Are you one of the coveted undecided voters who will determine the fate of our country? If so, watching the SNL spoof of you may be just the push you need to make a decision.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/saturday-night-live-undecided-voters.php?m=1
Because really, what are you waiting for?
If you're even slightly inclined to give BO 4 more years of this crap, please do leave a comment and explain why. I'm truly interested in your indecision.
Because for the life of me I cannot understand the difficulty of deciding against 4 more years of BO given:
The state of our economy and it being the slowest economic recovery EVER
The US debt is $16T, the largest in our nations history
23M + are unemployed or underemployed
The US is now ranked 13th im ease of starting a new business, we trail countries like Rwanda
The recent examples of BO's failure on foreign policy, his inexperience culminating on a global scale with the deaths of 4 U.S. citizens in Libya
Our President with 4 years under his belt remains the most inexperienced person in any room he walks in, and we've witnessed for 4 years what his inexperience and ideology can accomplish.
And undecided voters are considering more of the same? Really????
Are you relatives of Jimmy Carter?
Or do you simply enjoy being surveyed by random strangers???
Honestly it is frustrating that the fate of our country is left to those who frankly stand for nothing, because you will fall for anything. Including 4 more years of the worst president in history.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/saturday-night-live-undecided-voters.php?m=1
Monday, September 24, 2012
Monday, September 3, 2012
2016: Sleeper Hit of the Summer
Over the weekend, I went to see a movie taking Hollywood, the media and many Americans by surprise--2016: Obama's America. And while many see the movie as red meat for Republicans, I see it more as a stunning example of media malpractice. Because whether or not you agree with Dinesh D'Souza's theory on who and what shapes Obama's political philosophy, 2016 provides more information in two hours than the media reported in over 5 years about a man who seemed to come out of nowhere and become the most powerful man in the world.
Personally, I believe everyone should see this movie. And I'd be most interested in a review from someone who considers themselves to be an Obama supporter. I'd like to know if anything in the movie was new information for you, and/or if anything you learned in the film would have changed your support for Obama in 2008?
As anyone who knows me or who has read my blog knows-I did not vote for Obama. My decision to not support BO had nothing to do with him being a Democrat, and my being a Repbulican, and it had NOTHING to do with the color of his skin. But most importantly, it had NOTHING to do with most of the information contained in the movie 2016.
My reasons for not supporting BO were grounded in what little I did know about the man,:
So Why such media malpractice in the case of BO? In my opinion, or as the kids nowadays say, IMO, the media was either too invested in the election outcome (covering the historic election of our first black president) or too afraid to be labeled racist for investigating BO.
So I encourage each person, Republican, Democrat, Independent, non political to see 2016. The movie provides a look into Obama's upbringing, his education, and those who mentored and helped shape the man and his political philosophy.
2016 provides in two hours what the media failed to provide in over 5 years. You can agree, disagree or debate D'Souza's theory in 2016, but I do not believe you can debate the failure of the media in vetting a man who is now the most powerful man in the world.
And to quote a line from the very limited 2016 advertising budget: ''Love him, Hate him, you don't Know him".
I encourage you, get to know Obama.
Personally, I believe everyone should see this movie. And I'd be most interested in a review from someone who considers themselves to be an Obama supporter. I'd like to know if anything in the movie was new information for you, and/or if anything you learned in the film would have changed your support for Obama in 2008?
As anyone who knows me or who has read my blog knows-I did not vote for Obama. My decision to not support BO had nothing to do with him being a Democrat, and my being a Repbulican, and it had NOTHING to do with the color of his skin. But most importantly, it had NOTHING to do with most of the information contained in the movie 2016.
My reasons for not supporting BO were grounded in what little I did know about the man,:
- His lack of experience in any area-public or private service
- His liberal voting record in his short 2 year Senate career
- His either indecision or deception in so many present votes vs. yea or nay votes over his very short political career
- His class warfare and wealth redistribution philosophy, although mostly well hidden by scripted TelePrompTer appearances
But I pay close attention to politics, my assumption is most do not. So I often wondered while watching 2016 if media malpractice caused many Americans to support a man they knew very little about when we know almost everything, and maybe too much information about past presidential
candidates.
So Why such media malpractice in the case of BO? In my opinion, or as the kids nowadays say, IMO, the media was either too invested in the election outcome (covering the historic election of our first black president) or too afraid to be labeled racist for investigating BO.
So I encourage each person, Republican, Democrat, Independent, non political to see 2016. The movie provides a look into Obama's upbringing, his education, and those who mentored and helped shape the man and his political philosophy.
2016 provides in two hours what the media failed to provide in over 5 years. You can agree, disagree or debate D'Souza's theory in 2016, but I do not believe you can debate the failure of the media in vetting a man who is now the most powerful man in the world.
And to quote a line from the very limited 2016 advertising budget: ''Love him, Hate him, you don't Know him".
I encourage you, get to know Obama.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Sneiderman Widow Charged With Murder
Is anyone surprised, well maybe a little after reading the 8 count indictment against Andrea Sneiderman. But when your boss is convicted of murdering your husband, chances are you may have something to do with the motive behind such a fatal decision.
And when you travel, dine, dance, share wine and send hundreds of texts/emails to the man who killed your husband, one may be inclined to believe your relationship was the sole motivation.
As is the case of Andrea Sneiderman.
But is Andrea guilty of adultery and poor performance on the witness stand or is she guilty of conspiring with Hemy Neuman to kill her husband?
DA James believes it is the latter and he does not seem to be the type of DA who brings charges without having a strong case to back up those charges.
For Andrea's supporters the most troubling indictment may be that of attempted murder. We expected perjury, and some even expected Or wanted malice murder charges, but attempted murder??? Does DA James have additional evidence or some one's cooperation. I guess we will have to 'stay tuned'.
And when you travel, dine, dance, share wine and send hundreds of texts/emails to the man who killed your husband, one may be inclined to believe your relationship was the sole motivation.
As is the case of Andrea Sneiderman.
But is Andrea guilty of adultery and poor performance on the witness stand or is she guilty of conspiring with Hemy Neuman to kill her husband?
DA James believes it is the latter and he does not seem to be the type of DA who brings charges without having a strong case to back up those charges.
For Andrea's supporters the most troubling indictment may be that of attempted murder. We expected perjury, and some even expected Or wanted malice murder charges, but attempted murder??? Does DA James have additional evidence or some one's cooperation. I guess we will have to 'stay tuned'.
Monday, July 16, 2012
If you build it, government should take the credit????
Out of the mouth of idiots, or in this case president Obama
In a speech to Virginia supporters regarding increasing taxes on those families/businesses earning 250k+ and individuals/bussinesses making 200k+, Obama said the following:
(please note, I purposely switched the order of the paragraphs to begin looking at BO's word choice)
If you were successful, someone along the line gave you some help.
There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.
Somebody helped create this Unbelievable American system we have That ALLOWED you to Thrive.
Somebody invested in roads and bridges.
If you own a business, you Didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.
There are a lot of wealthy successful Americans Who agree with me because they want to give something back. If you've been successful, you didn't get there On your own.
I'm always struck by people who Think, well it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than Everybody else. Let me tell you something-there are a lot of hardworking people out there.
Oh BO, class warefare at its finest and mixed in with the rhetoric, word choices giving each of us great insight into Your political philosophy and view of this unbelievable American system. 1-7, is the insight I gained after reading the speech. You can draw your own conclusions.
1.). If you were successful, someone along the line gave you some help.
BO's use of the word Were and have been later in his speech, and both in relation to an individial's success is both troubling and insightful.
This president is described as a great orator, and so I do not believe he says or does anything by accident. And when he has a slip of the tongue, it's always revealing (i.e. the 'spread the wealth' comment to joe the plumber when campaigning for president).
Regardless of whether the use of the past tense in relation to being successful is a slip or scripted, in my opinion it expresses the likelihood BO's policies will ensure those who achieved success will be less so if he is re-elected. His intention to tax those who are deemed by his administration to be too successful ensures they will not only be less successful, they will pay back those who gave help along the line.
2.). There was a great teacher somewhere.
Here BO gives a shout out to the teacher's union. Teachers good. Tax cuts for the rich hurt teachers.
3.). Somebody helped create this unbelievable American system that ALLOWED you to thrive.
BO's use of the word allowed, troubling and again insightful. Allowed is defined as To permit. To let have.
BO's use of allow expresses many things about the great orator's philosophy:
You are successful or thrive because of government
Without government help, you cannot succeed or thrive
Only certain folks in America were ALLOWED to succeed
Government alone should decide who succeeds, how much success is enough, how much the government keeps for allowing such success and how much will be transferred to others who undoubtedly helped you along the line.
4.). Somebody invested in roads and bridges.
Really? Do 'successful folks' not pay taxes, and don't our taxes pay for the investment in roads and bridges????
I can only assume BO threw this little tid bit in as an example of the necessity of his 787B stimulus plan, of which only 3% went to infrastructure projects, but ok.
And the most insightful statement in BO's speech requires 0 parsing of words to assess his political philosophy..........
5.). If you own a business. You didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.
Obama believes when someone has an idea, creates a business, and has success this person owes it to everyone else. There is no individual, there is only the collective. The individual's success is everyone's success and it must be shared. Again clearly illustrating, BO's philosophy:
You are successful or thrive because of government
Your success therefore is the government's to decide how best to share it with the collective.
6.) There are a lot of wealthy who agree with me, because they want to give something back.
What is stopping them BO????? Do they need government permission to write more charitable donation checks, or to increase the amount on the checks they currently write?
What stops these rich who are dying to do more from giving more to their communities directly vs. Paying more in taxes to the federal government where a % of their dollars will be wasted on bureaucratic red tape????
And how much more should the wealthy give, (the wealthy you don't know, the wealthy who feel they give enough).
The top 10% already pay 71% of federal income taxes, how much more should they pay 100%. What then incents this group to produce more, to create more jobs when so much already goes to government???
I have an idea, why dont you place pressure on Harry Reid to pass a budget spending less than it takes in???? We have not had a budget since 2009, why don't you clean your house before asking any American, rich or poor, to contribute another dime???
Curious, BO what do you call an economic plan selling taxing The wealthy more as its strategy to improve our economy, when we could take everything the wealthy make and own; and would not Have enough money to pay for one year's worth of government spending??
Idiotic at best, incompeent, class warfare at the worst, and your economic plan for the US.
7). I'm always struck by people who think, well it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than Everybody else. Let me tell you something-there are a lot of hardworking people out there.
BO's use of the word think is not only troubling. It's desperate. It shows his campaign's inability to run on his record, there desperation to gin up support, and resort to what they do best, insight class warfare by any means necessary.
And to do so, BO has been gifted with ability to mind read. He tells us he knows what those evil successful people think.
I'm curious, when is the last time you heard a business owner say he/she is a success bc they are just so damned smart and worked harder than anyone else???? I haven't.
Well maybe I've heard a few say they work hard, but they certainly haven't said they don't appreciate or understand others work just as hard if not harder.
Yet Obama seems to know what they think and he'd like nothing more than for us to buy into this too. Those of us who dont own our own business or don't find ourselves making over 200k. He'd like we who are deemed not successful to get angry at those who are, and get out and vote for him.
Bc BO understands us, he knows what we think. He knows you, the business owner, other americans would not and could not be a success without him, without government.
Without goverment Paving the way for those who succeed and helping those who don't. They allow the successful among us keep a portion of their success and give the remainder to those government thinks are just as smart and worked just as hard but somehow were not able to become a success even though the government allowed them to.
In a speech to Virginia supporters regarding increasing taxes on those families/businesses earning 250k+ and individuals/bussinesses making 200k+, Obama said the following:
(please note, I purposely switched the order of the paragraphs to begin looking at BO's word choice)
If you were successful, someone along the line gave you some help.
There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.
Somebody helped create this Unbelievable American system we have That ALLOWED you to Thrive.
Somebody invested in roads and bridges.
If you own a business, you Didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.
There are a lot of wealthy successful Americans Who agree with me because they want to give something back. If you've been successful, you didn't get there On your own.
I'm always struck by people who Think, well it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than Everybody else. Let me tell you something-there are a lot of hardworking people out there.
Oh BO, class warefare at its finest and mixed in with the rhetoric, word choices giving each of us great insight into Your political philosophy and view of this unbelievable American system. 1-7, is the insight I gained after reading the speech. You can draw your own conclusions.
1.). If you were successful, someone along the line gave you some help.
BO's use of the word Were and have been later in his speech, and both in relation to an individial's success is both troubling and insightful.
This president is described as a great orator, and so I do not believe he says or does anything by accident. And when he has a slip of the tongue, it's always revealing (i.e. the 'spread the wealth' comment to joe the plumber when campaigning for president).
Regardless of whether the use of the past tense in relation to being successful is a slip or scripted, in my opinion it expresses the likelihood BO's policies will ensure those who achieved success will be less so if he is re-elected. His intention to tax those who are deemed by his administration to be too successful ensures they will not only be less successful, they will pay back those who gave help along the line.
2.). There was a great teacher somewhere.
Here BO gives a shout out to the teacher's union. Teachers good. Tax cuts for the rich hurt teachers.
3.). Somebody helped create this unbelievable American system that ALLOWED you to thrive.
BO's use of the word allowed, troubling and again insightful. Allowed is defined as To permit. To let have.
BO's use of allow expresses many things about the great orator's philosophy:
You are successful or thrive because of government
Without government help, you cannot succeed or thrive
Only certain folks in America were ALLOWED to succeed
Government alone should decide who succeeds, how much success is enough, how much the government keeps for allowing such success and how much will be transferred to others who undoubtedly helped you along the line.
4.). Somebody invested in roads and bridges.
Really? Do 'successful folks' not pay taxes, and don't our taxes pay for the investment in roads and bridges????
I can only assume BO threw this little tid bit in as an example of the necessity of his 787B stimulus plan, of which only 3% went to infrastructure projects, but ok.
And the most insightful statement in BO's speech requires 0 parsing of words to assess his political philosophy..........
5.). If you own a business. You didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.
Obama believes when someone has an idea, creates a business, and has success this person owes it to everyone else. There is no individual, there is only the collective. The individual's success is everyone's success and it must be shared. Again clearly illustrating, BO's philosophy:
You are successful or thrive because of government
Your success therefore is the government's to decide how best to share it with the collective.
6.) There are a lot of wealthy who agree with me, because they want to give something back.
What is stopping them BO????? Do they need government permission to write more charitable donation checks, or to increase the amount on the checks they currently write?
What stops these rich who are dying to do more from giving more to their communities directly vs. Paying more in taxes to the federal government where a % of their dollars will be wasted on bureaucratic red tape????
And how much more should the wealthy give, (the wealthy you don't know, the wealthy who feel they give enough).
The top 10% already pay 71% of federal income taxes, how much more should they pay 100%. What then incents this group to produce more, to create more jobs when so much already goes to government???
I have an idea, why dont you place pressure on Harry Reid to pass a budget spending less than it takes in???? We have not had a budget since 2009, why don't you clean your house before asking any American, rich or poor, to contribute another dime???
Curious, BO what do you call an economic plan selling taxing The wealthy more as its strategy to improve our economy, when we could take everything the wealthy make and own; and would not Have enough money to pay for one year's worth of government spending??
Idiotic at best, incompeent, class warfare at the worst, and your economic plan for the US.
7). I'm always struck by people who think, well it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than Everybody else. Let me tell you something-there are a lot of hardworking people out there.
BO's use of the word think is not only troubling. It's desperate. It shows his campaign's inability to run on his record, there desperation to gin up support, and resort to what they do best, insight class warfare by any means necessary.
And to do so, BO has been gifted with ability to mind read. He tells us he knows what those evil successful people think.
I'm curious, when is the last time you heard a business owner say he/she is a success bc they are just so damned smart and worked harder than anyone else???? I haven't.
Well maybe I've heard a few say they work hard, but they certainly haven't said they don't appreciate or understand others work just as hard if not harder.
Yet Obama seems to know what they think and he'd like nothing more than for us to buy into this too. Those of us who dont own our own business or don't find ourselves making over 200k. He'd like we who are deemed not successful to get angry at those who are, and get out and vote for him.
Bc BO understands us, he knows what we think. He knows you, the business owner, other americans would not and could not be a success without him, without government.
Without goverment Paving the way for those who succeed and helping those who don't. They allow the successful among us keep a portion of their success and give the remainder to those government thinks are just as smart and worked just as hard but somehow were not able to become a success even though the government allowed them to.
Friday, June 29, 2012
The biggest lie of all: if you like your coverage. You can keep it
Well maybe if you work for a company run by an idiot you can. And if this is the case you can keep your employer sponsored health plan until the company goes under because the owner doesn't have sound financial judgement.
What do you mean you right wing nut. President Obama said if I like my plan I can keep it. You are using scare tactics about this bill. Am I, you decide.
For a business with 50+ employees you either offer healthcare coverage or pay a penalty.
But beginning in 2014, you no longer have the freedom to choose which plans you offer your employees. (Remember the recent controveresy of religious establishments being forced to include contraception coverage in their plans????). Obamacare.
As a private business you can no longer choose the type of plans to offer your employees, the type of plans your business can afford. Instead you must offer plans Obama deems acceptable.
Plans that include unlimited coverage, cannot exclude pre-existing conditions, give away 'freebies' such as birth control, preventative care, kids on coverage until the age of 26. Plans that do not allow cost sharing in the form of coinsurance or deductibles for the mandated mentioned above. Nor does the law allow a private health insurance company to charge the rate they feel they should charge to make a profit for the mandated coverage. (how dare a private company be allowed to make a profit).
So essentially the government decides how much a private business can charge for their product, while deciding what type of product aNother private business must purchase and offer to its employees. Ok got it.
For those who agree with the above, and celebrate the supreme court's ruling which is completely your prerogative, I'm curious, mathematically do you think it is feasible for an insurance company to stay in business while their policy must cover everyone, for everything, with no limits and for less premium?
If you don't care And think, serves them right those damn evil insurance companies. I don't care if they do go out of business, ask yourself, then what. What does that leave you with? Self pay? Or the new and exciting single payor or government exchange programs.
Be careful what you wish for, and then think about receiving healthcare from a government controlled entity. My mind immediately goes to my last trip to the DMV. Scary thought.
Think it couldn't happen, or that a single payer government run system is not what was intended by Obamacare???? Read on.
So as An employer I must decide Do I continue to offer the more expensive and mandatory healthcare coverage to my employees, or do I pay the penalty per employee instead? Surely the penalty is so outrageously high that offering My employees a more comprehensive policy is really the only option. Because I know the law is intended to provide more affordable and quality healthcare for all Americans.
For your reference, in 2001 the average employer contribution for family coverage was $5,269 and in 2011 it was $10,944. For single coverage, the 2011 average employer contribution was $4,500.
Let me get my calculator out. Should I pay a 2k penalty or offer my employees coverage for more than double the penalty for single coverage and more than 5 times the penalty for family coverage??? Hmmm. Tough decision. I'm no mathematician or financial genius, but I'd say the choice has all but been made for me, wouldn't you?
And Why on earth would Obamacare set the employer penalty for not offering employee's healthcare coverage significantly less than the expense to insure employees from 11 years ago??? Somehow this doesn't make sense if what BO says is true, if you like your coverage you can keep it.
So by forcing private health insurance carriers to offer coverage to everyone, for everything, while the government not the private company decides how much they should charge for it. And setting employer penalties for not offeing healthcare coverage to their employees well below the employers healthcare expenses from over 10 years ago, BO ges exactly what he intended with Obamacare. The start to a single payor system run by our government.
So should we believe BO's promises about keeping our current plans, and that the purpose of Obamacare is to provide quality and affordable healthcare to all americans.
Or should we use the math skills learned in elementary school to come to a more logical conclusion. That Obamacare is about moving to a single payor goverment sponsored healthcare system by forcing private health insurance companies out of the market via the inability to make a profit for the product sold and by forcing more consumers into the single payor system by charging employers a penalty that looks more like an incentive to discontinue their employee's healthcare coverage.
I believe this is exactly what Obama intended and that the intention is included in the last 4 words of the bill's description, found on page 2' it reads:
To provide affordable, quality healthcare for all Americans and reduce the growth in healthcare spending AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
What do you believe?
What do you mean you right wing nut. President Obama said if I like my plan I can keep it. You are using scare tactics about this bill. Am I, you decide.
For a business with 50+ employees you either offer healthcare coverage or pay a penalty.
But beginning in 2014, you no longer have the freedom to choose which plans you offer your employees. (Remember the recent controveresy of religious establishments being forced to include contraception coverage in their plans????). Obamacare.
As a private business you can no longer choose the type of plans to offer your employees, the type of plans your business can afford. Instead you must offer plans Obama deems acceptable.
Plans that include unlimited coverage, cannot exclude pre-existing conditions, give away 'freebies' such as birth control, preventative care, kids on coverage until the age of 26. Plans that do not allow cost sharing in the form of coinsurance or deductibles for the mandated mentioned above. Nor does the law allow a private health insurance company to charge the rate they feel they should charge to make a profit for the mandated coverage. (how dare a private company be allowed to make a profit).
So essentially the government decides how much a private business can charge for their product, while deciding what type of product aNother private business must purchase and offer to its employees. Ok got it.
For those who agree with the above, and celebrate the supreme court's ruling which is completely your prerogative, I'm curious, mathematically do you think it is feasible for an insurance company to stay in business while their policy must cover everyone, for everything, with no limits and for less premium?
If you don't care And think, serves them right those damn evil insurance companies. I don't care if they do go out of business, ask yourself, then what. What does that leave you with? Self pay? Or the new and exciting single payor or government exchange programs.
Be careful what you wish for, and then think about receiving healthcare from a government controlled entity. My mind immediately goes to my last trip to the DMV. Scary thought.
Think it couldn't happen, or that a single payer government run system is not what was intended by Obamacare???? Read on.
So as An employer I must decide Do I continue to offer the more expensive and mandatory healthcare coverage to my employees, or do I pay the penalty per employee instead? Surely the penalty is so outrageously high that offering My employees a more comprehensive policy is really the only option. Because I know the law is intended to provide more affordable and quality healthcare for all Americans.
For your reference, in 2001 the average employer contribution for family coverage was $5,269 and in 2011 it was $10,944. For single coverage, the 2011 average employer contribution was $4,500.
Let me get my calculator out. Should I pay a 2k penalty or offer my employees coverage for more than double the penalty for single coverage and more than 5 times the penalty for family coverage??? Hmmm. Tough decision. I'm no mathematician or financial genius, but I'd say the choice has all but been made for me, wouldn't you?
And Why on earth would Obamacare set the employer penalty for not offering employee's healthcare coverage significantly less than the expense to insure employees from 11 years ago??? Somehow this doesn't make sense if what BO says is true, if you like your coverage you can keep it.
So by forcing private health insurance carriers to offer coverage to everyone, for everything, while the government not the private company decides how much they should charge for it. And setting employer penalties for not offeing healthcare coverage to their employees well below the employers healthcare expenses from over 10 years ago, BO ges exactly what he intended with Obamacare. The start to a single payor system run by our government.
So should we believe BO's promises about keeping our current plans, and that the purpose of Obamacare is to provide quality and affordable healthcare to all americans.
Or should we use the math skills learned in elementary school to come to a more logical conclusion. That Obamacare is about moving to a single payor goverment sponsored healthcare system by forcing private health insurance companies out of the market via the inability to make a profit for the product sold and by forcing more consumers into the single payor system by charging employers a penalty that looks more like an incentive to discontinue their employee's healthcare coverage.
I believe this is exactly what Obama intended and that the intention is included in the last 4 words of the bill's description, found on page 2' it reads:
To provide affordable, quality healthcare for all Americans and reduce the growth in healthcare spending AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
What do you believe?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)