Friday, June 29, 2012
"The Good & The Bad About The Supreme Court ACA Ruling": Where Progressives Lose On The Commerce Clause
Not to sound insulting but the bald guy in this video nailed it, when he said that this ruling is good. In the sense that Switzerland has figured out how to get to Universal Health Insurance, with a private Health Insurance System, which is a fact sorry Progressives get use to that. The rest of the Industrialized World does not have a Socialize Health Insurance System. There are actually probably more countries that have private Health Insurance, then don't. And every time I hear someone say that America should have Socialize Health Insurance, because the rest of the Industrialized World has it. I'm going to correct them and I'll probably do it on my blog, we can have our own opinions but have to share the same facts, thats how the World works. Germany like Switzerland, another country with a significant German population, to say the least. A little shout out for my people, has a completely private Health Insurance System, Germany a country that Socialists love and point to. Has a completely private Health Insurance System, a country of over 80M people, with the fourth largest economy in the World, largest economy in Europe. The 2nd largest economy in the Western Hemisphere, private Health Insurance System. Not even America has that, we have a mixture of both.
To get to the Commerce Clause, bad news for Progressives and good news for everyone else, where they believe the Affordable Care Act is Constitutional or not. Because the Supreme Court ruled that the ACA is not Constitutional based on the Commerce Clause, which is the argument that Progressives. Going back to the FDR Administration have always used to grant the Federal Government power into the economy, to create the Federal Safety Net and to expand it under the LBJ Administration. The ACA was ruled Constitutional based on the Taxing Power of the Federal Government, which was added to the US Constitution back in 1917 or 1918, sometimes I wish I was a lawyer. Which means that Progressives in the future are going to have a hell of a time passing their Big Government agenda, all of the new Social Insurance Programs. I'm sure they would want to add to the Federal Government. They are going to have to find another way.
Great news for Liberal Democrats because we've shown that we can get damn close to Universal Health Insurance. Without taking away Americans choice in how they get their Health Insurance and as I've said before, the ACA is just a beginning. Hopefully we'll have a Public Option in the future but Medicare For All, looks dead right now, unless you get a Progressive in the White House with a Progressive Congress. That has large majorities in both the House and Senate.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
"Supreme Court Sides with Corporatization of Medicine": Now The Socialist Reaction to The Supreme Court Decision on The ACA
Just to start off I want to make a correction in what Dr. Margaret Flowers said, when she said that. The United States should move to a Healthcare System, that the rest of the Industrialized World has, which is run by the government, at least as it relates to Health Insurance. Which I pointed out last night, where both France and Germany, have Healthcare Systems, that cost half of America's but both have a private Health Insurance Industry. Dr. Flowers is a MD and should know better then that and stop trying to make the argument that America should move to have the same Healthcare System as the rest of the Industrialized World. Because there's no such thing, because the rest of the Industrialized World has different Healthcare Systems. They may be similar but its different from one another, what Dr. Flowers is talking about, is a Healthcare System where essentially the government. Runs the Healthcare System, another words Socialize Medicine, which is what Britain, Sweden and Denmark have, three countries with a combine population of roughly 75M people. The Industrialize World consists of North America, parts of South America, Europe, parts of Arabia and parts of Asia, roughly 3B people.
The reaction I heard from Dr. Margaret Flowers and others, is what I expected because they were hoping to be able to make the case that since the Affordable Care Act has been thrown out. Now we have to have Medicare For All, eliminate the Health Insurance Industry and require everyone to be on Medicare. Ralph Nader admitted that over a year ago and since thats not the case, it makes making that argument more difficult. Because the ACA shows a way where we can get to Universal Health Insurance, without eliminating choice in how people get their Health Insurance. As well as the Tax Credit for individuals and employers to help them purchase Health Insurance for themselves and their employers, that we could get damn close to Universal Coverage, as well as expanding Medicaid if its paid for. Just with the ACA as it stands. So the ACA being upheld is a lost for Progressives at least in that sense but a big victory for Liberals.
As I've blogged before the ACA doesn't go far enough, I don't want a Medicare For All Health Insurance System. And I want to preserve choice in how we pay for our Healthcare, as long as we pay for our Healthcare but the ACA puts us in position to eventually get to Universal Healthcare. Where everyone has the ability to pay for their Healthcare without passing those costs onto others and we could finish the job later on with a Public Option not Mandate in Health Insurance. Which is one reason why the 2012 elections are so important.
Posted by Derik Schneider at 8:48 PM
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Margaret Flowers: "Obamacare Doesn't Go Far Enough": Why a Public Option is Better Then Medicare For All
I really getting tired of hearing the argument from Progressives who of course believe that government knows best. That the United States should have a Single Payer Medicare For All Health Insurance System, because the rest of the Industrialized World has the same system. But they call it something else, I here this argument all the time when I get into debates online about Healthcare Reform. What irks me about that argument is that its completely false and either they are not aware of that or just take the British or Canadian model, that in Canada's case does have Government Health Insurance For All. Or Britain's case, the British Government covers most of the country but Private Health Insurance has well as Hospitals are now available in Britain. Its just that most Brits use the UKNHS United Kingdom National Health Service, when the fact is. The third and fourth largest economies in the World, Japan and Germany, both Developed Nations. Have Private Health Insurance and in Germany's case a hell of a lot more of a Socialist Nation then America is. Have Private Health Insurance from Cradle to Grave.
France which has the fifth or sixth largest economy in the World. Also has Public/Private System in Health Insurance and Healthcare, they have lower Healthcare Costs then Britain. Which covers most of its country with the NHS in Britain's case and with France their Healthcare Costs are somewhere around half of America's or less. The French Model is what we should be looking at, it would fit in well with us as a nation, Americans would still have the choice in how they pay for their Healthcare. As long as they pay for their share of their Healthcare Costs, Medicare being as popular as it is, Progressives under 65 would jump on that naturally. As well as perhaps other Americans but others would make the choice to stick with their current Health Insurance or go with a Health Savings Account or pay out of pocket. We would be combining what works well in France, which is guaranteed Health Insurance, a Socialist idea. With what works in America, which is choice a Liberal idea.
Progressives are right, the 2010 Affordable Care Act didn't go far enough but what they would do instead. Is not something that we have to do which is take choice out of our Health Insurance System and force everybody on the same Government Program, to bring down our Healthcare Costs. What the ACA should've had was a Public Option, allow adults under 65 to pay into Medicare, just as long as they have the option and force Private Health Insurers to compete for their customers. Just as long as the people decide, not government or business.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Thom Hartmann: "Why Higher Income Taxes Stimulate Job Growth": Why High Tax Rates Drag Economic Growth Down
What Progressive Talk Radio Host Thomm Hartmann doesn't mention in this video, is before Ronald Reagan was President. The economy was horrible and it was still horrible during the first two years of his Presidency. The 1970s was one of the worst decades we had economically with those high Tax Rates, that Thomm Hartmann and other Progressives speak so highly of. President Reagan cuts taxes across the board in 1981, gets them passed in a Divided Congress, Democratic House and a Republican Senate. President Reagan doesn't pay for those Tax Cuts or his boom in the Defense Budget. But as he admitted later on, if it is a choice between ending the Cold War and a Balance Budget. He takes ending the Cold War and living with a large debt and deficit, that he left for President Bush in 1989. But starting in 1983, the American Economy boomed, 10% unemployment goes down to 5%. President Reagan's Economic Policy is called Supply Side Economics, he didn't invent it, people like Art Laffer developed it in the late 1970s. You cut taxes across the board and you don't pay for them with Budget Cuts, because the theory is that the Economic Growth stimulated by the Tax Cuts, would make up for any lost revenue from the Tax Cuts.
President Reagan and Congressional Republicans were half right, that the Tax Cuts did generate Economic Growth. Because everyone including the Middle Class had additional money to spend and the Middle Class spent that money but not enough to make for the 1T$ or so in today's money that taxes were cut by. And even Mr. Hartmann isn't aware of that or won't acknowledge it, Tax Cuts to stimulate Economic Growth is not new. President Kennedy and President Johnson did this in the 1960s and we saw and Economic Boom by the mid 1960s, both these guys are Democrats by the way. A Liberal and a Progressive Democrat but they also had Balance Budgets back then, President Johnson is still the last President before President Clinton to have a Balance Budget. Thomm Hartmann speaks about the advantages of these high Tax Rates, pre President Kennedy ranging from 25-90% and doesn't mention how bad the economy was in the 1970s.
With those big Tax Rates again from 25-90% pre President Kennedy, recession in the late 1950s, two recessions in the 1970s, with weak Economic and Job Growth mixed in. Taxes were cut in the 1960s, 1980s and 1990s, under two Democratic Presidents and one Republican President. And we had Economic Booms in those three decades, high taxes don't work especially if you are in the Middle Class, when you are struggling just to pay the current bills. Supply Side Economics mixed in with Borrow and Spending, which is what we got from Ron Reagan and George W. Bush doesn't work either. Taxes should be designed based on peoples ability to pay and that encourage productivity and Economic Growth.
Monday, June 25, 2012
A big ruling for the US Supreme Court today and for the US Constitution as it relates Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Which covers what the State can do to punish its people for the crimes that they are convicted for. There's of course a limit to what the State can to to punish its people, for example it can't starve its inmates, or not clothe them, deny Healthcare etc. And there are also limits in what it can do to punish its inmates. And with this ruling that Life Without Parole, for Juvenile Offenders, is Unconstitutional, meaning that the State can't confine inmates for the rest of their lives. Because of something they did when they were sixteen years old to use as an example, a teenage gangster beating someone to death when they were 16-17 years old to use as an example. It doesn't say that the State can't hold Juvenile Convicts for the rest of their lives, 25-Life was not thrown out, it just says that these offenders have to be offered a chance at obtaining parole.
What this means is that the State meaning government, Federal or State, needs to look into trying to rehabilitate its inmates. For example someone lets say 15-16 years old, obviously hasn't graduated High School yet, perhaps dropped out to join a gang or has never been to High School. And they are sentenced to 25-Life for murder, rape whatever it might be. The State is going to have to confine that person at least until they are in their early 40s, probably longer then that. People serving 25-Life, don't tend to get paroled as soon as they are eligible. So its in their interest to graduate from High School in prison and perhaps get a Vocational Degree as well. To make the best of their long Prison Sentence, so if they do get out, they have some skills they can bring to the outside and would make them easier to deal with while in prison. Because now this inmate could see some light at the end of the tunnel.
This is a good ruling by the Supreme Court, because the fact is the people we are at fifteen, is not the same person at thirty. We learn and grow up and hopefully learn right and wrong, doesn't mean that Convicted Murderers will one day be on the streets, even if they are Juvenile Offenders. If they don't clean up their act in prison, they won't be, its just means we aren't throwing their lives away and giving them the opportunity and something to live for.
Friday, June 22, 2012
I'm about to lay out the case against legalizing marijuana, not that I agree with anything that I'm about to say. Stick with me for a minute if you can, imagine you are in a debate about Marijuana Legalization, you are the pro which is what I would be if I was in this debate. This is what the case would be against Marijuana Legalization, if the cons who are against Marijuana Legalization, this is the case. That they would make if they were debating honestly and here it is, so what I'm going to do is lay out the case against in one breath and then contradict myself in the next breath. I know that sounds crazy but imagine you are debating yourself and you are weighing the options of doing something from both sides. Where to live, what to do for dinner, by marijuana legally or go to jail for it, use any example you want. And thats what it will be like to hear the case against Marijuana Legalization, for someone such as myself and against, people who complain about Big Government but then who want to control what we can smoke and how we get high. But don't have a problem with alcohol, even though people get high off of that.
All right so here's the case against Marijuana Legalization and then I'll contradict myself. Marijuana leads to other drug use, where's the evidence, when people make this claim, I wonder if they are high themselves. It would bring competition to the Alcohol and Tobacco Industries, because it would probably be cheaper and do less damage to the body and people could smoke it longer. As long as they are responsible with it, well this is all true and just adds to the case that marijuana should be legal actually and not the case that cons make against Marijuana Legalization. Because wouldn't that be a great thing, if we have less people with Lung Cancer, Colon Cancer, Heart Disease, Liver Cancer, Diabetes all of these conditions coming from alcohol or tobacco and in come cases from both. If you are a heavy smoker of tobacco and a heavy drinker, you are not looking to live a long time.
Here's why Marijuana Legalization wouldn't lead to other drug use and why we would even see drops in other drug use, like alcohol and tobacco. Because why get arrested for heroin and cocaine, if you are not addicted to them and haven't used them before, when you can buy and smoke marijuana legally. And not have to deal with hangovers from being drunk, the case for, a lot of it is about common sense and the other part as a Liberal for me has to do with Individual Liberty. But you can also make a practical case for it, which is why the support for Marijuana Legalization has grown.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Democratic Representative Al Green Calls for "Radicalized Christian Hearings": Why Guilt by Association is Wrong and Unconstitutional
The House of Representatives has a Committee called the Homeland Security Committee, that basically oversees Federal Law Enforcment, as well as how the Federal Government. Responds to terrorism both home and abroad, the Homeland Securiy Committee is Chaired and Ranking by Representative Peter King, Republican from New York. And Representative Bennie Thompson Demcorat from Mississippie, yes there are still Democrats from Mississippi. The Majority and Minority Leaders of this committee and Chairman King about eighteen months ago, started hearings into what he sees as Radical Islamists in America. What Democratic Representative Al Green, as far as I know, no relation to the Rhythm and Blues singer Al Green, members of ths HS Committee did today, was to say if we are going to look into. What's called Radical Islam in America and what's seen as a threat to America, then we should also look into Radical Fudamentalist Christinaity. Groups like the Ku Klux Klan, Neo Nazi's, people who are actually terrorists who blow things up, attack and murder people, because of their race. As well as Far Right Pro Life groups tha blow up Abortion Clinics and murder Abortion Doctors and militia's that preparing for a war with the Federal Government.
Me personally as a Liberal I have a big problem holding these investigations, I would think that House Homeland Security would have better things to do. Then look into what they see as Radical Islam and going after people because of who they associate with, if these people are criminals at all. This is soemthing that the DHS Department of Homeland Security Department and the FBI can handle, any Islamic Terrorists in the country. I also have a problem as a Liberal with the HHSC looking into Christian Terrorists goups as well, or going after Fundamentlaists because of their beliefs or who they hang out with. If these people are criminals or terrorists, again DHS and the FBI can handle this and if they are arrested, the DOJ Department of Justice will handle that as well. Just because you are an Islamist or a Racist, doesn't automatcially make you a terrorist, until you act on those beliefs.
The United States is a Constitutional Republic in the form of a Liberal Demcoracy, we the people have Constitutional Rights. That the Federal Government has to respect Constitutionally, they don't have a choice, like Free Spech and Freedom of Assembly, meaning we can't be arrested for what we believe and who we hang out with. Just how we carry ourselves and what we do when we break the law, which is why these investigations are wrong.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Anyone on the left or right or in beween who loves freedom, should be against For Profit Prisons, why because they go against freedom. These companies make money at the expense of their inmates and the Tax Payers who fund these prisons and it gets worse, these corproations lobby for sricter laws. And longer sentences, so people who would normally be sentenced to County Jail or probabtion or going o a Halfway House or some other environment where they can do their time. End up in prison for a lot of times for Minor Offenses and end up in prison doing time with dangerous people. And having their lives changed forever, insetad of serving their sentences where they get their freedom taken from them but can move on with their lives as well and probably not end up back in jail. These compamies lobby for more laws so more people can be sentenced to their prisons , longer sentences so their they can hold their inmates longer at our expense and for more rules inprison.
More violations so they can add on to their inmates sentences and have an interest in having a weaker economy, like now, because crime tends to be up when the economy is down and people end up getting desperate for money and end up doing things they normally wouldn't do. Its in the fiancial interest for these Prison Companies to have a weaker economy and to lobby aaginst things that can strenghten the economy and lobby for things that can weaken the economy. Its no secret that Louisiana is the "Prison Capitol of the World", they have a Private Prison Industry and their economy isn't doing very well right now and probably have stricter laws as well. So more people end up in prison, benefit to the Private Prison Industry, at the expense of Tax Payers and what do State Governments get out of this.
Yes the States have to run less prisons but have to pay at Tax Payers expense for the housing of these inmates in these Private Prisons and end up having more people in prison at their expense as a result.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
New York is a great city and in a lot of ways a great place to visit and see and in a lot of respects a very well managed big city. But there are many reasons why I wouldn't live there and what's happened there the last few weeks, just has added on to that. The taxes are too high, the weather is too cold, the winters are too long, well except for maybe this year, I doubt Washington wasn't the only city not to experience winter. There are too many people living there in such a small area, millions of people living within a few miles of each other, breathing must be a real challenge. Which is why so many New Yorkers take cabs, where would they park and who wants to spend two hours going two miles or spend a couple thousand dollars or more each month, paying for a parking spot. But hey I'm not taking anything away from New York, still a great place to visit, just as long as I can get out of the city and go back home. And I'm only about a four drive from it or a thirty minute flight from NYC from Washington, so very doable. But the last few weeks New York that I now call the Nanny City, has gone even farther and even expanded Big Government even more and this time not even by a Democrat or a Republican, an Independent Progressive.
Two or three weeks ago New York under Mayor Mike Bloomberg passes a soda ban, essentially outlawing sodas of certain sizes. Apparently unaware of how resourceful New Yorkers are and that they can go to North Jersey or Long Island and by their sodas there and perhaps pay less in taxes there. This is about the ultimate government knows best in how people should live their own lives, to the point we'll penalize them if they don't live their lives the way we want them to. Its gets worse, this is nothing new but NYC has expanded what's called Stop and Frisk, stopping people in the streets who they may feel are under the possession or influence of marijuana. Not even the US Justice Department has taken their anti marijuana policy to this extreme, that they would stop and frisk people who they feel might be possessing marijuana, without a warrant. And then arresting them for if they are found in possession or under the influence of marijuana.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel who's certainly no wide eye Liberal or Libertarian, who of course was President Obama's Chief of Staff. Has announced that Chicago is going to decriminalize small possessions of marijuana and stop arresting people for this possession, this is basically a step towards decriminalizing marijuana all together for adults. So is medical marijuana and is something that the Nanny City of New York should look into and consider, because they could end up saving millions and billions of dollars a year. And direct those resources to, I don't schools, hospitals, roads, Tax Cuts, things they claim they don't have the money for.
Monday, June 18, 2012
I don't mean to pick on Mitt Romney, even I've written several Political Satires about him in 2012 alone. And unfortunately I don't think I'm done, the man is addicted to saying ridiculous things, that a man of his intelligence, couldn't possibly take seriously. He simply can't help himself and seems to feel the need to be liked by anyone, who might possibly vote for him. Socialists obviously aren't going to vote for someone who has been as successful as he's been in Corporate America, so the hell with Socialists if you are Mitt Romney. Libertarians aren't going to vote for Mitt Romney, because they can't tell the difference between him and George W. Bush, apparently they haven't seen the IQ tests of both. That would be a pretty big difference but everyone else, thats at least considering voting for Mitt, Mitt feels the need to be loved by them. Oh by the way everyone else, is non Redneck Republicans who don't see Mormonism as a cult, thats basically Economic Conservatives and some Neoconservatives. As well as Independents who've been living in a cave in Afghanistan the last three years and can't tell the differences between Democrats and Republicans. Mitt feels the need to be the most popular guy in school with these people.
The only reason why Mitt Romney hasn't been a Career Politician, at least in the sense of holding Public Offices. Is because he's only been elected once, back in 2002 when the Moderate-Liberal personality of Mitt Romney was running the show, one of Mitt's several alter egos. Economic Conservative but Moderate-Liberal on Social Issues, he might of still been Pro Choice on abortion at this point, thats right Mitt Romney at one point was Pro Choice on abortion. Thats the only way Massachusetts Republicans can get elected Statewide, Massachusetts isn't as Progressive as some people may think. Economic Conservatives can get elected there, if they stay out of peoples personal lives but Neoconservatives can't get elected to Dog Catcher there. But Mitt ran for Senate in 1994 against Senator Ted Kennedy, with basically the same politics he had in 2002, lost of course, got elected Governor in 2002, decided not to run for reelection in 2006. To run for President but also because he probably wouldn't of gotten reelected then. Lost and 2008 and again running for President again in 2012.
The only reason why Mitt Romney isn't a career politician as far as holding offices, because he's lost most of the elections he's ran in. But he's been at least considering running for office since 1993-94 or perhaps even before that, with Senator Kennedy's situation with his nephew. Being on trial for rape back in 1991. Thats twenty years, the best way to describe Mitt Romney is as a Career Campaigner and so far not very successful.
Friday, June 15, 2012
'Vagina' Gets Representative Banned?: Poor Choice of Words in The GOP Campaign Against Personal Freedom
Should the word vagina gotten this Michigan State Representative banned from a House Floor Debate. Not really my call, I'm not a member of the Michigan House or live there or follow Michigan Politics, except to how it relates to National Politics. I personally don't have a problem with it, she was simply calling what a female body part is and I'll leave it there, if you want a more editorializing about it. Feel free amongst yourselves but my point is about the fact that the Representative must of had some idea what she was getting into, considering that she's a member of a Republican House in a State. Where the Michigan Republican Party has become more Neoconservative and has moved more to the right, their Governor Rick Snyder, who last year gave himself the authority. To appoint County and Municipal Executives, he would get to decide who ran these governments, if they were to get into financial trouble, this much I do know about Michigan Politics. And of course that Michigan is debating an abortion ban, after twenty weeks, which will get thrown out by the courts, take you're pick which one. My point is she must of had some idea of what she was getting into and wanted to call attention to herself.
I'm not going to use the word war here, its one of the most overused words in America right now and I'm not going to add to that. But I will say this, the more I hear Republicans talk about the need for Freedom and Limited Government and that Big Government is the problem and so fourth. The more I have to laugh, when they try to push legislation like this or crackdown on people who vote and point to the fact that there are Illegal Immigrants who are voting but can't come up with any examples. Or the Gay Marriage bans, the pornography bans, I mean you can go down he line, they talk about the need for Personal Freedom and the dangers of Big Government. While at the same time speaking in favor of Big Government, you ever tried debating someone who constantly contradicts themselves, its really difficult. Its like trying to debate yourself actually.
This Representative was right on point about this abortion ban is an intrusion of Personal Freedom for women and Big Government out of control and so fourth. But bad choice of words if she wasn't looking to get banned from the debate but good choice of words if she was looking for the national attention she got from it.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Hearing the term a breath of fresh air to describe a Republican, is like hearing about a dog making out with a cat. I gotta double check that and make sure I'm not hearing things or I'm not dreaming or something, it takes a while for something like that to sink in but the more I hear Meghan McCain. Not only do I know she's to the left of her father Senator John McCain on some key Social Issues for my generation and people who are even younger but that she makes sense on some of these things. And when I hear a Republican talk about these things and how big of a waste the War on Drugs is and actually how big of a drag it is on our economy, from the lost of Tax Revenue. From not being able to tax something thats use anyway, people just break the law technically to do it. The lost Tax Revenue in not taxing it and the lost Tax Revenue that could've been spent on things we need in society, like better infrastructure and the amount of money that we have to make up. To make up the difference, the other things we have to tax instead like income and how high we have keep our taxes up, again to make up the difference for not taxing marijuana. Marijuana Legalization makes sense.
Also when I hear a Republican talk about the benefits of legalizing marijuana and making sense about why she believes that it is a good idea, based on the evidence that she's seen. I think to myself where are you Mr. President, how come you couldn't figure this out for yourself or maybe President Obama has already realized the failures of the War on Drugs. But hasn't gotten around to sharing those feelings with the rest of the country, which is how he dealt with Same Sex Marriage as well. Because he's worried about offending Independents, even though half of the country now supports legalizing marijuana. Something thats headed to Colorado, a State where a recent pole has 3-5 Coloradans now supporting Marijuana Legalization and they'll get a chance to vote for that this November. Rhode Island has just moved to decriminalize it, so has New York and Washington State will have it on the ballot as well this year.
A freaking Republican who's suppose to be to the right of President Obama a Democrat, supports legalizing marijuana. But the President is against it, he's too smart to take the position that he has on it, its a waste of time and resources for the Justice Department to close down Medical Marijuana shops, Marijuana use will continue to go on whether its legal or not. The country has a 16T$ debt, I mean plenty of reasons to legalize it, what are the reasons not to legalize it. The same reasons to prohibit alcohol and tobacco, two drugs that are currently legal in America.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
I wrote a blog in the summer of 2009, when the Healthcare Reform debate was heating up, ha ha get it! It was my own Healthcare Reform plan and laid out exactly what I would do if I was King of the Mountain and could write into law any Healthcare Reform plan that I wanted. Its still on this blog in the well, if you said Healthcare Reform section, would would be correct and I suggest you check it out, if you are interested in that sorta thing. And if you are not, check it out anyway, you might learn something, who knows and one of the sections of my plan, had to do with obesity and what's called Preventive Healthcare. Something Senator Tom Harkin Chairman of the Health Committee , is always talking about and he's right about this point, America doesn't have a Healthcare System but we have a "Sickcare System", which is different. We don't do a very good as a country taking care of ourselves and then those who don't take care of themselves, get bailed out and past those costs on to people who do. I wrote my own plan because I had a pretty good idea of what was coming down the pike, as far as what President Obama and the Democratic Congress was going to push and that there wasn't going to be much if anything related to Preventive Care in the final legislation.
As a Liberal I believe in Individual Freedom and Responsibility, that people should be free to live their own lives, as long as they are not hurting anyone else with what they are doing. But then are responsible for the decisions that they make with their Freedom but the problem is, that it goes against a Healthcare System that essentially says. If you need Emergency Care, even if the diseases or conditions you have are preventive, meaning you didn't have to get sick. In a way you chose not to take care of yourself and now are feeling the consequences of those decisions but if you don't have the resources to pay for the cleanup of the mess you caused. People who have took care of themselves are going to do that for you, which is totally against Personally Responsibility, people who take care of themselves, sure are rewarded for getting to live better. But also have to pay for people who don't.
As a Liberal I don't want to control how people live their own lives, again as long as they are not hurting others with what they are doing. If Joe and Jane Piggy want to wake up with a box of doughnuts and a two liter of soda, eat fast food for lunch and perhaps dinner as well, maybe even have that food delivered to them. Because they can't get out of their homes and then go to bed to a jug of ice cream, who am I to say they can't do those things and better yet who's government to get on them about it either. Now if I'm friends with these people or know them in some way and care about them, then yes I would step up and ask what are they doing to themselves, they are killing themselves with their bad behavior. And passing those costs on to people who do take care of themselves, why should we people who take care of ourselves be forced to subsidize the bad behavior of people who don't.
Again Individual Freedom combine with Personal Responsibility, which is how I feel about junk food and drink, alcohol and tobacco, as well as marijuana. You make the decision to use any of these products, especially abuse them and combine that with not exercising, you are going to bring a lot of Healthcare Costs on to yourself and if you don't have the money to pay for those Healthcare Costs, other people are going to get stuck the the bills you ran up on yourself. So instead of prohibition of any of these products, what we need is Personal Responsibility, these products aren't produced, if there isn't a market for them. So for people who decide to use these products and not exercise properly or at all, then they should be forced to pay for that up front through Sales Taxes and higher premiums in their Health Insurance.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
"Firing Government Workers Hurting the Economy": How Making Government More Efficient Would Benefit The Economy
I guess its the Sam Seder week so far on FRSFreeStates, what can I say other then that back to back days. He's covered interesting topics on his Talk Show, at least that he posted, even though this is the 2nd straight day that I've disagreed with him, its still been interesting and provocative. Is laying off Public Workers bad for the economy, like most things it depends, on who you are laying off, hiring additional Public Workers can also be bad for the economy, it depends on who you hire and for what reason. Laying off bad teachers to use as an example, will be bad for them in the short term and bad for the economy short term, if they end up on Unemployment Insurance. But good for the economy long term, because it would mean we would have less bad teachers in the Education System and hopefully those people are replaced with good teachers. So we have more students who actually know how to read and write, who get the skills that they need to move onto college and be successful in life, stay out of trouble and so fourth.
An efficient government at all levels is good for the economy, because it would mean that we would need less Public Workers, to do the jobs that we need them to do. And less Tax Revenue for them to do those jobs and more money in the Private Sector, more money to spend, more demand etc, that leads to Economic and Job Growth. I am in favor of Federal Aid to States and Locals so they don't have to layoff Public Workers and be able to hire additional Public Workers. To fill the jobs that we need them to do, not just to hire them to keep up Public Payrolls but to hire well qualified people to fill the jobs that we need them to do and then judge them based on the jobs that they do. Not how long they've been doing them, which is one of the problems with our Public Education System, because the jobs that they do, has to be financed through Tax Revenue, money that could be spent on other things.
So State Aide so States don't have to layoff additional Public Workers, good people who do a good Public Service is a good thing. As long as its paid for, even if Mitt Romney doesn't believe these people, are well people, just as long as we aren't keeping people around whose usefulness has expired. Or hiring people, just to give them jobs, even if there isn't something we need them to do.
Monday, June 11, 2012
"Ed Schultz v. Media Matters, Leave Limbaugh Advertisers Alone!": Why Free Speech Works and Fascism Doesn't
I just wrote a blog accusing the Tea Party and other Neoconservatives of being Fascists and I stand behind that because its true. Its not purely an accusation but its factual, you are either with them or you are not but here's the thing, Neoconservatives don't have a monopoly when it comes to Fascism. And Progressives aren't completely innocent when it comes to Fascism, even if you are a Democrat, if you are not a Big Government Progressive. You are a Corporate Democrat or a Corporatist. And if you are a Democratic Public Official and you are not a Big Government Progressive, you are going to get a Primary Challenge from a Progressive Democrat. Just ask Senator Blanche Lincoln from 2010, who yes is more of a Centrist Democrat and not far enough to the left for me but hardly a Conservative and someone who voted with Democrats most of the time. But she was also Bi Partisan and had a tendency to work worth Congressional Republicans, which is considered a sin by the Far Left and Far Right today, just ask Senator Dick Lugar. By the way the Senator Lincoln won her Democratic Primary, even though her opponent had a lot of the Progressive Movement behind him, Organize Labor and others.
What Progressives tend to forget is that we live in a Liberal Democracy, we have a Constitutional Right to Free Speech, even is we are wrong. Again as long as we are not libeling or threatening people in public, I know someone on Facebook who believes Hate Speech is simply wrong. Which puts her at odds with the First Amendment, Federal Courts and the American Civil Liberties Union, she's actually to the right of the Liberal ACLU. This might sound superficial or something but I don't want to be friends with someone who doesn't understand the First Amendment, who thinks its too Liberal. That is the most important right we have as a country, the ability to express ourselves and say what's on our minds, again as long as we are not libeling or threatening people in public. To put it simply you are not much of a Liberal if you don't understand this but more of a Fascist.
If Progressives don't like what the Rush Limbaugh's of the World have to say, then they should take them on in the battle place of ideas. And beat them there, show the country why they are right and why Right Wingers are wrong, instead of taking the idea of, if we can't beat them we must destroy them. Because Americans aren't smart enough to tell the differences between what's right and wrong, because most of them don't look at the World as we do, so we'll make these decisions for them. And force these Right Wingers off the air to build some type of Progressively Fascist society or something.
Friday, June 8, 2012
Economist Bruce Bartlett makes a good point about the Value Added Tax, something I wouldn't be in favor of on a long term basis. Especially to go on top of the Federal Income Tax and Federal Payroll Tax but his valid point has to do with how it could be used for Deficit Reduction. Saying that it would be a good alternative to raising taxes on High Earners, because his point is if we were to do that. They would find ways to get out of if, either through current Tax Loopholes or moving their money oversees, which could end up being a bigger lost in revenue for Uncle Sammy, had we just left those Tax Rates where they are today. But with a Value Added Tax or VAT, we would all get hit by it, there would be no way out of it, unless there's an exception for Low Income people. Which I believe there has to be, for the good of them and the economy, otherwise they wouldn't be able to afford to buy anything and end up collecting more Public Assistance. This could be a short term solution, to help pay down the debt and deficit but it would also have to include smart Budget Cuts and Government Reform, to make Uncle Sammy more efficient. And a plan to generate Economic and Job Growth.
You come up with a Deficit Reduction Act or package, that includes a VAT, with an exception for Low Income people, so they don't get run over by it. To go along with Economic Recovery Act, to jump start Economic and Job Growth thats paid for, as well as Budget Cuts that are done in a smart way. Uncle Sammy cuts back on things that he doesn't have to do, that could be done by the States or Non Profit Community Sector, that have to do with Public Assistance. You hammer at the bloated Defense Budget, not to weaken our National Security but to improve and cut waste from it. By getting us out of places that we don't need to be, nations that can defend themselves but are getting our National Security for free. Europe, Saudi Arabia, Korea and Japan. You come up with a plan that accomplishes these things within 5-10 years and you plan i according to Economic Growth as well and we can pay down our debt and deficit.
A Value Added Tax by itself, especially with no exceptions for Low Income people, will do nothing to pay down our debt and deficit. But if anything add to them, especially if its indefinite with all of the other Federal Taxes we are already paying. But if its done in a short term basis, to go along with all the other reforms I mentioned, could help us pay down our debt and deficit.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
If you know anything about the US Constitution, Indefinite Detention on its face, sounds Unconstitutional. I don't care who the President of The United Sates is, Democrat or Republican, the US Constitution and our Constitutional Rights as Americans trumpets all of that. Thats what America is built on, the US Constitution and The Rule of Law, Indefinite Detention that is, the Federal Government. Being able to detain Americans indefinitely, without being charged for a crime , or having access to a lawyer or any other Constitutional Rights that all potential suspects. Have just for being American Citizens, just because Uncle Sammy believes John or Susan or whoever, generally its someone named Ahmad or some other Middle Eastern name. That gets held under Indefinite Detention believes the person or people are Terrorist Suspects, they don't even need a warrant or a Court Order. They just need what's called Reasonable Suspicion, which is a broad term , under Indefinite Detention to hold Americans under Indefinite Detention.
Its not the fact that President Obama is a Socialist, which he is clearly not, where his critics score points against him for being in favor of Big Government. Its these key Social Issues and Civil Liberties where his critics have valid points in accusing him of being in favor of Big Government. Like Indefinite Detention, the Patriot Act, the War on Drugs, he just recently came out in favor, well officially anyway, of Same Sex Marriage. And President Obama's justification for these strange positions, especially for a Democrat. Is wait to I'm reelected and then I'l start behaving like a real Democrat, protect Civil Liberties and all of that, which is the very least we expect from Democrats. Well if this is the case and we knew this going in, Barack Obama doesn't get elected President in 2008, Democrats wouldn't of backed him. Because they would've said, what's the difference between Barack Obama and John McCain.
In other Big Government News, Rhode Island has approved Medical Marijuana and New York State, not the Nanny City of New York but the State itself. Thanks to Governor Andrew Cuomo an early favorite at least as far as I'm concern for the 2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination. Is moving to decriminalizing marijuana, that is New Yorkers wouldn't get arrested for possessing at least small amounts of marijuana. So a good week for believers in Individual Freedom, which all Liberals are and a bad week for Big Government.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
In 2010 Senate Leader Harry Reid someone who've I never gone out of my way to defend personally. Because even though he's the Democratic Leader in the US Senate, he leads the Senate and leads my party. technically, its more of a title then anything else, in reality, he basically takes his orders from other Democratic Senators and the Democratic Base, thats why I don't like him, as well as being a political hack. Not calling him evil but he does have some serious flaws, which is why he's never had a close election in his life, even in the election where only his wife and kids were allowed to vote. Enough about Leader Reid other then to point out that in 2010, an election that will go down all time, as one of the most interesting elections ever, I'm not talking about the Mid Terms as a whole, especially where House Republicans picked up, what seemed like 500 seats. The most interesting Congressional Election that year, was a Senate Election, between Leader Reid and escaped Mental Patient Sharron Angle, who looks like a sweetheart in person but who's six beers short of a six pack mentally. Had any other Nevada Republican ran against Leader Reid in 2010, who was more unpopular then President Obama, Harry Reid is no longer in the Senate.
I mention this because of one reason, in this 2010 Senate Election, the Reid Campaign only had to do two things to win. Get their people to the polls, another words turn out the vote and report exactly everything that Sharron Angle said and you use her own words against her. Her last bad statement, where she didn't want to take a stand on an important issue, I think it had something to do with the Troop Withdrawal in Afghanistan. Where she said she would answer that question, once she's in the Senate, is kinda the last toe that she shot off of her own feet and with Harry Reids Get Out The Vote Operation, was all he needed to do to get reelected. And Sharron Angle ends up losing an election to someone with an Approval Rating in the low 40s, which gives you an idea of how unpopular she was in Nevada.
I mention this for a couple reasons, one because even though Mitt Romney is sane and Sharron Angle doesn't seem to be. The strategy beat Sharron Angle in Nevada, could be the strategy that beats Mitt Romney nationally, just use his own words against him and Get Out The Vote, which is how the Bush Campaign ran against John Kerry in 2004. And we are already seeing this by Democrats in 2012, because positions that Mitt Romney now say are horrible policies, are positions he once held, the Healthcare Mandate being a perfect example of that.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Probably the most popular institution in the State of Wisconsin and not its not the cheese factory or Wisconsin University but the Green Packers. Or perhaps we can call then the Green Bay Backers for Tom Barret, ha ha get it, obviously an NFL Franchise, perhaps the most successful NFL Franchise historically, its between them and Da Bears! If you add up wins and championships, but enough about football, even from me, have taken an official stand for Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, the only big city Mayor in Wisconsin. Or at least a stand against the Anti Union, Anti Organizing, the Anti Assembling Neoconservative Governor of the Progressive State of Wisconsin. A State where a lot of the American Socialist ideas have come from but a State thats moved to the right over the years, the election of Scott Walker for Governor is an excellent example of that.
Wisconsin looks like a State that looks like is waking up to the fact, that workers have rights, even workers who aren't rich, as well as workers that work for the State and that they shouldn't have to be at the mercy of the State or Private Enterprise. Not just ordinary Wisconsinites but the Green Bay Packers themselves and not just their player who are members of Organize Labor but the Management as well. I hope to God even though I'm Agnostic, that somehow Mayor Barrett somehow pulls out this election tonight. I'm a Liberal Democrat and Pro Organize Labor but I haven't seen any evidence that he's going to win. All the polls I've seen have Governor Walkers at least with a slight lead but the momentum at least is behind Tom Barrett.
You would have an easier time finding a ocean in Wisconsin, then someone who's not a Packer fan so maybe this puts Barrett on top but again how many people take the Political Endorsement of a Sports Franchise. I guess we'll find out tonight and maybe there's an upset in the making.
Monday, June 4, 2012
KS Pastor Curtis Knapp: "Government Should Kill Gays, But They Won't": Why Bigotry is a Bigger Threat Then Homosexuality
I have several questions, how many homosexuals do you know of that are Murderers, forget about Serial Murderers, homosexuals who've murdered just one person. And here's another question, how many homosexuals do you know of, that have killed heterosexuals, again forget about Serial Murderers of heterosexuals, just homosexuals who've murdered one heterosexual. And here's another question and then I'll answer one of my questions, ha ha I'll beat you to it. How many homosexuals to you know of, that have committed Hate Crimes against a heterosexual, just for being heterosexual. Actually harming someone for being straight and I actually have a better question then that, how many homosexuals do you know of that have committed any Hate Crime against anyone period. Just for being who they are, they don't like their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality etc, harming someone for being who they are, that they have no control over. I have an answer for one of those questions and if you can answer for any of the other questions and want to share them with me or this blog. Feel free to send me those answers to me, Jeffrey Dahmer was a homosexual, who murdered other homosexuals, which was a case from back in the early 1990s.
Homosexuality is not a threat to America or our National Security, even as much as Representative Michelle Bachmann and her allies may want to believe that. But ignorance sure as hell is, ignorance is what drives Hate Crimes, people hating other people, again because of lets say their race or ethnicity. Ignorance is what drove the Jim Crow Laws, ignorance is what drove segregation and African Americans being denied the right to vote and other Constitutional Rights that they were denied back in the 1960s and well before that. Ignorance is what drove he genocide of European Jews in the 1930s and 1940s, people who are so ignorant and evil, that they actually believe that people who are different from them, because of race or ethnicity. Don't even deserve to be living. Homosexuality hasn't been driving these crime but ignorance has and is probably the biggest threat we still face as a country.
We clearly can't legislate morality, from the left or right and I'm not making or trying to make the case that we can. We can't force people to think a certain way and educate themselves about things they clearly don't understand but we sure as hell can punish people when they act on their hatred. Hurting people just because of their race, ethnicity, sexuality to use as examples.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Boston DOMA Ruling's Future Impact: Why the US Constitution and Federalism is Important on Marriage Equality
The Federal Appeals Court ruling on Same Sex Marriage on Thursday on DOMA the Defense of Marriage of Act is so important. Because it sets how Same Sex Marriage bans will get thrown out in the future and will also limit the Federal Government's ability to discriminate against homosexuals, for a few reasons. It means in the future that the Federal Government's role in marriage will be very limited, that marriage will be decided amongst the States and as long as the States. Are within the US Constitution, they'll be free to regulate marriage as they see fit. And will also limit Neoconservative lawyers ability to challenge Marriage Equality laws at the Federal Court. Because the ruling will be that the Federal Government doesn't have jurisdiction over marriage. And that marriage will be left up to the States and Constitution, which is why Same Sex Marriage laws will get held up in court, because they'll be ruled as a matter between the State and its people.
This is why Same Sex Marriage bans will be thrown out, because they are Unconstitutional, because they'll be ruled as violating the Equal Protection Clause. Progressives should right now be feeling great about the US Constitutional and Federalism, because of how it relates to Marriage Equality. Even though they tend to not like these things, because it limits what the Federal Government can do, especially when it relates to spending. And expanding the Federal Government and of course Neoconservatives who tend to speak highly of the Constitution and Federalism, especially as they relate to the economy. Are probably hating those things right now, because it will limit their ability to discriminate against homosexuals.
This is why Neoconservatives have been pushing a Constitutional Amendment not only at the Federal level but at the State level as well. That would ban Same Sex Marriage, because they know what's coming down the pike as it relates to Marriage Equality, that Marriage Equality will be held up and Same Sex Marriage bans will be thrown out.