Below is a letter I got in an e-mail. Hopefully no one sues me for copyright infringement.
To Barack Hussein Obama,
The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008 that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008 that FBI records showed that you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko than what you previously admitted. In the interview, you said that you only saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year. The FBI files showed that you saw him weekly. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008 about 'race' contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements about white America . While your attendance at Trinity Church for 20 years is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on March 14.
In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you never said that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea without 'preparations' at lower levels ... Joe Biden repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin ... while the video tape from your debate last February clearly shows that you answered 'I would' to the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months without 'any' preconditions. While your judgement about meeting with enemies of the USA without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America in the debate with McCain.
On July 14, 2008 , you said that you always knew that the surge would work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you stated that the surge would not work. While your judgement about military strategy as a potential commander in chief is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.
You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the troops was because the bill did not include a time line for withdrawal while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be removed immediately ... not in 16 months after the 2008 election as you now claim. While your judgement about removing our troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about your previous position.
You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican was with Chuck Lugar ... and it failed. The record shows that you vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most liberal voting record in the Senate. You joined Republicans only 13% of the time in your votes and those 13% were only after agreement from the Democrat party. While it is of concern that you fail to include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the greater concern is that you distorted the truth.
In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you claimed to have talked with a 'Captain' of a platoon in Afghanistan 'the other day' when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had just been deployed to Afghanistan . You lied in that debate.
In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a 'professor of Constitutional law' when in fact you have never been a professor of Constitutional law. In this last debate, you were careful to say that you 'taught a law class' and never mentioned being a 'professor of Constitutional law.' You lied last spring.
You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted against additional funding for our troops when the actual records show the opposite. You distorted the truth.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against funding for alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially corn ... and he was right ... corn is too expensive at producing ethanol, and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for food. You distorted the truth.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of you for a tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you and Joe Biden. You lied to America .
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of the votes are procedural. You are one of the few who has not voted 90% of the time with the president because you have been missing from the Senate since the day you got elected. While your absence from your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you spin the facts.
You did not take an active roll in the rescue plan. You claimed that the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn ... who all helped cause the financial problems of today .... and they all made major contributions to your campaign. While your relationship with these executives and your protection of them for your brief 3 years in the Senate (along with Barney Frank, Chuch Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful.
You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and Acorn. Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was convicted of fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you sponsored as a state senator ... and Acorn has been convicted of voter fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation, and illegal campaign contributions. Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to your political campaigns. You personally used your political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and you. While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your relationships with them to America .
During your campaign, you said: 'typical white person.' 'they cling to their guns and religion.' 'they will say that I am black.' You played the race card. You tried to label any criticism about you as racist. You divide America .
You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of America , but you forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you remove the Bush tax reductions. You have requested close to $1 Billion in earmarks and several million for Acorn. Your social programs will cost America $1 Trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in military spending ($100 billion for Iraq ) can pay for it. While your economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving America .
The drain to America 's economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 Billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100 Billion (less than 1% of GDP). You voted against any increases to oil exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities. Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear. You are lying to America .
Mr. Obama, you claimed that you 'changed' your mind about public financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican PACs in 2004. The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and 2008 spent twice as much as the Republican PACs (especially George Soros and MoveOn.org). You are lying to America ..
Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the teachers union and college professors in the USA . They eliminated religion from our history. They teach pro gay agendas and discuss sex with students as young as first grade. They bring their personal politics into the classrooms. They disparage conservatives. They brainwash our children. They are in it for themselves ..... not America . Are you reluctant to condemn their actions because teachers/professors and the NEA contribute 25% of all money donated to Democrats and none to Republicans? You are deceiving America .
Oh Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that we Americans should first look at the character of our leaders before anything else.
Your character looks horrible. While you make good speeches, motivating speeches, your character does not match your rhetoric. You talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
1. You lied to America . You lied many times. You distorted facts. You parsed your answers like a lawyer.
2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your advertisements.
3. You had associations with some very bad people for your personal political gains and then lied about those associations.
4. You divide America about race and about class.
Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race bating, and associations to John McCain: War hero. Annapolis graduate with 'Country first.' Operational leadership experience like all 43 previously elected presidents of the USA as a Navy Officer for 22 years. 26 years in the Senate. Straight talk. Maverick. 54% of the time participated on bills with Democrats. Never asked for an earmark. The only blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years ago.
Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that the end does not justify the means. You learned that perjury, false witness, dishonesty, distortion of truth are never tolerated. Yet, your dishonesty is overwhelming. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill Clinton. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed.
Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our differences on political issues and vote against you because of your dishonest character. It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our political issues and vote for America first. It is time for America to vote for honesty.
Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are dishonest should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political issues more important than character. Would these same people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches? Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain? Would they hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview? .... of course not. So why do some of these people justify their votes for you even though they know you are dishonest? Why do they excuse your dishonesty? because some of these people are frightened about the future, the economy, and their financial security .... and you are praying on their fears with empty promises ... and because some (especially our young people) are consumed by your wonderful style and promises for 'change' like the Germans who voted for Adol f Hitler in 1932. The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing Hitler for who he was. They loved his style. Greed and envy are keeping many Americans from recognizing you ... your style has camouflaged your dishonesty .... but many of us see you for who you really are ... and we will not stop exposing who you are every day, forever if it is necessary.
Mr. Obama, you are dishonest. Anyone who votes for you is enabling dishonesty.
Mr. Obama , America cannot trust that you will put America first in your decisions about the future. ama, you are not the 'change' that America deserves. We cannot trust you. Mr. Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be commander in chief.
Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your campaign to refute all of your false statements. And for whatever reasons, the mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research about your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race bating, lack of operational leadership experience, and general dishonest character. The media is diverting our attention to your relationships and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships. The fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships themselves .... just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon ... Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that those gentlemen lied about the events ... false witness ... perjury ... your relationships and bad judgements are bad on their own .... but your lies are even worse.
Therefore, by copy of this memo, all who read this memo are asked to send it to everyone else in America before it is too late. We need to do the job that the media will not do. We need to expose your dishonesty so that every person in America understands who you really are before election day.
Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve. And God help America if we deserve you.
Showing posts with label mccain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mccain. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Obama Tax Delusion
Obama’s Tax policy is not a tax cut. There is no reduction in the percentage that people have to pay to the government. What he has proposed is a complicated system of tax credits. Some of these tax credits are actually reverse related to your income, so the more you earn, the less you qualify for in terms of credit. (In case you think, Oh Obama said he would make taxes easier - he is getting to do it by granting the government access to all your private financial information).
Now the numbers. Obama’s tax credit plan only targets 80% of Americans, not 95% (this 95% number seems to have just appeared on the campaign trail one day). 38% of Americans already don’t pay any Federal taxes, but they are eligible for Obama’s tax credit. This means half of those that qualify for Obama’s “tax cut” are actually going checks from the government for doing nothing.
Let me illustrate. Let’s take Bob. Bob works, but his income isn’t that high. He sits in the bottom 40% income bracket. Bob pays nothing, zero to the federal government in taxes. He represents half of those targeted by Obama’s tax plan. He qualifies for certain tax credits totaling, let’s say $2,000.00. Now Bob pays nothing to the federal government, but come tax return time the government is going to hand him a check for $2,000.00, apparently just for being Bob.
Now, let’s take Sue. Sue pays $6,000 in federal taxes per year. Because she earns more, and so actually pays taxes, she is eligible for less money back from the government than Bob who pays nothing. So if Sue was eligible for the same set of tax credits, she would get less money credited to her. So under the Obama plan she’s eligible for let’s say $1,500.00 back. The end result for Sue is that she pays $4,500.00 to the government. After all, the government needs some of her middle class money so it can give Bob a check for $2,000.00, apparently because he’s Bob.
Now let’s take Joe the plumber. He wants to start a business, but that business will sit in the 20% bracket that Obama wants to raise taxes on so he can give Bob a check for $2,000.00, apparently for being Bob. So now Joe can’t afford to start his business. This means that Joe can’t hire and employ people. This means that if Bob loses his job, he isn’t going to be able to find another one as business can’t grow anymore. Well, at least Bob got a check from the government for $2,000.00. That’ll help when he can’t find a job.
The end result: Obama’s plan essentially expands the welfare rolls to 40% of the population (most of whom have jobs) on the backs of small businesses and the middle class. Good job, Obama you’ve made us Obamunists.
Next article, the scary similarities between Obama's economic policy and the economic policy's that launched us into the great depression. Oh, and in case you are like the democrats in the House and hadn't heard (or read an unbiased account of the Great Depression), The New Deal was not successful and actually caused the Depression to drag on for 10 years and caused a depression within a depression.
Now the numbers. Obama’s tax credit plan only targets 80% of Americans, not 95% (this 95% number seems to have just appeared on the campaign trail one day). 38% of Americans already don’t pay any Federal taxes, but they are eligible for Obama’s tax credit. This means half of those that qualify for Obama’s “tax cut” are actually going checks from the government for doing nothing.
Let me illustrate. Let’s take Bob. Bob works, but his income isn’t that high. He sits in the bottom 40% income bracket. Bob pays nothing, zero to the federal government in taxes. He represents half of those targeted by Obama’s tax plan. He qualifies for certain tax credits totaling, let’s say $2,000.00. Now Bob pays nothing to the federal government, but come tax return time the government is going to hand him a check for $2,000.00, apparently just for being Bob.
Now, let’s take Sue. Sue pays $6,000 in federal taxes per year. Because she earns more, and so actually pays taxes, she is eligible for less money back from the government than Bob who pays nothing. So if Sue was eligible for the same set of tax credits, she would get less money credited to her. So under the Obama plan she’s eligible for let’s say $1,500.00 back. The end result for Sue is that she pays $4,500.00 to the government. After all, the government needs some of her middle class money so it can give Bob a check for $2,000.00, apparently because he’s Bob.
Now let’s take Joe the plumber. He wants to start a business, but that business will sit in the 20% bracket that Obama wants to raise taxes on so he can give Bob a check for $2,000.00, apparently for being Bob. So now Joe can’t afford to start his business. This means that Joe can’t hire and employ people. This means that if Bob loses his job, he isn’t going to be able to find another one as business can’t grow anymore. Well, at least Bob got a check from the government for $2,000.00. That’ll help when he can’t find a job.
The end result: Obama’s plan essentially expands the welfare rolls to 40% of the population (most of whom have jobs) on the backs of small businesses and the middle class. Good job, Obama you’ve made us Obamunists.
Next article, the scary similarities between Obama's economic policy and the economic policy's that launched us into the great depression. Oh, and in case you are like the democrats in the House and hadn't heard (or read an unbiased account of the Great Depression), The New Deal was not successful and actually caused the Depression to drag on for 10 years and caused a depression within a depression.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Why You Should Blame the Democrats and Vote Republican
So I am getting a little sick of people blaming the republicans for everything and saying we must vote for Obama to solve our problems. But here are some hard truths to think about.
President Bush and most of the Republicans have been advocating drilling for years, but the Democrats have been dead set against. Oil prices were on the rise and will likely be on the the rise again soon, but still the Democrats (who control both houses) are a no go on drilling. So gas prices are high, which is the Dems fault. If they had allowed drilling before, we would not be facing this crisis. If they had allowed us to build refineries and drill away from the golf coast, we wouldn't be in constant fear of a hurricane shooting up gas prices.
Because of the high gas prices, everything else is going up in price, food, products, anything that is shipped, and families are struggling. Obama talks about the struggling family, but his policies of no drill and more "green" production will only increase their hurt as it will increase prices.
Of course, his excessive pro-union stance and high tax rates will also drive companies and jobs abroad to China, but, hey, according to Obama, jobs going to China is NAFTA's fault. Though, last time I checked China was not part of North America so not part of NAFTA, but hey, there's Dems. geography for you.
So Obama's policies = higher prices and less jobs. Now he can say from now until forever that the opposite is true, but just saying something doesn't make it true, it just means you've said it a lot.
Terrorism is always a fear for us here in America. Guess how terrorism is partly funded? Oil proceeds. That's right, when you fill your tank, you may be sending money straight to terrorists who will try to use your own money to blow you up. But hey, why worry about it now? They haven't attacked us since 2001, which obviously had nothing to do with Republican policies.
Obama's followers keep harping on Palin's lack of experience, but last time I checked she was running in the VP spot and Obama's experience is not much greater than hers. Now many Obama supporters say he can just get good advisors, which would also work for Palin, yes? And Palin doesn't have a history of associating with racists, domestic terrorists, and real estate misdeeders, so she is ahead on this avenue. Now, Obama was against the Iraq war, true, but he was in Illinois state senate when the position cost him nothing and then he was opposed to the surge, which worked, and which McCain said would work. And we have Georgia, which McCain almost predicted years ago with his stated distrust of Putin anf Obama that wanted to sit back and just wait to see what happened (In other words, good by Georgia). Yeah, Obama is somehow so much better on foreign policy than McCain, because after all he toured Europe with reporters.
Of course, there is the issue of corruption in politics and breaking up the current system. Now on one side is Obama who was part and parcel of the Mayor Daley corruption world of Chicago and Biden who is true old school politician and all that entails. Then we have McCain, who has fought against corruption for years and Palin who made a name for herself in Alaska taking on big oil and the corrupt politicians in her own party. Which side do you think is more likely to take on the Washington elite and win? My vote is with Sarah Baracuda.
Palin is also the only one with executive experiences. True, it is only 2 years, but it is more than anyone else out there. Now Obama tries to claim his campaign has prepared him (well, since there is nothing else to his credit, I supposed that is what he must fall back on). This is the same campaign who threatened media outlets with massive loss of advertising if they ran the add linking Obama to Ayers (the unrepetent domestic terrorist that Obama launched his campagin from), the same campaign that tried to link China with NAFTA, the same campaign that called mid-westerners bitter signal issue voters. So what we have is the lowest of the low in political tricks, of misleading the American people, and preventing freedom of speech. Great attributes for the main of "change." Now, true, Obama's campaign has been successful. He did, after all, win with no experience to his name and just a pretty little speech to show he is ready to run the country. You know, Hitler was popular, too, but I sure wouldn't want him running any country I live it.
Now, I could write an entire book on the downfalls of the socialist agenda he is pushing and a universal, government run, health care system, but I will just ask this - How good did the government do at say Katrina or managing social security and any of the other of its myriad of overbroad government programs it tries to run? Also, just do a quick search for available doctors in Canada or dialysis in Great Britain if you are over 55, or cancer treatmentsm or expensive drug therapy in Europe and see the results you get. See what is not said about the rest of the worlds attempts at universal healthcare. Oh, and check out their tax rates and unemployment rates and think if that is the country you want to live in. And before you say we are already there the unemployment rate for July was 5.7% and last quarter saw growth and the dolloar is on the rise, no matter what the media and Obama is trying to scare you into thinking.
Oh, and one more thing. The top ten poorest cities are all democratic strong holds and many were thay way long before they became the poorest cities. Do we really want them controlling th entire country? (See below for an articles re: the top ten poorest cities)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/20/beck.cities/index.html?iref=newssearch
Just put down the Obama kool-aid and think. Do you really know what is in that glass? Is it something sweet? Or poison?
President Bush and most of the Republicans have been advocating drilling for years, but the Democrats have been dead set against. Oil prices were on the rise and will likely be on the the rise again soon, but still the Democrats (who control both houses) are a no go on drilling. So gas prices are high, which is the Dems fault. If they had allowed drilling before, we would not be facing this crisis. If they had allowed us to build refineries and drill away from the golf coast, we wouldn't be in constant fear of a hurricane shooting up gas prices.
Because of the high gas prices, everything else is going up in price, food, products, anything that is shipped, and families are struggling. Obama talks about the struggling family, but his policies of no drill and more "green" production will only increase their hurt as it will increase prices.
Of course, his excessive pro-union stance and high tax rates will also drive companies and jobs abroad to China, but, hey, according to Obama, jobs going to China is NAFTA's fault. Though, last time I checked China was not part of North America so not part of NAFTA, but hey, there's Dems. geography for you.
So Obama's policies = higher prices and less jobs. Now he can say from now until forever that the opposite is true, but just saying something doesn't make it true, it just means you've said it a lot.
Terrorism is always a fear for us here in America. Guess how terrorism is partly funded? Oil proceeds. That's right, when you fill your tank, you may be sending money straight to terrorists who will try to use your own money to blow you up. But hey, why worry about it now? They haven't attacked us since 2001, which obviously had nothing to do with Republican policies.
Obama's followers keep harping on Palin's lack of experience, but last time I checked she was running in the VP spot and Obama's experience is not much greater than hers. Now many Obama supporters say he can just get good advisors, which would also work for Palin, yes? And Palin doesn't have a history of associating with racists, domestic terrorists, and real estate misdeeders, so she is ahead on this avenue. Now, Obama was against the Iraq war, true, but he was in Illinois state senate when the position cost him nothing and then he was opposed to the surge, which worked, and which McCain said would work. And we have Georgia, which McCain almost predicted years ago with his stated distrust of Putin anf Obama that wanted to sit back and just wait to see what happened (In other words, good by Georgia). Yeah, Obama is somehow so much better on foreign policy than McCain, because after all he toured Europe with reporters.
Of course, there is the issue of corruption in politics and breaking up the current system. Now on one side is Obama who was part and parcel of the Mayor Daley corruption world of Chicago and Biden who is true old school politician and all that entails. Then we have McCain, who has fought against corruption for years and Palin who made a name for herself in Alaska taking on big oil and the corrupt politicians in her own party. Which side do you think is more likely to take on the Washington elite and win? My vote is with Sarah Baracuda.
Palin is also the only one with executive experiences. True, it is only 2 years, but it is more than anyone else out there. Now Obama tries to claim his campaign has prepared him (well, since there is nothing else to his credit, I supposed that is what he must fall back on). This is the same campaign who threatened media outlets with massive loss of advertising if they ran the add linking Obama to Ayers (the unrepetent domestic terrorist that Obama launched his campagin from), the same campaign that tried to link China with NAFTA, the same campaign that called mid-westerners bitter signal issue voters. So what we have is the lowest of the low in political tricks, of misleading the American people, and preventing freedom of speech. Great attributes for the main of "change." Now, true, Obama's campaign has been successful. He did, after all, win with no experience to his name and just a pretty little speech to show he is ready to run the country. You know, Hitler was popular, too, but I sure wouldn't want him running any country I live it.
Now, I could write an entire book on the downfalls of the socialist agenda he is pushing and a universal, government run, health care system, but I will just ask this - How good did the government do at say Katrina or managing social security and any of the other of its myriad of overbroad government programs it tries to run? Also, just do a quick search for available doctors in Canada or dialysis in Great Britain if you are over 55, or cancer treatmentsm or expensive drug therapy in Europe and see the results you get. See what is not said about the rest of the worlds attempts at universal healthcare. Oh, and check out their tax rates and unemployment rates and think if that is the country you want to live in. And before you say we are already there the unemployment rate for July was 5.7% and last quarter saw growth and the dolloar is on the rise, no matter what the media and Obama is trying to scare you into thinking.
Oh, and one more thing. The top ten poorest cities are all democratic strong holds and many were thay way long before they became the poorest cities. Do we really want them controlling th entire country? (See below for an articles re: the top ten poorest cities)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/20/beck.cities/index.html?iref=newssearch
Just put down the Obama kool-aid and think. Do you really know what is in that glass? Is it something sweet? Or poison?
Sunday, August 31, 2008
I am glad I am not a democratic feminist right now.
So I went down to Dayton to see McCain announce his VP. When he announced Palin, I realized this could be a good pick. I didn't know much about her yet, just that she had a lot of kids, her husband was pretty darn attractive for an older guy, and she was the governor of Alaska. However, this blog isn't about whether Sarah Palin is a good pick. I think she is (it is VP after all, not President, so the experience requirement isn't quite as high, and she runs a state successfully, all Obama has done is run a campaign (after he won his senatorship because of a scandal)). What this is about is what I learned about democrats.
From the liberal left certain phrases abound when describing Palin: "hot hockey mom," "MILF," "token," "stewardess," and "bad mother for not caring for her kids." I am pretty much disgusted. How can they sit there and speak of change and a better future and in the next breath say a woman can't be VP because she has kids. What is this, 1908? When have fathers stopped being parents that can look after children (well, since the democrats seem to be advancing an agenda that encourages single motherhood, perhaps they don't think the father is important)? When has a woman's role been reduced to just that of (hot) wife and mother? Isn't the left supposed to be the side pushing for woman's rights?
And from the female feminists on the left, I have learned one thing: apparently one cannot be a feminist and be pro-life. Apparently, I am not a feminist. Could have fooled me. I have thought I was a feminist, what with my believing in the equality of females and males, the need to fight against sexism, and that women are more than mothers and that it is wrong of society to say your career must end if you pop out a couple of kids. I'll be sure to inform my other feminist friends that our only agenda is securing women everywhere the right to kill unborn children. Honestly, here we have Sarah Palin who worked her way up through the political world of Alaska, battled corruption, became the first female Alaskan governor, has 80% approval rating in her state, all while raising 5 kids. But, no, nothing to respect there. However, Hillary, who got her senatorship because of her husband, is the ideal for feminists?
I am glad I have seen what the democratic party is composed of and I am glad I am a Republican Feminist.
From the liberal left certain phrases abound when describing Palin: "hot hockey mom," "MILF," "token," "stewardess," and "bad mother for not caring for her kids." I am pretty much disgusted. How can they sit there and speak of change and a better future and in the next breath say a woman can't be VP because she has kids. What is this, 1908? When have fathers stopped being parents that can look after children (well, since the democrats seem to be advancing an agenda that encourages single motherhood, perhaps they don't think the father is important)? When has a woman's role been reduced to just that of (hot) wife and mother? Isn't the left supposed to be the side pushing for woman's rights?
And from the female feminists on the left, I have learned one thing: apparently one cannot be a feminist and be pro-life. Apparently, I am not a feminist. Could have fooled me. I have thought I was a feminist, what with my believing in the equality of females and males, the need to fight against sexism, and that women are more than mothers and that it is wrong of society to say your career must end if you pop out a couple of kids. I'll be sure to inform my other feminist friends that our only agenda is securing women everywhere the right to kill unborn children. Honestly, here we have Sarah Palin who worked her way up through the political world of Alaska, battled corruption, became the first female Alaskan governor, has 80% approval rating in her state, all while raising 5 kids. But, no, nothing to respect there. However, Hillary, who got her senatorship because of her husband, is the ideal for feminists?
I am glad I have seen what the democratic party is composed of and I am glad I am a Republican Feminist.
Monday, March 31, 2008
my solution to healthcare
So nationalized healthcare or nonnationalized healthcare, that is the question?
My solution a hybridization, partly because I like my private healthcare. This hybridization will lead to a nationalized healthcare system if the system is run smoothly and efficiently, but will allow individuals to seek private insurance if the public system is not run well. Less money will be needed to pay for the system as a private system will still exist which many individuals will choose to operate under and so taxes will not go up exponentially fund this program.
We create the National Health Insurance Board, it oversees Medicare and the futurely expanded Medicaid. We revamp medicare so it is just for elderly and simplify it (remove privitization as it confused elderly) and expand medicaid. We allow for the existence of a private healthcare alternative and if you make above a certain income you can buy into the government system in a graduated system that reflects your ability to pay but remains below the cost for private insurance.
Those within the public healthcare system have to pay a co-pay so that there is a cost control mechanism. The co-pay for an emergency room visit should be higher than for an office visit to a doctor. If determined necessary, this co-pay can reflect your income level (i.e., ER for poor = $10 and not poor = $20), but still not more than private insurance.
The government also takes over the payment for catastrophic long-term care illnesses, like cancer, etc., but without removing institutions like St. Judes. The government should encourage donations to such institutions to not only off-set government costs but continually connect the public to the needs of the fellow citizens. This offsetting will also reduce the cost of private insurance, thereby better allowing people to afford and reducing the strain on the government for everyday care. Individuals, if they so desire, can buy supplemental private insurance for catastrophy care if they so desire.
The government must negotiate with drug companies and drug companies are limited in what they can charge for drugs where some other source assisted in the creation of or payment for a drug. Any government investment is drug creation results in caps on profit (most drugs involve government grants or loans). Any new and innovative drug (i.e., not clarinex type drugs) that ends of failing, the drug companies can write off loans from the government up to some percentage. The government agency that is created to oversee the healthcare system will work to stabilize and equalize the costs for patient treatments and medical supplies so that one hospital isn't charging 10 times the rate of the hospital down the street for the same procedure.
Wow, that was so hard. Seriously government officials. I just came up with that in 5 minutes. What are you people doing?
My solution a hybridization, partly because I like my private healthcare. This hybridization will lead to a nationalized healthcare system if the system is run smoothly and efficiently, but will allow individuals to seek private insurance if the public system is not run well. Less money will be needed to pay for the system as a private system will still exist which many individuals will choose to operate under and so taxes will not go up exponentially fund this program.
We create the National Health Insurance Board, it oversees Medicare and the futurely expanded Medicaid. We revamp medicare so it is just for elderly and simplify it (remove privitization as it confused elderly) and expand medicaid. We allow for the existence of a private healthcare alternative and if you make above a certain income you can buy into the government system in a graduated system that reflects your ability to pay but remains below the cost for private insurance.
Those within the public healthcare system have to pay a co-pay so that there is a cost control mechanism. The co-pay for an emergency room visit should be higher than for an office visit to a doctor. If determined necessary, this co-pay can reflect your income level (i.e., ER for poor = $10 and not poor = $20), but still not more than private insurance.
The government also takes over the payment for catastrophic long-term care illnesses, like cancer, etc., but without removing institutions like St. Judes. The government should encourage donations to such institutions to not only off-set government costs but continually connect the public to the needs of the fellow citizens. This offsetting will also reduce the cost of private insurance, thereby better allowing people to afford and reducing the strain on the government for everyday care. Individuals, if they so desire, can buy supplemental private insurance for catastrophy care if they so desire.
The government must negotiate with drug companies and drug companies are limited in what they can charge for drugs where some other source assisted in the creation of or payment for a drug. Any government investment is drug creation results in caps on profit (most drugs involve government grants or loans). Any new and innovative drug (i.e., not clarinex type drugs) that ends of failing, the drug companies can write off loans from the government up to some percentage. The government agency that is created to oversee the healthcare system will work to stabilize and equalize the costs for patient treatments and medical supplies so that one hospital isn't charging 10 times the rate of the hospital down the street for the same procedure.
Wow, that was so hard. Seriously government officials. I just came up with that in 5 minutes. What are you people doing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
