I'm a Catholic and proud of it, but I would not allow a priest to be alone with my children. The corporate structure of the Church is one of its greatest strengths and its greatest weakness. Understand though, that while the connection between a parish and its bishop is fairly strong, the connection between Rome and some church in Ireland is very very loose.
The Pope is a Bishop. Cardinals are Bishops. I don't think people understand these things. The Catholic church has not changed in the dogma much at all in 1800 years. What does this tell you about individual Popes and their effect on the church? It tells us that the faith itself is so much more important than the structure.
The people that are criticizing the Church don't like it because of its structure. These problems are most likely worse in protestant churches (http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm) but no one discusses this because the vast majority of these churches are only loosely related with other churches if at all. Inotherwords, the underlying hatred of the Catholic Church has less to do with sexual abuse than it does general hatred directed at large institutions.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Obama the Liar and Dictator
Does this administration do anything openly and honestly?
In an interview with ABC, President Obama claimed, "Here's one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table. The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated," Obama said. "People in Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process.
Was Scott Brown involved in any way in the passing of a health care bill?
The senate was unable to pass the cap-and-trade bill so Obama gets the EPA to say they're simply going to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
The courts rules against the FCC in their assertion that they have the power to regulate the Internet so now the Obama administration wants congress to pass a law explicitly authorizing the FCC to regulate the Internet. What is the problem with that you ask? Simple: the Internet is working great as it operates under the current system so why does the FCC want to regulate something that is working perfectly right now? The answer is obvious: The government wants more power. The FCC is making this argument with terms like net neutrality but there's a huge problem with their arguments; the broadband providers are already doing what the FCC wants them to do.....
So not only is this administration expanding government involvement in nearly every major industry in the country, if they don't get their way through normal government processes, they simply execute their plans via fiat.
Regardless of whether you're on the right or the left, you have to wake up and see what the Obama administration is doing to the system of checks and balances. The courts are merely a speed bump, the congress is simply the legislative arm of the oval office and even then, they change the rules on the fly to suit themselves and their agenda.
There are so many thing I could list that I liked about Clinton. What is there to like about Obama?
In an interview with ABC, President Obama claimed, "Here's one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table. The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated," Obama said. "People in Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process.
Was Scott Brown involved in any way in the passing of a health care bill?
The senate was unable to pass the cap-and-trade bill so Obama gets the EPA to say they're simply going to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
The courts rules against the FCC in their assertion that they have the power to regulate the Internet so now the Obama administration wants congress to pass a law explicitly authorizing the FCC to regulate the Internet. What is the problem with that you ask? Simple: the Internet is working great as it operates under the current system so why does the FCC want to regulate something that is working perfectly right now? The answer is obvious: The government wants more power. The FCC is making this argument with terms like net neutrality but there's a huge problem with their arguments; the broadband providers are already doing what the FCC wants them to do.....
So not only is this administration expanding government involvement in nearly every major industry in the country, if they don't get their way through normal government processes, they simply execute their plans via fiat.
Regardless of whether you're on the right or the left, you have to wake up and see what the Obama administration is doing to the system of checks and balances. The courts are merely a speed bump, the congress is simply the legislative arm of the oval office and even then, they change the rules on the fly to suit themselves and their agenda.
There are so many thing I could list that I liked about Clinton. What is there to like about Obama?
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
America Betrayed
The entire health care bill is a lie, from the way it's been sold, to the intentions behind the bill, and the way it's covered in the media.
All I'm saying is this, as the population gets older, costs are going to continue to rise. All this bill is going to do is force the healthy and the rich to pay for the elderly and sick. Some people will argue that's the right thing to do but the problem is it's not sustainable. There's no way to pay for this bill going forward and the fact that the Obama administration lies about it is disgusting.
All I'm saying is this, as the population gets older, costs are going to continue to rise. All this bill is going to do is force the healthy and the rich to pay for the elderly and sick. Some people will argue that's the right thing to do but the problem is it's not sustainable. There's no way to pay for this bill going forward and the fact that the Obama administration lies about it is disgusting.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
American Opinions on Health Care
43% Favor Health Care Plan, 53% Oppose"
I think it's obvious the vast majority of Americans don't want Obamacare. Let's face facts, if you take away the people that will benefit from health care subsidies, you're left with a small percentage of people in the far left that support health care reform. Conversely, the vast majority of people that are against health care reform are average people who are against it based on their ideological values.
I know it would be impossible to poll that, but if you looked at people who are for and against reform based solely on their ideologies and not what the perceived financial impact would be on them, I think you would have 25% of respondents saying they're for health care reform and 75% against.
Glenn Beck had a very interesting chart illustrating how every time Obama doesn't get his way, he resorts to legislative tricks to bypass the checks and balances the constitution provides. Obama likes to say the American people aren't concerned with the process. I think we've woken up, and while that may have been true in the past, I think millions of Americans are now very very interested in the process, and are disgusted by it.
I think it's obvious the vast majority of Americans don't want Obamacare. Let's face facts, if you take away the people that will benefit from health care subsidies, you're left with a small percentage of people in the far left that support health care reform. Conversely, the vast majority of people that are against health care reform are average people who are against it based on their ideological values.
I know it would be impossible to poll that, but if you looked at people who are for and against reform based solely on their ideologies and not what the perceived financial impact would be on them, I think you would have 25% of respondents saying they're for health care reform and 75% against.
Glenn Beck had a very interesting chart illustrating how every time Obama doesn't get his way, he resorts to legislative tricks to bypass the checks and balances the constitution provides. Obama likes to say the American people aren't concerned with the process. I think we've woken up, and while that may have been true in the past, I think millions of Americans are now very very interested in the process, and are disgusted by it.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Still Talking About Health Care
When viewed from the perspective of future generations, it is much easier to see the significance of historic events than when viewed while such events occur. The historian has the benefit of perspective. We live in historic times.
If one were to write a fictional drama about government intrigue, I find it hard to believe there would be more twists and turns than this current Health Care debate. By every indication, the majority of Americans want President Obama's health care bill stopped. The rebukes by the American people has been stunning.
So many people that have never been politically active are saying, enough is enough. It's not difficult to see why. The United States is in the midst of a severe recession and while the effects on our citizens has been dramatic, the effect on government can only be described as catastrophic. So many state and local governments are literally running out of money. These states are being forced to redefine their roles in the lives of their citizens.
Only a few years ago, any politician brazen enough to attack government unions as being too strong, and their employees overpaid, would have been labeled an extremist. Now, these views are widely accepted, if not universally agreed upon. So why the change of opinion? The answer is simple, common sense.
You don't have to be a doctor of economics to see that a a worker retiring at the age of 60 and being paid 90% of their salary plus benefits for the next 25 years isn't good for the solvency of the entity that pays them. While this may not be much of a problem for the federal government, yet, it's a huge problem for state and local governments where these payments are much higher in terms of percentage of revenues.
At this point, the only thing that has saved these governments from being forced to cut their budgets and reduce the number of employees in any significant fashion has been the stimulus bill. Now that stimulus funds have been spent, these state and local governments have to figure out how to pay their own bills, and the shortfalls many of them are facing are enormous.
What gives these issues historical importance is the fact that this is only the beginning. The causes of these problems are the demographic shifts that are ongoing and are only going to accelerate. The ratio of taxpayers to tax receivers is dropping and the recession has merely accelerated a problem that's been long in the making.
Just like the federal government hasn't acknowledged in any significant way, medicare and social security shortfalls, the states only addressed these problems when faced with an inability to pay their bills. As more baby boomers begin receiving medicare and social security benefits, obviously their percentage of gdp is going to spike and the United States government will find itself in a similar quandary.
Yet here we are discussing another government entitlement. This is a text book definition of the term counter-intuitive. The American people know all this, so why do the Democrats continue to push forward with something as unpopular as health care reform? The answer is simple. It's worked for them in the past.
If they pass health care, they can then argue that Republicans will be trying to take away peoples' benefits. These argument might not save Democrats up for reelection this November, but give people a few years to get used to the idea of health care subsidies and it's an entirely different ballgame. So basically, Democrats are hoping to create another segment of the population that is dependent on them for their well being.
Put in that context, it sounds fairly corrupt, but it's part of our system of government. We're a representative democracy and if a politician can create a constituency, literally more power to them.
If one were to write a fictional drama about government intrigue, I find it hard to believe there would be more twists and turns than this current Health Care debate. By every indication, the majority of Americans want President Obama's health care bill stopped. The rebukes by the American people has been stunning.
So many people that have never been politically active are saying, enough is enough. It's not difficult to see why. The United States is in the midst of a severe recession and while the effects on our citizens has been dramatic, the effect on government can only be described as catastrophic. So many state and local governments are literally running out of money. These states are being forced to redefine their roles in the lives of their citizens.
Only a few years ago, any politician brazen enough to attack government unions as being too strong, and their employees overpaid, would have been labeled an extremist. Now, these views are widely accepted, if not universally agreed upon. So why the change of opinion? The answer is simple, common sense.
You don't have to be a doctor of economics to see that a a worker retiring at the age of 60 and being paid 90% of their salary plus benefits for the next 25 years isn't good for the solvency of the entity that pays them. While this may not be much of a problem for the federal government, yet, it's a huge problem for state and local governments where these payments are much higher in terms of percentage of revenues.
At this point, the only thing that has saved these governments from being forced to cut their budgets and reduce the number of employees in any significant fashion has been the stimulus bill. Now that stimulus funds have been spent, these state and local governments have to figure out how to pay their own bills, and the shortfalls many of them are facing are enormous.
What gives these issues historical importance is the fact that this is only the beginning. The causes of these problems are the demographic shifts that are ongoing and are only going to accelerate. The ratio of taxpayers to tax receivers is dropping and the recession has merely accelerated a problem that's been long in the making.
Just like the federal government hasn't acknowledged in any significant way, medicare and social security shortfalls, the states only addressed these problems when faced with an inability to pay their bills. As more baby boomers begin receiving medicare and social security benefits, obviously their percentage of gdp is going to spike and the United States government will find itself in a similar quandary.
Yet here we are discussing another government entitlement. This is a text book definition of the term counter-intuitive. The American people know all this, so why do the Democrats continue to push forward with something as unpopular as health care reform? The answer is simple. It's worked for them in the past.
If they pass health care, they can then argue that Republicans will be trying to take away peoples' benefits. These argument might not save Democrats up for reelection this November, but give people a few years to get used to the idea of health care subsidies and it's an entirely different ballgame. So basically, Democrats are hoping to create another segment of the population that is dependent on them for their well being.
Put in that context, it sounds fairly corrupt, but it's part of our system of government. We're a representative democracy and if a politician can create a constituency, literally more power to them.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Unemployment Extensions and Jim Bunning
"A law that provided stopgap road funding and longer and more generous unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies for the jobless expired Monday."
Jim Bunning seems to be the first person to finally get specific on spending. Unfortunately for him, he found out what every politician already knows: Don't get specific on cutting spending. When the last stimulus bill was passed over a year ago, 62% of U.S. voters wanted the plan to include more tax cuts and less government spending.
We have to assume that the percentage would be much higher if you simply asked people whether the government should just cut spending, but here we have a case where a lawmaker finally takes a concrete stand on the issue of government spending, and he's getting slammed in the media, and by his own party.
I have a few examples of the many problems with unemployment benefits.
1. I know a couple and the husband receives unemployment and did not even ATTEMPT to find work until a few weeks before his benefits were scheduled to run out.
2. A few of my employees have called out of work to attend unemployment hearings even though that is highly frowned upon by the EDD and they offer telephone hearings. This is indicative of how much they really want to work because they know they have that government safety net.
3. I've seen a few people that would not have cared if the government offered unemployment to the underemployed but now that they know the government offers it, they apply for it.
If you take people that could otherwise find employment, and allow them to do nothing but collect government benefits, you're reducing our country's gdp, which in turn, makes us all that much poorer.
Besides, the President could easily just use stimulus funds to extend these benefits. He won't because he's the biggest government spender in US history and the stimulus is going to be used for reelecting Democrats. I applaud Jim Bunning for NOT being a politician on this issue.
Jim Bunning seems to be the first person to finally get specific on spending. Unfortunately for him, he found out what every politician already knows: Don't get specific on cutting spending. When the last stimulus bill was passed over a year ago, 62% of U.S. voters wanted the plan to include more tax cuts and less government spending.
We have to assume that the percentage would be much higher if you simply asked people whether the government should just cut spending, but here we have a case where a lawmaker finally takes a concrete stand on the issue of government spending, and he's getting slammed in the media, and by his own party.
I have a few examples of the many problems with unemployment benefits.
1. I know a couple and the husband receives unemployment and did not even ATTEMPT to find work until a few weeks before his benefits were scheduled to run out.
2. A few of my employees have called out of work to attend unemployment hearings even though that is highly frowned upon by the EDD and they offer telephone hearings. This is indicative of how much they really want to work because they know they have that government safety net.
3. I've seen a few people that would not have cared if the government offered unemployment to the underemployed but now that they know the government offers it, they apply for it.
If you take people that could otherwise find employment, and allow them to do nothing but collect government benefits, you're reducing our country's gdp, which in turn, makes us all that much poorer.
Besides, the President could easily just use stimulus funds to extend these benefits. He won't because he's the biggest government spender in US history and the stimulus is going to be used for reelecting Democrats. I applaud Jim Bunning for NOT being a politician on this issue.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Health Care Summit - Day After
The health care 'summit' was a big joke, just as we all knew it would be. It was nothing more than a publicity stunt to show the country that Obama (not Reid and Pelosi) is leading the charge in so-called health care reform.
Democrats say the system is broken. I fail to see how simply forcing people to participate in the same system is going to fix it. Until politicians can have an honest discussion about the real problems in health care, the entire fiasco should be stopped.
Democrats say the system is broken. I fail to see how simply forcing people to participate in the same system is going to fix it. Until politicians can have an honest discussion about the real problems in health care, the entire fiasco should be stopped.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Health Care Summit
I'm so tired of "health care reform". I wish people would call Obama's version of "reform" what it really is: Income redistribution. The bill does nothing to address skyrocketing costs head on. Will it affect costs? Yes, but not directly, and the effects are more likely to be bad, causing prices to go up due to the likely massive increase in demand.
Republicans are asking Obama to look at the causes of high medical and insurance costs and address them individually. Sounds like common sense to me if you're actually trying to fix the broken system. The problem is, they're not. They want high earners to subsidize insurance for people with low incomes. Universal health care is NOT health care reform. It is what it is. Health care coverage for all.
In a perfect world, everyone would have health insurance. I don't think anyone would say otherwise. My issue with universal health coverage is that it's dishonest to imply you're reforming the system. If it's universal health coverage fine. Do not call it health care reform. Do not say it's going to be budget neutral. Do not say it's going to bring down costs when anyone with any sense knows driving demand up causes prices to go up.
We need to go back to focusing on costs. When people look at the suggestions put forward by Republicans, they know something is wrong. People know allowing insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines will help, but they know it's going to be like putting a band aid on a gaping wound. That may be one thing that will help lower costs, but it's a minor issue in comparison to problems that are only going to get worse. We need to look at the underlying causes and address each one individually.
Let's be honest, the elderly consume so much of the supply, they have to be driving costs up. What's worse, the government limits how much it's willing to pay for different procedures. This drives up costs for privately insured. Also, how much of our health care costs go toward paying for other people that can't/won't pay? To me, it's common sense that these have to be the issues that are addressed and any other 'fixes' will be pointless. Below are a few of my suggestions.
1. Allow insurers to sell insurance across state lines.
2. Tort reform.
3. Better credits/write offs for medical schooling. Right now tuition can be written off, but usually when a person is in school, the deduction is minimal due to a lack of earnings. Let the student defer the deduction to a date when it would maximize savings and when they pay back their student loans give them a better deduction.
4. Increase limits on medicare reimbursements.
5. Decrease the number of people on medicare. Honestly, is there anything else we can do? This is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that everyone wants to pretend isn't there. How does the math work where 1 working person pays for 1 retiree's social security and medicare benefits?
The USA is headed for a Soviet-style implosion unless we go back to limited government. Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country?
Republicans are asking Obama to look at the causes of high medical and insurance costs and address them individually. Sounds like common sense to me if you're actually trying to fix the broken system. The problem is, they're not. They want high earners to subsidize insurance for people with low incomes. Universal health care is NOT health care reform. It is what it is. Health care coverage for all.
In a perfect world, everyone would have health insurance. I don't think anyone would say otherwise. My issue with universal health coverage is that it's dishonest to imply you're reforming the system. If it's universal health coverage fine. Do not call it health care reform. Do not say it's going to be budget neutral. Do not say it's going to bring down costs when anyone with any sense knows driving demand up causes prices to go up.
We need to go back to focusing on costs. When people look at the suggestions put forward by Republicans, they know something is wrong. People know allowing insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines will help, but they know it's going to be like putting a band aid on a gaping wound. That may be one thing that will help lower costs, but it's a minor issue in comparison to problems that are only going to get worse. We need to look at the underlying causes and address each one individually.
Let's be honest, the elderly consume so much of the supply, they have to be driving costs up. What's worse, the government limits how much it's willing to pay for different procedures. This drives up costs for privately insured. Also, how much of our health care costs go toward paying for other people that can't/won't pay? To me, it's common sense that these have to be the issues that are addressed and any other 'fixes' will be pointless. Below are a few of my suggestions.
1. Allow insurers to sell insurance across state lines.
2. Tort reform.
3. Better credits/write offs for medical schooling. Right now tuition can be written off, but usually when a person is in school, the deduction is minimal due to a lack of earnings. Let the student defer the deduction to a date when it would maximize savings and when they pay back their student loans give them a better deduction.
4. Increase limits on medicare reimbursements.
5. Decrease the number of people on medicare. Honestly, is there anything else we can do? This is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that everyone wants to pretend isn't there. How does the math work where 1 working person pays for 1 retiree's social security and medicare benefits?
The USA is headed for a Soviet-style implosion unless we go back to limited government. Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country?
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
IRS Threats
'Dramatic Increase' in Threats Against IRS
Many people take a jaundiced view of the IRS. The problem I have with them, personally is the excessive penalties they charge for various infractions. How many times have you heard of people owing $300 but after penalties and interest it's somewhere in the neighborhood of $2,000? This is just an example, of course, but the chances are you know someone who has faced immense fines from the IRS or some other taxing authority.I look at the IRS as a business partner. Like any other partner, I have to pay them to conduct business with them. Where they differ, is when you're late, or if your invoices aren't filled out perfectly, they hit you with penalties that make credit card fees look like a joke, in comparison. Unlike other companies you have dealings with, you can't take your business elsewhere, and this allows the IRS to seemingly do whatever it wants. Therein lies the problem. In reality, the IRS is just another business and we're its customers. Unfortunetely for us, they don't see it this way.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Obama's Last Ditch Health Care Reform
I think it's safe to say we need to slow down on all this health care reform. Most people seem to think we should allow health insurers to do business across state lines so why not just start with that?
I think we also need to identify the causes of increased health care costs and address those individually, like changing demographics. I know as a businessman, I have to make a profit. If I'm losing money in one area, I have to make it up in another. If insurers lose money on the elderly, obviously they have to recoup their losses from healthier segments of the population. With rising costs for more advanced therapies how do insurers cope with a medicare system that may not pay hospitals enough to cover costs much less turn a profit?
I'm no expert on health care, but I've heard many who are experts state that private payers are being forced to subsidize medicare patients. If this is the case, maybe we should start with reforming medicare first instead of the entire health care system.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)