed or fail. Many people have died in one form of bondage since man was put on this earth, very few have done so with the choice to live as they see fit. America is a people that once chose to triumph and fall through that risk. I hope we have not traded the chance of failure for the guarantee of bondage.
The debate between statism/progressivism, and libertarianism/conservatism boils down not to simply tyranny or freedom, but what kind of freedom do you what? To be free to make your own choices in life and be able to fail or succeed based on your own decisions, effort, and determination, or be free from the dangers such an undertaking inevitably create. It is not comtorable to be free, it hurts. Bad. You will fail, be taken advantage of, ignored, and even die trying to make your mark in this life. However, I still believe it is best for us all and thus our government to take that risk, let the people keep their right to succeed or fail. Many people have died in one form of bondage since man was put on this earth, very few have done so with the choice to live as they see fit. America is a people that once chose to triumph and fall through that risk. I hope we have not traded the chance of failure for the guarantee of bondage.
Problems with America
Right now America is in a crisis. I don't even watch that much t.v. and I know that the economy kinda sucks right now. I also know that the U.S. government is doing what it thinks is right by throwing money at the problem and working hard to fix it (while I do not agree with their philosophy, I do actually believe that at least some politicians are out to help the people). How did we get to this point in America? We got here because there were people in banks in America who said "Lend money to people that we know will default on their loans and then we can take advantage of them." Believe or not that is exactly what a lot of banks did. The problems with this are inherent. First, banks were (and probably are) blatantly ripping off the American people with no concern for anyone's welfare (other than their own). Second, they are setting up a system that causes people to become impoverished. And finally they are creating a system in which they will eventually go down because they lent out money that cannot be paid back because too many people defaulted on their loans.
So what does this have to do with religion (which I mentioned at the beginning of article)? So glad you asked. Here's the thing. Whether you accept it or not our country was founded by people who absolutely believed in the Christian God. I cannot say irrevocably that the founding fathers were absolute Christians, but they did believe in God. They set up our government with a Christian mindset. The thing about capitalism is that without Christianity it simply does not work. The fact that banks have taken advantage of the American people like they have demonstrates that with no morality capitalism simply becomes a system where the rich CAPITALIZE on those with less. Some might say that any religious system would do. I will disagree with this because of my religious beliefs. And you are free to disagree with me. The point here is that for a system such as ours to work in the favor of the majority there must be a moral code of ethics that says "People are what is important." More importantly than that though is that there must be a code of ethics that says "Others are more important than ME".
This past year the presidential election was held (if you didn't notice). Obama ran a campaign that focused in on Hope. Hope for the American people that we could get out of this mess that we have gotten ourselves into. That's all well and good. But throwing money at a problem that involves a lack of money doesn't seem like a wise decision to me. The thing is that true hope is found in Jesus Christ and that hope is eternal. The only problem is that America today is sick and tired of hearing about the hope that Christ has to offer. They have decided that a hope that seems more tangible is the way to go. But WHY? What happened to the greatest message that the world has ever heard to make people not want to hear it? Christians happened to it. Many Christians feel like they are Christians and that they should have perfect lives and they ignore those in desperate need of the hope that true Christianity is all about. The real problem in that is that they feel the need to live perfect lives. So while they may be having major issues with their wife at home, they go to church each Sunday and pretend that everything is perfect. Many Christians come off as fake and way too happy. It doesn't seem like a lot of Christians really live in the same world as everyone else. And some of those that take the time to look at the world see a place that is evil and full of Satan instead of a world that is broken in need of healing. It's no wonder that most people see Christians as hypocritical. It's no wonder that people turned to a political leader for HOPE. Hope that should have been provided to the people by Jesus and through His Church.
I know this is ridiculously long and if you stuck with it for this long thank you (I am almost done). Here's the whole purpose of this thing: Jesus Christ is where true hope comes from and without him and what he brings there is no hope for our nation. I know everyone isn't going to believe this but the fact of the matter is that nations have fallen time after time because of a lack of morality. In my opinion (and what is in fact Truth whether you like it or not) Jesus is the only way for true morality to thrive. The reason that we have problems with Muslims has little to do with the fact that we are "a Christian nation" but the fact that they believe us to be immoral and completely corrupt. Once morality becomes something that is not absolute people begin taking advantage of others and then everything goes to crap. So my final thoughts on this matter for now are these. Christians: ACT LIKE CHRIST!!!! Seriously, if we would Love as Christ loved then maybe, just maybe, we can change the minds of those who have written Him off because of His stupid followers. Non-Christians: Don't judge all Christians based on your experiences with a few, most, or all of the ones that you have interacted with. I know that that is difficult, but the thing is Jesus was actually a really cool guy and he actually does love you whether or not His followers always demonstrate it. I know it seems ridiculous but it's true.
So what does this have to do with religion (which I mentioned at the beginning of article)? So glad you asked. Here's the thing. Whether you accept it or not our country was founded by people who absolutely believed in the Christian God. I cannot say irrevocably that the founding fathers were absolute Christians, but they did believe in God. They set up our government with a Christian mindset. The thing about capitalism is that without Christianity it simply does not work. The fact that banks have taken advantage of the American people like they have demonstrates that with no morality capitalism simply becomes a system where the rich CAPITALIZE on those with less. Some might say that any religious system would do. I will disagree with this because of my religious beliefs. And you are free to disagree with me. The point here is that for a system such as ours to work in the favor of the majority there must be a moral code of ethics that says "People are what is important." More importantly than that though is that there must be a code of ethics that says "Others are more important than ME".
This past year the presidential election was held (if you didn't notice). Obama ran a campaign that focused in on Hope. Hope for the American people that we could get out of this mess that we have gotten ourselves into. That's all well and good. But throwing money at a problem that involves a lack of money doesn't seem like a wise decision to me. The thing is that true hope is found in Jesus Christ and that hope is eternal. The only problem is that America today is sick and tired of hearing about the hope that Christ has to offer. They have decided that a hope that seems more tangible is the way to go. But WHY? What happened to the greatest message that the world has ever heard to make people not want to hear it? Christians happened to it. Many Christians feel like they are Christians and that they should have perfect lives and they ignore those in desperate need of the hope that true Christianity is all about. The real problem in that is that they feel the need to live perfect lives. So while they may be having major issues with their wife at home, they go to church each Sunday and pretend that everything is perfect. Many Christians come off as fake and way too happy. It doesn't seem like a lot of Christians really live in the same world as everyone else. And some of those that take the time to look at the world see a place that is evil and full of Satan instead of a world that is broken in need of healing. It's no wonder that most people see Christians as hypocritical. It's no wonder that people turned to a political leader for HOPE. Hope that should have been provided to the people by Jesus and through His Church.
I know this is ridiculously long and if you stuck with it for this long thank you (I am almost done). Here's the whole purpose of this thing: Jesus Christ is where true hope comes from and without him and what he brings there is no hope for our nation. I know everyone isn't going to believe this but the fact of the matter is that nations have fallen time after time because of a lack of morality. In my opinion (and what is in fact Truth whether you like it or not) Jesus is the only way for true morality to thrive. The reason that we have problems with Muslims has little to do with the fact that we are "a Christian nation" but the fact that they believe us to be immoral and completely corrupt. Once morality becomes something that is not absolute people begin taking advantage of others and then everything goes to crap. So my final thoughts on this matter for now are these. Christians: ACT LIKE CHRIST!!!! Seriously, if we would Love as Christ loved then maybe, just maybe, we can change the minds of those who have written Him off because of His stupid followers. Non-Christians: Don't judge all Christians based on your experiences with a few, most, or all of the ones that you have interacted with. I know that that is difficult, but the thing is Jesus was actually a really cool guy and he actually does love you whether or not His followers always demonstrate it. I know it seems ridiculous but it's true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
