Work Hard. Make Less. ~The Welfare State

Ever notice how those on welfare make a fixed income no matter what? Sure you may lose money to pay for it, but they get money no matter what. As i explained in a previous post, despite the 400% spending increase for the war on poverty, the number of people in poverty, remains the same as it was when the war was first declared, and in some cases, has increased greatly. Why? Because it's such a great temptation. Do nothing. Get money. People can't resist it.

Another thing is the monopoly the government traps you with so you stay dependent on them. So in return those who give you the best deal (even though in the long run, they are cheating you) get the vote. Here is whats troubling to me, those on the welfare state get money for not working, and we don't know what they do with it. Some try and find work, and some don't. It is not compassionate to the poor, to keep them dependent on the fed. It is far more compassionate to make them self reliant and get them back to work. Now should they get a job, or get even some success, the money is gone.

This happens in the schools system too. We give tons of money to failing schools, and if they even start be get better, the money is cut off. Why should we give money to bad schools, and punish good schools? Why not create incentive to make the bad school good? . The welfare state is a trap that is enslaving the poor. Isn't it funny how the party that claims to be 'the party of the poor' is the same party, that wants to raise taxes to keep down successful poor families, keep them out of good schools and trap them in failing schools, and keep them stuck on government checks.

But back to my original point. It is a trap. What sounds better, get up work, have to do all sorts of stressful hard thing, and get paid, or do nothing at all and get paid if you want. Oh and the other interesting thing is that the progressives, also want to tax charity gifts and limit amount donations. This is PRIVATE charity, making the government, even more appealing. Enslaving the people, limiting options, growing government, sounds a lot like the Soviet Union.

Polls Don't Matter Anymore

The Obama administration has constantly said, they don't care about the polls. To those of you who don't know what the polls say, here are the facts; Obama came into office riding a 70% approval rating. Today that number sits at 51%. Now that is a 20% drop in 10 months. That is bad. Very bad for this administration. To make thing worse, the approval for his health reform, is 39%.

Now, when you tell this to most liberals, they'll, "oh the polls don't matter. The polls are over rated. Oh no one cares about the polls. Who reads the polls?"

And when they do tell you that, look them straight in the face and tell them how it is. When George W. Bush had a 26% approval rating, that's all we heard about. "Oh look Bush dropped 12 points in the polls. Bush is now at 45%. Bush is dropping big time! Republicans suck, Bush is at a 39% approval. Ha ha Bush is at 26%." All we heard. Never heard the end of it. All they cared about was the polls. "ah ha support for the war is dropping. The polls say so."

These lefist nut jobs, are all hypocrites. We had to put up with this polls crap for 8 years, and they complain when we point out the polls?

Polls matter. How do you feel about a President who doesn't care what the American people think. He doesn't look at the polls? He doesn't listen to the people and care about the American's interest. He doesn't want to here about it when people don't support his ideas. Bush never stopped hearing about it, and you refuse to here it you coward! You may feel fine with it, I'm disgusted. He works for us. We are a nation with a government, not the other way around. I'd tell him he should read the polls more, but i'd probably be called a racist.

So Much For Tax Cuts

Regarding Obama's Health Care plan:

So now the president is placing a fine if you don't provide insurance for your employees, or if you don't buy his government plan. Something he told us time and time again on the campaign would not happen.

"the fine is zero." said the president in the third presidential debate this past fall.

So there is another campaign promise, up in flames. But the media doesn't care.

"Think of it this way: If the government took money directly from you, then turned around and gave it to an insurance company, everyone would agree that you've been taxed. How is that any different from the government mandating that you pay the insurer directly? At the end of the day, you still have less money to spend the way you want.

The No. 1 reason why today's uninsured say that they haven't bought insurance is that they can't afford it. Now the president is going to force them to either buy it -- or pay a penalty (another non-tax, according to the president).

That penalty would be 2.5 percent of a person's income under the main House bill, and up to $1,900 for a family under the bill emerging from the Senate Finance Committee.

Sure, some of those people may have some of their costs offset by subsidies -- but many will be considerably worse off. Will they be happy just because the president says it's not a tax? "

""The New York Post

Poverty Won The War

The war on poverty is very interesting issue. Since a war on poverty was declared thing seem to only have gotten worse. The liberals have been running on this agenda, spread the wealth, entitlements, and federal spending for 5 decades, and we have never been worse off than we are now. Despite all that the poor are in worse condition then when the war on poverty started.

Here is a statistic from the Government. In the 60s when the war was declared, 13% of the population was in poverty. Since then we have increased spending on help for the poor and government programs by 400% to fight poverty. This has taken a toll on our budget which is in the tank. Interestingly enough when a report came out for 'now' the percent of the population still in poverty, is 13%. Decades after the debt is racked up, all the government programs have expanded and increased, taxes have gone up, more spending, and it hasn't done one damn thing.

In fact the best part, is when the economy did it's best in that time frame, was under the Reagan administration.

Poverty Won The War. Oh and drugs kicked our butt years ago.

The Big Lie on Health Reform

Today i read a post from econlog ()

It stated a very powerful point that perhaps there was a bigger lie in the health plan presented by the president last week, than the plan not covering illegal immigrants. It said:

"if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of *THIS plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. "

"Under *THIS plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition."

"under *MY plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance"
*
"It [the public option] is only part of MY plan"

"we've estimated that most of *THIS plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system"

"the plan *I'M proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years"

"The only thing *THIS plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies"

What is misleading about these statements, is that each of them referred to a plan being proposed by Obama. HIS plan. A plan that, strictly speaking, does not exist. As far as I know, the Obama Administration never submitted a plan to Congress.

So 'His' plan that he spoke of, isn't even real...

"You LIE!"

If You Don't Trust the State, Then How Can You Trust The FED?

In a debate on gay marriage with some friends today i came away with, a new idea. Before i mainly focused on state's rights to decide and civil unions but more equal. I have always liked to use a soda pop analogy when dealing with this to show my support of civil unions.

Let's Say you have a cup of sprite and a cup of coke. Now these represent gay marraige and traditional marriage. Let's say they are in the same (or 'equal') cup, have the same amount, and the same amount of ice, same type of lid, they both have the classic striped straw and are both equal in size. This represents the equality of marriage and a civil union. I think they should have equal rights to things such as, tax benefits, adoption rights, hospital rights etc.

Now when you look at that they are almost identical. And one could say, yes they are equal, there is no difference. Except, keep in mind, one is sprite, and one is coke. One is traditional marriage, and one is gay marriage. And history shows, the spirte was served, before the coke.

Now that is my theory on how it should be dealt with. I hate to say it but in a way, 'equal but separate.'

So regarding the new idea i got from this discussion today, involves weather it should be a state issue of federal issue. Now one of the debaters had the point that it should be federal because he did not trust the state. Now this seemed interesting to me since i thought then, if you don't trust the state, then how can you even begin to trust the fed? The fed who gave us the compassion of the IRS, the efficiency of the Post Office and the effectiveness of FIMA.

The further the law gets from the individual the worse. The state and local governments are closer to the people and can relate better than a far distant capitol in washington d.c. So how come you would trust the Federal government who gave us the entitlement crisis, over the states that gave us the black civil rights movement? Gay marriage should be left up to states. The further away we get from the people then we drift into tyranny.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
-The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Pro Life and Pro War-A Moral Issue

One of the many questions i have had asked, is how am i pro life and pro war. Now this brings up a great point. But here is my answer. Pro life means, pro innocent life. Now we kill terrorists, because they have killed hundreds, are evil and should be stopped. An unborn child on the other hand hasn't done anything or harmed anyone. So why should they be killed.

So you're telling me that if some one is a serial killer, mass murdered what ever, if they have killed tons of people, and you have a weapon, and you can stop them you would just walk by? you would let him pass and go on killing? If i'm in that situation, and i've got a gun i think i have an obligation to stop him. To protect innocent human life.

If some one breaks into your home and threatens your family, you wouldn't try and stop him to protect your family?

The idea is to protect innocent people. That is pro life. it is not pro life to let terrorists and other serial killers live and continue to take lives. That is pro death. Now in an earlier post i explained that bad economics of the death penalty. Money wise, it is dumb, but from a moral standpoint it only makes sense. Protect the innocent.

So when i say i'm pro war on terror, and people say that isn't pro life, i think it is more pro life than anything. Stopping and silencing murderers and terrorists is pro life. A war on terror is necessary to protect human life.

Pro life, and pro war, because pro war IS pro life.

Thomas Sowell Single Payer: My Self

What did we do, back during the years when most Americans had no medical insurance? I did what most people did. I depended on a "single payer"-- myself. When I didn't have the money, I paid off my medical bills in installments. The birth of my first child was not covered by medical insurance. I paid off the bill, month by month, until the time finally came when I could tell my wife that the baby was now ours, free and clear.

In a country where everything imaginable is bought and paid for on credit, why is it suddenly a national crisis if some people cannot pay cash up front for medical treatment? That is not the best way to do things for all people and all medical treatments, which is why most Americans today choose to have medical insurance. But millions of other people choose not to-- often young and healthy people, sometimes deadbeats who use emergency rooms and don't pay at all.

Is this ideal? No. But if every deviation from the ideal is a reason to be panicked and stampeded into putting dangerous arbitrary powers into the hands of government, then go directly to totalitarianism, do not pass "Go", do not collect $200.

The Economics of The Death Penalty

It costs far more to execute someone, wasting millions of dollars that could be more effectively used to prevent crime.

This may seem counter-intuitive, but it is actually much more expensive to seek and carry out a death sentence than it would be to house a defendant in prison for the rest of his natural life. There are three reasons: 1) A capital trial is much longer than a murder trial in which the death penalty is not sought; 2) is it necessary to afford capital defendants with extraordinary legal assistance through trial and many stages of appeals; and 3) most death penalty prosecutions eventually result in life sentences anyway, after most of the expense is incurred. Millions of dollars are spent prosecuting capital cases that would be saved and could be much more profitably used for effective crime-prevention, drug treatment, or victim's services programs.

* Average costs of a death penalty case in the United States is 2 million dollars.
* Average costs of a non-death penalty case in the United States is $750,000.00.

-The death penalty is economically, stupid.

How can one say they wish to cut spending and save money, but then turn around and say, "oh yeah the death penalty is a good idea."

Jail for life saves as opposed to the DP saves $1,250,000.

You Lie!

On Friday night during the presidents speech on health care he made the claim that his plan would not cover illegal immigrants. Now that got a lot of response from republicans (booing) including one congressman yelling out, "You lie!"

Now the first instinct is to say it was in bad taste and rude. However once the shock is over you can't help but think, did he lie? Going to the Census report of the 46 million uninsured, which i broke down in an earlier post, it says that about 10 million of them are illegal immigrants. So now who has been talking about the 46 million. and how we need to cover the 46 million. How we need a system to take care of ALL of the 46 million uninsured. Obama. And in that number 10 million are illegal immigrants.

So yes he does lie. He wants to cover the uninsured (46 million) and they are in that. He has been lying. How ever, notice he changed that number of uninsured to about 30 million. Hmmm. The senate is now working on eliminating that provision that covered illegal immigrants. For the record that in it self proves that he was lying.

I can't wait for the public option. I've heard it will be as efficient as the Post Office.

Who Says Capitalism isn't Green?

i read an article recently from the 'Cafe Hayek Blog' about how more anti pollutant things have come from capitalism, instead of capitalism creating pollution. here is what it said.

Here’s another picture of a modern anti-pollution device. Not only is indoor plumbing clearly a major advance in fighting pollution, but automatic flushers – flushers that require no touching of knobs or handles – are a further advance.

IMG_0240

(the picture is of an automatic flushing toilet.


By the way, just because some of the devices and innovations that I will point to in my series are located in government-owned facilities, the point I am making remains valid. One way to re-interpret my point is that we moderns who live in advanced industrial economies — for whatever reason — suffer far less pollution than did our pre-industrial ancestors, despite the fact that our ancestors never had to worry about things such as man-made carbon emissions.

But I nevertheless insist that it is capitalism that is chiefly responsible for bringing these pollution-fighting goodies to us. For example, even though airports in the U.S. are typically owned and operated by governments, these governments contract with private firms to design and build airports

The Idiots Guide To Socialism

Here is a very good joke describing socialism. It is a very good explanation of how socialism works:

Donald Trump's daughter, Ivanka, was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal ideals she was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs -- what her dad dismissed as "redistribution of wealth."
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, and a rich one at that -- a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his, rather than benefit society.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. "You don't need to spend money on these expensive furnishings in this huge house when there are people who need to earn more than minimum wage and better food!" she lectured.
To her shock and amazement, all The Donald said in reply was "Welcome to socialism."
That's it? she thought to herself -- no argument? But before she could even think of a follow-up, he actually changed the subject! "How are you doing with your studies?" Trump asked her.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"
She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."
The Donald was closing in now. He asked Ivanka, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."
Ivanka, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair!? I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"
Then Donald slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to capitalism."

Van Jones Resigns

Amongst lots of controversy lately is the Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones. He has caused lots of discussion due to his calling republicans asses and his history of signing a petition saying that the President (Bush) let 9/11 happen.

Early this morning he resigned from his petition. Other controversy is from Glenn Beck's Know Your Czars when he revealed the radicalness of the appointed Czars. Jones is a self proclaimed communist. That stirred up conversation and all of that together resulted in him stepping down.

More about Jones, his resignation and controversy in this article from Politico.com

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26797.html

'Mancession': Unemployment

This new segment is coined off a phrase from 'Carpe Diem' Blog and is about how men are being disciminated against and how reverse sexism is putting women before men.

the Great Mancession deepened to an unprecedented level in August, as male unemployment jumped by almost a half percent to 10.9% (from 10.5% in July) compared to the .10% increase for women, from 8.1% in July to 8.2% in August.

This is a 2.7 gap between the genders in FAVOR of WOMEN. Who'd of thought. Also unemployment as a whole got worse in august and is not 9.7%.

It's too bad we live in a sexist nation where MEN get all the advantages. ;)

Palin On Tort Reform

Today as the health care debate contnues Sarah Palin makes another issue know and alive in the debate. Tort reform is a key part of reducing costs for health. Doctors and hospitals shouldn't have to worry about being screwed by lawers. We cannot continue to have high malpractice costs. Tort reform is esential to health care reform.

Here is what Palin says:

"President Obama's health care "reform" plan has met with significant criticism across the country. Many Americans want change and reform in our current health care system. We recognize that while we have the greatest medical care in the world, there are major problems that we must face, especially in terms of reining in costs and allowing care to be affordable for all. However, as we have seen, current plans being pushed by the Democratic leadership represent change that may not be what we had in mind -- change which poses serious ethical concerns over the government having control over our families’ health care decisions. In addition, the current plans greatly increase costs of health care, while doing lip service toward controlling costs.

You would think that any effort to reform our health care system would include tort reform, especially if the stated purpose for Obama’s plan to nationalize our health care industry is the current high costs.

So I have new questions for the president: Why no legal reform? Why continue to encourage defensive medicine that wastes billions of dollars and does nothing for the patients? Do you want health care reform to benefit trial attorneys or patients?

Many states, including my own state of Alaska, have enacted caps on lawsuit awards against health care providers. Texas enacted caps and found that one county’s medical malpractice claims dropped 41 percent, and another study found a “55 percent decline” after reform measures were passed. [4] That’s one step in health care reform. Limiting lawyer contingency fees, as is done under the Federal Tort Claims Act, is another step. The State of Alaska pioneered the “loser pays” rule in the United States, which deters frivolous civil law suits by making the loser partially pay the winner’s legal bills. Preventing quack doctors from giving “expert” testimony in court against real doctors is another reform."

First, rationing and government take over, then death pannels, now TORT.

Universal Nightmare: Tennessee's Failed Health Reform

Obamacare is getting harder and harder to pass and the public is losing trust in it. It is not easy to find a good, working example of national health-care. even in the states failed universal health system stories are popping up all over, Mass, Hawaii, Oregon, and now, Tennessee, here is an article about the failed government run option know as Tenncare. Another reason to fear universal health-care.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/22/tenncare_lessons_for_modern_health_care_reform_97570.html