More articles today on the last two years.
Thomas Sowell from Townhall.com writes more about what Obama and McCain were doing the last two years related to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in particular. What strikes me is that Bush, Allen Greenspan, and others in Bush's administration warned that Freddie and Fannie needed more regulation. While Republicans are known to be for deregulation, this is a time they supported it more regulation, and yet the Democrats now claim the opposite. And Obama himself has benefited handsomely from Fannie Mae's contributions. Why isn't this covered by mainstream media - even if just to show their was no impropriety?
"Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported." ~ Sowell, Townhall.com 10/03/2008
Self censurship is one step toward government sanctioned censorship.
Orson Scott Card also wants his fellow reporters to step up to the plate and do good reporting work - whether it supports their favorite candidate or not.
"Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?" ~ Card, http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html, 10/21/2008
I cannot grasp why the news is so slow when so many historic things are taking place. Friends and family have remarked to me that they've never heard so much talk in public places about politics. And yet news outlets and journalists have such a slow day, they have to report on Palin's wardrobe. And let's see the figures for Obama and McCain to be fair - since we have nothing else to talk about.
May history uncover and write about the things that have thus far been ignored.
GT <><
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
It's past "enough already" - McCain is NOT Bush!
I'm so tired of hearing McCain = Bush, especially because it's a slight of hand. It's not true, but if they say it enough times, it must be true? Is that why Obama's people are so worried about Ayers being mentioned over and over? They don't like a taste of their own medicine? That might be a petty take, but we know campaigns can be petty. I do think the Ayers thing is petty, but only because no one did a great job at annunciating the arguement or really putting the dots together. There's still time for a shocking discovery though...
I think McCain's camp didn't know to respond to that line of reasoning because it was so off the mark, who could take it seriously? Before all this started, nobody would have confused McCain with Bush. In fact, most "true blue" conservatives didn't like McCain because he was known to be centrist. Why isn't that coming out in all the media coverage?
But let's visit the real issue. Randall Hoven from American Thinker raised some good points about the last two years versus the next four. An intellectual and well supported way to say Republicans can get a bad wrap even when they do good things. It also reminds me, Bush doesn't beat his own drum and doesn't run after every naysayer. Thank goodness he doesn't waste his energy there; there are plenty of other things he is attending too, whether the average person appreciates him for it or not.
Also, this speech gives me hope that people can see through the media haze and discern a better future for our country. Check out Lynette Long's path from the Democratic Party to the McCain/Palin ticket this November 4th. I praise her for her new solutions to old problems. I dearly hope others can find the strength and courage to see that McCain is NOT the same as Bush, despite Obama's seductive pull over the media and the masses.
Keep fighting for freedom,
GT <><
I think McCain's camp didn't know to respond to that line of reasoning because it was so off the mark, who could take it seriously? Before all this started, nobody would have confused McCain with Bush. In fact, most "true blue" conservatives didn't like McCain because he was known to be centrist. Why isn't that coming out in all the media coverage?
But let's visit the real issue. Randall Hoven from American Thinker raised some good points about the last two years versus the next four. An intellectual and well supported way to say Republicans can get a bad wrap even when they do good things. It also reminds me, Bush doesn't beat his own drum and doesn't run after every naysayer. Thank goodness he doesn't waste his energy there; there are plenty of other things he is attending too, whether the average person appreciates him for it or not.
Also, this speech gives me hope that people can see through the media haze and discern a better future for our country. Check out Lynette Long's path from the Democratic Party to the McCain/Palin ticket this November 4th. I praise her for her new solutions to old problems. I dearly hope others can find the strength and courage to see that McCain is NOT the same as Bush, despite Obama's seductive pull over the media and the masses.
Keep fighting for freedom,
GT <><
Friday, October 17, 2008
Health Care Debate
A recent article from money.CNN.com on the pros and cons of both McCain's and Obama's health-care plans. Let's not be coy - there IS a big transition in the health-care industry ahead, whichever candidate we choose. And remember, both situations are plans and ideals - we don't know if/how each one will operate in reality.
My summary of the article, follows.
McCain's plan:
- First, McCain's plan will probably cause employers to drop their health-care coverage (but so will Obama's, so read on...). In turn, McCain's plan is more likely to force the industry to lower health care costs because of free-market competition. It's a way for the market to check escalating costs.
- If you don't need certain aspects of care (Alzheimer's care for a young person, for example), you don't pay for it. Each person and family chooses the plan suited to the individual(s).
- You should get the money your employer was paying for your health-care, and the government makes a little money taxing that new income. Then, McCain gives you back most of the money in the form of a tax credit.
Sum up: There will be ample money for most people to pay for medical, plus some left over if you're healthy. This will also increase the potential for raises from companies to employees because they are not burdened by the escalating insurance costs. I think this might also work as motivation for people to get preventive care, live healthier lifestyles, and take responsibilities for those variables we can control.
BIG CON: If you are already sicker and/or older than most people, they are unsure if this will cover your needs. These details NEED answers before we transition or we risk hurting people. Not sure how many people fall into this category - and that unknown tends to make the imagination go into overload whether or not that's the case.
Obama's plan:
- Companies will either contribute toward benefits or be fined. This article believes the trend will run toward paying the fine 1) because health-care costs currently rise faster than wages, and 2) because the benefits paid for by the government have low premiums and lots of benefits. So, the Dem's also promote a health-care plan that will not be available through work.
- Obama's plan is more likely to cause costs to steadily go up, much like utility expenses. There's no guarantee we can control the rate at which it increases, and there will be no competition to drive it down.
BIG CON: The consumer has very little motivation to care about costs. As patients, we often opt for "the works" without knowing the costs (you know, sometimes you really NEED the works, but sometimes you don't). And we can't compare different prices from different providers because it's all covered anyway. We will pay taxes to cover everything, almost like a blank check. Also, there is no built in value for personal responsibility because we're covered to fix everything, therefore less motivation for preventitive care.
More of my thoughts:
We value money more than health insurance sometimes, that is a fault. But we also feel entitled to every care option out there, that too is a fault. Obviously the best plan would get everyone what they NEED, without wasting and overtaxing the system. I think McCain's plan is going to do that better than Obama's. But it relies a lot on the individual to responsibly pick a plan. Also, many Republican plans count on the generosity of people to take care of each other (Republicans give much more generously to non-profits, not just in total but also based on % of income). Maybe non-profits burst up to pick up the slack for the sicker and/or older people we were taking about in McCain's plan. In my mind, it's easier to figure out new solutions to gaps in the plan, than it is to cut back from a plan that could easily overburden the tax payers.
Both plans are missing a crucial element; The need for educated workers goes hand in hand with escalating costs. More educators and more educated people working in the health care industry will also help to keep costs more reasonable.
The morale of the story: We really do have to care for each other - both with our money and with our hands.
GT <><
My summary of the article, follows.
McCain's plan:
- First, McCain's plan will probably cause employers to drop their health-care coverage (but so will Obama's, so read on...). In turn, McCain's plan is more likely to force the industry to lower health care costs because of free-market competition. It's a way for the market to check escalating costs.
- If you don't need certain aspects of care (Alzheimer's care for a young person, for example), you don't pay for it. Each person and family chooses the plan suited to the individual(s).
- You should get the money your employer was paying for your health-care, and the government makes a little money taxing that new income. Then, McCain gives you back most of the money in the form of a tax credit.
Sum up: There will be ample money for most people to pay for medical, plus some left over if you're healthy. This will also increase the potential for raises from companies to employees because they are not burdened by the escalating insurance costs. I think this might also work as motivation for people to get preventive care, live healthier lifestyles, and take responsibilities for those variables we can control.
BIG CON: If you are already sicker and/or older than most people, they are unsure if this will cover your needs. These details NEED answers before we transition or we risk hurting people. Not sure how many people fall into this category - and that unknown tends to make the imagination go into overload whether or not that's the case.
Obama's plan:
- Companies will either contribute toward benefits or be fined. This article believes the trend will run toward paying the fine 1) because health-care costs currently rise faster than wages, and 2) because the benefits paid for by the government have low premiums and lots of benefits. So, the Dem's also promote a health-care plan that will not be available through work.
- Obama's plan is more likely to cause costs to steadily go up, much like utility expenses. There's no guarantee we can control the rate at which it increases, and there will be no competition to drive it down.
BIG CON: The consumer has very little motivation to care about costs. As patients, we often opt for "the works" without knowing the costs (you know, sometimes you really NEED the works, but sometimes you don't). And we can't compare different prices from different providers because it's all covered anyway. We will pay taxes to cover everything, almost like a blank check. Also, there is no built in value for personal responsibility because we're covered to fix everything, therefore less motivation for preventitive care.
More of my thoughts:
We value money more than health insurance sometimes, that is a fault. But we also feel entitled to every care option out there, that too is a fault. Obviously the best plan would get everyone what they NEED, without wasting and overtaxing the system. I think McCain's plan is going to do that better than Obama's. But it relies a lot on the individual to responsibly pick a plan. Also, many Republican plans count on the generosity of people to take care of each other (Republicans give much more generously to non-profits, not just in total but also based on % of income). Maybe non-profits burst up to pick up the slack for the sicker and/or older people we were taking about in McCain's plan. In my mind, it's easier to figure out new solutions to gaps in the plan, than it is to cut back from a plan that could easily overburden the tax payers.
Both plans are missing a crucial element; The need for educated workers goes hand in hand with escalating costs. More educators and more educated people working in the health care industry will also help to keep costs more reasonable.
The morale of the story: We really do have to care for each other - both with our money and with our hands.
GT <><
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Obama on abortion
Obama's answer on abortion last night was eloquent. Too eloquent. If you think his views on abortion are "not so bad" - he wants good things for mothers and wishes abortions didn't happen - do so some more research and think about it again.
Let's juxtapose what he said last night with what he has already said to planned parenthood. Look at FOCA, which he promised to sign if he comes into office. If he voted against infanticide because there was already a similar law on the books, then why sign FOCA when Roe vs. Wade already exists? It's because FOCA will force all states to legalize abortion, even ones who already have a different law on their books.
Also, check out this article from The Witherspoon Institute on what Obama has already fought for regarding abortion and pro-life issues.
There is another side to his story. He spoke very eloquently at the debate, but I can't believe it illuminated his true views or the pro-abortion agenda he will pursue doggedly if he is elected.
Pray diligently,
GT <><
Let's juxtapose what he said last night with what he has already said to planned parenthood. Look at FOCA, which he promised to sign if he comes into office. If he voted against infanticide because there was already a similar law on the books, then why sign FOCA when Roe vs. Wade already exists? It's because FOCA will force all states to legalize abortion, even ones who already have a different law on their books.
Also, check out this article from The Witherspoon Institute on what Obama has already fought for regarding abortion and pro-life issues.
There is another side to his story. He spoke very eloquently at the debate, but I can't believe it illuminated his true views or the pro-abortion agenda he will pursue doggedly if he is elected.
Pray diligently,
GT <><
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Should I be surprised?
A self proclaimed "liberal democrat" has an article in the LA Times. No surprise there.
But the discussion of same sex marriage is refreshingly unexpected.
What I'd like to comment on is how angry people get. Disagreeing may be an American pastime, but why do we attack the other person? It took 20 comments before a positive post popped up. Both negative and positive comments are empatically so. Many angry people think the author is very wrong, but being angry doesn't make them right.
After all the screaming at the author, I don't think it's tolerance they are fighting for - it's fear of being the last one standing called a bigot. Let's not forget, being called a bigot and being one can be very different.
GT <><
But the discussion of same sex marriage is refreshingly unexpected.
What I'd like to comment on is how angry people get. Disagreeing may be an American pastime, but why do we attack the other person? It took 20 comments before a positive post popped up. Both negative and positive comments are empatically so. Many angry people think the author is very wrong, but being angry doesn't make them right.
After all the screaming at the author, I don't think it's tolerance they are fighting for - it's fear of being the last one standing called a bigot. Let's not forget, being called a bigot and being one can be very different.
GT <><
Friday, October 10, 2008
Brand new blog
Welcome to another adventure in blogging!
Really, it's my adventure, but thanks for humoring me =)
This is my first post, and I don't really know how to begin, so I'll save all the fireworks for a future post. Nothing heavy today.
So what weighs more? A pound of feathers or a pound of bricks?
Yes, that was "so second grade."
Okay, smart stuff, what weighs less: a squirming toddler? or a sleeping toddler?
Whichever one my husband's carrying ;-)
Thanks, honey.
GT <><
Really, it's my adventure, but thanks for humoring me =)
This is my first post, and I don't really know how to begin, so I'll save all the fireworks for a future post. Nothing heavy today.
So what weighs more? A pound of feathers or a pound of bricks?
Yes, that was "so second grade."
Okay, smart stuff, what weighs less: a squirming toddler? or a sleeping toddler?
Whichever one my husband's carrying ;-)
Thanks, honey.
GT <><
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)