Rather than bloviate I'm just going to give you a few statistics about healthcare in countries that provide universal healthcare.
We'll start in the U.S in the great state of Mass.
After implementing their statewide Universal care, emergency visits rose by 7% and costs by 18%
France: The workers pay 19% in taxes for their "universal" healthcare, and yet 90% choose to pay extra for supplemental private insurance.
Italy: The average wait time for a mammogram? 70 days.
Uk: Wait times in emergency rooms? 4 hours. Wait times in the ambulance? Up to 5 hours. Total time? 9 hours.
Some hospitals encouraging "turning over bed sheets" to save money.
Half of the dentists in the UK will not accept people on the government health program.
Wait time for surgery? Six months.
NICE gets to decide if your life is worth living. For instance, the cancer drug, Tykerb, which delays the progression of breast cancer is deemed "too expensive".
Around 20% of patients with treatable colon cancer are considered incurable by the time they get treatment.
Canada: It used to be illegal to go to non government health facilities, until their supreme court ruled that "access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare." Hmmm....
Cuba: Uses induced abortion to lower it's infant mortality rate. That would be almost funny if it wasn't totally sick.
Greece: Has 600 general practitioners. They need 6,000 to function. It's so bad, patients BRIBE doctors to get appointments.
US: 36 of the last 43 Nobel Prizes in Medicine were awarded to someone from the U.S.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
We Have A Revenue Problem
Or so we keep hearing. Even people who have never commented politically, are appearing on my facebook timeline, telling me the country doesn't have a spending problem, it has a revenue problem.
So, do we really have a revenue problem?
My argument is no, we don't. John F. Kennedy cut taxes. Revenue increased. Ronald Reagan cut taxes, Revenue Increased. George W. Bush cut taxes, revenue increased. Don't believe me? Instead of just listening to the hype on the news, go look. The numbers are available. Do some research. It's there to see. Why is this the case? Because when you tax corporations and rich people, they can afford fancy lawyers who can find every loophole necessary to protect their money. So they pay less taxes. Of course Warren Buffet doesn't mind if taxes are raised for rich people, because he knows he can afford 40 tax lawyers that will make sure he never has be pay an extra cent. He knows that by peddling class warfare, he can help someone get elected, and still not have to pay a dime. So we lower the threshold to $250,000 and now your small business owners, who can't afford tax lawyers get stuck with higher taxes. To stay above water, they don't hire new people. No jobs = less revenue. Yes, yes it does. If you aren't making money you can't pay taxes. So a year goes by and we have no new revenue from that avenue, so we keep lowering the income threshold until the middle class is footing the bill. We can't afford tax lawyers either. We don't own businesses. We just pay our taxes as they continue to go up. That's how the "raising taxes" thing works. You really want to increase revenue. Flat tax. No deductions. No loopholes. Works for me.
If you think we have a revenue issue, then I suggest you look hard at your monthly budget and figure out if you can afford and want to pay more, and then I urge you to just send a check to the government for that extra money. I bet more than half the people screaming about revenue are not going to even consider that. Or better yet, just tell the government you don't want your tax refund. They can keep it. Are you willing to do that? If not, then stop advocating the spending of other people's money, assuming you will not have to pay. Trust me. You will.
We have a SPENDING problem. A huge one. Medicare is more costly than the national defense budget. Medicare costs more every year than the Iraq War... times 5. yes... more than 450 BILLION dollars. Every year. And now we have yet another healthcare plan that will add to that. Social Security is going bankrupt. When someone tells you the trust fund isn't empty, it's filled with t-bills? Guess what they are? Money the government OWES ITSELF. Hello? Where is that money going to come from? They took social security funds to pay for other things. (Side Note: That's how Bill Clinton got a surplus...he was counting the social security trust fund.) We hemorrhage money in this country, and the only solution is to...raise taxes. But it DOESN'T work. It has NEVER worked. You want to raise taxes? Fine. For every DOLLAR in taxes you raise, you need to cut a dollar out of the federal budget. EVERY one. Then I'm on board. But there's no way I'm paying more taxes, so the government can keep throwing away money. Forget it.
(One more side note: the current President voted, when he was in the Senate, to raise taxes on anyone making more than $50,000. How long do you think before that becomes "necessary" for our revenue problem to be solved).
(Another Side Note: Maybe we could slash public pensions... instead of the Military's Benefits. He suggested slashing Military Benefits for Retirees, while continuing to feed public pension slush funds).
Stop with the revenue problem, people. The only way government gets money is taxes. If you over extend yourself, do you go ask your boss for a percentage raise to cover it? No, because he'd laugh at you. So what makes it right for the government to overextend itself and then ask US to pay for it? Cut spending. Then if we need to raise taxes to whittle down the deficit, I'm fine with that. But spending cuts HAVE to come first.
So, do we really have a revenue problem?
My argument is no, we don't. John F. Kennedy cut taxes. Revenue increased. Ronald Reagan cut taxes, Revenue Increased. George W. Bush cut taxes, revenue increased. Don't believe me? Instead of just listening to the hype on the news, go look. The numbers are available. Do some research. It's there to see. Why is this the case? Because when you tax corporations and rich people, they can afford fancy lawyers who can find every loophole necessary to protect their money. So they pay less taxes. Of course Warren Buffet doesn't mind if taxes are raised for rich people, because he knows he can afford 40 tax lawyers that will make sure he never has be pay an extra cent. He knows that by peddling class warfare, he can help someone get elected, and still not have to pay a dime. So we lower the threshold to $250,000 and now your small business owners, who can't afford tax lawyers get stuck with higher taxes. To stay above water, they don't hire new people. No jobs = less revenue. Yes, yes it does. If you aren't making money you can't pay taxes. So a year goes by and we have no new revenue from that avenue, so we keep lowering the income threshold until the middle class is footing the bill. We can't afford tax lawyers either. We don't own businesses. We just pay our taxes as they continue to go up. That's how the "raising taxes" thing works. You really want to increase revenue. Flat tax. No deductions. No loopholes. Works for me.
If you think we have a revenue issue, then I suggest you look hard at your monthly budget and figure out if you can afford and want to pay more, and then I urge you to just send a check to the government for that extra money. I bet more than half the people screaming about revenue are not going to even consider that. Or better yet, just tell the government you don't want your tax refund. They can keep it. Are you willing to do that? If not, then stop advocating the spending of other people's money, assuming you will not have to pay. Trust me. You will.
We have a SPENDING problem. A huge one. Medicare is more costly than the national defense budget. Medicare costs more every year than the Iraq War... times 5. yes... more than 450 BILLION dollars. Every year. And now we have yet another healthcare plan that will add to that. Social Security is going bankrupt. When someone tells you the trust fund isn't empty, it's filled with t-bills? Guess what they are? Money the government OWES ITSELF. Hello? Where is that money going to come from? They took social security funds to pay for other things. (Side Note: That's how Bill Clinton got a surplus...he was counting the social security trust fund.) We hemorrhage money in this country, and the only solution is to...raise taxes. But it DOESN'T work. It has NEVER worked. You want to raise taxes? Fine. For every DOLLAR in taxes you raise, you need to cut a dollar out of the federal budget. EVERY one. Then I'm on board. But there's no way I'm paying more taxes, so the government can keep throwing away money. Forget it.
(One more side note: the current President voted, when he was in the Senate, to raise taxes on anyone making more than $50,000. How long do you think before that becomes "necessary" for our revenue problem to be solved).
(Another Side Note: Maybe we could slash public pensions... instead of the Military's Benefits. He suggested slashing Military Benefits for Retirees, while continuing to feed public pension slush funds).
Stop with the revenue problem, people. The only way government gets money is taxes. If you over extend yourself, do you go ask your boss for a percentage raise to cover it? No, because he'd laugh at you. So what makes it right for the government to overextend itself and then ask US to pay for it? Cut spending. Then if we need to raise taxes to whittle down the deficit, I'm fine with that. But spending cuts HAVE to come first.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
The Results of Affirmative Action
There are posts all over the internet about Elizabeth Warren and her claim to Cherokee heritage. I hear a lot of talk about how she lied, and how that lie may end up costing her an election. It may, it may not. Politicians lie, everyone knows it, and they still elect them.
What I don't hear people talking about, is why someone would falsify a claim to minority status.
I have your answer, and I'm very surprised more people aren't talking about it. The Answer: Affirmative Action (no no, it's not 42).
Affirmative Action may have had it's place, but the only thing it does now is single out certain races/genders/religions, and hands them special benefits. Not the same benefits, special benefits. All while assuring these Affirmative Action candidates that, without this policy, they couldn't possibly be on an equal playing field. Maybe the left is right. Maybe racism IS alive and well, and it's best representation is Affirmative Action.
Why would Ms. Warren claim Cherokee Heritage? Maybe because in doing so she got a better student loan interest rate. Maybe because it made it more likely that she'd get that job at Harvard. Maybe she just wanted to have the same shot all those Affirmative Action candidates get. If it turns out that she lied, which by all facts to this point it looks like she did, this isn't an excuse. But surely we can start seeing Affirmative Action as a roadblock to the "colorblind" society Martin Luther King, Jr. envisioned.
Now we move on to the latest Breitbart scoop, that an author biography of President Barack Obama stated he was Kenyan born. I am NOT a Birther. I have no reason to believe that President Obama is not a U.S. Citizen. We are hearing this was a fact checking error. Well, it was a 17 year long fact checking error, and if a literary agent can make an error that big, maybe they shouldn't be a literary agent. I have also heard numerous authors state that author biographies are always given to the authors to proof. I have reason to believe that President Obama told people he was Kenyan born, because it would have opened up a bunch of special benefits to him. Are his college transcripts sealed because they might prove he applied to Ivy League Universities as a Foreign Student? (which, by the way, opens up a whole other set of special benefits.) And if that's the case, he lied. And if he lie, once again we have to ask why, and the answer I'm coming up with is...Affirmative Action.
How sad is it, that people feel they have to lie just to have the same options as other people? How do we not see that this policy not only erodes our culture, makes people believe they can't really obtain their goals on their own merit, and singles out races for special treatment, but it encourages people to be less than honest in the hopes of obtaining something more than they would get otherwise?
What I don't hear people talking about, is why someone would falsify a claim to minority status.
I have your answer, and I'm very surprised more people aren't talking about it. The Answer: Affirmative Action (no no, it's not 42).
Affirmative Action may have had it's place, but the only thing it does now is single out certain races/genders/religions, and hands them special benefits. Not the same benefits, special benefits. All while assuring these Affirmative Action candidates that, without this policy, they couldn't possibly be on an equal playing field. Maybe the left is right. Maybe racism IS alive and well, and it's best representation is Affirmative Action.
Why would Ms. Warren claim Cherokee Heritage? Maybe because in doing so she got a better student loan interest rate. Maybe because it made it more likely that she'd get that job at Harvard. Maybe she just wanted to have the same shot all those Affirmative Action candidates get. If it turns out that she lied, which by all facts to this point it looks like she did, this isn't an excuse. But surely we can start seeing Affirmative Action as a roadblock to the "colorblind" society Martin Luther King, Jr. envisioned.
Now we move on to the latest Breitbart scoop, that an author biography of President Barack Obama stated he was Kenyan born. I am NOT a Birther. I have no reason to believe that President Obama is not a U.S. Citizen. We are hearing this was a fact checking error. Well, it was a 17 year long fact checking error, and if a literary agent can make an error that big, maybe they shouldn't be a literary agent. I have also heard numerous authors state that author biographies are always given to the authors to proof. I have reason to believe that President Obama told people he was Kenyan born, because it would have opened up a bunch of special benefits to him. Are his college transcripts sealed because they might prove he applied to Ivy League Universities as a Foreign Student? (which, by the way, opens up a whole other set of special benefits.) And if that's the case, he lied. And if he lie, once again we have to ask why, and the answer I'm coming up with is...Affirmative Action.
How sad is it, that people feel they have to lie just to have the same options as other people? How do we not see that this policy not only erodes our culture, makes people believe they can't really obtain their goals on their own merit, and singles out races for special treatment, but it encourages people to be less than honest in the hopes of obtaining something more than they would get otherwise?
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Tolerance Anyone?
Tolerance (n):
a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
That's a dictionary definition of the word. Fair, Objective, Permissive attitude. What is missing from that definition is the word: acceptance.
Acceptance (n):
favorable reception; approval; favor
When you look up those two words in the thesaurus, they are not synonomous. For those who need a small grammar lesson, synonyms are words that mean the same thing. Tolerance is not equal to acceptance.
Why the small lesson in the English Language? It's important to understand that over the course of time, our news media, our politicians and our activists have changed the meaning of the word tolerance. To them, tolerance means acceptance. Tolerance means we don't only have to allow people to live the way we choose, we have to tell them it's fine to live that way, and that their belief system is just as right as ours. We don't have to tolerate, we have to accept.
Here's the footnote: We have to tolerate. They don't.
Recently, an anti-bullying speaker, Dan Savage, spoke at the National High School Journalism Convention. While speaking of anti-bullying, he proceeded to have a high octane rant against Christianity. "We can learn to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people." At that point, several Christian students got up and left the room. After continuing his screed against the Bible, he proceeded to call those who left during his speech, pansy-assed. I didn't hear the whole speech. I'm sure he said some good anti-bullying stuff. Problem was, in the midst of that, he chose to bully high school students who believe the Bible. The media came out in force (at least the mainstream portion of it), to defend Dan Savage. Dan Savage doesn't have to accept what other people believe. Dan Savage doesn't even need to be tolerant of what other people believe. According to our 4th branch of government, Dan Savage can do what he did, and really, no one should complain.
On the other hand, if say, Rush Limbaugh stood in front of a group of students and told them "we can learn to ignore the bullshit the Gay community has to say about Christians", what do you think the reaction would have been? What if I stood up and said "We can learn to ignore the bullshit Jessie Jackson says about race.", what would people say about me? I can think of a few words that come to mind. Bigot. Racist. Intolerant.
I was waiting to hear where Dan Savage said "We can learn to ignore the bullshit in the Koran about gay people". I'm still waiting.
The only thing in this country you don't have to be tolerant of, is Christianity. And I mean tolerance, not acceptance. Christianity is a faith. Some people have it, some people don't. No one needs to accept the tenets of a faith they don't have. But in the great United States, you don't even have to tolerate that people have those beliefs. You are permitted to bully them all you want. No tolerance necessary. We made Columbine into a message on the evils of Gun Ownership, passing over the fact that people died for simply admitting they believed in God. In Paducah, KY, at Heath High School, 3 students were killed and 5 injured, shot by a student while they were praying in front of the school. No cries of "hate crimes" or "bigotry" in that one. (In truth, the student turned out to have a mental disorder. But still, we seem to put people on trial for hate crimes all the time, even if they aren't really hate crimes). In Texas, a man walked into Wedgewood Baptist Church and opened fire during a church service. Before doing so, he shouted anti-religious statements. And yet, most news media headlined it with "the reason for the shooting is unclear".
If it's someone who could have possibly been a Christian or Conservative or White, the motive is clear before the bodies hit the floor. But if someone walks into a church, shouting anti-religious sentiments and killing people while they pray, the reason is unclear.
Tolerance is a catch phrase. It's used by our celebrities and our politicians, and it's the favorite word of almost anyone who leans a bit to the left. And yet, the people shouting tolerance the loudest, are so intolerant of Christianity, they can't even admit someone may shoot Christians simply because they are...Christians. They cry for tolerance while labeling tea party members "teabaggers". They cry for tolerance while calling Christians and Conservatives fascists and little Hitlers. They cry for tolerance while telling the precious few in their inner circle that people who don't believe like they do are bitter, angry, religious nut jobs who are ignorant and stupid. The people screaming the most about open-mindedness and tolerance, turn out to be the most close-minded intolerant people of all. Yet it's acceptable because they are only intolerant of those crazy Christians, right?
Tolerance anyone?
Friday, March 26, 2010
Some thoughts for today
I've been reading a lot about the horrid threats against Democrats after the passage of the health care bill. Mr. Krugman in the New York Times went has far as to say he'd never seen anything like it. So for those of you who think this is a first-time thing, never happened before, etc etc... let me refresh your memory.
Kill Bush Anyone?
Snipers Wanted?
Vandalism?
Bullet Riddled Political Headquarters?
Swastika in Madison?
Protesters Gone Wild?
And those are just the ones I could find easily. Let's not forget one Kenneth Gladly getting the snot beat out of him at a Tea Party Protest by those who support the Progressive movement. That was recent. Or the death threats to Sarah Palin and her family now circulating on twitter.
Righteous indignation is falling short. I'm truly not interested in hearing anymore stories about threatening phone calls to Congressman. Very few on the other side were condemning the above attacks when they were happening. Especially all those "Kill Bush" signs. It was just peaceful protesters practicing their first amendment rights...remember?
Kill Bush Anyone?
Snipers Wanted?
Vandalism?
Bullet Riddled Political Headquarters?
Swastika in Madison?
Protesters Gone Wild?
And those are just the ones I could find easily. Let's not forget one Kenneth Gladly getting the snot beat out of him at a Tea Party Protest by those who support the Progressive movement. That was recent. Or the death threats to Sarah Palin and her family now circulating on twitter.
Righteous indignation is falling short. I'm truly not interested in hearing anymore stories about threatening phone calls to Congressman. Very few on the other side were condemning the above attacks when they were happening. Especially all those "Kill Bush" signs. It was just peaceful protesters practicing their first amendment rights...remember?
Friday, February 12, 2010
Re-Branding?
I was talking to a friend of mine not too long ago about the state of America and American politics, and what needed to be done differently. He actually asked me to write this blog. He may discover he doesn't much like what I have to say. However, I've discovered that somewhere along the way most people don't like what I have to say. I get over it.
Do the Republicans need to be "re-branded"? Well, I think there is no doubt, after the losses in both 2006 and 2008 that they need to do something. I don't think it's re-branding though. I think it's a simple return to the policies that once got them elected. Let's face it, they must have "something" worth selling. A Republican has occupied the White House 20 out of the last 30 years. My friend says we need to go back to the days of Reagan, and I won't disagree with that. But what does that mean, really? I see a whole lot of Republican/Conservatives who have a very different meaning to what the "Reagan Years" were.
***Side Note*** Okay, before I go any further, I'm going to mention that I am not a card-carrying member of the Republican Party. I haven't been for years. Because of that, maybe I am the wrong person to discuss what the Republican Party needs to do. I'll give it a shot anyway.
I've watched politics and essentially the Republican Party go down the drain for a long time. I was part of the "Contract With American" generation. As a matter of fact, the year the Republicans took back both the House and the Senate for the first time in a long time, it was only the second year I was legally old enough to vote in an election. I liked the product the Republicans were selling, and I voted for them.
Over the years, as the Republicans became entrenched in Washington, they cared less about those 10 things they promised to do for "we the people". Those 10 things were forgotten. Essentially (and a lot of people aren't going to like this) Republicans became "Democrat-Lite". No, that's not fair. There are some GOOD Democrats out there. Republicans became "Liberal-Lite".
George W. Bush got elected to the Presidency on a platform of "Compassionate Conservatism" whatever that means. After a mere 7 months in office, 9/11 happened. For the first time since Pearl Harbor, our country had been attacked on it's own soil. Compassionate Conservatism was forgotten in the wake of a damaged economy and the sudden realization that we were not as safe as we thought we were. First we went to Afghanistan, then Iraq, and as the months passed and the body county rose, people in America started to become unhappy with those wars. On top of that, a little nut-job, low-life named Osama Bin Laden was (and still is) running around loose. The mastermind hadn't been caught, and as young men and women shed their blood, more people became frustrated with what was happening militarily. Meanwhile, the Republicans had learned some very interesting lessons from their "liberal" counterparts, and a few they hadn't learned. They cut taxes, but they spent money as fast and sometimes faster than those Liberals. There were several "scandals" that plagued both the Congress and the Administration. Too many people looked at the Republicans and they had enough. In 2006 they lost both the House and the Senate, in 2008 the Presidency, and the cries came that "Conservatism was dead".
Um, no. Republicanism is dead. The truth is Conservatives and Moderates looked at the Republican Party and they weren't buying it anymore. Don't believe me? In the same year that the R's got ousted from the House/Senate, California voters rejected tax hikes, 6 states (including more than one liberal state) banned gay marriage, and Michigan voted a huge resounding no on Affirmative Action and Racial Preferences. All very conservative based policies.
Now, as far as I know, the Republican Party Platform hasn't changed since Ronald Reagan. At least not that dramatically. The Party itself still endorses all those things... Lower Taxes, Less Spending, Less Government Interference, Personal Responsibility, A Strong National Defense, etc... Actions speak louder than words. The Republicans elected didn't actually FOLLOW those platform principles.
The Republican Party doesn't need a new brand or a "re-brand". They simple need to remember what exactly they are supposed to stand for.
The responsibility doesn't just lie with Republicans though. It lies with all the idiots who vote for them, simply because they have an "R" next to their name. If you question that, I have two words for you: Arlen Specter.
A few short weeks ago, Mass. voters elected Scott Brown to the Senate. Scott Brown didn't ride around the state in a fancy bus. He bought a pickup truck and put 250,000 miles on it going out to meet regular voters. He promised them he'd stop out of control spending in congress. He promised that he would represent the people who voted to put him there. He would be "the people's senator". He would treat terrorists like terrorists. He would stand on the principle of strong family and personal responsibility. In essence Scott Brown ran on the Republican Platform, and he won in a state that doesn't vote for Republicans. Because the truth is, the average American voter, stands in the same place.
There are a lot of social issues that we may differ on, but the party that holds to Fiscal Conservatism and smaller government is in touch with a lot more average Americans. All the Republican Party needs to do, is get back to being that party.
Do the Republicans need to be "re-branded"? Well, I think there is no doubt, after the losses in both 2006 and 2008 that they need to do something. I don't think it's re-branding though. I think it's a simple return to the policies that once got them elected. Let's face it, they must have "something" worth selling. A Republican has occupied the White House 20 out of the last 30 years. My friend says we need to go back to the days of Reagan, and I won't disagree with that. But what does that mean, really? I see a whole lot of Republican/Conservatives who have a very different meaning to what the "Reagan Years" were.
***Side Note*** Okay, before I go any further, I'm going to mention that I am not a card-carrying member of the Republican Party. I haven't been for years. Because of that, maybe I am the wrong person to discuss what the Republican Party needs to do. I'll give it a shot anyway.
I've watched politics and essentially the Republican Party go down the drain for a long time. I was part of the "Contract With American" generation. As a matter of fact, the year the Republicans took back both the House and the Senate for the first time in a long time, it was only the second year I was legally old enough to vote in an election. I liked the product the Republicans were selling, and I voted for them.
Over the years, as the Republicans became entrenched in Washington, they cared less about those 10 things they promised to do for "we the people". Those 10 things were forgotten. Essentially (and a lot of people aren't going to like this) Republicans became "Democrat-Lite". No, that's not fair. There are some GOOD Democrats out there. Republicans became "Liberal-Lite".
George W. Bush got elected to the Presidency on a platform of "Compassionate Conservatism" whatever that means. After a mere 7 months in office, 9/11 happened. For the first time since Pearl Harbor, our country had been attacked on it's own soil. Compassionate Conservatism was forgotten in the wake of a damaged economy and the sudden realization that we were not as safe as we thought we were. First we went to Afghanistan, then Iraq, and as the months passed and the body county rose, people in America started to become unhappy with those wars. On top of that, a little nut-job, low-life named Osama Bin Laden was (and still is) running around loose. The mastermind hadn't been caught, and as young men and women shed their blood, more people became frustrated with what was happening militarily. Meanwhile, the Republicans had learned some very interesting lessons from their "liberal" counterparts, and a few they hadn't learned. They cut taxes, but they spent money as fast and sometimes faster than those Liberals. There were several "scandals" that plagued both the Congress and the Administration. Too many people looked at the Republicans and they had enough. In 2006 they lost both the House and the Senate, in 2008 the Presidency, and the cries came that "Conservatism was dead".
Um, no. Republicanism is dead. The truth is Conservatives and Moderates looked at the Republican Party and they weren't buying it anymore. Don't believe me? In the same year that the R's got ousted from the House/Senate, California voters rejected tax hikes, 6 states (including more than one liberal state) banned gay marriage, and Michigan voted a huge resounding no on Affirmative Action and Racial Preferences. All very conservative based policies.
Now, as far as I know, the Republican Party Platform hasn't changed since Ronald Reagan. At least not that dramatically. The Party itself still endorses all those things... Lower Taxes, Less Spending, Less Government Interference, Personal Responsibility, A Strong National Defense, etc... Actions speak louder than words. The Republicans elected didn't actually FOLLOW those platform principles.
The Republican Party doesn't need a new brand or a "re-brand". They simple need to remember what exactly they are supposed to stand for.
The responsibility doesn't just lie with Republicans though. It lies with all the idiots who vote for them, simply because they have an "R" next to their name. If you question that, I have two words for you: Arlen Specter.
A few short weeks ago, Mass. voters elected Scott Brown to the Senate. Scott Brown didn't ride around the state in a fancy bus. He bought a pickup truck and put 250,000 miles on it going out to meet regular voters. He promised them he'd stop out of control spending in congress. He promised that he would represent the people who voted to put him there. He would be "the people's senator". He would treat terrorists like terrorists. He would stand on the principle of strong family and personal responsibility. In essence Scott Brown ran on the Republican Platform, and he won in a state that doesn't vote for Republicans. Because the truth is, the average American voter, stands in the same place.
There are a lot of social issues that we may differ on, but the party that holds to Fiscal Conservatism and smaller government is in touch with a lot more average Americans. All the Republican Party needs to do, is get back to being that party.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Thoughts on the MA Election (and other things)
Maybe I should change my blog name to "morning after". Truly though, after the election last year, and much of what's gone on since, I took a long break from the political side of my blogging. (For those of you with a more personal connection to me, I do still blog on that side of the fence haha) I didn't stop reading the news, or watching what was going on, but I did stop commenting on it. The truth is, I'm tired of the same tired arguments, and interested in people stepping back from their parties and really looking at what we need to do to get back America. (I can say this proudly as a non-card carrying member of any party. Yay!)
First of all, to those of you who have made mention of Fox News in relation to the Scott Brown Campaign. Um, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC. It was okay for all of those networks to basically become arms of the Democratic Party during the 2008 Presidential Election, but you are seriously going to whine about ONE network in ONE election? More importantly, sites like Instapundit.com and Redstate.com have been reaching out to their network of readers for months, LONG before Fox news jumped on the bandwagon.
Second, the GOP has no right to claim victory in this election beyond the "R" attached to Senator-Elect Brown's name. In a state like Massachusetts where admitting you are Republican isn't entirely healthy, I would say a lot more then Republicans voted for this candidate.
Third, the "tea bagger" references need to stop. This is a crude sexual reference to a group of people who do not identify with a party, they identify themselves as Americans. They are Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents. They are tired of of way government is being run. They are not real fond of either major party. They come from every background. If you don't like what they stand for, fine. But making crude sexual references to a group of people is not considered good political debate. (For the record neither is calling someone an idiot, ignorant, dumb or stupid. Just saying)
Now, moving on to my thoughts on what this election means.
First of all, Martha Coakley's campaign was dealt two death blows that she had nothing to do with. When the Senate Leadership bought off Senator Nelson, it pissed off the American people. In a big way. Color the American Public stupid, because we all know that stuff happens all the time. However, the health care debate, if you can call it that, took place where the public was kept in the dark. Let's face it, we are STILL in the dark about everything that's in that 2,000 page atrocity. And a good way to piss off the rest of the country is to promise that the rest of us schlubs are going to be footing the bill for Nebraska for the rest of our lives, our childrens lives, our grand childrens lives, etc. Then news came out that the American taxpayer was also buying off Louisiana to the tune of 300 million dollars. And if that wasn't enough, we got the news that while the Senate was going to tax "cadillac" health care plans to pay for their 2,000 page monstrosity, the unions were going to be exempt from that tax for 5 years. The collective response across the country was WTF? Ms. Coakley didn't have a say in either of those things, but the (D) next to her name doomed her to take credit for them regardless. (Much the same way anyone with an (R) next to their name gets labeled as George W. Bush...still.) In all fairness, both of those things were beyond the candidates control, and she got labeled with them, however unfairly. I will however say that when she said there was no Taliban in Afghanistan.... or that Curt Schilling was a Yankees fan... those things probably didn't help. The simple truth is, I believe, that Democrats thought since it was Massachusetts and it was Ted Kennedy's seat, they couldn't lose. Assumptions are bad things.
I've heard many pundits say this is a referendum against President Obama's agenda. Maybe. What I truly think you are seeing is this. In 2006, after 6 years of us spending money like it was water, and driving our nation into deeper debt, not to mention more than a few scandals, the American people wanted change. So they did what is so great about this country. They took power away from the people screwing up, and handed it to someone else. That's the basic principle this country was founded on. The power to change things lies with the people. Now it's 3 years later. In the space of a year we've spent 780 billion dollars on a stimulus plan that failed to do what was promised, we spent over 1 trillion dollars bailing out companies, another how many billions essentially buying car companies, etc etc etc. Our debt is astronomical. We were promised transparency, and yet we haven't seen a whole lot of CSPAN cameras covering the meetings involving the health care bill. We were promised ethics, and yet we've seen a lot of really unethical things going on. See, we were promised change, and change didn't happen. I understand that we need some kind of health care reform, and I think it can be done working within the framework of our country, but when millions of people are without jobs (me included), and families are struggling to put food on their tables, worried about paying their mortgages, and barely getting by, they don't want Congress taking on some MASSIVE output of money. And Healthcare is a MASSIVE output of money, money this country doesn't have to spend. So, I feel more likely that this is a referendum against Congress and the Senate.
The question is, are the Democrats smarter than their Republican counterparts? Are they smart enough to sit back and listen to the people they say they are looking out for? A majority of this country does not want either one of the health care bills currently making the rounds in the halls of power. When I hear the leadership stand up and say they are going to pass it anyway, I wonder when they forgot that they are at will employees of the citizens of the United States of America. We never lost the ability to decide what is best for us. And right now, at this point in time, this is NOT good for us or our country. Hopefully, this morning, they are sitting back and rethinking exactly what their priorities should be. If they do that, they stand a chance of retaining the mandate they believe they have. If they don't, 2010 could very well look much like last night.
That's really all I have to say. For now anyway.
my time is running short. Other more pressing needs are calling me to stop writing. I have not proof read this, so if there is a typo or stray spelling error, it's because I didn't have the time to correct them all. Please don't label me an idiot for it. That will get any comments quickly deleted. Remember, calling someone an idiot is NOT good debate.
First of all, to those of you who have made mention of Fox News in relation to the Scott Brown Campaign. Um, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC. It was okay for all of those networks to basically become arms of the Democratic Party during the 2008 Presidential Election, but you are seriously going to whine about ONE network in ONE election? More importantly, sites like Instapundit.com and Redstate.com have been reaching out to their network of readers for months, LONG before Fox news jumped on the bandwagon.
Second, the GOP has no right to claim victory in this election beyond the "R" attached to Senator-Elect Brown's name. In a state like Massachusetts where admitting you are Republican isn't entirely healthy, I would say a lot more then Republicans voted for this candidate.
Third, the "tea bagger" references need to stop. This is a crude sexual reference to a group of people who do not identify with a party, they identify themselves as Americans. They are Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents. They are tired of of way government is being run. They are not real fond of either major party. They come from every background. If you don't like what they stand for, fine. But making crude sexual references to a group of people is not considered good political debate. (For the record neither is calling someone an idiot, ignorant, dumb or stupid. Just saying)
Now, moving on to my thoughts on what this election means.
First of all, Martha Coakley's campaign was dealt two death blows that she had nothing to do with. When the Senate Leadership bought off Senator Nelson, it pissed off the American people. In a big way. Color the American Public stupid, because we all know that stuff happens all the time. However, the health care debate, if you can call it that, took place where the public was kept in the dark. Let's face it, we are STILL in the dark about everything that's in that 2,000 page atrocity. And a good way to piss off the rest of the country is to promise that the rest of us schlubs are going to be footing the bill for Nebraska for the rest of our lives, our childrens lives, our grand childrens lives, etc. Then news came out that the American taxpayer was also buying off Louisiana to the tune of 300 million dollars. And if that wasn't enough, we got the news that while the Senate was going to tax "cadillac" health care plans to pay for their 2,000 page monstrosity, the unions were going to be exempt from that tax for 5 years. The collective response across the country was WTF? Ms. Coakley didn't have a say in either of those things, but the (D) next to her name doomed her to take credit for them regardless. (Much the same way anyone with an (R) next to their name gets labeled as George W. Bush...still.) In all fairness, both of those things were beyond the candidates control, and she got labeled with them, however unfairly. I will however say that when she said there was no Taliban in Afghanistan.... or that Curt Schilling was a Yankees fan... those things probably didn't help. The simple truth is, I believe, that Democrats thought since it was Massachusetts and it was Ted Kennedy's seat, they couldn't lose. Assumptions are bad things.
I've heard many pundits say this is a referendum against President Obama's agenda. Maybe. What I truly think you are seeing is this. In 2006, after 6 years of us spending money like it was water, and driving our nation into deeper debt, not to mention more than a few scandals, the American people wanted change. So they did what is so great about this country. They took power away from the people screwing up, and handed it to someone else. That's the basic principle this country was founded on. The power to change things lies with the people. Now it's 3 years later. In the space of a year we've spent 780 billion dollars on a stimulus plan that failed to do what was promised, we spent over 1 trillion dollars bailing out companies, another how many billions essentially buying car companies, etc etc etc. Our debt is astronomical. We were promised transparency, and yet we haven't seen a whole lot of CSPAN cameras covering the meetings involving the health care bill. We were promised ethics, and yet we've seen a lot of really unethical things going on. See, we were promised change, and change didn't happen. I understand that we need some kind of health care reform, and I think it can be done working within the framework of our country, but when millions of people are without jobs (me included), and families are struggling to put food on their tables, worried about paying their mortgages, and barely getting by, they don't want Congress taking on some MASSIVE output of money. And Healthcare is a MASSIVE output of money, money this country doesn't have to spend. So, I feel more likely that this is a referendum against Congress and the Senate.
The question is, are the Democrats smarter than their Republican counterparts? Are they smart enough to sit back and listen to the people they say they are looking out for? A majority of this country does not want either one of the health care bills currently making the rounds in the halls of power. When I hear the leadership stand up and say they are going to pass it anyway, I wonder when they forgot that they are at will employees of the citizens of the United States of America. We never lost the ability to decide what is best for us. And right now, at this point in time, this is NOT good for us or our country. Hopefully, this morning, they are sitting back and rethinking exactly what their priorities should be. If they do that, they stand a chance of retaining the mandate they believe they have. If they don't, 2010 could very well look much like last night.
That's really all I have to say. For now anyway.
my time is running short. Other more pressing needs are calling me to stop writing. I have not proof read this, so if there is a typo or stray spelling error, it's because I didn't have the time to correct them all. Please don't label me an idiot for it. That will get any comments quickly deleted. Remember, calling someone an idiot is NOT good debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)