I'm really sick of politicians... ALL OF THEM! Before I start I want to point out that the Republicans did the same thing when they held the majority and I was complaining then as well.
Here's the basic problem.. The Senate has the right to filibuster, that is, the minority can stall a bill indefinitely until the entire Senate just gives up on that bill and move on to something else. The positive side of this rule is that it keeps the minority from being completely helpless in cases where there is strong opposition against the majority.
The only recourse the majority has is to build a three fifths majority (60 votes) and vote to stop the filibuster and put the bill to a simple majority vote (requiring only 51 votes). This seems fair so far and I like the way this has worked in the past.
The only problem I have with this system is that it is used as a political tool and the citizens of the United States are dumb enough to fall for it. You see, I believe that if you support something then you should vote for it, adversely, if you do not then you should not. In other words, If 60 people are willing to vote for Cloture (stopping the filibuster) then 60 people clearly support the bill.
We have 60 Senators who wanted the bill to pass so much that they were willing to stop the filibuster but several of them claim to NOT support the bill. They do this because they have worked out a deal with the Majority leader to prearrange just enough votes to achieve a simple majority and can guarantee passage while voting against it so that they will not be held responsible by their constituency.
Taking the step to stop the filibuster is a dramatic show of support for a bill in and of itself, so for these Senators to go home after doing so and to claim that they voted against the unpopular bill is damn near treason. These clowns are voting to allow the passage of a bill that they would never be allowed to vote for by those who gave them the office and the morons that keep supporting them are screwing things up for the rest of us.
Once the Health Care bill is put to vote on the floor and voted on, I intend to call out every single Senator who supported it through cloture but pretended to vote against it. It is then your job to hold those traitors accountable and remind them of their dishonesty come election time.
This applies to both Republicans and Democrats. If you support this ridiculous health care abortion (that's my opinion)and you saw Senators vote for and then against those measures then you should be equally pissed off. These people need to just be honest and vote their heart rather than working the system just to keep us pacified!
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Intellectual Cowardice
Everyone on the right is calling Obama to hurry up and make a decision on what to do about the war in Afghanistan while everyone on the left is praising him for not letting the situation pressure him int making a bad decision. This, as we know, is a shining example of the ignorance of the left.
It is a personality flaw that is inherent with liberalism and created by the untested intellect of the educated elitists. What that means is that, for the most part, those who have spent most of their lives learning from others rather than their own mistakes have never really been held responsible for their solutions. Let me explain.. Engineers are employed to come up with a design for a product that will be installed by a tradesman. That product is deemed perfect by that engineer who will never be required to actually make it work nor install it in everyday applications. Once the "perfectly engineered" product gets into the hands of the tradesman he makes the necessary modifications to make it actually work. The engineer never knows that his product is flawed so he continues to think of himself as an elite designer and a great problem solver.
Usually it is the guy that has to do the real work who is the real engineer because he is directly responsible for his own actions. This applies to teachers and government officials as well. I can't tell you how many guys I've hired with great scores in school that were totally incapable when the rubber met the road. Yet, teachers really do think they know what they're doing...Ha! What a joke, you know what they say, those who can...do, those who can't... teach!
Back to the topic at hand. I want you to consider something. The president is taking time to come up with just the right decision while the soldiers are losing morale and sitting as targets for their enemies. As a military leader it is more often right to make the wrong decision quickly then the right one after the battle is lost. It does not make him wise to wait around thinking of the right thing to do while the circumstances worsen, it makes him a coward.
I understand that virtually nobody on the left has ever been in a position where they were required to decide on putting others in harms way so it's easy for them to say the things they say... but... to claim that Bush was a coward because he sent others to fight and did not fight himself is outright ignorant. It takes far more courage to send others into battle then to go yourself .This is why our wise and intellectual leader is still pondering this decision, he lacks the courage to take on the responsibility of his office.
As a disabled vet who permanently gave up the practical use of my right arm in an attempt to fight for your freedom, I have far more respect for Clinton as a poor military leader then for Obama who is afraid to lead at all!
It is a personality flaw that is inherent with liberalism and created by the untested intellect of the educated elitists. What that means is that, for the most part, those who have spent most of their lives learning from others rather than their own mistakes have never really been held responsible for their solutions. Let me explain.. Engineers are employed to come up with a design for a product that will be installed by a tradesman. That product is deemed perfect by that engineer who will never be required to actually make it work nor install it in everyday applications. Once the "perfectly engineered" product gets into the hands of the tradesman he makes the necessary modifications to make it actually work. The engineer never knows that his product is flawed so he continues to think of himself as an elite designer and a great problem solver.
Usually it is the guy that has to do the real work who is the real engineer because he is directly responsible for his own actions. This applies to teachers and government officials as well. I can't tell you how many guys I've hired with great scores in school that were totally incapable when the rubber met the road. Yet, teachers really do think they know what they're doing...Ha! What a joke, you know what they say, those who can...do, those who can't... teach!
Back to the topic at hand. I want you to consider something. The president is taking time to come up with just the right decision while the soldiers are losing morale and sitting as targets for their enemies. As a military leader it is more often right to make the wrong decision quickly then the right one after the battle is lost. It does not make him wise to wait around thinking of the right thing to do while the circumstances worsen, it makes him a coward.
I understand that virtually nobody on the left has ever been in a position where they were required to decide on putting others in harms way so it's easy for them to say the things they say... but... to claim that Bush was a coward because he sent others to fight and did not fight himself is outright ignorant. It takes far more courage to send others into battle then to go yourself .This is why our wise and intellectual leader is still pondering this decision, he lacks the courage to take on the responsibility of his office.
As a disabled vet who permanently gave up the practical use of my right arm in an attempt to fight for your freedom, I have far more respect for Clinton as a poor military leader then for Obama who is afraid to lead at all!
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Healthcare For Beginners and Dum Dums
Hopefully you have joined us here at FREEDOMFRONT for some clarity. If you are a current reader then this might seem a bit redundant but please hang in there, this is important. I have tried to pull a debate from a facebook page over to this blog because this seems a more reasonable place for a political debate.
The prevouusly mentioned debate was about what else but the health care bill. With that in mind I will answer some charges as well as questions from said debate.
Number one: I have been poor! As a matter of fact I am now as poor as anyone I have ever met, including the homeless which I have interviewed. I have a wife who is unemployed because she had to leave work to care for me and my young child after I was disabled. I am obviously unemployed at the time because my disability does not allow me to return to any profession for which I have marketable experience. I also have two other children for which I am financially responsible. We are on food stamps and my disability pays $200 monthly, which just about covers nothing.
There are many other details about my personal life that I feel I should not share but I promise I am as bad off as anyone reading this. Beyond that I have lived without insurance for most of my life and in that time I have had Meningitis, a fractured neck, severe burns over more than 10% of my body, multiple bone breaks, countless stitches and an ulcer. All of this is absolute truth, do I qualify to talk about health care?
Number two: "The system is broken and needs to be fixed". As it stands our system is broken because our doctors can "write off" unpaid health care as a tax break and the taxpayers pick that up on the back side. Those taxpayers who were being robbed by the system still have the choice of getting better care at their own expense. This new plan will continue paying for those who cannot pay but will do it in the open which will invite more abuse and more expense. The problem is that those who could have chosen better care will no longer have that option. This only breaks the system more.
I propose a "loan" for health care. A low interest government loan that must be paid back in much the same way we pay our taxes. This will keep people from mindlessly spending money and force them to seek out better pricing while allowing them to choose the level of care. This will also force the health care providers to keep their prices and service marketable, you know, the free market way.
Number three: "The governments job is to take care of us". Clearly you never paid attention in school. The constitution is very clear on what the federal government is responsible for and nowhere in there is there anything about taking care of us. You need to move to Cuba if you need a babysitter in charge.
The design of our government was intentionally built from the bottom up. You are responsible for yourself. It is the place of each community to take care of the things that happen in that community and making sure that the people are fair to each other. The state is charged with the task of keeping the communities from working against each other while allowing them every opportunity to choose how they better themselves. This provides competition from community to community.
After that, it is the job of the federal government to make sure that states do not work against each other while allowing them the liberty to market themselves. This provides competition from state to state. The net effect is that any one community or even state is allowed to try this health care plan and the rest can see how it works out. If it is successful then other states will be forced to adopt it in order to keep its citizenry.
Obviously the federal government is also responsible for national defense and a couple other things but this is debate about their responsibility to each of us. The fact is that they have no responsibility towards the individual, this is the only way our founders could garuntee that the government would not be granted the power that accompanies that responsibility. Those who support this bill are fine with Obama having that power because they believe he will use it wisely. The question is... Would they have trusted Bush with that much power?
The point is that, regardless of the FACT that federal health care is unconstitutional, it is just a bad Idea to force an irreversable and all encompassing wad of legislation on every single American without even testing it on a smaller level. Really, would you get in a jet that has never been tested or drive a car on the interstate without knowing that the brakes work.
There are many more reasons to reconsider this legislation and I encourage you to read some of my past posts to get a more detailed explanation of how this country is supposed to work. I also challenge you to continue this debate in the comment section underneath each post.
Thanks for reading and keeping up with the most important stuff in the world.
The prevouusly mentioned debate was about what else but the health care bill. With that in mind I will answer some charges as well as questions from said debate.
Number one: I have been poor! As a matter of fact I am now as poor as anyone I have ever met, including the homeless which I have interviewed. I have a wife who is unemployed because she had to leave work to care for me and my young child after I was disabled. I am obviously unemployed at the time because my disability does not allow me to return to any profession for which I have marketable experience. I also have two other children for which I am financially responsible. We are on food stamps and my disability pays $200 monthly, which just about covers nothing.
There are many other details about my personal life that I feel I should not share but I promise I am as bad off as anyone reading this. Beyond that I have lived without insurance for most of my life and in that time I have had Meningitis, a fractured neck, severe burns over more than 10% of my body, multiple bone breaks, countless stitches and an ulcer. All of this is absolute truth, do I qualify to talk about health care?
Number two: "The system is broken and needs to be fixed". As it stands our system is broken because our doctors can "write off" unpaid health care as a tax break and the taxpayers pick that up on the back side. Those taxpayers who were being robbed by the system still have the choice of getting better care at their own expense. This new plan will continue paying for those who cannot pay but will do it in the open which will invite more abuse and more expense. The problem is that those who could have chosen better care will no longer have that option. This only breaks the system more.
I propose a "loan" for health care. A low interest government loan that must be paid back in much the same way we pay our taxes. This will keep people from mindlessly spending money and force them to seek out better pricing while allowing them to choose the level of care. This will also force the health care providers to keep their prices and service marketable, you know, the free market way.
Number three: "The governments job is to take care of us". Clearly you never paid attention in school. The constitution is very clear on what the federal government is responsible for and nowhere in there is there anything about taking care of us. You need to move to Cuba if you need a babysitter in charge.
The design of our government was intentionally built from the bottom up. You are responsible for yourself. It is the place of each community to take care of the things that happen in that community and making sure that the people are fair to each other. The state is charged with the task of keeping the communities from working against each other while allowing them every opportunity to choose how they better themselves. This provides competition from community to community.
After that, it is the job of the federal government to make sure that states do not work against each other while allowing them the liberty to market themselves. This provides competition from state to state. The net effect is that any one community or even state is allowed to try this health care plan and the rest can see how it works out. If it is successful then other states will be forced to adopt it in order to keep its citizenry.
Obviously the federal government is also responsible for national defense and a couple other things but this is debate about their responsibility to each of us. The fact is that they have no responsibility towards the individual, this is the only way our founders could garuntee that the government would not be granted the power that accompanies that responsibility. Those who support this bill are fine with Obama having that power because they believe he will use it wisely. The question is... Would they have trusted Bush with that much power?
The point is that, regardless of the FACT that federal health care is unconstitutional, it is just a bad Idea to force an irreversable and all encompassing wad of legislation on every single American without even testing it on a smaller level. Really, would you get in a jet that has never been tested or drive a car on the interstate without knowing that the brakes work.
There are many more reasons to reconsider this legislation and I encourage you to read some of my past posts to get a more detailed explanation of how this country is supposed to work. I also challenge you to continue this debate in the comment section underneath each post.
Thanks for reading and keeping up with the most important stuff in the world.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
What's Wrong With Socialism: The final word (I hope)
I have recently made a point of asking several people a number of questions to help better understand what I am up against. While it was anything but scientific I tried to get the most honest results possible and was very careful not to let the pattern of the questions taint the results.
First I looked for people who i knew to be generally uninterested in politics, that is, those who are only subjected to the basic flow of information through mass media and the bias of their upbringing. Then I asked questions about government programs (including health care) and eventually about capitalism vs socialism.
What I learned was both interesting and scary as hell. First of all I found that few knew of a difference between a democracy and a republic. Most, however, thought that we were a democracy. Obviously they are wrong... We are (or once were) a Republic, more to the point, a representative democratic republic. If you don't understand then please let me know so I can help you out.
I also found that most people in my survey thought that socialism was "definitely not good" and that capitalism had "something to do with greed" but could not define either one. I'm guessing that the Hollywood portrayal of both sides has led to this conception of each. I'm glad that they think of socialism as bad but I'm not comfortable with their lack of reason in the matter.
Finally, I found that most people want the government to get involved in the lives of other people but not of their own. That is to say that they want to punish the "greedy rich" and to "help the poor" but they are not willing to give up their own freedoms nor the product of their own labor in the process. I guess that's the middle class mantra... "leave me out of it".
What most people seem to ignore is that when you give the government the power to give to the poor and take from the rich you have also giving them the power to set those parameters. You see, during the campaign Obama promised that the necessary tax hike would only apply to those who made over $300k. Then he dropped that number to $250k, and then $200k and now I'm hearing both $150k and $100k. "So what, they are rich" right? Well how much do you make? What if they decide that they need to raise taxes on everyone making over $40k?
Now in order to pay for those who have nothing you are being forced to pay up to 40% of your earnings. That means that the first 3 hours of your workday go to paying for those who do not work and then you get to keep what you've earned for the other 5 hours. That hardly seems fair right?... Wait, it gets worse.
So the government feels that $7 an hour is not a livable wage and raises the minimum wage to $10. At that point it would cost every business in the country an extra 30% to pay the least productive employees. How does a business offset that extra cost? Well, either by raising the price of the product or reducing the payroll and demanding more productivity from the remaining employees.
If they raise the price of the products then the new wage will no longer be considered a livable wage in a market where all of the prices are higher and the same cycle will continue to repeat itself until the minimum and maximum wages meet. Remember, every time the minimum wage goes up your wage stays the same but the prices go up. That means that the entry level worker gains nothing while your income to expense ratio decreases.
On the other hand.. If the employees choose to absorb the new wage increase by reducing payroll then they will need to release those who are least productive. those individuals will become dependant on the state and the cost of welfare will skyrocket. The government will then be forced to raise the tax burden on the producers in order to absorb the cost.
With an increase in taxes levied on the businesses they will be forced to raise the price of their product in order to absorb the new cost. You will also feel that increase in cost as your expenses go up while your income goes down. The net result is the same, everyone will make the same thing regardless of their productivity.
This is the Democrats dream, the Utopian fantasy that Obama preaches. A world where no matter what you do you will not be able to gain ground on others. All will be equal but will anything be fair? The "progressives" are proud to tell us that they can provide universal equality at the expense of the "rich".
Sure, they want us to all drive little "green" go carts and plan to tax us if we choose not to. They want us to all eat healthy so that we do not add a burden to the "free" health care system and they have proposed punishments if we don't comply. They will offer affordable energy to everyone who uses the right amount at the right time (as they define). They want to offer federally approved education to every single child at no cost to anyone.
They are currently offering up these things and many more... but, where is the freedom? All we hear from Obama (the millionaire) is how we need to be prepared to "sacrifice" for the "common good". How only our federal government can make things good for "everyone". His Idea of responsibility is that everyone is responsible for everyone but themselves. If lawyers have proven anything it is that we can get away with anything as long as we can blame someone else. This is where our nation is headed, "I'm not responsible so I can't be held responsible for my actions".
All of the things that I've shown you are consistent with socialist societies. I hope that my short series has enlightened you and you are willing to admit that it is better to start with capitalism and introduce limited restrictions than to move to socialism and try to introduce freedoms. I pray that I never again find myself having to answer the question "what's wrong with socialism"!
First I looked for people who i knew to be generally uninterested in politics, that is, those who are only subjected to the basic flow of information through mass media and the bias of their upbringing. Then I asked questions about government programs (including health care) and eventually about capitalism vs socialism.
What I learned was both interesting and scary as hell. First of all I found that few knew of a difference between a democracy and a republic. Most, however, thought that we were a democracy. Obviously they are wrong... We are (or once were) a Republic, more to the point, a representative democratic republic. If you don't understand then please let me know so I can help you out.
I also found that most people in my survey thought that socialism was "definitely not good" and that capitalism had "something to do with greed" but could not define either one. I'm guessing that the Hollywood portrayal of both sides has led to this conception of each. I'm glad that they think of socialism as bad but I'm not comfortable with their lack of reason in the matter.
Finally, I found that most people want the government to get involved in the lives of other people but not of their own. That is to say that they want to punish the "greedy rich" and to "help the poor" but they are not willing to give up their own freedoms nor the product of their own labor in the process. I guess that's the middle class mantra... "leave me out of it".
What most people seem to ignore is that when you give the government the power to give to the poor and take from the rich you have also giving them the power to set those parameters. You see, during the campaign Obama promised that the necessary tax hike would only apply to those who made over $300k. Then he dropped that number to $250k, and then $200k and now I'm hearing both $150k and $100k. "So what, they are rich" right? Well how much do you make? What if they decide that they need to raise taxes on everyone making over $40k?
Now in order to pay for those who have nothing you are being forced to pay up to 40% of your earnings. That means that the first 3 hours of your workday go to paying for those who do not work and then you get to keep what you've earned for the other 5 hours. That hardly seems fair right?... Wait, it gets worse.
So the government feels that $7 an hour is not a livable wage and raises the minimum wage to $10. At that point it would cost every business in the country an extra 30% to pay the least productive employees. How does a business offset that extra cost? Well, either by raising the price of the product or reducing the payroll and demanding more productivity from the remaining employees.
If they raise the price of the products then the new wage will no longer be considered a livable wage in a market where all of the prices are higher and the same cycle will continue to repeat itself until the minimum and maximum wages meet. Remember, every time the minimum wage goes up your wage stays the same but the prices go up. That means that the entry level worker gains nothing while your income to expense ratio decreases.
On the other hand.. If the employees choose to absorb the new wage increase by reducing payroll then they will need to release those who are least productive. those individuals will become dependant on the state and the cost of welfare will skyrocket. The government will then be forced to raise the tax burden on the producers in order to absorb the cost.
With an increase in taxes levied on the businesses they will be forced to raise the price of their product in order to absorb the new cost. You will also feel that increase in cost as your expenses go up while your income goes down. The net result is the same, everyone will make the same thing regardless of their productivity.
This is the Democrats dream, the Utopian fantasy that Obama preaches. A world where no matter what you do you will not be able to gain ground on others. All will be equal but will anything be fair? The "progressives" are proud to tell us that they can provide universal equality at the expense of the "rich".
Sure, they want us to all drive little "green" go carts and plan to tax us if we choose not to. They want us to all eat healthy so that we do not add a burden to the "free" health care system and they have proposed punishments if we don't comply. They will offer affordable energy to everyone who uses the right amount at the right time (as they define). They want to offer federally approved education to every single child at no cost to anyone.
They are currently offering up these things and many more... but, where is the freedom? All we hear from Obama (the millionaire) is how we need to be prepared to "sacrifice" for the "common good". How only our federal government can make things good for "everyone". His Idea of responsibility is that everyone is responsible for everyone but themselves. If lawyers have proven anything it is that we can get away with anything as long as we can blame someone else. This is where our nation is headed, "I'm not responsible so I can't be held responsible for my actions".
All of the things that I've shown you are consistent with socialist societies. I hope that my short series has enlightened you and you are willing to admit that it is better to start with capitalism and introduce limited restrictions than to move to socialism and try to introduce freedoms. I pray that I never again find myself having to answer the question "what's wrong with socialism"!
Friday, November 6, 2009
Including a Semi-Automatic?
Today I have to put a couple things out there before I get to my point.
First.. To all of those who are feeling the pains from that dispicible attack on Ft Hood I want you to know that My prayers are with you....Hooah!
Second.. I am doubled in my pain as I was on my way to the family viewing of my grandfather when I heard about the attack. Sadly, my grandfather passed away last Sunday and I am in Virginia this week for the funeral. We were very close and it has been a very painful loss for me so please excuse my lack of enthusiasm in the blog this week. Next week I will return with a vengence.
So while watching the news coverage of the "mass shooting" in Texas I sat with baited breath, waiting for the anti-gun animosity to show through from our "balanced" media. The moment came in subtle whisps but were heard loudly by those who listened. The news babe says "the shooter used two handguns" and then emphasised "including a semi automatic".
This is the kind of nonsense that our media reports daily and people just accept it. Pointing out that a handgun used in a crime was semi automatic is tant amount to telling us that a car used in a hit and run had an automatic transmission. Seriously, does that really make i sound more ominous? Is it not painfully obvious why they had to throw that in?
This is the way they move people against guns, by making it sound like they "automatically" kill innocent bystanders. They invent words like "assult rifle" to make guns sound like the bad guys while ignoring the fact that people kill with lots of different weapons.
Maybe if we start calling cars with automatic transmissions "assault vehicles" and any club that can be swung multiple times could be called a "semi-automatic pounder" we can get people to stop doing just about anything.
On the other hand, I have noticed that in places where guns are not allowed (Ft Hood, Va Tech, Columbine) the death toll gets high quickly but in places where guns are liberally distributed you never hear about mass shootings. Maybe there is something to this fact... naa, that makes too much sense.
First.. To all of those who are feeling the pains from that dispicible attack on Ft Hood I want you to know that My prayers are with you....Hooah!
Second.. I am doubled in my pain as I was on my way to the family viewing of my grandfather when I heard about the attack. Sadly, my grandfather passed away last Sunday and I am in Virginia this week for the funeral. We were very close and it has been a very painful loss for me so please excuse my lack of enthusiasm in the blog this week. Next week I will return with a vengence.
So while watching the news coverage of the "mass shooting" in Texas I sat with baited breath, waiting for the anti-gun animosity to show through from our "balanced" media. The moment came in subtle whisps but were heard loudly by those who listened. The news babe says "the shooter used two handguns" and then emphasised "including a semi automatic".
This is the kind of nonsense that our media reports daily and people just accept it. Pointing out that a handgun used in a crime was semi automatic is tant amount to telling us that a car used in a hit and run had an automatic transmission. Seriously, does that really make i sound more ominous? Is it not painfully obvious why they had to throw that in?
This is the way they move people against guns, by making it sound like they "automatically" kill innocent bystanders. They invent words like "assult rifle" to make guns sound like the bad guys while ignoring the fact that people kill with lots of different weapons.
Maybe if we start calling cars with automatic transmissions "assault vehicles" and any club that can be swung multiple times could be called a "semi-automatic pounder" we can get people to stop doing just about anything.
On the other hand, I have noticed that in places where guns are not allowed (Ft Hood, Va Tech, Columbine) the death toll gets high quickly but in places where guns are liberally distributed you never hear about mass shootings. Maybe there is something to this fact... naa, that makes too much sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
