Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Pentagon Workers Tied To Child Porn
Here is the document that the Inspector General released to the public regarding their investigation of these horrendous acts that were committed against our most innocent, precious children: http://www.dodig.mil/fo/Foia/PDFs/OperationFlickerReportsJuly2010pdf.pdf
The Ruling Class Vs. The Country Class
America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution
By Angelo M. Codevilla
As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors' "toxic assets" was the only alternative to the U.S. economy's "systemic collapse." In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets' nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.
When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term "political class" came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public's understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the "ruling class." And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.
Although after the election of 2008 most Republican office holders argued against the Troubled Asset Relief Program, against the subsequent bailouts of the auto industry, against the several "stimulus" bills and further summary expansions of government power to benefit clients of government at the expense of ordinary citizens, the American people had every reason to believe that many Republican politicians were doing so simply by the logic of partisan opposition. After all, Republicans had been happy enough to approve of similar things under Republican administrations. Differences between Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas are of degree, not kind. Moreover, 2009-10 establishment Republicans sought only to modify the government's agenda while showing eagerness to join the Democrats in new grand schemes, if only they were allowed to. Sen. Orrin Hatch continued dreaming of being Ted Kennedy, while Lindsey Graham set aside what is true or false about "global warming" for the sake of getting on the right side of history. No prominent Republican challenged the ruling class's continued claim of superior insight, nor its denigration of the American people as irritable children who must learn their place. The Republican Party did not disparage the ruling class, because most of its officials are or would like to be part of it.
Never has there been so little diversity within America's upper crust. Always, in America as elsewhere, some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But until our own time America's upper crust was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their money and status from different sources and were not predictably of one mind on any given matter. The Boston Brahmins, the New York financiers, the land barons of California, Texas, and Florida, the industrialists of Pittsburgh, the Southern aristocracy, and the hardscrabble politicians who made it big in Chicago or Memphis had little contact with one another. Few had much contact with government, and "bureaucrat" was a dirty word for all. So was "social engineering." Nor had the schools and universities that formed yesterday's upper crust imposed a single orthodoxy about the origins of man, about American history, and about how America should be governed. All that has changed.
Today's ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters -- speaking the "in" language -- serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America's ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.
The two classes have less in common culturally, dislike each other more, and embody ways of life more different from one another than did the 19th century's Northerners and Southerners -- nearly all of whom, as Lincoln reminded them, "prayed to the same God." By contrast, while most Americans pray to the God "who created and doth sustain us," our ruling class prays to itself as "saviors of the planet" and improvers of humanity. Our classes' clash is over "whose country" America is, over what way of life will prevail, over who is to defer to whom about what. The gravity of such divisions points us, as it did Lincoln, to Mark's Gospel: "if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."
The Political Divide
Important as they are, our political divisions are the iceberg's tip. When pollsters ask the American people whether they are likely to vote Republican or Democrat in the next presidential election, Republicans win growing pluralities. But whenever pollsters add the preferences "undecided," "none of the above," or "tea party," these win handily, the Democrats come in second, and the Republicans trail far behind. That is because while most of the voters who call themselves Democrats say that Democratic officials represent them well, only a fourth of the voters who identify themselves as Republicans tell pollsters that Republican officeholders represent them well. Hence officeholders, Democrats and Republicans, gladden the hearts of some one-third of the electorate -- most Democratic voters, plus a few Republicans. This means that Democratic politicians are the ruling class's prime legitimate representatives and that because Republican politicians are supported by only a fourth of their voters while the rest vote for them reluctantly, most are aspirants for a junior role in the ruling class. In short, the ruling class has a party, the Democrats. But some two-thirds of Americans -- a few Democratic voters, most Republican voters, and all independents -- lack a vehicle in electoral politics.
Sooner or later, well or badly, that majority's demand for representation will be filled. Whereas in 1968 Governor George Wallace's taunt "there ain't a dime's worth of difference" between the Republican and Democratic parties resonated with only 13.5 percent of the American people, in 1992 Ross Perot became a serious contender for the presidency (at one point he was favored by 39 percent of Americans vs. 31 percent for G.H.W. Bush and 25 percent for Clinton) simply by speaking ill of the ruling class. Today, few speak well of the ruling class. Not only has it burgeoned in size and pretense, but it also has undertaken wars it has not won, presided over a declining economy and mushrooming debt, made life more expensive, raised taxes, and talked down to the American people. Americans' conviction that the ruling class is as hostile as it is incompetent has solidified. The polls tell us that only about a fifth of Americans trust the government to do the right thing. The rest expect that it will do more harm than good and are no longer afraid to say so.
While Europeans are accustomed to being ruled by presumed betters whom they distrust, the American people's realization of being ruled like Europeans shocked this country into well nigh revolutionary attitudes. But only the realization was new. The ruling class had sunk deep roots in America over decades before 2008. Machiavelli compares serious political diseases to the Aetolian fevers -- easy to treat early on while they are difficult to discern, but virtually untreatable by the time they become obvious.
Far from speculating how the political confrontation might develop between America's regime class -- relatively few people supported by no more than one-third of Americans -- and a country class comprising two-thirds of the country, our task here is to understand the divisions that underlie that confrontation's unpredictable future. More on politics below.
The Ruling Class
Who are these rulers, and by what right do they rule? How did America change from a place where people could expect to live without bowing to privileged classes to one in which, at best, they might have the chance to climb into them? What sets our ruling class apart from the rest of us?
The most widespread answers -- by such as the Times's Thomas Friedman and David Brooks -- are schlock sociology. Supposedly, modern society became so complex and productive, the technical skills to run it so rare, that it called forth a new class of highly educated officials and cooperators in an ever less private sector. Similarly fanciful is Edward Goldberg's notion that America is now ruled by a "newocracy": a "new aristocracy who are the true beneficiaries of globalization -- including the multinational manager, the technologist and the aspirational members of the meritocracy." In fact, our ruling class grew and set itself apart from the rest of us by its connection with ever bigger government, and above all by a certain attitude.
Other explanations are counterintuitive. Wealth? The heads of the class do live in our big cities' priciest enclaves and suburbs, from Montgomery County, Maryland, to Palo Alto, California, to Boston's Beacon Hill as well as in opulent university towns from Princeton to Boulder. But they are no wealthier than many Texas oilmen or California farmers, or than neighbors with whom they do not associate -- just as the social science and humanities class that rules universities seldom associates with physicians and physicists. Rather, regardless of where they live, their social-intellectual circle includes people in the lucrative "nonprofit" and "philanthropic" sectors and public policy. What really distinguishes these privileged people demographically is that, whether in government power directly or as officers in companies, their careers and fortunes depend on government. They vote Democrat more consistently than those who live on any of America's Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Streets. These socioeconomic opposites draw their money and orientation from the same sources as the millions of teachers, consultants, and government employees in the middle ranks who aspire to be the former and identify morally with what they suppose to be the latter's grievances.
Continued
Half Time Reflections on the Health Care Summit
It is clear that Republicans have their A-Team at the summit. They sent physicians that really know their stuff. Obama and the Democrats are trying to distort reality by making it appear that the Republicans are in agreement on most issues with the Democrats, when that couldn't be further from the truth. There are major fundamental philosophical differences between Democrats and Republicans on how to solve the affordability and accessibility issues within health care today. The Democrats believe that government should control our lives, make our health care decisions, and the government makes better health care decisons, or decisons period, than the individual person. On the other hand, the Republicans believe in the intelligence of the individual, keeping and promoting individual freedoms that are in line with our Constitution, and that the individual makes much better decisions with his own money than our government has or ever will.
President Obama said that the CBO stated that the Democratic health reform bills will reduce costs. Sen. Lamar Alexander replied that the CBO stated that the bill will increase costs to consumers or patients. Who was right? Sen. Lamar Alexander was correct. Fox News political correspondent Jim Angle did research and found out that the CBO did in fact state that health insurance premiums would increase by 10 to 13 percent, and that was with having the same type of coverage that you have now. Well, we'll see what happens in the third and fourth quarters.
10 Ways Government Hurts the Poor
A big H/T goes out to Chicago Ray for this article.
10 Ways Government Hurts the Poor
by Jerry Agar
"If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life." Henry David Thoreau
"I am from the government, I am here to help you." Scary Bureaucrat
In no particular order, and in my opinion, here are 10 ways the government does the opposite of its announced intentions.
1. Minimum Wage If you charge more for something, you sell less of it. Labor is no different than any other commodity for sale. As economist Walter Williams says, "If higher minimum wages could cure poverty, we could easily end worldwide poverty simply by telling poor nations to legislate higher minimum wages." A higher minimum wage means fewer jobs and makes it more difficult for people to start a small business. If you tell me you'll pay me X dollars an hour to do a job, and I say, "That's fine," why shouldn't I be allowed to do so? Why not just declare that everyone has to earn at least $100,000 a year? The answer is no different at $100,000 than it is at $15,000. It is just a matter of scale.
2. Taxes Business taxes are built into a product at a number of levels along the production and distribution chain, and then sales tax is added at the end. An ever-increasing government can appear to fund its growth by “taxing the rich” and to make business “pay their fair share,” but low income consumers pay a higher percentage of their total income in taxes. All products and services include taxes even when it is not obvious. For instance, rent contains property tax. Gasoline is highly taxed, but the actual tax rate is not listed at the pump.
3. Over-Regulating Over-regulating of business costs money for those enterprises that survive. Less money - less employment. Over-regulation leaves so many hoops to jump through that it distracts from the aim of the business or company, and thusly hurts expansion. Plus, it makes it all the more daunting to start a business Wasting money on losing propositions like sports stadiums - which are always sold to the public as economic development - takes money out of the economy, which ultimately costs jobs.
4. Health Insurance The law denying the right of people to buy health insurance across state lines results in less competition which means higher prices. Mandated coverage forces us to buy insurance we don't need. As economist Thomas Sowell points out, "Mandated coverages include alcoholism, acupuncture, breast reduction and treatment for baldness, among other things. You may just want insurance to cover you in case you get hit with some big-time medical problem, but many state laws will not allow an insurance company to sell you "major medical" coverage without all the add-ons that politicians and special interests have come up with." Does a single mother struggling to make ends meet, yet wanting to protect the well being of her children, really need to pay for baldness coverage (pun intended) in her health plan?
5. Unions Governments often work in favor of unions to the detriment of taxpayers in general and the poor in particular. Two examples are prevailing wage laws and the fight to keep Wal-Mart out of Chicago. Unions today primarily survive in the public sector, driving up the cost of government, which lowers the efficiency of the economy and its ability to create jobs.
6. Education Monopoly - the cap on charter schools and the unwillingness of so many government entities to give power to parents through a voucher system keeps the monopoly going. In Chicago the graduation rate is 50%, but the education monopoly will not even consider trying capitalism, now that socialism has failed. Monopolies never favor the customer – in this case the children of people too poor to escape bad schools.
CONTINUED
10 Ways Government Hurts the Poor
by Jerry Agar
"If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life." Henry David Thoreau
"I am from the government, I am here to help you." Scary Bureaucrat
In no particular order, and in my opinion, here are 10 ways the government does the opposite of its announced intentions.
1. Minimum Wage If you charge more for something, you sell less of it. Labor is no different than any other commodity for sale. As economist Walter Williams says, "If higher minimum wages could cure poverty, we could easily end worldwide poverty simply by telling poor nations to legislate higher minimum wages." A higher minimum wage means fewer jobs and makes it more difficult for people to start a small business. If you tell me you'll pay me X dollars an hour to do a job, and I say, "That's fine," why shouldn't I be allowed to do so? Why not just declare that everyone has to earn at least $100,000 a year? The answer is no different at $100,000 than it is at $15,000. It is just a matter of scale.
2. Taxes Business taxes are built into a product at a number of levels along the production and distribution chain, and then sales tax is added at the end. An ever-increasing government can appear to fund its growth by “taxing the rich” and to make business “pay their fair share,” but low income consumers pay a higher percentage of their total income in taxes. All products and services include taxes even when it is not obvious. For instance, rent contains property tax. Gasoline is highly taxed, but the actual tax rate is not listed at the pump.
3. Over-Regulating Over-regulating of business costs money for those enterprises that survive. Less money - less employment. Over-regulation leaves so many hoops to jump through that it distracts from the aim of the business or company, and thusly hurts expansion. Plus, it makes it all the more daunting to start a business Wasting money on losing propositions like sports stadiums - which are always sold to the public as economic development - takes money out of the economy, which ultimately costs jobs.
4. Health Insurance The law denying the right of people to buy health insurance across state lines results in less competition which means higher prices. Mandated coverage forces us to buy insurance we don't need. As economist Thomas Sowell points out, "Mandated coverages include alcoholism, acupuncture, breast reduction and treatment for baldness, among other things. You may just want insurance to cover you in case you get hit with some big-time medical problem, but many state laws will not allow an insurance company to sell you "major medical" coverage without all the add-ons that politicians and special interests have come up with." Does a single mother struggling to make ends meet, yet wanting to protect the well being of her children, really need to pay for baldness coverage (pun intended) in her health plan?
5. Unions Governments often work in favor of unions to the detriment of taxpayers in general and the poor in particular. Two examples are prevailing wage laws and the fight to keep Wal-Mart out of Chicago. Unions today primarily survive in the public sector, driving up the cost of government, which lowers the efficiency of the economy and its ability to create jobs.
6. Education Monopoly - the cap on charter schools and the unwillingness of so many government entities to give power to parents through a voucher system keeps the monopoly going. In Chicago the graduation rate is 50%, but the education monopoly will not even consider trying capitalism, now that socialism has failed. Monopolies never favor the customer – in this case the children of people too poor to escape bad schools.
CONTINUED
Chuck Norris reveals Dirty Secret in Obamacare
Chuck describes Dirty Secret #1 in his most recent article on Obamacare. . . ....which is the Government
coming into homes and
usurping parental rights
over child care and development!
Congress continues their sneaky, deceitful ways. Since Congress could not get it passed in the Education Begins at Home Act last year, they have snuck the Support for Quality Home Visitation Program in the health bill. This is government intrusion at the highest levels. This starts even before the child is born-how outrageous is that!!!
PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children.
While this section of the bill states that this is a voluntary program, the government will be targeting communities with a high proportion of low-income families. I believe that this will lead to coercion by the government and its officials to force this as well as its propaganda on low-income parents.
The government under this program is supposed to:
"Employ well-trained and competent staff, maintain high quality supervision, provide for ongoing training and professional development, and show strong organizational capacity to implement such a program..."
When the hell has there ever been a competent, well-trained Government Official especially in today's day and age? What a joke!!
In this section of the bill it is stated that there will be "activities designed to help parents become full partners in the education of their children"!
Full Partners with who? Oh! Hell no!!
Not the Government!!!
Chuck Norris states,
Are we to assume the state's mediators would understand every parent's social or religious core values on parenting? Or would they teach some secular-progressive and religiously neutered version of parental values and wisdom? And if they were to consult and coach those who expect babies, would they ever decide circumstances to be not beneficial for the children and encourage abortions?
One government rebuttal is that this program would be "voluntary." Is that right? Does that imply that this agency would just sit back passively until some parent needing parenting skills said, "I don't think I'll call my parents, priest or friends or read a plethora of books, but I'll go down to the local government offices"? To the contrary, the bill points to specific targeted groups and problems, on Page 840: The state "shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families.
Are we further to conclude by those words that low-income families know less about parenting? Are middle- and upper-class parents really better parents? Less neglectful of their children? Less needful of parental help and training? Is this "prioritized" training not a biased, discriminatory and even prejudicial stereotype and generalization that has no place in federal government, law or practice?
Bottom line: Is all this what you want or expect in a universal health care bill being rushed through Congress? Do you want government agents coming into your home and telling you how to parent your children? When did government health care turn into government child care?
This is yet another example of how our government wants to control our lives as well as future generations. This is one more reason Obamacare must be stopped!!
Part1: The Case Against Obamacare
While reading analysis on Obamacare on the website http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18208 I came across some very stunning information.
1)Right there on page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal, says Investor's Business Daily (IBD).
The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
With Exceptions such as:
2)Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it.
3)Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
I thought Obama said we could keep our health insurance plan, I guess NOT for as people switch from one job to another this would force Americans to participate in Obama's public-option.
As a critic of the Obama health care Govt. single-payer public option, here is further evidence of how this plan will take away individual freedom:
Drawn by a public option that will be 30 percent to 40 percent cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington's coverage.
The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program.
That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers; this could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether."
What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law, says IBD.
This legislation would effectively kill off health savings sccounts, which is what Democrats have wanted for years. Health savings accounts would give individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less control. But, with Obama's public-option(which is not an option at all) it would give a huge amount of control to the government in regulating our health care needs.
Obamacare=Government Control=Rationing of medical Care
Here is the text by Investors Business Daily:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=482329
Additional Troubling Evidence Regarding Impact of Single-Payer Health Care(Like Canadas):
1)Right there on page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal, says Investor's Business Daily (IBD).
The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
With Exceptions such as:
2)Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it.
3)Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
I thought Obama said we could keep our health insurance plan, I guess NOT for as people switch from one job to another this would force Americans to participate in Obama's public-option.
As a critic of the Obama health care Govt. single-payer public option, here is further evidence of how this plan will take away individual freedom:
Drawn by a public option that will be 30 percent to 40 percent cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington's coverage.
The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program.
That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers; this could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether."
What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law, says IBD.
This legislation would effectively kill off health savings sccounts, which is what Democrats have wanted for years. Health savings accounts would give individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less control. But, with Obama's public-option(which is not an option at all) it would give a huge amount of control to the government in regulating our health care needs.
Obamacare=Government Control=Rationing of medical Care
Here is the text by Investors Business Daily:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=482329
Additional Troubling Evidence Regarding Impact of Single-Payer Health Care(Like Canadas):
1)Canada's mortality rate is 25% higher for breast cancer
2)Canada's mortality rate is 18% higher for prostate Cancer
3) Canada's mortality rate is 13% higher for colorectal cancer, and . . .
4)50% of all diabetics have trouble with high blood pressure. It is controlled in 36% of cases within the United States, but only in 9% of cases in Canada
Do Other Countries With a Single-Payer Health Care System Have Greater Access to Care?
1)Britain has only one-fourth as many CT scanners per capita as the U.S
2)one-third as many MRI scanners
3)The rate at which the British provide coronary-bypass surgery or angioplasty to heart patients is only one-fourth the U.S. rate
4)hip replacements are only two-thirds the U.S. rate
But, the U.S. Tops in:
5)The rate for treating kidney failure (dialysis or transplant) is five times higher in the U.S. for patients between the ages of 45 and 84, and nine times higher for patients 85 years or older.
Further Grim Reports in Long Waiting Periods for Medical Procedures Under a Single-Payer Option, Which is what Obama's Health Care Reform Bill actually is.
"Overall, nearly 1.8 million Britons are waiting for hospital or outpatient treatments at any given time. In 2002-2004, dialysis patients waited an average of 16 days for permanent blood-vessel access in the U.S., 20 days in Europe, and 62 days in Canada. In 2000, Norwegian patients waited an average of 133 days for hip replacement, 63 days for cataract surgery, 160 days for a knee replacement, and 46 days for bypass surgery after being approved for treatment. Short waits for cataract surgery produce better outcomes, prompt coronary-artery bypass reduces mortality, and rapid hip replacement reduces disability and death. Studies show that only 5 percent of Americans wait more than four months for surgery, compared with 23 percent of Australians, 26 percent of New Zealanders, 27 percent of Canadians, and 36 percent of Britons."
I am thankful to http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Socialized+failure:+dissecting+health-care+data+from+Britain,+Canada,...-a0199802195 with supplying me with some health care information, also.
These are some of the reasons I note as why I am against Obamacare. It is not an option, but in fact the Govt. so called option would be forcing Tyranny on us all. This is not what our founding fathers fought for in the American Revolution. Our founding fathers fought for their freedom against tyranny, the kind that Obama is proposing. I will continue addtional updates regarding the health care issue.
ABC, Obama and The One - Sided View
The Debate That Never Was
Last Wednesday night ABC held a town hall meeting promoting President Obama’s health care agenda. ABC and other liberals want you to believe that this was a debate on how to fix costs within the health care industry. But, for there to be a debate there must be more than one view presented. And that didn’t happen. Commercials were not even allowed to be purchased to show opposing or different ideas on the health care debate. Debate is a very good thing when you are trying to figure out how to fix a system that is broken. The fact that ABC wants to pretend that there was debate and discussion regarding the health care industry is a crock of s**t. One view equals no debate for it is clearly not possible. There was a question and answer session where Obama answered citizens’ questions about his nationalized health care plan.
-
Obama to Jane: Your Ma Ma is so Old . . .
There was one question and answer that peaked my interest. For Obama’s answer was so cold and appalling that I thought that he was Frankenstein talking about a robot or a mannequin, and not an actual person. Here is the dialogue between Jane Sturm and President Obama:
Member of the audience. Jane Sturm: "My mother is now over 105. But at 100, the doctors said to her, 'I can't do anything more unless you have a pacemaker.' I said, 'Go for it.' She said, 'Go for it.' But the specialist said, 'No, she's too old.' But when the other specialist saw her and saw her joy of life, he said, 'I'm going for it.' That was over five years ago. My question to you is: Outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody who is elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, a quality of life, or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?"
Obama: "I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's 'spirit.' Uh, that would be, uh, a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that, uh, say that, uh, we are going to provide good quality care for all people. End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers. At least we can let doctors know -- and your mom know -- that you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller."
-
Obama to Obsolete Human Robots-Take a Pill and Drop Dead
Jane explained to Obama that her mother has lived an additional five years after the pacemaker was put in her mother’s heart. What was stunning to me was that in Obama’s response he was clearly stating that the procedure which extended her mother’s life should have never happened. Even after knowing the outcome Obama states that retroactively this procedure should not have been performed, because under his plan, we’re going to make those decisions means that the Govt. will be deciding in your old age whether a procedure is worth it or not, whether it is cost effective to save your life or not. Should we really be letting the government decide on our outcomes based on the dollar? A life is more precious and valuable than the almighty dollar. From Obama making this statement I surmise that he believes that money is worth more than a human life and displays that he believes life is dispensable. Well, there are other humans to take your place so why spend so much money to keep you alive? Maybe the family members want their loved one to stay around as long as they can. With a private insurance there are options. A person and their loved ones, and the doctors can make the decision whether the procedure should be done and whether the costs are worth it or not depending on the procedure, specifically, whether it should be paid for out of pocket if the insurance company refuses to cover it. Nationalized heath care such as that proposed by Obama, and practiced in Canada and England, eliminates the latter option.
Like Obama said, there must be rules that will not account for subjectivity or one’s spirit. It’s just the hard, cold reality that the rule must be followed even though a person could have been saved if it wasn’t for a certain rule. Does Obama believe that human lives are like robots one and the same? He states that end of life decisions should not be subjective, but yet the elderly should be subjected to rules like on a production line, like a product. Humans are not mere products or inanimate objects, humans are living beings who are subjective and need to be treated in that manner when making health related decisions. Human beings are not to merely be treated as robots following rules. He implied even though her mother has lived longer because of the surgery, she would have been better off just taking pain medication. In fact, Obama basically said that she, as an elderly woman, should not have been allowed to have the surgery because it was not cost effective.
e7j5s9bmuv
Stop Flushing Our Money Away
The government is wasting our money everyday, at an alarming rate. I thought that you might like to see how the Chesapeake Virginia Tea Partiers are expressing their concerns about our money being flushed down the toilet. They were on a tight budget and needed a way to raise money for 30 portable toilets for the next Tea Party. Karen Minor Hurd had to think of an interesting way to ask for money for the portable toilets. Hurd, the Tea Party organizer, thought up the idea to ask taxpayers to sponsor commodes and name them with their least favorite politicians. Karen Miner Hurd said, "It started growing, and once people started seeing the list of people who were named, I got more and more requests," and "People started to love it."
A seat our politicians truly deserve, since they are flushing our money right down the toilet.
Here are some of the names of the 37 thrones claimed:
Global Warming Hoax John
Nancy Pelosi ’s Throne
McCain, John
A.C.L.U. john
Barney Frank & Chris Dodd’s Mortgage Banking John (Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac)
Kerry, John
Universal Healthcare
ACORN john (Always Crappy, Offensive, Rotten, Noxious)
Eliminate the I.R.S. john
Royal Pain in the Tax
Janeane “Got-to-GO” Garofalo
Eric “toilet paper” Holder
Bawney Fwank’s Office
The other names can be seen at http://dontflushus.com/
I just absolutely loved seeing this video, especially the way that Politicians names were presented on their proper thrones along the highway.
Don't Flush U.S.! Tea Party - Potty Parade - For more of the funniest videos, click here
A seat our politicians truly deserve, since they are flushing our money right down the toilet.
Here are some of the names of the 37 thrones claimed:
Global Warming Hoax John
Nancy Pelosi ’s Throne
McCain, John
A.C.L.U. john
Barney Frank & Chris Dodd’s Mortgage Banking John (Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac)
Kerry, John
Universal Healthcare
ACORN john (Always Crappy, Offensive, Rotten, Noxious)
Eliminate the I.R.S. john
Royal Pain in the Tax
Janeane “Got-to-GO” Garofalo
Eric “toilet paper” Holder
Bawney Fwank’s Office
The other names can be seen at http://dontflushus.com/
I just absolutely loved seeing this video, especially the way that Politicians names were presented on their proper thrones along the highway.
Don't Flush U.S.! Tea Party - Potty Parade - For more of the funniest videos, click here
Instead Of TARP And Stimulus: What If The U.S. Had Paid Off Its Debt To China?
As a conservative, I am appalled at the way that our government has chosen to waste citizens tax dollars to bail out the car companies and the banks. I was also against the stimulus package passed by Congress in February. I believe that the government should not interfere in the free market. If a company makes bad decisions then that company should have to live with the consequences. Why should our tax dollars be used to help out a company that made bad decisions? If I made a bad decision and found myself in debt, would the government bail me out? I highly doubt it. Nor do I think that the government should. The stimulus money was meant to stimulate the economy and increase the number of jobs in the U.S. Most of the money in the stimulus package went to special interest groups and their projects and the money did not go toward shovel ready jobs. Some states didn’t even know how they were going to use their portion of stimulus dollars. The American people were told that shovel ready jobs were waiting to be completed and that the money was needed to hire workers, but that wasn't true. Are there more projects being completed in your area? I don’t see any big increases, if at all, with regard to shovel ready jobs in the Pittsburgh area.
In searching on the internet I found out on Wikianswers.com that as of April 6, 2008 the United States owes China $492 billion. Then, by coincidence today Stuart Varney from the Fox Business Network stated that China owns $763 billion of U.S. Treasury debt. That means that the United States owes at least that amount of money to China. The U.S. government has spent $787 billion on the Stimulus Bill and about $700 billion was on TARP. What if the U.S. had used the money we spent on both TARP and the Stimulus Bill and paid off our debt to China? Would that have been a good idea? Then the U.S. would not be beholden to China. Would that allow the U.S. to have more opportunities in the trading market? If the United States had paid off its debt to China then the U.S. could have started producing more made in the U.S.A. goods and exporting them. I believe that this could have created new jobs. I think that the U.S. should still trade with China but it seems to me that now the U.S. is mainly buying and importing cheap goods from China. It seems like the United States is not exporting nearly as many products as it was 40 or 50 years ago. Do you think that China would stop trading with the U.S. if we paid our debt to them? Would paying off the debt to China hurt the U.S. economy? I think it would benefit the U.S. if the United States paid off the debt that we owe China.
In searching on the internet I found out on Wikianswers.com that as of April 6, 2008 the United States owes China $492 billion. Then, by coincidence today Stuart Varney from the Fox Business Network stated that China owns $763 billion of U.S. Treasury debt. That means that the United States owes at least that amount of money to China. The U.S. government has spent $787 billion on the Stimulus Bill and about $700 billion was on TARP. What if the U.S. had used the money we spent on both TARP and the Stimulus Bill and paid off our debt to China? Would that have been a good idea? Then the U.S. would not be beholden to China. Would that allow the U.S. to have more opportunities in the trading market? If the United States had paid off its debt to China then the U.S. could have started producing more made in the U.S.A. goods and exporting them. I believe that this could have created new jobs. I think that the U.S. should still trade with China but it seems to me that now the U.S. is mainly buying and importing cheap goods from China. It seems like the United States is not exporting nearly as many products as it was 40 or 50 years ago. Do you think that China would stop trading with the U.S. if we paid our debt to them? Would paying off the debt to China hurt the U.S. economy? I think it would benefit the U.S. if the United States paid off the debt that we owe China.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
