We want our country back. What an interesting mantra.
Exactly where (or when) do we want our country back to?
Do we want it back to where Blacks had to drink from a different water fountain?
Do we want it back to where there were no usable roads?
Do we want it back to the good old days when 11 year olds were forced to work 80 hours a week with no rights and little pay?
How about all the way back to when everyone "owned" at least a couple of other people?
What is it that we want back?
Do we want back the days when even adult workers had no rights? How does an 80 or 90 hour workweek with no overtime pay, no minimum wage, no sick time, no holiday pay, and no weekend sound? When the owner of a company could keep his employees under his thumb by paying them very little, and then extending loans to keep them working there? That song "I owe my soul to the company store" wasn’t just a song.
Oh, I know. Do we want back the days when everyone had to carry a weapon because there weren’t enough police to keep order?
Or do we want it back to where woman couldn’t vote, and could barely get a job?
How about we do away with all those costly government programs. We don’t need any federal agency to police our food and drugs. Those companies that provide that stuff will police themselves adequately. Just like the peanut butter folks a couple of years ago. Or the Vioxx folks.
Where, or when, is it exactly that we want our country back to?
How about the days when a person could be turned out of a hospital ER to die on the sidewalk just feet away because he had no insurance or cash to pay for treatment?
What DOES "We Want Our Country Back" mean, exactly?
Showing posts with label lies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lies. Show all posts
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Deregulate Now
Government regulation of any type needs to go away. Our Federal government tells businessmen, the very people who create jobs, that money they could spend on creating new jobs must be spent on various things that curtail their abilities to create the jobs we, as Americans, depend on.
For instance, companies have to spend untold billions of dollars every year ensuring that their workers have a safe working environment. If they did not have to spend this money on frivolous safety measures, imagine how many more jobs they could create.
Imagine too, how much money businesses could save every year by not being forced to pay workers extra simply because they work more than 40 hours a week. Or, for that matter, a minimum wage. Workers around the world subsist on several dollars a day; we Americans are spoiled to the point that we insist on wages that will pay our bills. Get a second job people. Put your children to work to make ends meet. Whatever you have to do. Your insistence on making a so-called living wage hurts your employer’s ability to hire more workers, thus decreasing unemployment. Also consider that if Americans didn’t insist on such high wages, if our average pay was even less than what other countries have, we would have zero problems with illegal immigration.
And there is another one: why should a businessman have to pay into a pool that continues to pay a worker even after the business no longer needs his services? If wages were kept low enough to inspire hiring, then that worker could easily obtain another job, even after losing his previous one.
Who are we to tell the food industry that they have to spend a fortune on food safety? Without this unnecessary expenditure, they could lower the price of the foods that we buy; thus enabling them to not only make a better profit, but to hire more workers. How many thousands of tons of otherwise good, edible food is thrown out every day simply because it has reached some arbitrary expiration date, or been "contaminated" with some cleaning chemical or other innocuous substance?
What about the drug companies? How many millions of dollars do the pharmaceutical companies have to spend on needless testing of new drugs? If they didn’t have to spend this money, they could then hire even more workers to produce their drugs, thus, again, cutting unemployment. This would also have the effect of lowering drug costs.
The airline industry, already saddled with astronomical losses because of 9-11 and soaring oil prices, could save billions if they could do away with all these silly regulations about how often they have to perform maintenance on their fleets.
And don’t get me started on unions. The TWU is currently in "negotiations" with American Airlines simply because the executives at AA were given millions of dollars in bonuses while the workers themselves took pay cuts. So what? Those executives went to college for the very purpose of being able to have a job with such bonuses. If the airlines and other industries could crush their unions, they could save billions upon billions of dollars in wages and perqs. These savings would allow them to not only hire more workers, but also to pay bigger and better bonuses to their executives, ensuring that they have the best and the brightest at the top.
For instance, companies have to spend untold billions of dollars every year ensuring that their workers have a safe working environment. If they did not have to spend this money on frivolous safety measures, imagine how many more jobs they could create.
Imagine too, how much money businesses could save every year by not being forced to pay workers extra simply because they work more than 40 hours a week. Or, for that matter, a minimum wage. Workers around the world subsist on several dollars a day; we Americans are spoiled to the point that we insist on wages that will pay our bills. Get a second job people. Put your children to work to make ends meet. Whatever you have to do. Your insistence on making a so-called living wage hurts your employer’s ability to hire more workers, thus decreasing unemployment. Also consider that if Americans didn’t insist on such high wages, if our average pay was even less than what other countries have, we would have zero problems with illegal immigration.
And there is another one: why should a businessman have to pay into a pool that continues to pay a worker even after the business no longer needs his services? If wages were kept low enough to inspire hiring, then that worker could easily obtain another job, even after losing his previous one.
Who are we to tell the food industry that they have to spend a fortune on food safety? Without this unnecessary expenditure, they could lower the price of the foods that we buy; thus enabling them to not only make a better profit, but to hire more workers. How many thousands of tons of otherwise good, edible food is thrown out every day simply because it has reached some arbitrary expiration date, or been "contaminated" with some cleaning chemical or other innocuous substance?
What about the drug companies? How many millions of dollars do the pharmaceutical companies have to spend on needless testing of new drugs? If they didn’t have to spend this money, they could then hire even more workers to produce their drugs, thus, again, cutting unemployment. This would also have the effect of lowering drug costs.
The airline industry, already saddled with astronomical losses because of 9-11 and soaring oil prices, could save billions if they could do away with all these silly regulations about how often they have to perform maintenance on their fleets.
And don’t get me started on unions. The TWU is currently in "negotiations" with American Airlines simply because the executives at AA were given millions of dollars in bonuses while the workers themselves took pay cuts. So what? Those executives went to college for the very purpose of being able to have a job with such bonuses. If the airlines and other industries could crush their unions, they could save billions upon billions of dollars in wages and perqs. These savings would allow them to not only hire more workers, but also to pay bigger and better bonuses to their executives, ensuring that they have the best and the brightest at the top.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
No Mandate for Private Services
I keep hearing folks say that it is unconstitutional for the United States Government to mandate that we, the American people, purchase the services of a private business. Several states’ Attorneys General have promised to sue the Federal Government if the insurance reform bill in front of the House of Representatives passes.
OK, I have a fix, at least for the mandate part. How about if we do not insist that everyone buy health insurance. How about if, instead, we say the following:
You, as an American Citizen, do not have to maintain Health Coverage on yourself. But if you opt to not carry coverage, and something happens to you, such as an unforeseen illness or injury, then you will be required to pay cash, up front, out of your own pocket or forgo any treatment for said illness or injury.
You see, right now, if you do not have coverage and something happens, you can go to a public hospital, get treatment, and simply not pay the bill. That debt then reverts to the rest of us, and our tax dollars pay for your treatment. You will have to be required to pay cash up front because we cannot take the chance that you will simply SAY that you will pay on an installment plan and then just disappear or allow your payments to lapse.
So you pay up front or you simply fix the problem yourself. That way we all can be sure that those of us who have insurance aren’t being double billed.
OK, I have a fix, at least for the mandate part. How about if we do not insist that everyone buy health insurance. How about if, instead, we say the following:
You, as an American Citizen, do not have to maintain Health Coverage on yourself. But if you opt to not carry coverage, and something happens to you, such as an unforeseen illness or injury, then you will be required to pay cash, up front, out of your own pocket or forgo any treatment for said illness or injury.
You see, right now, if you do not have coverage and something happens, you can go to a public hospital, get treatment, and simply not pay the bill. That debt then reverts to the rest of us, and our tax dollars pay for your treatment. You will have to be required to pay cash up front because we cannot take the chance that you will simply SAY that you will pay on an installment plan and then just disappear or allow your payments to lapse.
So you pay up front or you simply fix the problem yourself. That way we all can be sure that those of us who have insurance aren’t being double billed.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Don't believe anything you read, and only half of what you see
It never ceases to amaze how otherwise intelligent people will simply believe what someone else tells them. They don’t seem to bother to actually look into claims they hear on the radio or TV; they just take them at face value. Let’s look, for example, at the recent health care debates. And I use debates loosely, there seems to be a lot of angry rhetoric from both sides, not even actually resembling a debate.
Sarah Palin made the ludicrous claim that President Obama would set up a "death panel", a panel of government employees, that would take a look at how productive a person is and make a determination of whether to pay for health care based on that productivity. Conservative media figures picked that up and ran with it like a fumble. They have repeated it incessantly, apparently believing the old mantra "make the lie big, repeat it often, people will believe the lie to be truth". In fact, the only thing that could lead anyone to even consider such a remark is shear stupidity or shear malice. You pick which it is.
The section of the bill being considered that this comes from provides for Medicare to pay, once every five years, for VOLUNTARY end of life counseling. With your doctor, not a panel of government bureaucrats. Something that Medicare does not cover now. This would cover discussions about living wills, how long you want to be kept on life support (if at all), when hospice would be appropriate, etc. It would NOT cover discussion of suicide or euthanasia.
I have not been able to confirm this, but I heard (from one of the conservative talk shows, so probably false) that Ms. Palin said something to the effect of "if Americans actually read this bill, they would be appalled". I must submit, Ms. Palin, that if you actually made it a point to know what you are talking about before you open your pretty mouth, you might actually be vice-president now.
I have also heard the idiotic claim that bills in discussion would spend our tax dollars funding abortions. It is illegal, right now, and will remain so, to use Federal moneys to fund abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother’s life is in danger. Now I know that there are folks who don’t believe a woman should be able to have an abortion in even these circumstances, but those folks likely need to be beaten anyway.
And while I am on this subject, why do I keep hearing people talk about abortion as birth control? Last I checked, a condom was about a buck. I haven’t actually looked into it, but something tells me that abortions cost a heckuva lot more than a buck. Who can afford that kind of birth control? Frankly, if a woman has that kind of cash and wants to ruin her future reproductive abilities, I say let her. Maybe that branch of the stupid gene will end with her.
I drive around most of the day, so I listen to a lot of talk radio. I mix it up, I listen to one of the eight conservative stations, then to the one liberal station, then another of the eight, then back to the one, and so on.
I keep hearing, from the conservatives, how concerned they are about our taxes going up. I have to remind you folks that those guys you hear from that box in your dash or see on that box in your living room make TONS of cash. When they talk about taxes going up, they are talking about THEIR taxes going up. They are not concerned with yours. It is difficult for me to take seriously a guy who makes 40 million dollars a year just from his radio show, when he tries to make out like he has the same financial concerns that I do.
Apparently, there is a lot of flap over advertisers removing their ads from certain talk show hosts shows. People talk about boycotting stores that do not want to advertise on shows that foment hate and anger, and repeat malicious lies to further an agenda. Boycott, folks. Stand up for the rights of rich celebrities to act like they are actual newspersons. Let corporate America know, by your unwillingness to spend money on their products, that you think folks should be able to use the public airwaves to advocate hate and racism.
It amazes me that, if Pepsi ran an add claiming that Coke caused cancer, Pepsi would be fined hugely. Yet any idiot can go on an "entertainment" show and make false claims about someone or some policy he doesn’t like and that is fine.
I think my bottom line here is, do NOT just believe something because you heard it on the radio or saw it on TV. Actually do some research. Find out that people with agendas will lie to further that agenda. Even me.
Sarah Palin made the ludicrous claim that President Obama would set up a "death panel", a panel of government employees, that would take a look at how productive a person is and make a determination of whether to pay for health care based on that productivity. Conservative media figures picked that up and ran with it like a fumble. They have repeated it incessantly, apparently believing the old mantra "make the lie big, repeat it often, people will believe the lie to be truth". In fact, the only thing that could lead anyone to even consider such a remark is shear stupidity or shear malice. You pick which it is.
The section of the bill being considered that this comes from provides for Medicare to pay, once every five years, for VOLUNTARY end of life counseling. With your doctor, not a panel of government bureaucrats. Something that Medicare does not cover now. This would cover discussions about living wills, how long you want to be kept on life support (if at all), when hospice would be appropriate, etc. It would NOT cover discussion of suicide or euthanasia.
I have not been able to confirm this, but I heard (from one of the conservative talk shows, so probably false) that Ms. Palin said something to the effect of "if Americans actually read this bill, they would be appalled". I must submit, Ms. Palin, that if you actually made it a point to know what you are talking about before you open your pretty mouth, you might actually be vice-president now.
I have also heard the idiotic claim that bills in discussion would spend our tax dollars funding abortions. It is illegal, right now, and will remain so, to use Federal moneys to fund abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother’s life is in danger. Now I know that there are folks who don’t believe a woman should be able to have an abortion in even these circumstances, but those folks likely need to be beaten anyway.
And while I am on this subject, why do I keep hearing people talk about abortion as birth control? Last I checked, a condom was about a buck. I haven’t actually looked into it, but something tells me that abortions cost a heckuva lot more than a buck. Who can afford that kind of birth control? Frankly, if a woman has that kind of cash and wants to ruin her future reproductive abilities, I say let her. Maybe that branch of the stupid gene will end with her.
I drive around most of the day, so I listen to a lot of talk radio. I mix it up, I listen to one of the eight conservative stations, then to the one liberal station, then another of the eight, then back to the one, and so on.
I keep hearing, from the conservatives, how concerned they are about our taxes going up. I have to remind you folks that those guys you hear from that box in your dash or see on that box in your living room make TONS of cash. When they talk about taxes going up, they are talking about THEIR taxes going up. They are not concerned with yours. It is difficult for me to take seriously a guy who makes 40 million dollars a year just from his radio show, when he tries to make out like he has the same financial concerns that I do.
Apparently, there is a lot of flap over advertisers removing their ads from certain talk show hosts shows. People talk about boycotting stores that do not want to advertise on shows that foment hate and anger, and repeat malicious lies to further an agenda. Boycott, folks. Stand up for the rights of rich celebrities to act like they are actual newspersons. Let corporate America know, by your unwillingness to spend money on their products, that you think folks should be able to use the public airwaves to advocate hate and racism.
It amazes me that, if Pepsi ran an add claiming that Coke caused cancer, Pepsi would be fined hugely. Yet any idiot can go on an "entertainment" show and make false claims about someone or some policy he doesn’t like and that is fine.
I think my bottom line here is, do NOT just believe something because you heard it on the radio or saw it on TV. Actually do some research. Find out that people with agendas will lie to further that agenda. Even me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
