Thursday, January 13, 2011
Keep the "O" and give me Sarah
The collective thought seems to be that "O" is a great oraterLast night I listened and learned that the way through this tragedy is to "hug mom" and realize that despite our faults we are a good people. Huh? An evil madman shoots a bunch of people and the lesion is to examine our faults and grow from the experience? What drivel!
Sarah understands that there is evil in the world and we must be vigiliant. She did not blame "us" and instead identified evil and said it must be stopped.
Baxter states that he had other things on his mind, however when push can to shove, he accused my side of having "finger prints" all over this tragedy. And Eric wants an apology.
Where and for what? Even though they never let facts or reality get in the way, it is hard to ignore the following and continue to insinuate that the right had any causal relationship to the event.
Apology? I'm waiting.
He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn't listen to political radio. He didn't take sides. He wasn't on the left; he wasn't on the right.
Sarah understands that there is evil in the world and we must be vigiliant. She did not blame "us" and instead identified evil and said it must be stopped.
Baxter states that he had other things on his mind, however when push can to shove, he accused my side of having "finger prints" all over this tragedy. And Eric wants an apology.
Where and for what? Even though they never let facts or reality get in the way, it is hard to ignore the following and continue to insinuate that the right had any causal relationship to the event.
Apology? I'm waiting.
He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn't listen to political radio. He didn't take sides. He wasn't on the left; he wasn't on the right.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
And Eric's and Baxter's? The more I consider the asinine response of those two, the madder I get (don't worry, no gunplay planned). Apologize? Finger prints? I was going to write something but Charlie nails it.
Massacre, Followed by Libel
The origins of Jared Loughner’s delusions are clear: mental illness. What are the origins of Paul Krugman’s? The charge: The Tucson massacre is a consequence of the “climate of hate” created by Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Obamacare opponents, and sundry other liberal bêtes noires.
The verdict: Rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous, and so unsupported by evidence.
As killers go, Jared Loughner is not reticent. Yet among all his writings, postings, videos, and other ravings — and in all the testimony from people who knew him — there is not a single reference to any of these supposed accessories to murder.
Not only is there no evidence that Loughner was impelled to violence by any of those upon whom Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, the New York Times, the Tucson sheriff, and other rabid partisans are fixated. There is no evidence that he was responding to anything, political or otherwise, outside of his own head.
A climate of hate? This man lived within his very own private climate. “His thoughts were unrelated to anything in our world,” said the teacher of Loughner’s philosophy class at Pima Community College. “He was very disconnected from reality,” said classmate Lydian Ali.
“You know how it is when you talk to someone who’s mentally ill and they’re just not there?” said neighbor Jason Johnson. “It was like he was in his own world.”
His ravings, said one high-school classmate, were interspersed with “unnerving, long stupors of silence” during which he would “stare fixedly at his buddies,” reported the Wall Street Journal. His own writings are confused, incoherent, punctuated with private numerology and inscrutable taxonomy. He warned of government brainwashing and thought control through “grammar.” He was obsessed with “conscious dreaming,” a fairly good synonym for hallucinations.
This is not political behavior. These are the signs of a clinical thought disorder — ideas disconnected from one another, incoherent, delusional, detached from reality.
These are all the hallmarks of a paranoid schizophrenic. And a dangerous one. A classmate found him so terrifyingly mentally disturbed that — as she e-mailed friends and family — she expected to see his picture on TV after he had perpetrated a mass murder. This was no idle speculation: In class, “I sit by the door with my purse handy,” she wrote, so that she could get out fast when the shooting began.
Furthermore, the available evidence dates Loughner’s fixation on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords back to at least 2007, when he attended a townhall of hers and felt slighted by her response. In 2007, no one had heard of Sarah Palin. Glenn Beck was still toiling on Headline News. There was no Tea Party or health-care reform. The only climate of hate was the pervasive post-Iraq campaign of vilification of George W. Bush, nicely captured by a New Republic editor who began an article thus: “I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it.”
Finally, the charge that the metaphors used by Palin and others were inciting violence is ridiculous. Everyone uses warlike metaphors in describing politics. When Barack Obama said at a 2008 fundraiser in Philadelphia, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” he was hardly inciting violence.
Why? Because fighting and warfare are the most routine of political metaphors. And for obvious reasons. Historically speaking, all democratic politics is a sublimation of the ancient route to power — military conquest. That’s why the language persists. That’s why we speak without any self-consciousness of such things as “battleground states” and “targeting” opponents. Indeed, the very word for an electoral contest — “campaign” — is an appropriation from warfare.
When profiles of Obama’s first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, noted that he once sent a dead fish to a pollster who displeased him, a characteristically subtle statement carrying more than a whiff of malice and murder, it was considered a charming example of excessive — and creative — political enthusiasm. When Senate candidate Joe Manchin dispensed with metaphor and simply fired a bullet through the cap-and-trade bill — while intoning, “I’ll take dead aim at [it]” — he was hardly assailed with complaints about violations of civil discourse or invitations to murder.
Did Manchin push Loughner over the top? Did Emanuel’s little Mafia imitation create a climate for political violence? The very questions are absurd — unless you’re the New York Times and you substitute the name Sarah Palin.
The origins of Loughner’s delusions are clear: mental illness. What are the origins of Krugman’s?
The origins of Jared Loughner’s delusions are clear: mental illness. What are the origins of Paul Krugman’s? The charge: The Tucson massacre is a consequence of the “climate of hate” created by Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Obamacare opponents, and sundry other liberal bêtes noires.
The verdict: Rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous, and so unsupported by evidence.
As killers go, Jared Loughner is not reticent. Yet among all his writings, postings, videos, and other ravings — and in all the testimony from people who knew him — there is not a single reference to any of these supposed accessories to murder.
Not only is there no evidence that Loughner was impelled to violence by any of those upon whom Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, the New York Times, the Tucson sheriff, and other rabid partisans are fixated. There is no evidence that he was responding to anything, political or otherwise, outside of his own head.
A climate of hate? This man lived within his very own private climate. “His thoughts were unrelated to anything in our world,” said the teacher of Loughner’s philosophy class at Pima Community College. “He was very disconnected from reality,” said classmate Lydian Ali.
“You know how it is when you talk to someone who’s mentally ill and they’re just not there?” said neighbor Jason Johnson. “It was like he was in his own world.”
His ravings, said one high-school classmate, were interspersed with “unnerving, long stupors of silence” during which he would “stare fixedly at his buddies,” reported the Wall Street Journal. His own writings are confused, incoherent, punctuated with private numerology and inscrutable taxonomy. He warned of government brainwashing and thought control through “grammar.” He was obsessed with “conscious dreaming,” a fairly good synonym for hallucinations.
This is not political behavior. These are the signs of a clinical thought disorder — ideas disconnected from one another, incoherent, delusional, detached from reality.
These are all the hallmarks of a paranoid schizophrenic. And a dangerous one. A classmate found him so terrifyingly mentally disturbed that — as she e-mailed friends and family — she expected to see his picture on TV after he had perpetrated a mass murder. This was no idle speculation: In class, “I sit by the door with my purse handy,” she wrote, so that she could get out fast when the shooting began.
Furthermore, the available evidence dates Loughner’s fixation on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords back to at least 2007, when he attended a townhall of hers and felt slighted by her response. In 2007, no one had heard of Sarah Palin. Glenn Beck was still toiling on Headline News. There was no Tea Party or health-care reform. The only climate of hate was the pervasive post-Iraq campaign of vilification of George W. Bush, nicely captured by a New Republic editor who began an article thus: “I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it.”
Finally, the charge that the metaphors used by Palin and others were inciting violence is ridiculous. Everyone uses warlike metaphors in describing politics. When Barack Obama said at a 2008 fundraiser in Philadelphia, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” he was hardly inciting violence.
Why? Because fighting and warfare are the most routine of political metaphors. And for obvious reasons. Historically speaking, all democratic politics is a sublimation of the ancient route to power — military conquest. That’s why the language persists. That’s why we speak without any self-consciousness of such things as “battleground states” and “targeting” opponents. Indeed, the very word for an electoral contest — “campaign” — is an appropriation from warfare.
When profiles of Obama’s first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, noted that he once sent a dead fish to a pollster who displeased him, a characteristically subtle statement carrying more than a whiff of malice and murder, it was considered a charming example of excessive — and creative — political enthusiasm. When Senate candidate Joe Manchin dispensed with metaphor and simply fired a bullet through the cap-and-trade bill — while intoning, “I’ll take dead aim at [it]” — he was hardly assailed with complaints about violations of civil discourse or invitations to murder.
Did Manchin push Loughner over the top? Did Emanuel’s little Mafia imitation create a climate for political violence? The very questions are absurd — unless you’re the New York Times and you substitute the name Sarah Palin.
The origins of Loughner’s delusions are clear: mental illness. What are the origins of Krugman’s?
Monday, January 10, 2011
Where have all the flowers gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the flowers gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the graveyards gone?
Covered with flowers every one
When will we ever learn?
When will we ever learn.
I just can't let this go sorry! We won't let kids watch cigarette comercials because they might smoke, and yet the best selling game today to kids is BLACK OP'S.
When will ever learn?
The Virginia Tech killings, How many did he kill?
Can you rember, I doubt it. (32) I will say it again 32.
The guy in Omaha?, (8)
Whitman At the University of Texas?, (16)
The guy at the McDonald's in California? (21)
The day trader in Alanta? (9)
Harris and Klebold at Columbine? (12)
The guy in Killen Texas at the Luby's? (23)
The Amish girls at their school? (5)
The trouble is we are so used to this we are numb too numb.
In two weeks you will barely remember this as well as all the others I have pointed out.
The action and the consequences are so far apart that it lessens the shock and lessens the outrage that we need to change things in this country.
I say hang this guy next Friday in the public square in Tucson.
This is not a who dun it, we have witness's.
Sorry about your rights, you certainly didn't care about those people's rights.
Long time passing
Where have all the flowers gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the graveyards gone?
Covered with flowers every one
When will we ever learn?
When will we ever learn.
I just can't let this go sorry! We won't let kids watch cigarette comercials because they might smoke, and yet the best selling game today to kids is BLACK OP'S.
When will ever learn?
The Virginia Tech killings, How many did he kill?
Can you rember, I doubt it. (32) I will say it again 32.
The guy in Omaha?, (8)
Whitman At the University of Texas?, (16)
The guy at the McDonald's in California? (21)
The day trader in Alanta? (9)
Harris and Klebold at Columbine? (12)
The guy in Killen Texas at the Luby's? (23)
The Amish girls at their school? (5)
The trouble is we are so used to this we are numb too numb.
In two weeks you will barely remember this as well as all the others I have pointed out.
The action and the consequences are so far apart that it lessens the shock and lessens the outrage that we need to change things in this country.
I say hang this guy next Friday in the public square in Tucson.
This is not a who dun it, we have witness's.
Sorry about your rights, you certainly didn't care about those people's rights.
Guns don't kill people do
Gun's don't kill people do, the mantra of the NRA will undoubtly will be heard again and again.
It is not that the gun was evil, but that it was in the hands of an evil person,” Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) assures us on Meet the Press. Echoes the Tea Party’s Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) on CNN: No laws curtailing gun ownership could stop a person “bent on performing evil acts to kill another person.”
Is that so? If the Tucson madman did not easily and legally acquire his gun and the large magazine of bullets with it, would he have been able to vent his evil on a crowd of people, killing at least six and wounding 13?
Of course not. Guns kill people. A single gun can kills lots of them in seconds. A single knife can’t. The gun has a unique utility for translating rage into instant killing. The gunman can get close, concealing the weapon, and take the victims by surprise. The counterargument is that if a victim has a gun, the gunman won’t try. There is something in that. But the attacker always has the benefit of surprise. Sadly, it didn’t help Rep. Gabrielle Giffords that she is a gun owner and a keen Second Amendment supporter. Banks are well-defended but still get robbed.
While I believe in owning a gun, there must be a better way to regulate how many bullets a gun can shoot in one second. I mean if we can tell auto makers how many MPG they need to have, can't we tell gun mfg's, no assault weapons, to civilians.
It is not that the gun was evil, but that it was in the hands of an evil person,” Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) assures us on Meet the Press. Echoes the Tea Party’s Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) on CNN: No laws curtailing gun ownership could stop a person “bent on performing evil acts to kill another person.”
Is that so? If the Tucson madman did not easily and legally acquire his gun and the large magazine of bullets with it, would he have been able to vent his evil on a crowd of people, killing at least six and wounding 13?
Of course not. Guns kill people. A single gun can kills lots of them in seconds. A single knife can’t. The gun has a unique utility for translating rage into instant killing. The gunman can get close, concealing the weapon, and take the victims by surprise. The counterargument is that if a victim has a gun, the gunman won’t try. There is something in that. But the attacker always has the benefit of surprise. Sadly, it didn’t help Rep. Gabrielle Giffords that she is a gun owner and a keen Second Amendment supporter. Banks are well-defended but still get robbed.
While I believe in owning a gun, there must be a better way to regulate how many bullets a gun can shoot in one second. I mean if we can tell auto makers how many MPG they need to have, can't we tell gun mfg's, no assault weapons, to civilians.
Where is the $100 Billion?
The NY Times ran an editorial on Saturday asking where the $100B in spending cuts were that John Boehner and the Republicans promised four months ago. To date, they have yet to specifically identify the cuts and, in fact, are said to be paring the number down to $50B-$60B. As a reminder, the federal budget is $3.5 trillion and the party that ran on the promise of cutting spending has so far identified only $35 million. I sense a continuing pattern.
As I have long said, it is one thing to yell "Just cut spending!" as you are taking over a town hall meeting and preventing others from speaking. It is quite another to identify the cuts, as that is when the question is in full relief. Tax cuts sound great in a vacuum, and ring like poor policy if the price is deficits or the elimination of popular programs. Further - spending cuts are not the path to recovery in times of recession and high unemployment.
Campaign promises are easy. Governing is hard work. Lets see what you got, Mr Boehner.
NY Times piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/opinion/09sun1.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
As I have long said, it is one thing to yell "Just cut spending!" as you are taking over a town hall meeting and preventing others from speaking. It is quite another to identify the cuts, as that is when the question is in full relief. Tax cuts sound great in a vacuum, and ring like poor policy if the price is deficits or the elimination of popular programs. Further - spending cuts are not the path to recovery in times of recession and high unemployment.
Campaign promises are easy. Governing is hard work. Lets see what you got, Mr Boehner.
NY Times piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/opinion/09sun1.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Sunday, January 9, 2011
The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified this week after the shootings, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration. The results of the recent election are prompting an exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, to pray, and to agree with Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck.
Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal-rights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at night. "I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota . "The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn't have any, he left before I even got a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?"
In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. He then installed loudspeakers that blared Rush Limbaugh across the fields "Not real effective," he said. "The liberals still got through and Rush annoyed the cows so much that they wouldn't give any milk."
Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons and drive them across the border where they are simply left to fend for themselves. "A lot of these people are not prepared for our rugged conditions," an Ontario border patrolman said. "I found one carload without a single bottle of imported drinking water. They did have a nice little Napa Valley Cabernet, though."
When liberals are caught, they're sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been circulating in the US about plans to build re-education camps where liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and watch NASCAR races.
In recent days, liberals have turned to ingenious ways of crossing the border. Some have been disguised as senior citizens taking a bus trip to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans in powdered wig disguises, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior citizens about Perry Como and Rosemary Clooney, to prove that they were alive in the '50s. An official said, "If they can't identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we become very suspicious about their age."
Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage and are renting all the Michael Moore movies. "I really feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can't support them," an Ottawa resident said. "How many art-history majors does one country need?"
Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal-rights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at night. "I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota . "The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn't have any, he left before I even got a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?"
In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. He then installed loudspeakers that blared Rush Limbaugh across the fields "Not real effective," he said. "The liberals still got through and Rush annoyed the cows so much that they wouldn't give any milk."
Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons and drive them across the border where they are simply left to fend for themselves. "A lot of these people are not prepared for our rugged conditions," an Ontario border patrolman said. "I found one carload without a single bottle of imported drinking water. They did have a nice little Napa Valley Cabernet, though."
When liberals are caught, they're sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been circulating in the US about plans to build re-education camps where liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and watch NASCAR races.
In recent days, liberals have turned to ingenious ways of crossing the border. Some have been disguised as senior citizens taking a bus trip to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans in powdered wig disguises, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior citizens about Perry Como and Rosemary Clooney, to prove that they were alive in the '50s. An official said, "If they can't identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we become very suspicious about their age."
Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage and are renting all the Michael Moore movies. "I really feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can't support them," an Ottawa resident said. "How many art-history majors does one country need?"
Like day follows night
Of course ONLY the angry RIGHT retoric is to blame.
Until Saturday's rampage against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords left her battling for her life and ended the lives of six others, Clarence Dupnik was not the most famous sheriff in Arizona.
But after a pull-no-punches news conference in which he linked the shooting in Tucson to a poisonous underlying political atmosphere, the Pima County sheriff may soon become known nationally as the anti-Joe Arpaio.
"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," said Dupnik, referring to the troubled suspect, 22-year-old Jared Loughner.
Dupnik said Arizona, embroiled over the last year by bitter divisions over illegal immigration and health care reform, has "become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."
Many officials have been threatened, including Giffords, the federal judge killed by her side and Dupnik himself. The sheriff called that a "sad thing," and said, "Pretty soon, we're not going to be able to find reasonable, decent people who are willing to subject themselves to serve in public office."
Until Saturday's rampage against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords left her battling for her life and ended the lives of six others, Clarence Dupnik was not the most famous sheriff in Arizona.
But after a pull-no-punches news conference in which he linked the shooting in Tucson to a poisonous underlying political atmosphere, the Pima County sheriff may soon become known nationally as the anti-Joe Arpaio.
"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," said Dupnik, referring to the troubled suspect, 22-year-old Jared Loughner.
Dupnik said Arizona, embroiled over the last year by bitter divisions over illegal immigration and health care reform, has "become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."
Many officials have been threatened, including Giffords, the federal judge killed by her side and Dupnik himself. The sheriff called that a "sad thing," and said, "Pretty soon, we're not going to be able to find reasonable, decent people who are willing to subject themselves to serve in public office."
Tucson
Is there any way to persuade the Pima County Sheriff to run for congress? He seems to know what is going on.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Circular logic-or a Circular firing squad
We have a budget deficit, let's raise taxes! On the rich! (to the prev post I reply Duh!)
Before we raise taxes, let's cut spending... how about we start with Earmarks?
Earmarks! That is nothing, all the spending is in entitlements!
But cutting Earmarks is a start and they corrupt the process. But OK...Let's cut entitlements.
We can't cut entitlements! People would be mad.
But we can't afford to continue the current entitlements, they are breaking us.
Yes!
But you/we are legislators, why don't we deal with entitlements?
Yes! We need to deal with entitlements, let's raise them, everyone needs health care!
But you just agreed we can't afford our current entitlements, why do you think we can add another?
Because people need things and it is the responsibility of a small portion of the citizenry to pay for the general welfare. Raise taxes on the Rich!
But even if we raise taxes and ignore its effect on the economy, we will still go broke if we don't deal with entitlements. Let's legislate something.
No! If we legislated something other politicians would say bad things about us and we would lose our jobs!
Who would say such things? This is really important, the country is going broke, we need to act.
We would!
Before we raise taxes, let's cut spending... how about we start with Earmarks?
Earmarks! That is nothing, all the spending is in entitlements!
But cutting Earmarks is a start and they corrupt the process. But OK...Let's cut entitlements.
We can't cut entitlements! People would be mad.
But we can't afford to continue the current entitlements, they are breaking us.
Yes!
But you/we are legislators, why don't we deal with entitlements?
Yes! We need to deal with entitlements, let's raise them, everyone needs health care!
But you just agreed we can't afford our current entitlements, why do you think we can add another?
Because people need things and it is the responsibility of a small portion of the citizenry to pay for the general welfare. Raise taxes on the Rich!
But even if we raise taxes and ignore its effect on the economy, we will still go broke if we don't deal with entitlements. Let's legislate something.
No! If we legislated something other politicians would say bad things about us and we would lose our jobs!
Who would say such things? This is really important, the country is going broke, we need to act.
We would!
Americans Support Tax Hikes (on the rich)
U.S. News
Poll: Most favor taxing rich as budget fix
Published: Jan. 3, 2011 at 2:50 PM
NEW YORK, Jan. 3 (UPI) -- Raising taxes on high-end U.S. taxpayers should be the first step taken in balancing the federal budget, a CBS "60 Minutes"/Vanity Fair poll Monday indicated.
Sixty-one percent of Americans said they thought increasing taxes on the wealthy should be the first thing done to help bring the budget into balance, while 20 percent said they preferred cuts to Pentagon spending as their first option, The Hill reported.
Four percent said cutting Medicare would be the best way to begin to cut the deficit while 3 percent of participants said they preferred cutting Social Security.
Raising taxes for the wealthy was popular among the wealthy themselves, the poll revealed. Fifty-eight percent of respondents making between $50,000 and $100,000 per year ranked tax hikes as the best first step to balancing the budget, while 46 percent of people earning more than $100,000 said it was their top choice.
Results are based on nationwide interviews with 1,137 adults Nov. 29-Dec. 2. It has a 3 percentage point margin of error.
Poll: Most favor taxing rich as budget fix
Published: Jan. 3, 2011 at 2:50 PM
NEW YORK, Jan. 3 (UPI) -- Raising taxes on high-end U.S. taxpayers should be the first step taken in balancing the federal budget, a CBS "60 Minutes"/Vanity Fair poll Monday indicated.
Sixty-one percent of Americans said they thought increasing taxes on the wealthy should be the first thing done to help bring the budget into balance, while 20 percent said they preferred cuts to Pentagon spending as their first option, The Hill reported.
Four percent said cutting Medicare would be the best way to begin to cut the deficit while 3 percent of participants said they preferred cutting Social Security.
Raising taxes for the wealthy was popular among the wealthy themselves, the poll revealed. Fifty-eight percent of respondents making between $50,000 and $100,000 per year ranked tax hikes as the best first step to balancing the budget, while 46 percent of people earning more than $100,000 said it was their top choice.
Results are based on nationwide interviews with 1,137 adults Nov. 29-Dec. 2. It has a 3 percentage point margin of error.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Bipartisan Healthcare Improvements?
The GOP has bitterly complained about the individual mandate contained in 2010’s Healthcare Reform. Perhaps, they can improve the bill by working constructively in the 112th Congress:
Repeal the provision “requiring” the purchase of health insurance and replace it with “open enrollment” at the date that the “requirement” was going to kick in. Those who choose to opt out will not face a tax penalty. However, should opt-outs ever desire to opt-in, they would be subject to the underwriting standards employed today. They would be subject to rejection and exemption from pre-existing conditions, just as today. Finally, they would be fully responsible for the costs any healthcare consumed while uninsured, just as today. What self-respecting, government-hating conservative American would balk at such conditions?
Allow insurers to offer “health & fitness” discounts of up to 15% each in three areas: smoking status, height/weight, and drugs/alcohol. Those who are weight proportionate, don’t smoke, and/or provide clear drug screens would be able to receive significant premium reductions. All three areas are based upon personal behavior choices and would move the cost of insurance closer to the risk of same. Allow employers and healthy employees to split the premium cost savings. Incentives, of course, are very powerful. This “health & fitness” provision would probably be one the greatest acts to improve our health and consequently reduce costs since health insurance became widespread. Like the man said, it really would be a BFD.
Repeal the provision “requiring” the purchase of health insurance and replace it with “open enrollment” at the date that the “requirement” was going to kick in. Those who choose to opt out will not face a tax penalty. However, should opt-outs ever desire to opt-in, they would be subject to the underwriting standards employed today. They would be subject to rejection and exemption from pre-existing conditions, just as today. Finally, they would be fully responsible for the costs any healthcare consumed while uninsured, just as today. What self-respecting, government-hating conservative American would balk at such conditions?
Allow insurers to offer “health & fitness” discounts of up to 15% each in three areas: smoking status, height/weight, and drugs/alcohol. Those who are weight proportionate, don’t smoke, and/or provide clear drug screens would be able to receive significant premium reductions. All three areas are based upon personal behavior choices and would move the cost of insurance closer to the risk of same. Allow employers and healthy employees to split the premium cost savings. Incentives, of course, are very powerful. This “health & fitness” provision would probably be one the greatest acts to improve our health and consequently reduce costs since health insurance became widespread. Like the man said, it really would be a BFD.
If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on...
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. <>A liberal democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
If a liberal democrat doesn't like a talk show host, he demands the show be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal democrat will delete it because he's "offend ed".
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Nothing more needs to be said!
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
Dwight David Eisenhower
Dwight David Eisenhower
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)