Latest Posts
Miss Modesty, Mom on Duty, and To Do or No…
eye95
Replies: 0
Replies: 0
Beyond Disgusted, and "A Friend"
eye95
Replies: 0
Replies: 0
Grieving and Overlooked
eye95
Replies: 0
Replies: 0
Not Ready, At a Loss for Words, Disappoint…
eye95
Replies: 0
Replies: 0
Doggone Puzzled, Wants out, and Mystified
eye95
Replies: 0
Replies: 0
Active Users
7 users online in the past 30 minutes (0 Members · 7 Guests · 0 Anonymous)
Polls
Senator Gregg proposes health care mandate
Posted by eye95 (Editor-in-Chief) at Feb 12 2010, 09:37 AM. 0 comments
Senator Judd Gregg just spoke on Fox News about his health care proposal. It contains a mandate that everyone over the age of 18 acquire catastrophic health care coverage.
Is he not listening to the American people? By an overwhelming majority, Americans absolutely reject a health care mandate. From the numbers, it appears to be the one thing that Americans generally won't abide. (Of course, all the other features of the Dems' plan hang on that one, or costs go even more out of control.) To be sure, catastrophic coverage is the way to go. It's how we used to insure ourselves against financial catastrophe resulting from a health care catastrophe. The whole insurance system came crashing down when "health insurance" became "health care coverage," resulting in overuse of medical benefits for all of the minor stuff, for which people once made a rational decision about the allocation of resources. Now that, for twelve bucks, you can see a doctor for anything, folks see a doctor for everything, causing health care costs to spiral out of control.
But, let's let intelligence, not a government mandate, dictate that young and healthy people acquire catastrophic coverage. It is such a wise way to do things that many employers, including the infamous Whole Foods and my son's less infamous employer, offer catastrophic health care coverage, combined with health savings plans which, after a few years of pre-tax contributions, completely cover the annual deductible.
Call Senator Gregg and demand that he remove the mandate from his bill. His number is 1-603-622-7979.
Is he not listening to the American people? By an overwhelming majority, Americans absolutely reject a health care mandate. From the numbers, it appears to be the one thing that Americans generally won't abide. (Of course, all the other features of the Dems' plan hang on that one, or costs go even more out of control.) To be sure, catastrophic coverage is the way to go. It's how we used to insure ourselves against financial catastrophe resulting from a health care catastrophe. The whole insurance system came crashing down when "health insurance" became "health care coverage," resulting in overuse of medical benefits for all of the minor stuff, for which people once made a rational decision about the allocation of resources. Now that, for twelve bucks, you can see a doctor for anything, folks see a doctor for everything, causing health care costs to spiral out of control.
But, let's let intelligence, not a government mandate, dictate that young and healthy people acquire catastrophic coverage. It is such a wise way to do things that many employers, including the infamous Whole Foods and my son's less infamous employer, offer catastrophic health care coverage, combined with health savings plans which, after a few years of pre-tax contributions, completely cover the annual deductible.
Call Senator Gregg and demand that he remove the mandate from his bill. His number is 1-603-622-7979.
I propose a new verb: Iselinate
Posted by eye95 (Editor-in-Chief) at Feb 8 2010, 03:55 PM. 0 comments
I propose a new verb: iselinate (ize'-lә-nate), iselinating, and iselinated. Also, the noun iselination should be added to the language.
The verb can be used with an object or without. The object would be a statistic, usually a number. When someone iselinates a statistic, he repeats is often, can keep the number straight, and generally has made it up out of whole cloth. For example, Senator Iselin iselinated the number of communists in the Defense Department when he stated that "there are exactly fifty-seven card-carrying Communists in the Defense Department." Iselination would be the act of iselinating. Senator Iselin is guilty of iselination.
If you haven't guessed by now, the word is named after the fictional Senator Iselin from the movie The Manchurian Candidate (the original, of course). Senator Iselin repeated the communist statistic over and over again, never with the same number of known communists. Once, when being interviewed by a mob of reporters, he repeats the statistic twice, within seconds of each other, citing a different number each time.
From current politics, members of the Obama administration are iselinating the number of jobs "saved or created" by their stimulus bills.
Can anyone think of other examples of islenation?
The verb can be used with an object or without. The object would be a statistic, usually a number. When someone iselinates a statistic, he repeats is often, can keep the number straight, and generally has made it up out of whole cloth. For example, Senator Iselin iselinated the number of communists in the Defense Department when he stated that "there are exactly fifty-seven card-carrying Communists in the Defense Department." Iselination would be the act of iselinating. Senator Iselin is guilty of iselination.
If you haven't guessed by now, the word is named after the fictional Senator Iselin from the movie The Manchurian Candidate (the original, of course). Senator Iselin repeated the communist statistic over and over again, never with the same number of known communists. Once, when being interviewed by a mob of reporters, he repeats the statistic twice, within seconds of each other, citing a different number each time.
From current politics, members of the Obama administration are iselinating the number of jobs "saved or created" by their stimulus bills.
Can anyone think of other examples of islenation?
What did he know, and when did he know it?
Posted by eye95 (Editor-in-Chief) at Feb 4 2010, 09:39 PM. 0 comments
Gibbs has to check timeline.
Doesn't President Obama know whether or not he knew that the crotch bomber was going to be mirandized? If he does, given all the controversy, wouldn't he let his press secretary know? Even with the press so in-the-tank for our inexperienced president, wouldn't they have to ask the question eventually? It did take them quite a while to get around to it. Wouldn't the president have made sure the answer was available?
Gibbs having to "check the timeline" is doublespeak for "We need time to figure out whether we want to admit foreknowledge," or "We want to be sure we won't get caught if we don't tell the truth."
How long is the press going to tolerate the inexperience and incompetence from this administration before they wise up? They are as bad at reading the public tea leaves as the Obama administration and the Dems are. No matter how fed up the public gets, the Dems and the press will keep doing what they're doing while the U.S. burns. We can only hope that the voters will end the fiddle concert before the nation is completely in ashes.
Personally, I don't think we can stop them in time. I think an upcoming economic implosion will doom true freedom and capitalism. Elections have consequences. If we save ourselves in time, I hope the American electorate has learned this lesson.
Doesn't President Obama know whether or not he knew that the crotch bomber was going to be mirandized? If he does, given all the controversy, wouldn't he let his press secretary know? Even with the press so in-the-tank for our inexperienced president, wouldn't they have to ask the question eventually? It did take them quite a while to get around to it. Wouldn't the president have made sure the answer was available?
Gibbs having to "check the timeline" is doublespeak for "We need time to figure out whether we want to admit foreknowledge," or "We want to be sure we won't get caught if we don't tell the truth."
How long is the press going to tolerate the inexperience and incompetence from this administration before they wise up? They are as bad at reading the public tea leaves as the Obama administration and the Dems are. No matter how fed up the public gets, the Dems and the press will keep doing what they're doing while the U.S. burns. We can only hope that the voters will end the fiddle concert before the nation is completely in ashes.
Personally, I don't think we can stop them in time. I think an upcoming economic implosion will doom true freedom and capitalism. Elections have consequences. If we save ourselves in time, I hope the American electorate has learned this lesson.
If you aren't willing for everyone to read it
Posted by eye95 (Editor-in-Chief) at Jan 27 2010, 09:13 PM. 0 comments
The Democrats are embarrassed that this memo was leaked. However, as the title of this thread suggests, if you don't want everyone to read it, don't write it.
Politico Article
Here's the pertinent excerpt:
The questions disingenuously, in classic false-choice style, call inappropriately for a yes or a no. Instead of falling into these dishonest traps, the intended victims should just explain the applicable principles. Here's how the questions should be answered:
Q1. Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen?
A1. I don't know. President Obama has chosen not to put this issue to rest by being completely forthcoming. Until he permits the public to examine his original birth certificate, some will continue to question whether he is constitutionally qualified to be president.
Q2. Do you think the 10th Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum health care coverage standards?
A2. That depends upon what the vague phrase "regulations like minimum health care coverage standards" means. If it means mandating, with the threat of a fine or jail time, that Americans have to buy "qualified" health plans, as defined by government bureaucrats, then the 10th Amendment, in conjunction with the enumerated powers of Congress, define the mandate as unconstitutional.
Q3. Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and should never have been created in the first place?
A3. Now that these programs are in place, they cannot be revoked without breaking a promise to people who have paid into them their whole working careers. They are, however, by the definition of the word, socialism. If they had been instituted by the States, then individuals could exercise more freedom by choosing to live and pay and taxes in States with more or less socialism.
Q4. Do you think President Obama is a socialist?
A4. Senator Obama was, by far, the most left-wing member of the Senate. He definitely advocates programs that are socialist in nature. But, no, he is not a socialist. That does not mean we should accept his agenda that moves this country towards socialism and away from capitalism.
Q5. Do you think America should return to a gold standard?
A5. The gold standard is one way to keep a stable dollar--which would be far better than destroying the dollar by out of control spending with the attendant increase in debt and increase in dollars and dollar-denominated instruments. These lead to an unstable and inflated dollar. If we get spending under control, the dollar will be backed by the U.S. economy's ability to produce and will be just as stable as a gold-backed dollar. Knock off the drunken-sailor spending and folks won't feel the need to talk about returning to the gold standard.
Politico Article
Here's the pertinent excerpt:
- Quote:
The memo urges Democratic candidates to force their opponents to answer a series of questions on health care, taxes and some of the favorite causes of the far right:
“Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen? Do you think the 10th Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum health care coverage standards? Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and should never have been created in the first place? Do you think President Obama is a socialist? Do you think America should return to a gold standard?”
If a Republican candidate says no to any of the questions, the memo says Democrats should “make their primary opponent or conservative activists know it. This will cause them to take heat from their primary opponents and could likely provoke a flip-flop,
The questions disingenuously, in classic false-choice style, call inappropriately for a yes or a no. Instead of falling into these dishonest traps, the intended victims should just explain the applicable principles. Here's how the questions should be answered:
Q1. Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen?
A1. I don't know. President Obama has chosen not to put this issue to rest by being completely forthcoming. Until he permits the public to examine his original birth certificate, some will continue to question whether he is constitutionally qualified to be president.
Q2. Do you think the 10th Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum health care coverage standards?
A2. That depends upon what the vague phrase "regulations like minimum health care coverage standards" means. If it means mandating, with the threat of a fine or jail time, that Americans have to buy "qualified" health plans, as defined by government bureaucrats, then the 10th Amendment, in conjunction with the enumerated powers of Congress, define the mandate as unconstitutional.
Q3. Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and should never have been created in the first place?
A3. Now that these programs are in place, they cannot be revoked without breaking a promise to people who have paid into them their whole working careers. They are, however, by the definition of the word, socialism. If they had been instituted by the States, then individuals could exercise more freedom by choosing to live and pay and taxes in States with more or less socialism.
Q4. Do you think President Obama is a socialist?
A4. Senator Obama was, by far, the most left-wing member of the Senate. He definitely advocates programs that are socialist in nature. But, no, he is not a socialist. That does not mean we should accept his agenda that moves this country towards socialism and away from capitalism.
Q5. Do you think America should return to a gold standard?
A5. The gold standard is one way to keep a stable dollar--which would be far better than destroying the dollar by out of control spending with the attendant increase in debt and increase in dollars and dollar-denominated instruments. These lead to an unstable and inflated dollar. If we get spending under control, the dollar will be backed by the U.S. economy's ability to produce and will be just as stable as a gold-backed dollar. Knock off the drunken-sailor spending and folks won't feel the need to talk about returning to the gold standard.
Corportations, Unions, and Politics
Posted by eye95 (Editor-in-Chief) at Jan 22 2010, 09:40 AM. One comment
I was deeply concerned by yesterday's ruling allowing corporations to make unlimited donations to political candidates. I could just see GE buying President Obama another term.
I was concerned until I found out that the scratch-the-surface reporting of this story flat-out misrepresented the ruling!
The Court did not rule that corporations and unions could give any money to campaigns. They still are not allowed to do so. And, that is good. What they are allowed them to do (as they should be) is to buy commercial time, make movies, put up billboards, and generally exercise free speech in support of (or in opposition to) candidates.
The case that brought this issue to the forefront was an anti-Hillary Clinton movie that the Federal Election Commission saw as an illegal in-kind contribution to...well, it's kind of hard to say who. So many people were running at the time, just another reason that the FEC ruling was moronic.
The main reason that the Court should have (and did) strike down the ruling (and the portions of campaign finance reform that seemed to justify it) was that it inhibited political free speech. Any corporation or union should be able to openly support a candidate while not giving the candidate money that would appear to be (and likely would be) a bribe.
Let me reiterate how I believe campaign finance reform should work.
People, corporations, unions, PACs, non-profits, and any other entity should be able to exercise free speech in support of or in opposition to any candidate or cause, and spend as much money as they choose in doing so.
People (only people) should be able to directly help the candidate of their choice by making unlimited contributions. To avoid bribery, complete and immediate disclosure of every cent that is donated, together with detailed identifying personal information of the donor, should be posted on the Internet. Trust the American people to properly use their judgment when George Soros gives millions to President Obama's reelection campaign.
Enforcement would be easy. Failure to properly report any donation would result in a fine equal to twice the donation assessed jointly and severally to the candidate, the campaign, and the officer in the campaign responsible for the reporting. The law should require the most extreme care in reporting, so that "oops" would not be a defense. If the contribution was made, and it was not posted on the Internet within the time limits prescribed, the fine would be immediately assessed. Period.
The key to campaign finance reform is sunshine, the world's most amazing natural bleach.
I was concerned until I found out that the scratch-the-surface reporting of this story flat-out misrepresented the ruling!
The Court did not rule that corporations and unions could give any money to campaigns. They still are not allowed to do so. And, that is good. What they are allowed them to do (as they should be) is to buy commercial time, make movies, put up billboards, and generally exercise free speech in support of (or in opposition to) candidates.
The case that brought this issue to the forefront was an anti-Hillary Clinton movie that the Federal Election Commission saw as an illegal in-kind contribution to...well, it's kind of hard to say who. So many people were running at the time, just another reason that the FEC ruling was moronic.
The main reason that the Court should have (and did) strike down the ruling (and the portions of campaign finance reform that seemed to justify it) was that it inhibited political free speech. Any corporation or union should be able to openly support a candidate while not giving the candidate money that would appear to be (and likely would be) a bribe.
Let me reiterate how I believe campaign finance reform should work.
People, corporations, unions, PACs, non-profits, and any other entity should be able to exercise free speech in support of or in opposition to any candidate or cause, and spend as much money as they choose in doing so.
People (only people) should be able to directly help the candidate of their choice by making unlimited contributions. To avoid bribery, complete and immediate disclosure of every cent that is donated, together with detailed identifying personal information of the donor, should be posted on the Internet. Trust the American people to properly use their judgment when George Soros gives millions to President Obama's reelection campaign.
Enforcement would be easy. Failure to properly report any donation would result in a fine equal to twice the donation assessed jointly and severally to the candidate, the campaign, and the officer in the campaign responsible for the reporting. The law should require the most extreme care in reporting, so that "oops" would not be a defense. If the contribution was made, and it was not posted on the Internet within the time limits prescribed, the fine would be immediately assessed. Period.
The key to campaign finance reform is sunshine, the world's most amazing natural bleach.
Board Statistics
 |
Total Forum Posts: 8,558 Total Members: 254 (The newest member is Lee) Jul 2 2007, 12:41 AM, a record 260 users were online. |
9:24 PM Mar 10
