Does ANYONE in government have intelligence these days? When I see that certain lawmakers in Maine trying to give voting rights to non-citizens: http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=247244&ac=PHnws
It makes me worry. One of the things that led to the collapse of the Roman Empire was that the powers of the citizenry were watered-down: essentially, anyone within Roman territory had the rights and obligations that a full-on Roman citizen was entitled to. It was done as a tax-increasing measure, but also devalued the citizenship that was the pride of the Empire. The legislators who proposed this bill (Sen. Justin Alfond and Rep. Brian Bolduc) should be forced out of office by their enraged constituents. These men clearly never paid attention in school, and don't seem to understand the signifigance of citizenship in this country. That being said, I'm all for enabling people to become citizens. If these aliens are truly interested in having citizens' rights, they should go through the process of gaining them legally. These boneheaded legislators should focus on offering aliens help with immigration exams and paperwork, not just handing them citizenship's rights because "they're here". The argument that it "thwarts the power, potential, and promise f democracy" is childishly ignorant and a bogus statement on it's face. The current system does discriminate against those who are not citizens - but since a LEGAL, CLEARLY-DEFINED METHOD ALREADY EXISTS for these people to become citizens, then these people are already capable of having their voice heard in elections, and are already capable of throwing off the illusory "shackles of oppression" that apparently hold them back because they cannot currently vote.
Get a ***** green card, kids. I have friends who went through naturalization, and are now full-fledged U.S. citizens. Giving these rights to anyone who wants them cheapens my friends' experiences and sacrifices. It cheapens my rights, and dilutes the rights of ALL citizens.
I also have a beef with the idea currently floating aroud in Congress to tax employer-provided healthcare benefits at a heavier rate in order to pay for universal healthcare.
link here: http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-health-tax28-2009mar28,0,6232958.story
My issue is that both my girlfriend and I currently pay OUT OF OUR PAYCHECKS for healthcare provided by our jobs. The premiums aren't too terribly bad, but it's still expensive. However, it's worth it when one of us needs a doctor visit, or needs to visit the emergency room. Health care is something that everyone needs. But why should I have to pay more for someone who is unemployed and has 3 kids to be able to have health insurance?
News flash for Congress: If you hit the lower class with more and more taxes, then dilute the benefits that they're paying more for, THE LOWER CLASS WILL REVOLT. It has happened REPEATEDLY in history, and no American has ANY excuse to not realize this - it's how our nation gained it's independence. Governmentally-enforced "social equality" is a damnably foolish idea, and frankly doesn't work. Socializing the healthcare sector will destroy the overall quality of the care provided (look at Europe), and I am not happy about being considered a "cash-cow" for people who can't afford medical care.
But for these people, I have a quick question: Why can't you afford it? I work at Kroger. I make less than $12,000 a year - technically, I don't even qualify as having to pay taxes. The government takes 10% of my check EVERY WEEK. Howver, I also have healthcare. My company provides it for me (because I pay for it every week out of my paycheck). There are a great many options available for people with no healthcare - free clinics, low-cost providers, and employer-based benefits all exist in many different forms in this country. If none of these options are viable for a person - they need to get a job and quit being a drain on my economy. Unemployment may be skyrocketing, but I can go to the GA Dept. of Labor website and find (and apply for) a job online....right now. AS I AM TYPING THIS BLOG, there are dozens of jobs LOOKING FOR PEOPLE TO WORK THEM shown on the GDOL website( http://www.dol.state.ga.us/ )
Note to Congressional Democrats: The unions are your backbone. My union sent out stacks of literature during the last election, pushing me to vote for the Democratic candidates in my state.
If the Democratic lawmakers in Washington are to stupid to realize what attacking organized Labor (which is what this idea amounts to) will do to one of their KEY DEMOGRAPHICS, then I have no sympathy for a clearly-doomed party. Hopefully in the next election cycle, these filthy greedheads will be flogged out of office and some actual balance will return to the government.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
ARRRGGGHHH!!!!!!!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/18/fannie-mae-pay-bonuses-g-execs/
DAMMIT, people!! Why can't we get some accountability in the federal government?!?!?! All I want is a promise; just a simple agreement that WILL BE HONORED to not just throw taxpayer dollars at corporate executives for "employee retention". I've never heard such a hideous joke in my life - unemployment is skyrocketing, and these same schlubs that drove the corporations into the ground are getting MORE MONEY?!?!?!?
Did I slip into a wormhole somewhere?? Is federal responsibility and competence dead???
I'm going to bed before I have to read any more about this.
DAMMIT, people!! Why can't we get some accountability in the federal government?!?!?! All I want is a promise; just a simple agreement that WILL BE HONORED to not just throw taxpayer dollars at corporate executives for "employee retention". I've never heard such a hideous joke in my life - unemployment is skyrocketing, and these same schlubs that drove the corporations into the ground are getting MORE MONEY?!?!?!?
Did I slip into a wormhole somewhere?? Is federal responsibility and competence dead???
I'm going to bed before I have to read any more about this.
Monday, March 16, 2009
The "New" JFK?
On October 28th, 1962, President John F. Kennedy and The Secretary General of the U.N. managed to negotiate the withdrawal of Russian bombs from Cuba. This was the ending of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Now, it seems, the Russians want to ensure their influence in the Western Hemisphere:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/03/14/russia.cuba.bombers/?ic
Unfortunately, Barack Obama is not John F. Kennedy. His administration has shown itself repeatedly to be both corrupt and incompetent (from his handling of domestic issues, namely the financial situation in this country; also, his cabinet is rife with members under investigation and even some (Geithner comes to mind) who are flagranty inept. President Obama seems to have enough trouble trying to manage the economy (and failing - 82% of Americans are concerned about the massive increase in the deficit, and 69% are worried about the rapid growth of government under Pres. Obama). His open-handed fiscal policies are simply an outgrowth of inexperience. Such a green candidate lacks the resolve to deal properly with International affairs. Kennedy was a decorated war hero, actually wounded in the line of duty saving a fellow sailor. Obama admitted to drug and alcohol abuse, and used to "hang out" with military service-people.
Even as AIG uses federal bailout funds to hand out $165 million in executive bonuses (after posting record-setting $40 billion, no less.), the federal government has made no secret of the fact that it plans to ask for more money to continue to prop up failing businesses. A rational, intelligent leader would, at this point, nationalize AIG and other companies that follow the flagrantly exploitative business model portrayed here. Any company that can receive $70-odd-billion in bailout funds and STILL post $40 billion losses does not deserve to be privately owned. If these companies weren't being publicly-funded, it wouldn't be a problem, but the situation is definitely getting out of hand. I wonder if these huge companies will still exist in the forms we know in a year's time, or if they'll be nationalized or seized by irate citizens whose taxes went straight into executive pockets.
So, should the Cold War start back up, does President Obama have the backbone to stand up to the Russians? Does he have the competence to be able to deal effectively in global affairs? I certainly hope so.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/03/14/russia.cuba.bombers/?ic
Unfortunately, Barack Obama is not John F. Kennedy. His administration has shown itself repeatedly to be both corrupt and incompetent (from his handling of domestic issues, namely the financial situation in this country; also, his cabinet is rife with members under investigation and even some (Geithner comes to mind) who are flagranty inept. President Obama seems to have enough trouble trying to manage the economy (and failing - 82% of Americans are concerned about the massive increase in the deficit, and 69% are worried about the rapid growth of government under Pres. Obama). His open-handed fiscal policies are simply an outgrowth of inexperience. Such a green candidate lacks the resolve to deal properly with International affairs. Kennedy was a decorated war hero, actually wounded in the line of duty saving a fellow sailor. Obama admitted to drug and alcohol abuse, and used to "hang out" with military service-people.
Even as AIG uses federal bailout funds to hand out $165 million in executive bonuses (after posting record-setting $40 billion, no less.), the federal government has made no secret of the fact that it plans to ask for more money to continue to prop up failing businesses. A rational, intelligent leader would, at this point, nationalize AIG and other companies that follow the flagrantly exploitative business model portrayed here. Any company that can receive $70-odd-billion in bailout funds and STILL post $40 billion losses does not deserve to be privately owned. If these companies weren't being publicly-funded, it wouldn't be a problem, but the situation is definitely getting out of hand. I wonder if these huge companies will still exist in the forms we know in a year's time, or if they'll be nationalized or seized by irate citizens whose taxes went straight into executive pockets.
So, should the Cold War start back up, does President Obama have the backbone to stand up to the Russians? Does he have the competence to be able to deal effectively in global affairs? I certainly hope so.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
The Youth of the Nation
When I see stuff like this, I can`t help but wonder about the future of this country. As the recession mounts, more and more 20-somethings are being kicked out of the workplace and forced back into their parents` houses. I`ve been personally very fortunate thus far, but everywhere I look, more and more of my demographic is being marginalized. It`s like no one even thinks about us.
Here we are, staring down the barrel of the largest debt in this nation`s history (which we`re going to be paying down for the rest of our lives), and now we can`t even get real jobs. President Obama would do well to examine this situation again. The same youth vote that got him elected 4 months ago is going to massively turn against him as the economy gets worse. Young adults with no jobs, money, or hope are a major problem for any nation - just look at Greece, Iceland, China, Latvia, France, Ireland, etc. Historically, wars have provided a means with which to employ some of these youth (World War II helping to end the Great Depression, Continual border wars in Rome, and so on), but in the modern world, all we have is the ``War on Terror``, an extremely unpopular conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I`m not advocating war, by the way. Bloodshed is horrible, and should NEVER be condoned or accepted as ``part of life``,but I`m more interested in truth than idealism. If President Obama would avoid the protests so rampant in other parts of the world, he should look at the situations that caused these violent riots: corrupt officials (which are universal) and economic downturns, followed by massive unemployment among the youth (also found in this country). As more and more young peope realize that their government has ``sold them up the river``, I believe that there will be an escalation of violent protests - maybe not for a few months, but as the recession worsens....
Here we are, staring down the barrel of the largest debt in this nation`s history (which we`re going to be paying down for the rest of our lives), and now we can`t even get real jobs. President Obama would do well to examine this situation again. The same youth vote that got him elected 4 months ago is going to massively turn against him as the economy gets worse. Young adults with no jobs, money, or hope are a major problem for any nation - just look at Greece, Iceland, China, Latvia, France, Ireland, etc. Historically, wars have provided a means with which to employ some of these youth (World War II helping to end the Great Depression, Continual border wars in Rome, and so on), but in the modern world, all we have is the ``War on Terror``, an extremely unpopular conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I`m not advocating war, by the way. Bloodshed is horrible, and should NEVER be condoned or accepted as ``part of life``,but I`m more interested in truth than idealism. If President Obama would avoid the protests so rampant in other parts of the world, he should look at the situations that caused these violent riots: corrupt officials (which are universal) and economic downturns, followed by massive unemployment among the youth (also found in this country). As more and more young peope realize that their government has ``sold them up the river``, I believe that there will be an escalation of violent protests - maybe not for a few months, but as the recession worsens....
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Alright...I've heard of someone trying to cover all their bases, but this is ridiculous:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/24/bernanke-offers-fed-tools-stem-recession/
Ben Bernanke says that the economy may be able to recover in the next year....but wait!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090224/bs_nm/us_usa_fed_bernanke_8
or, we might just be stuck in a depression until 2010.
I get the fact that this is two different articles spinning their own story about whatever Ben Bernanke actually said, but come on now...the fact that this sort of mix-up could even happen seems (at least to me) to really damage Ben Bernanke's credibility - not that he needs the help, with the economy in the shape it is. As the FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN, Bernanke needs to be very clear on what he's saying; instead of trying to cover himself "just in case", why not try some honesty? I mean, we all know it's bad...but who does he think he's fooling?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/24/bernanke-offers-fed-tools-stem-recession/
Ben Bernanke says that the economy may be able to recover in the next year....but wait!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090224/bs_nm/us_usa_fed_bernanke_8
or, we might just be stuck in a depression until 2010.
I get the fact that this is two different articles spinning their own story about whatever Ben Bernanke actually said, but come on now...the fact that this sort of mix-up could even happen seems (at least to me) to really damage Ben Bernanke's credibility - not that he needs the help, with the economy in the shape it is. As the FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN, Bernanke needs to be very clear on what he's saying; instead of trying to cover himself "just in case", why not try some honesty? I mean, we all know it's bad...but who does he think he's fooling?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Open Response to Conscription
I was online this morning, and saw this article:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4659
After reading the Colonel's views on why we need a draft, I decided that the other side of the argument needs expounding. I have only a few main points (which I summarized and sent to the editor), and here they are, in a simple format:
1.) This guy obviously remembers the LAST TIME we had a conscript army; we all know how that one turned out (if you don't, I'd suggest doing some reading on the 1960's - people burning draft cards, rioting, etc). Knowing how the public reacts to conscript service, how can this guy seriously suggest we go back to such a system?
2.) When Col. Hauser retired, he probably started to receive his pension. And possibly his medicare/medicaid payments. And don't forget about Social Security. All these things come from a life of hard work and service (which anyone who served honorably in uniform deserves), but will also not be around for my generation. I'm not averse to public service, but I have to start getting all my "ducks in a row" for my own future because, unlike the authors of this page, when I hit that "magic age" of retirement, the government isn't sending a check. Or a card. Or any sort of benefits - Social Security is projected to fail within the next 20-25 years (I'll be 47 if S.S. can hold out that long). Without serious help, government medical assistance will go bankrupt soon as well.
3.) A quote:
Of course, reinstating the draft will generate opposition from all parts of the political spectrum, on the left by civil libertarians and opponents of any use of force, in the center by classic libertarians and those who would regard conscription as an unfair “tax on youth,” and even by some on the political right, who (as noted earlier) would correctly perceive that the modified draft proposed here would inherently constrain presidential unilateralism. The professional military, traditionally conservative, might initially resist such fundamental change, though we are confident the professional military will come to value its significant advantages.
The benefits of universal national service, however, far outweigh these resolvable objections. Aside from the strictly military advantages -- larger and better-educated armed forces -- there would be a number of positive social consequences. Conscription will enable the forces to reflect the full spectrum of American pluralism, in terms of both socioeconomic classes and racial/ethnic groups. It is unacceptable that less than 1 percent of the country’s eligible population serves in the armed forces, with almost no war-relevant sacrifice being asked from the rest of society. It ought to be axiomatic that the hardships and dangers of military service be more widely shared.
- Apparently, the fact that the Army cannot recruit volunteers is "unacceptable". The author of this letter needs to look at reality for a moment, and then think about one thing: Why can't the Army recruit a larger percentage of the population? There may be a fundamental reason why recruitment has fallen in the last few years (War on "Terror", Iraq, Afghanistan, etc), but clearly the way to solve this issue is conscription. Add that to the fact that apparently, we all need to be sharing the hardships and dangers of war, and you can immediately see the "benefits" of bringing this plan into action.
America needs to care for her soldiers. Our government and people need to make sure that these brave men and women are taken care of when they've finished their service. One of the best ways to protect them is to make sure that if we send them to fight a war, that it is a just war, a "necessary" war, and one that must be fought. When the only thing a war does is make a few men at the top richer (Cheney), it is not a "just" war, or a necessary one. I, for one, choose not to become cannon fodder. I choose not to die in a meaningless war. If the terrorists bring the fight here, I'm always ready to protect my country, but I don't see how that relates to shattering national unity "in the name of freedom" halfway around the globe.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4659
After reading the Colonel's views on why we need a draft, I decided that the other side of the argument needs expounding. I have only a few main points (which I summarized and sent to the editor), and here they are, in a simple format:
1.) This guy obviously remembers the LAST TIME we had a conscript army; we all know how that one turned out (if you don't, I'd suggest doing some reading on the 1960's - people burning draft cards, rioting, etc). Knowing how the public reacts to conscript service, how can this guy seriously suggest we go back to such a system?
2.) When Col. Hauser retired, he probably started to receive his pension. And possibly his medicare/medicaid payments. And don't forget about Social Security. All these things come from a life of hard work and service (which anyone who served honorably in uniform deserves), but will also not be around for my generation. I'm not averse to public service, but I have to start getting all my "ducks in a row" for my own future because, unlike the authors of this page, when I hit that "magic age" of retirement, the government isn't sending a check. Or a card. Or any sort of benefits - Social Security is projected to fail within the next 20-25 years (I'll be 47 if S.S. can hold out that long). Without serious help, government medical assistance will go bankrupt soon as well.
3.) A quote:
Of course, reinstating the draft will generate opposition from all parts of the political spectrum, on the left by civil libertarians and opponents of any use of force, in the center by classic libertarians and those who would regard conscription as an unfair “tax on youth,” and even by some on the political right, who (as noted earlier) would correctly perceive that the modified draft proposed here would inherently constrain presidential unilateralism. The professional military, traditionally conservative, might initially resist such fundamental change, though we are confident the professional military will come to value its significant advantages.
The benefits of universal national service, however, far outweigh these resolvable objections. Aside from the strictly military advantages -- larger and better-educated armed forces -- there would be a number of positive social consequences. Conscription will enable the forces to reflect the full spectrum of American pluralism, in terms of both socioeconomic classes and racial/ethnic groups. It is unacceptable that less than 1 percent of the country’s eligible population serves in the armed forces, with almost no war-relevant sacrifice being asked from the rest of society. It ought to be axiomatic that the hardships and dangers of military service be more widely shared.
- Apparently, the fact that the Army cannot recruit volunteers is "unacceptable". The author of this letter needs to look at reality for a moment, and then think about one thing: Why can't the Army recruit a larger percentage of the population? There may be a fundamental reason why recruitment has fallen in the last few years (War on "Terror", Iraq, Afghanistan, etc), but clearly the way to solve this issue is conscription. Add that to the fact that apparently, we all need to be sharing the hardships and dangers of war, and you can immediately see the "benefits" of bringing this plan into action.
America needs to care for her soldiers. Our government and people need to make sure that these brave men and women are taken care of when they've finished their service. One of the best ways to protect them is to make sure that if we send them to fight a war, that it is a just war, a "necessary" war, and one that must be fought. When the only thing a war does is make a few men at the top richer (Cheney), it is not a "just" war, or a necessary one. I, for one, choose not to become cannon fodder. I choose not to die in a meaningless war. If the terrorists bring the fight here, I'm always ready to protect my country, but I don't see how that relates to shattering national unity "in the name of freedom" halfway around the globe.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Racial Tensions
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/22/video-no-stimulus-money-for-white-males/
Alright - I've been expecting something like this for awhile, and to hear it proposed openly not only enrages me, but makes me seriously question whether or not I want to be a part this nation anymore. Discrimination of any kind if wrong, but I want to believe that the United States has become a nation where anyone, regardless of gender or race, can be successful. Instead of trying to deny bailout money to white males, our government should be either 1.) Looking into alternative ways of aiding our wounded economy (rather than continuing in the same foolish paths we've travelled in the past: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28776284/ as an example of what I'm talking about), or 2.) if we must continue down this road towards further debt (which congressional experts believe may top $4 Trillion), let's not discriminate against anyone - I'm a white male, and my bills are just as pressing as anyone else's. If the government wants to hand out money to citizens of this nation, they should remember that racist, sexist ideas are patently offensive, regardless of who is being discriminated against.
I'm all for cutting out the "already-wealthy" (which to me means anyone making more than say...$100,000 a year), but come on - that much is obvious. When you start putting racial requirements on who gets a federal handout, then you alienate whatever demographic is left out, which in this case would almost certainly lead to another Civil War in this country.
The United States has elected their first Black president. Let's take this opportunity to move forward as a nation of equality, working together as a country, rather than moving backwards to create artificial (and governmentally-induced) racial tension.
postscript: Robert Reich should definitely work a little harder on his education. Anyone who is so supremely ignorant of history and the effects of racism on a culture should NEVER be allowed to influence governmental policy. This repulsive son-of-a-bitch should be castrated publicly, as an example to those who would try to undermine unity through discrimination.
Alright - I've been expecting something like this for awhile, and to hear it proposed openly not only enrages me, but makes me seriously question whether or not I want to be a part this nation anymore. Discrimination of any kind if wrong, but I want to believe that the United States has become a nation where anyone, regardless of gender or race, can be successful. Instead of trying to deny bailout money to white males, our government should be either 1.) Looking into alternative ways of aiding our wounded economy (rather than continuing in the same foolish paths we've travelled in the past: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28776284/ as an example of what I'm talking about), or 2.) if we must continue down this road towards further debt (which congressional experts believe may top $4 Trillion), let's not discriminate against anyone - I'm a white male, and my bills are just as pressing as anyone else's. If the government wants to hand out money to citizens of this nation, they should remember that racist, sexist ideas are patently offensive, regardless of who is being discriminated against.
I'm all for cutting out the "already-wealthy" (which to me means anyone making more than say...$100,000 a year), but come on - that much is obvious. When you start putting racial requirements on who gets a federal handout, then you alienate whatever demographic is left out, which in this case would almost certainly lead to another Civil War in this country.
The United States has elected their first Black president. Let's take this opportunity to move forward as a nation of equality, working together as a country, rather than moving backwards to create artificial (and governmentally-induced) racial tension.
postscript: Robert Reich should definitely work a little harder on his education. Anyone who is so supremely ignorant of history and the effects of racism on a culture should NEVER be allowed to influence governmental policy. This repulsive son-of-a-bitch should be castrated publicly, as an example to those who would try to undermine unity through discrimination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
