Doug Hoffman was the upstart conservative in upstate New York who threw a big monkey wrench into the entire political process. This congressional district covers 25% of the land mass of the Empire State and has gone Republican since the Devil fought Daniel Webster. Well, the Democrat won and pundit talk says it's because the right wing conservative movement has no teeth. Wrong!. Doug Hoffman had thirty days to build a win. His presence dealt a blow to what's her name Scozzaflava who was exposed as anything but a Republican. Here's my take and it's pretty simple. Take a peek at a picture of Doug Hoffman. No offense, Doug, but you look like a geek. You're the guy who lives in small town USA who married the bankers daughter due to the fact that your family owned all the land the bank sat upon plus every other building in town. Then into the area strolls Clint Eastwood and he meets the wife at the Bridges of Madison County. It's mutual bliss for both and she's in love with a handsome stranger.
Doug Hoffman didn't stand a chance in this election. Now, if he were Robert Redford type he would have won with 99% of the vote. Guys vote for good looking guys because their jealous. Women vote the same to fulfill a life long dream; be a love slave to an Adonis.
Voting is a simple thing. If you want to win don't look like a geek.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Geithner And CIT
Over the week-end CIT announced bankruptcy. Timothy "tax cheat" Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, gave the go ahead for their $2.3 billion dollar bailout. Don't know what CIT does? Okay, they provide 70% of the loans to small businesses. Since small business makes up at least 70% of the businesses in the country this is a real bad sign for the future. This is going to lead to a trickle down effect. Just watch the next lender to go down. It's way to late to chastise Mr. Geithner. What we should do is forget a trial and send him to jail.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Sarah: One Smart Lady
From Sarah Palin's Facebook:
As the vice president knows, I have always advocated an all-of-the-above approach to American energy independence. Among other things, my alternative energy goal for Alaska sits at 50 percent because Alaska reached more than 20 percent during my term in office. The Obama-Biden administration, on the other hand, recently announced a renewable goal of only 25 percent. However, domestic drilling should remain a top priority in order to meet America’s consumption and security needs.
The vice president’s extreme opposition to domestic energy development goes all the way back to 1973 when he opposed the Alaska pipeline bill. As Ann Coulter pointed out, “Biden cast one of only five votes against the pipeline that has produced more than 15 billion barrels of oil, supplied nearly 20 percent of this nation’s oil, created tens of thousands of jobs, added hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy and reduced money transfers to the nation’s enemies by about the same amount.”
This nonsensical opposition to American domestic energy development continues to this day. Apparently the Obama-Biden administration only approves of offshore drilling in Brazil, where it will provide security and jobs for Brazilians. This election is about American security and American jobs.
As the vice president knows, I have always advocated an all-of-the-above approach to American energy independence. Among other things, my alternative energy goal for Alaska sits at 50 percent because Alaska reached more than 20 percent during my term in office. The Obama-Biden administration, on the other hand, recently announced a renewable goal of only 25 percent. However, domestic drilling should remain a top priority in order to meet America’s consumption and security needs.
The vice president’s extreme opposition to domestic energy development goes all the way back to 1973 when he opposed the Alaska pipeline bill. As Ann Coulter pointed out, “Biden cast one of only five votes against the pipeline that has produced more than 15 billion barrels of oil, supplied nearly 20 percent of this nation’s oil, created tens of thousands of jobs, added hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy and reduced money transfers to the nation’s enemies by about the same amount.”
This nonsensical opposition to American domestic energy development continues to this day. Apparently the Obama-Biden administration only approves of offshore drilling in Brazil, where it will provide security and jobs for Brazilians. This election is about American security and American jobs.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Dave Barry Gets It
Democrats…have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They’re the kind of people who’d stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy.” —Dave Barry
Vote No For Gambling
This upcoming Tuesday will provide some very interesting and significant elections. Obama himself has said the New Jersey governor's race is a referendum on his policies. It's Corzine, the Democrat, vs. Chrisite the Republican. Virginia has a race for the state house and district 23 in New York has an upstart Conservative running for a House seat. Columbus, Ohio has elections, too. I'm most concerned with Issue #3. It calls for 4 gambling casinos to be built in the state. One would be in Cleveland. Just what we need in that cesspool of a city is another reason for people with welfare money to go out and lose it. Cincinnati would be another gambling city. I don't know where the third would be located; maybe Youngstown. The fourth would be in Columbus. I hope it doesn't pass but polls say it'll be very close. I don't gamble. I have gambled but I'm not very good at it. Since I don't know how to play cards I would shy away from those tables. I don't drink anymore and it seems drinking and gambling go hand in hand.
Columbus has a beautiful downtown. Our major league hockey sports venue was selected the best in all the country. Across the street the Cleveland Indians AAA farm team plays. They were terrible last year but we led the country in attendance for minor league teams. Our city is a safe place to walk at night. It has beautiful restaurants, theaters and shops. My wife and I view Columbus and it's surrounding suburbs as the best kept secret in the United States. If gambling becomes a reality we'll see the same old same old; corruption, drugs, prostitution, loss of income for families who need the money and every other garbage negative that goes with crap tables and one armed bandits. And the reason for a pro vote? It's to create jobs and keep gambling money in the state. I've gone through this before when we were citizens of Iowa located on the Mississippi River. Guess what? The cities of Rock Island, Illinois and Davenport, Iowa are still blighted. There was a significant increase in crime and the money made off gambling went to who knows. One of my co-workers took her lunch hour to stop in at the nearby gaming house every weekday. Smacks of something bigger, doesn't it? Maybe an addiction?
Gambling, it's a no win situation.
Vote No.
Columbus has a beautiful downtown. Our major league hockey sports venue was selected the best in all the country. Across the street the Cleveland Indians AAA farm team plays. They were terrible last year but we led the country in attendance for minor league teams. Our city is a safe place to walk at night. It has beautiful restaurants, theaters and shops. My wife and I view Columbus and it's surrounding suburbs as the best kept secret in the United States. If gambling becomes a reality we'll see the same old same old; corruption, drugs, prostitution, loss of income for families who need the money and every other garbage negative that goes with crap tables and one armed bandits. And the reason for a pro vote? It's to create jobs and keep gambling money in the state. I've gone through this before when we were citizens of Iowa located on the Mississippi River. Guess what? The cities of Rock Island, Illinois and Davenport, Iowa are still blighted. There was a significant increase in crime and the money made off gambling went to who knows. One of my co-workers took her lunch hour to stop in at the nearby gaming house every weekday. Smacks of something bigger, doesn't it? Maybe an addiction?
Gambling, it's a no win situation.
Vote No.
Is This What You Voted For
The American Thinker seems to believe that: "He(Obama) wants to deny individuals access to the marketplace --where they can make their own decisions about their own health care -- and instead put the government entirely in charge.
He's willing to give government control over American businesses (e.g., the bank takeovers and Government Motors).
His administration, while on record as opposing the Fairness Doctrine, is aggressively exploring a backdoor regulatory scheme that would have precisely the same practical effect as the Fairness Doctrine: it would impose government restrictions on content, rather than allowing the market (that means us, the consumers) to control content.
His FCC wants to control the internet, a humming beehive of free speech (much of it critical of Obama).
As his loud battles with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News illustrate, he desires a single-party press, not a free one.
He believes that now that he is in power, the opposition should shut up and "get out of the way," a notion that runs directly counter to the First Amendment.
Although he's mostly erased the record that once existed in cyberspace, his dream is to create a civilian national security force, subordinate to the administration, which would be larger than the American military. The military, please note, is controlled by the Constitution and has traditionally existed separate from, but subordinate to, the rest of the American government.
He wants to take away the right to bear arms. He'll pay lip service to supporting the Second Amendment, but his fundamental goal is to use government to remove arms from individuals.
In a stunning blow to the freedom of born alive infants, he is one of a handful of politicians nationwide who believes it is appropriate to leave such infants to die alone and untended. With few exceptions, even those whose politics are entirely colored by a pro-choice viewpoint couldn't swallow this approach.
Without money, people have no choices. The more money the government siphons to itself, the fewer choices we as individuals have. Although he dresses it as fairness (it's "fair" for the "lucky" to pay substantially more), Obama believes that it's government's role to "spread the wealth." That may be "fair," but it's not consistent with liberty, hard work, and individual choices."
I think the Thinker is on target.
He's willing to give government control over American businesses (e.g., the bank takeovers and Government Motors).
His administration, while on record as opposing the Fairness Doctrine, is aggressively exploring a backdoor regulatory scheme that would have precisely the same practical effect as the Fairness Doctrine: it would impose government restrictions on content, rather than allowing the market (that means us, the consumers) to control content.
His FCC wants to control the internet, a humming beehive of free speech (much of it critical of Obama).
As his loud battles with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News illustrate, he desires a single-party press, not a free one.
He believes that now that he is in power, the opposition should shut up and "get out of the way," a notion that runs directly counter to the First Amendment.
Although he's mostly erased the record that once existed in cyberspace, his dream is to create a civilian national security force, subordinate to the administration, which would be larger than the American military. The military, please note, is controlled by the Constitution and has traditionally existed separate from, but subordinate to, the rest of the American government.
He wants to take away the right to bear arms. He'll pay lip service to supporting the Second Amendment, but his fundamental goal is to use government to remove arms from individuals.
In a stunning blow to the freedom of born alive infants, he is one of a handful of politicians nationwide who believes it is appropriate to leave such infants to die alone and untended. With few exceptions, even those whose politics are entirely colored by a pro-choice viewpoint couldn't swallow this approach.
Without money, people have no choices. The more money the government siphons to itself, the fewer choices we as individuals have. Although he dresses it as fairness (it's "fair" for the "lucky" to pay substantially more), Obama believes that it's government's role to "spread the wealth." That may be "fair," but it's not consistent with liberty, hard work, and individual choices."
I think the Thinker is on target.
Medicare Fraud
From the Weekly Standard:
As 60 Minutes reported last week, Medicare fraud is rampant and has now replaced the cocaine (ahem) business as the major criminal activity in South Florida. Both 60 Minutes and the Washington Post report that Medicare fraud now costs American taxpayers roughly $60 billion a year. That may sound like a lot of money, but surely it pales next to the extraordinary profits of private insurance companies, right?
Well, let's see.... Last year, the profits of the ten largest insurance companies in America were just over $8 billion -- combined. No single insurance company made even five percent of what Medicare reportedly loses in fraud.
While we're making comparisons, in its real first ten years (2014-23), the Senate Finance Committee bill would cost $1.7 trillion. At the rate of last year's profits, the combined ten-year profits of America's ten largest insurance companies would be $83 billion -- five percent of the costs of the Senate Finance Committee bill. Eighty-three billion dollars may not buy you much in comparison with BaucusCare, but -- on the bright side -- that ten-year tally is somewhat more than what Medicare loses each year in fraud.
So, the next time someone alleges that government-run health care is cheaper because of "lower administrative costs" -- a truly preposterous claim on its surface -- these numbers would be good ones to have at the ready: $60 billion in annual Medicare fraud, $8 billion in combined annual profits for America's ten largest insurance companies.
As 60 Minutes reported last week, Medicare fraud is rampant and has now replaced the cocaine (ahem) business as the major criminal activity in South Florida. Both 60 Minutes and the Washington Post report that Medicare fraud now costs American taxpayers roughly $60 billion a year. That may sound like a lot of money, but surely it pales next to the extraordinary profits of private insurance companies, right?
Well, let's see.... Last year, the profits of the ten largest insurance companies in America were just over $8 billion -- combined. No single insurance company made even five percent of what Medicare reportedly loses in fraud.
While we're making comparisons, in its real first ten years (2014-23), the Senate Finance Committee bill would cost $1.7 trillion. At the rate of last year's profits, the combined ten-year profits of America's ten largest insurance companies would be $83 billion -- five percent of the costs of the Senate Finance Committee bill. Eighty-three billion dollars may not buy you much in comparison with BaucusCare, but -- on the bright side -- that ten-year tally is somewhat more than what Medicare loses each year in fraud.
So, the next time someone alleges that government-run health care is cheaper because of "lower administrative costs" -- a truly preposterous claim on its surface -- these numbers would be good ones to have at the ready: $60 billion in annual Medicare fraud, $8 billion in combined annual profits for America's ten largest insurance companies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
