About Me

Name:Andrew1218
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Blog Roll

 

The Goose that Laid the Golden Eggs

A man and his wife had the good fortune to possess a goose which laid a golden egg every day. Lucky though they were, they soon began to think they were not getting rich fast enough, and, imagining the bird must be made of gold inside, they decided to kill it. Then, they thought, they could obtain the whole store of precious metal at once.but when they cut the goose open, they found it was like any other goose.

Those who want too much lose everything
 
The democrats plan to increase taxes to fund their socialist agenda will destroy this country.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Politics of US Military Deaths in Iraq

From the AP, "As of Saturday, Feb. 16, 2008, at least 3,961 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes eight military civilians. At least 3,225 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers."
For the family, friends and fellow soldiers, the "numbers" of the dead and articles of this type have deep and profound meaning.  It reminds them of the tragic loss and of a life cut short. The country is diminished because these men and women obviously loved their country to the point of willing to put their lives at risk.  That kind of true patriotism is hard to come by and their families should be proud that they fostered that sentiment and heroism.  The loss of those patriotic souls should never be taken for granted or dealt with disrespectfully.  It is hoped that the families of the fallen do not take offense to the following comments.
It seems to me far too often that the radical left and democrat leadership use these totals as a means just to stir resentment of the republicans and those who support the war.  I say this because in a time of relative peace the democrats cut the military budget drastically, including benefits to military men and their families, and attempted to block the military's ability to vote during the 2000 election, i.e absentee ballots.  Their concern now, when they weren't concerned before, seems disengenuous.  Preventing recruitment on college campuses both before & after the war, Operation pink in Berkeley, constant defeatist attitudes while our military is engaged in combat, just to name a few.  To me, their concern is politically motivated.  Why? Let's look at some other numbers.
From 2003 to 2006, there were 5,552,254 violent crimes committed in the US.  During that time, there were 66,450 murders, 375,774 rapes and 3,429,484 aggravated assaults.
From 2003 to 2006, the NHTSA reported vehicular deaths totalling approximately 171,652.  Of that number, approximately 67,200 were caused by drunk driving.
From 2003 to 2006, there were 212 law enforcement officers feloniously killed in the US.
If the media and politicians really cared about people, including those serving in the military, they would care about these numbers and coming up with solutions on combating crime and needless death.
The men and women of the military are now on the front lines fighting islamic fanatics bent on our destruction.  For those who died, they did so protecting our country and taking the fight to the enemy.  They did so with honor. 
I would suggest that the dems and the media focus on solving some problems at home, so that when our brave men and women come home, they are not needlessly killed in our cities or on our streets.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

PELOSI SHOULD BE IN JAIL

REP. NANCY PELOSI, (D) SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: "The president and the House Republicans refuse to support the extension, and therefore I think should bear the responsibility of any adverse national security consequences."
 
Her admission that the law is important enough that, if not in effect, will cause "adverse national security consequences" means that she is intentionally allowing her perverse partisan attitudes to put this Nation at risk in direct violation of her oath of office.  She is intentionally allowing this country to be exposed to terrorist threat when, with the death of a prominent Hezbollah leader, an imminent attack has been threatened.  She placed her party above the United States, so she is unfit for office.  Every democrat, including Obama & Clinton, should be questioned as to where they stand, so we all know where the democrats true allegiance lies.  Is their quest and retention of power more important than the safety and security of this country?
As far as I am concerned, she should be found wherever she is vacationing, and then put in jail for treason.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Advice to Roger Clemens--Sex & Illegals

Advice to Roger Clemens--Sex & Illegals
To get congressional democrats off his back, Roger Clemens should say that he did it so he could have sex with interns, as HGH made him look younger, and/or that he was trying to give a hand up to an illegal immigrant trying to make a living bringing prescription drugs over the Mexican border.
Even better, if he could somehow say that the 20 year old intern, who he wanted to have sex with, was a drug dealer that made her way across the border illegally, then he will be home free with the democrats.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Stimulate by Getting Rid of Congress!

Stimulate By Getting Rid of Congress!
If they really wanted to stimulate the economy, then they could have cut our taxes in half before 4/15, so we wouldn't have to work 6 months of the year paying for taxes. This stimulus package is another ill conceived gimmick to buy votes, hide their incompetence, redistribute wealth and fool you to think they are giving you their money. How generous of these worms. They are bankrupting this country with their giveaways, pork projects and wasteful spending. Have congressmen give up their salaries until they balance the budget, then they will figure out how to make cuts in spending.
Also, I pay 50 cents in tax per gallon. Get rid of that cost and that would help out, but noooooo... let's blame the oil companies that do all the work. The govt makes 50 cents a gallon, while the oil companies make about 8 cents a gallon. (I wonder what Snapple makes a gallon?)
Anyway, lets get rid of the current congress. Now that would be stimulating!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Are the Iraqi's worth it?

Why don't we play the dems game? If you don't support establishing President Bush's vision to bring a democratically elected and free government to Iraq, then we are jeopardizing the welfare of millions of Iraqi's. Are they not worth the sacrifice? If you don't believe they are worth the sacrifice, then you are a racist? We should ask those who are against establishing a peaceful and free Iraq, "do you hate Arabs?" Or just Arab women because if you let the extremists win, they will no longer be able to go to school or have free speech.

I see the commercials about Darfour and the atrocities that are going on there. Weren't there atrocities going on in Iraq under Saddam Hussein? Are Arab children not worthy of our concern or sympathy? The left complains about tyranny and injustice and then have "fundraisers" patting each other on the back as to how compassionate they are, but they never act. (Where is the left's model society, France? Why haven't they stepped up in Darfour?) Our President, through the bravery of our military, freed millions of people in 2 countries, and did more for women's rights worldwide then any president in recent memory. Where are his awards? Where are the women's groups to thank our President and the military?

The left is concerned about the amount of soldiers being killed when they never cared for them before. These men and women died for a purpose. The President's vision is to establish free and open governments in the Middle East, so that we can have peace in the future. Just as Japan is a close ally, wouldn't it be wonderful if Iraq could be such an ally in the future. Wasn't President Bush, the senior, criticized for not having the "vision thing"?

Over 16,000 people are killed needlessly a year in the US from drunk driving. Does the media put up those monthly totals? These people died NEEDLESSLY. Our soldiers are serving and dying for a greater purpose. We are better having to fight these radicals over there when we can defend ourselves with a highly trained military, then to wait till they are here bombing our schools and civilians like they do in Israel.

Part of the problem is the failure of the Republicans groups to respond like the left. The republicans should put out programs showing the better quality of life the Kurds have now, and their appreciation of what we did. They should set up their own "Peace Prize," and their own awards to the President from a women's group with the same types of galas the left has for egotistical actors. We are losing the media battle, as well as the people who would normally be with us, but do not pay attention to such media as talk radio.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ann, Shut Up & Run!!!!!!

Ann, Shut Up & Run!!!!!
The republican party is big enough for conservatives, moderates & liberal Republicans. I would take Rudy G any day of the week over a liberal democrat, like the morons in Berkeley, Ca. The problem is that many on this site are using a political thermometer up everyone's behinds to determine who is a true conservative. The result---dems, socialists and Berkeley nuts win.
If you want to stand alone in a room and decide how great you are that you are a conservative, that is your decision, but you will be paying higher taxes and the country will be closer to being like France.
OR, accept that you may have lost this cycle and prepare for the next one. You had your shots with conservative candidates and they were found lacking as candidates. Cowboy Up, lick your wounds and back the republican nominee.
If you think you can do a better job next time, then YOU RUN!! Whining and being a conservative don't mix!!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservative Plan for the Uninsured

 

 

Conservative Health Insurance Plan And Tax Break--

At the Same Time!!!

 

The issue of the “47 million uninsured” is not going away in this political environment, therefore, a plan has to be instituted that will not destroy the quality of the current system and will not result in socialized medicine.

Rather than create another Federal Bureaucracy with a host of employees and endless new departments and rules and regulations, it should be left in the private sector where they are already equipped to handle new insureds. Current health insurers have the employees, facilities, computers and complex infrastructure to handle the influx of the uninsured. Therefore, it would be more efficient to leave to each State their share of uninsureds to absorb into the various insurance companies servicing their area.

Why would the private sector take on this burden? Answer= Significant Tax Incentives. For example, if a company could write off $2.00 for every $1.00 it expends in insuring the uninsured, then it would be motivated to take on the uninsured and provide a policy. Obviously, it depends on a business model and the ultimate tax burden of each company, which would have to be calculated.

The beauty of the plan would be to prevent a new bureaucracy and to lessen the amount of money going to the Federal government, which is ultimately wasted for pork projects and/or inefficiently used. It would lessen the amount of new Federal employees, and ultimately lead to more people becoming insured for each dollar expended. Is there any question that the private sector would do a better job than a Federal bureaucracy? The more of our money the Federal Government has the more power it has, and the greater potential for abuse of power.

Even if the insurance companies are not motivated by the tax incentive, a similar plan could be offered to all companies and individuals to lessen their tax burden if they send their money to a non-profit set up to collect the funds and to distribute to pay for insurance policies. Each State government would designate the non-profit approved to accept the donation. If desired, each State governor can appoint the Board of Directors, so that there is political accountability if the non-profit fails to act correctly. The payment of the tax money by private citizens and/or companies to the non-profits would act more like a private donation to charity than a government program.

How do we properly designate who is qualified? Answer=Require anyone who is interested in the benefit to file a tax return no matter what the income level. This would require those who do not pay taxes to fill out tax forms stating their income, as well as answering specific questions under oath to determine eligibility. If they lie about their eligibility, then they are subject to fines and imprisonment just as those who pay their taxes. Initially, certain income levels can be set and, depending on the response requesting coverage, the pool of eligibility can be increased. Since the program would be run by non-profits (501(c)(3)’s), the federal and state governments would have power to audit and prosecute fraud. Having a system that is not run by Federal employees would decrease fraud and waste. When was the last time a Federal or State employee was fired or prosecuted for fraud or wasteful spending?

Obviously, particulars need to be added, but as a general framework, it is a win -win for all involved. People insured who weren’t before, and companies and individuals with a lesser tax burden. It would serve as a stimulus to the economy for the tax breaks, and lessen the amount of money that the federal government can control. The more money it has, the more power it has. The more power, the greater chance for abuse. It is an abuse of power to take private citizens money and then waste it, even if it is for the best of intentions.

Requiring all who want the coverage to fill out an IRS form will also determine how many people really need the benefit. I am sure that a significant percentage of the “47 million” can afford to pay for health insurance, but they choose not to make it a priority. This would clarify that number. Based upon my review of the other health care plans put out by the democrats, which will continue to be a major issue that may ultimately decide the election, I think this plan strikes the right balance. Charity through tax breaks. The people of this country are the most charitable in the world. It is time to reward their contributions and sacrifice in working hard for their money by lessening the ever increasing tax burden the federal, state and local governments are putting on their backs every day.

Tax incentives for the poor and uninsured won't work.  They don't have the money to get the benefit of the tax break, and, many have not made getting insurance a priority.



 On 1/13/08, another Town Hall blogger, Old Social Worker, directed me to an outstanding video on the subject at freemarketcure.com, which confirmed my thought that the "47" million number is exaggerated and represents many who do not make insurance coverage a priority even thought they can afford it.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »