It’s clear just how far to the left Congress truly is. Now we have a second Democrat calling for the nationalization of the oil industry, this time it’s Maurice Hinchey of NY (you’ll recall of course Maxine Walters’ own call for nationalization in the past). So what gives with the Democrats oil policy? Well for starters they hide behind a global warming hoax in order to divert investments into their pet investment projects in order to make a quick buck while demonizing the competition (something they have an extremely long history of doing) as an attempt to monopolize their favored industries.
What’s scary about this is that this is really what most Democrats feel, and I’m sure Obama does as well, yet the media is so far in the tank for these guys that they won’t even call them out for it. In what sense does a promotion of nationalization of industries such as oil and health care not scream “SOCIALISM!” as it is the same path that Hugo Chavez took Venezuela down. Not surprisingly, they weren’t too upset when that happened and they STILL insist Chavez is some sort of good guy. They refuse to allow for increased domestic drilling and supply concerns when even today we see the dangers that we face by being forced to import our oil as Shell had to shut down one of their off shore operations due to rebel attacks. It is simply insane to forgo domestic increases in supply and refining capacity in the private sector.
Besides overall cost benefits, think of how dramatically this would impact our economy. How many jobs would be created, how far would the trade deficit shrink and re-strengthen our dollar, etc? Critics say that it will take at least 7 years for the oil to hit the market place, but even at 7 years, had we gone ahead and started producing oil from ANWR and other sources back when first considered, then we’d have about 1 million extra barrels of domestic oil in the market place today. There are many sources we can tap into but can’t because the Democrats have consistently blocked the attempts to develop American industry.
Recognizing the need for alternative sources of energy, even under optimum circumstances we will not be completely oil free for at least 30 years and probably never. Why? Because we will always have need for oil for older automobiles (not everyone can simply afford to buy new cars) and for things like plastics, etc. Sure the demand will be lower, but in what way is it bad that if our demand keeps dropping as we develop more energy sources that at some point with the start of increased domestic capacity that we could be self sufficient in this realm? Face reality Dems.
-Caomhin
Showing posts with label Free Market. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Free Market. Show all posts
19 June 2008
15 May 2008
Liberals In Senate Tried to Ram Amnesty Down Our Throats....Again
What is this, like their 5th try in the last few months? It is utterly disgraceful and politically disgusting that liberals in the Senate stuffed an amendment onto the Iraq funding bill that would have required granting amnesty to illegal aliens, increased the number of work visas for low skilled labor, AND required a price restriction on the labor. How can anyone be so contemptuous for our troops (by putting them in harms way by slowing down the funds necessary for them to fulfill their mission), so anti-free market (by introducing wage freezes, harmful the very same people they propose to give amnesty to), and advocating a lawless, open border? It's insanity, and it's seems fitting its Sen. Feinstein was one of the "champions" of this nonsense.
Let's look at each aspect briefly. First, it is utterly inappropriate to attach amendments to the Iraq funding bill to try to revive the horrendous amnesty act that the Senate tried to push upon our nation. Such issues should, and only should, be considered as separate bills.
Secondly, advocating an open borders policy is a terrible idea in the first place. While individual liberty allows for individuals to move freely, that must be balanced with protecting the liberties and rights of others. For example, we should absolutely allow for legal immigration into this nation, but there is a responsibility now to check to make sure those entering the nation are free from communicable diseases, are clear of a criminal background, etc. This would ensure security for our citizens and allow for a responsible policy of immigration with a secure border. This also is essential to homeland security.
Economic implications include the depression of wages. One argument that you hear is that illegal immigrants took jobs from Americans. In one sense, that is true. It is true in that an artificially large workforce amounts to an oversupply of labor. An oversupply leads to lower prices, essentially a competition to the bottom. People will accept markedly lower wage rates for jobs that normally would pay much higher rates. Secondly, we have the abuse of the social security system, health care benefits, etc and increases in identity theft occurrences (as illegals will undoubtedly look for ways to circumvent the system). You also have a system where employers who break the law by employing people they know to be illegal are much more likely to abuse their workers and provide unsafe work conditions as the illegals are many times less likely to report the violations as they themselves are in violation of the law.
For any elected member of the United States Congress to delay and stall funds from reaching our troops is simply inexcusable. Democrats have long said they supported the troops, while their minions have gone forth and accused them of being murderous thugs for the Bush Administration on one hand, and being victims of underfunded and under armored patsies on the other, both outrageous charges. Democrats themselves have continually held up the funding that the troops rely on to provide them with the ammunition, support, and armor needed to successfully fight the war. They are in no way, shape, or form supporting the troops by accusing them of atrocities and withholding funding from the battlefield. They are attempting to score the cheapest, and most insidious, of political points.
Finally, in terms of economics (which I briefly touched on earlier) any "wage freeze" is a terrible idea that flies in the face of capitalism (not that has ever stopped the Dems before). Any worker that is providing a service is deserving of the highest wage that the market deems to be proper for that particular position, be it higher, or lower. At a lower wage, the workers have an incentive to shift to different, more lucrative position where their compensation given is more agreeable to them. At higher wages, you will see more workers shift into that field, and eventually prices will level off at equilibrium. To deny the free market to work is to punish the workers and the community as a whole.
This whole little scheme Senate Democrats cooked up is indicative of their whole means of operation. They will do anything they can to score cheap political points, to highlight a small segment of the electorate in order to gain some votes, all the while holding everything that has made America successful since its inception in contempt. The free market, national security, rule of law, ability to compete in a free system, the right to earn a wage equal to your talent, etc. Worse, to hold a completely VOLUNTARY Armed Services hostage in order to get some political agenda pushed forward is down right unforgivable.
-Caomhin
Let's look at each aspect briefly. First, it is utterly inappropriate to attach amendments to the Iraq funding bill to try to revive the horrendous amnesty act that the Senate tried to push upon our nation. Such issues should, and only should, be considered as separate bills.
Secondly, advocating an open borders policy is a terrible idea in the first place. While individual liberty allows for individuals to move freely, that must be balanced with protecting the liberties and rights of others. For example, we should absolutely allow for legal immigration into this nation, but there is a responsibility now to check to make sure those entering the nation are free from communicable diseases, are clear of a criminal background, etc. This would ensure security for our citizens and allow for a responsible policy of immigration with a secure border. This also is essential to homeland security.
Economic implications include the depression of wages. One argument that you hear is that illegal immigrants took jobs from Americans. In one sense, that is true. It is true in that an artificially large workforce amounts to an oversupply of labor. An oversupply leads to lower prices, essentially a competition to the bottom. People will accept markedly lower wage rates for jobs that normally would pay much higher rates. Secondly, we have the abuse of the social security system, health care benefits, etc and increases in identity theft occurrences (as illegals will undoubtedly look for ways to circumvent the system). You also have a system where employers who break the law by employing people they know to be illegal are much more likely to abuse their workers and provide unsafe work conditions as the illegals are many times less likely to report the violations as they themselves are in violation of the law.
For any elected member of the United States Congress to delay and stall funds from reaching our troops is simply inexcusable. Democrats have long said they supported the troops, while their minions have gone forth and accused them of being murderous thugs for the Bush Administration on one hand, and being victims of underfunded and under armored patsies on the other, both outrageous charges. Democrats themselves have continually held up the funding that the troops rely on to provide them with the ammunition, support, and armor needed to successfully fight the war. They are in no way, shape, or form supporting the troops by accusing them of atrocities and withholding funding from the battlefield. They are attempting to score the cheapest, and most insidious, of political points.
Finally, in terms of economics (which I briefly touched on earlier) any "wage freeze" is a terrible idea that flies in the face of capitalism (not that has ever stopped the Dems before). Any worker that is providing a service is deserving of the highest wage that the market deems to be proper for that particular position, be it higher, or lower. At a lower wage, the workers have an incentive to shift to different, more lucrative position where their compensation given is more agreeable to them. At higher wages, you will see more workers shift into that field, and eventually prices will level off at equilibrium. To deny the free market to work is to punish the workers and the community as a whole.
This whole little scheme Senate Democrats cooked up is indicative of their whole means of operation. They will do anything they can to score cheap political points, to highlight a small segment of the electorate in order to gain some votes, all the while holding everything that has made America successful since its inception in contempt. The free market, national security, rule of law, ability to compete in a free system, the right to earn a wage equal to your talent, etc. Worse, to hold a completely VOLUNTARY Armed Services hostage in order to get some political agenda pushed forward is down right unforgivable.
-Caomhin
07 May 2008
Political Subprime Madness
Unfortunately, as the subprime woes continue to play out across our country, we are faced with an ever growing possibility of the Democratic Congress using this situation as political power play for votes. The Christian Science Monitor has a solid article on how the Democrats are seriously eyeing a plan to have tax powers bail out Fannie Mae and expose citizens tax payers to increased risk that their “investments” may default. This is a terrible idea on many levels. First, we are disallowing the free market to self correct and once the government gets involved, it will not simply walk away in a year or two. Secondly, this violates a general principle of government, and that is, to do what is good for the majority of the citizens while providing the rules and laws that govern the land. In Congress’ minds, they are doing the “majority” a favor, but statistics will show a vast majority of homeowners have been exceedingly responsible and the current situation, in terms of sheer percentage of foreclosures, does not directly impact a vast majority of the nation. To step in and bail out a select few is yet another way the government is looking to choose winners and losers.
Is it really fair to allow this bail out to assist only those who were irresponsible enough to engage in bad loan behavior in the first place while charging responsible entities extra tax dollars to “correct” the problem? Bad decisions were made both on the part of lenders as well as borrowers and the lessons learned will undoubtedly self correct in short order, that is, of course, if the government does interfere. Additionally, as we see ballooning deficit spending, the government would be extremely irresponsible by exposing itself and the tax payers to high risk loans.
If individuals wish to engage in high risk loans they should rightfully be compensated, the higher the risk, the higher the interest paid and this “investment” would be much riskier than junk bonds. It is the not government’s role to fulfill the type of function they are dangerously close to undertaking. As they pour tax dollars into this program they will widen the deficit. An agency as dysfunctional and wasteful as the federal government has become has no logical reason to get involved in this situation without further damaging itself. If this were even a case of a simple shift in tax dollars in one area to another, I would still oppose this measure. Worse, it will create yet expenditure without a corresponding cut in spending. All for votes. Are we left with no statesmen or even rational politicians?
-Caomhin
Is it really fair to allow this bail out to assist only those who were irresponsible enough to engage in bad loan behavior in the first place while charging responsible entities extra tax dollars to “correct” the problem? Bad decisions were made both on the part of lenders as well as borrowers and the lessons learned will undoubtedly self correct in short order, that is, of course, if the government does interfere. Additionally, as we see ballooning deficit spending, the government would be extremely irresponsible by exposing itself and the tax payers to high risk loans.
If individuals wish to engage in high risk loans they should rightfully be compensated, the higher the risk, the higher the interest paid and this “investment” would be much riskier than junk bonds. It is the not government’s role to fulfill the type of function they are dangerously close to undertaking. As they pour tax dollars into this program they will widen the deficit. An agency as dysfunctional and wasteful as the federal government has become has no logical reason to get involved in this situation without further damaging itself. If this were even a case of a simple shift in tax dollars in one area to another, I would still oppose this measure. Worse, it will create yet expenditure without a corresponding cut in spending. All for votes. Are we left with no statesmen or even rational politicians?
-Caomhin
22 January 2008
Another Reason To Like Microsoft
For the record, I have the Zune, not the iPod. Microsoft products are great, they have done a wonderful job for the productivity both in people's personal lives and for businesses, and despite what those smug Apple commercials claim, unless you're turning your home movies into on screen productions, their computers are overpriced and based solely on pretentiousness. As far as the audio claim, yes, recording on Apples is very good, but it's not like Pro Tools isn't available for the PC...after it was only available on Apple for sometime. That should tell you about demand and consumer choice right there. The point of my little rant is to bring to your attention Microsoft's efforts to help government enter into the digital age....about 10 years after the mainstream of the American population has done. The entire article is very interesting and most definitely worth the read, but here's a teaser/highlight for you:
Microsoft will provide governments with "template" programs that let citizens perform tasks such as accessing public records, getting marriage certificates, and paying taxes or fines online.
"Technology can help local and regional governments fill efficiency gaps and modernize services," Jean-Philippe Courtois, president of Microsoft International, said in an address at the forum in Germany.
"But, many are ill-equipped to meet citizens' expectations due to a lack of funding, available technology, technical expertise or other resources."
Microsoft has spent years working with governments and distilled some of what it learned into templates showing governments how to spare people trips to offices and let them handle interactions online.
The irony of the situation of course, is that the government went after Microsoft for being so efficient and skilled at what they do during the trial some years ago that now the government, who is increasingly inefficient and unskilled that Microsoft still has the decency to jump in to help out the citizens of this great nation by providing the governments with some tools to actually be as efficient as a 16 year kid who sells something on EBay. It's quite sad that the government, on many levels, is so technologically and logically inept that a private company (which by the way has done great works of charity) whom the government attacked, has turned the other cheek and helped to bring about some modernization and efficiency that the elected officials have not been able to bring about. Then again, that's the free market at work for you and an example of a corporation taking it citizenship seriously and working towards developing a better world for everyone. That's why the free market is the best system in the world and a great example of why many on the left are completely wrong, on many levels, when they constantly assail the free market and corporations. It works, it makes life better, and yes, corporations do care about the people in the nation. So while some assail corporations for following the principles that make this nation great, keep in mind that these same corporations that are viciously assaulted, are the same ones that keep us employed, that allow us to grow our 401(k)s, and whose R&D constantly blazes a trail to brighter horizons. Microsoft has done not only that since their inception, but in this situation, but has further proved the greatness of our system.
-Caomhin
04 January 2008
Don't Do It President Bush
News broke today that President George W. Bush is considering an economic stimulus package. It's irresponsible of President Bush to implement such a plan. President Bush has been a far superior President than Clinton ever was, in every way. To do such a thing would tarnish his record. He inherited a recession from Clinton due to tax rates that were too high and over speculations in the market. To date, he has done a pretty solid job of letting the free market reign, and his tax cuts are a major reason why a recession has not started since he took office. It's basic economics that when a tax increase is implemented against what Liberals declare as their enemies, that being corporations and high income earners, the impact is directly passes onto the middle and lower classes as they simply will not absorb a tax increase. This is an inflation tax. As the cost of production rises prices rise. The rich do not feel the impact of this, the middle and lower classes, however, most certainly do feel this impact. This basic logic is lost on the Left.
Among some of the problems with the economy today is the sub-prime market, in which irresponsible lenders, and irresponsible borrowers, have cost the economy dearly. There should be no bail out, there should be no hand-out, the market should be allowed to self correct. By providing these groups with tax funds taken from every individuals' earning, all people are learning is that irresponsible behavior will be rewarded. That's not to say some hardworking, honest people are getting beaten down, but the great majority of those in this market knew exactly what they were getting into. Another reason given is that of rising gas prices. See my previous post for my take on that.
On Wednesday, the Club for Growth release a study that proves that the market under performs when Congress is in session. A so called "stimulus" package that President Bush would put forth would do far more damage than good. First, our deficit is entirely too high, a "stimulus" package would result in a larger deficit. President Bush has done a good job of shrinking the deficit since our government began to run one due to discretionary spending due to the War on Terror. Second, government spending has a very, very, very poor record on actually being effective on what it is used for. Third, Americans need more empowerment to control their own destinies rather than less.
Unless this "stimulus" package would be a drastic reduction in government spending, coupled with a slash in tax rates, it will do far more harm than good. By reducing government spending and cutting taxes, two positives will be achieved. The first positive will be a reduction in deficit spending which will strengthen our dollar. The second positive, by cutting taxes, will be positive for the American tax payer, who is grossly overburdened, and who will have more disposable income and help offset the increase in gas prices. By restoring American citizens to a higher level of income, reducing the inflation tax, and strengthening our dollar, every one will be better off. It is completely mind boggling that President Bush would even consider for a microcosm of a second to follow a plan that would pursue the exact opposite positions and more than likely plunge us into a recession, one the media, and of course, the Liberals have been hoping for just as much as they have been hoping for Iraq to be a failure (old article, as it has long been their sick hope). Hopefully, with the same resolve that President Bush resisted the Liberal love-fest for defeat in Iraq, the Economic lunacy they are seeking will be avoided and turned into a great victory for America.
-Caomhin
Among some of the problems with the economy today is the sub-prime market, in which irresponsible lenders, and irresponsible borrowers, have cost the economy dearly. There should be no bail out, there should be no hand-out, the market should be allowed to self correct. By providing these groups with tax funds taken from every individuals' earning, all people are learning is that irresponsible behavior will be rewarded. That's not to say some hardworking, honest people are getting beaten down, but the great majority of those in this market knew exactly what they were getting into. Another reason given is that of rising gas prices. See my previous post for my take on that.
On Wednesday, the Club for Growth release a study that proves that the market under performs when Congress is in session. A so called "stimulus" package that President Bush would put forth would do far more damage than good. First, our deficit is entirely too high, a "stimulus" package would result in a larger deficit. President Bush has done a good job of shrinking the deficit since our government began to run one due to discretionary spending due to the War on Terror. Second, government spending has a very, very, very poor record on actually being effective on what it is used for. Third, Americans need more empowerment to control their own destinies rather than less.
Unless this "stimulus" package would be a drastic reduction in government spending, coupled with a slash in tax rates, it will do far more harm than good. By reducing government spending and cutting taxes, two positives will be achieved. The first positive will be a reduction in deficit spending which will strengthen our dollar. The second positive, by cutting taxes, will be positive for the American tax payer, who is grossly overburdened, and who will have more disposable income and help offset the increase in gas prices. By restoring American citizens to a higher level of income, reducing the inflation tax, and strengthening our dollar, every one will be better off. It is completely mind boggling that President Bush would even consider for a microcosm of a second to follow a plan that would pursue the exact opposite positions and more than likely plunge us into a recession, one the media, and of course, the Liberals have been hoping for just as much as they have been hoping for Iraq to be a failure (old article, as it has long been their sick hope). Hopefully, with the same resolve that President Bush resisted the Liberal love-fest for defeat in Iraq, the Economic lunacy they are seeking will be avoided and turned into a great victory for America.
-Caomhin
19 September 2007
Canadian Politician Shows Hillary How Bad Our System Sucks....By Coming here for Cancer Treatment
I don't blame her at all. It's her life on the line and Canada's socialized health care isn't something I'd want her to bank on either. Rob from Say Anything has a nice post about this as well, with a great graphic that illustrates that Canada is not even in the top 20 for survivor rates of cancer for men or women. So who's number one? Uh....we are. Yes, our capitalist system that fosters innovation and creative new techniques for treatments flat out works. Granted, we are tearing away from the pack, but then again, most cures are developed here and we are major exporters of health care innovations.
Of course erecting barriers against the capitalist system is a recipe for disaster and a key Liberal goal. Take for example, this interview with Hillary, and this little gem of a quote:
She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview - like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination,"
If that doesn't rattle you a bit on a great deal of levels, you really don't get it. You could view it that you're essentially unemployable if the government doesn't have you under their thumb. You could view it as a means to restrict a vast number of people from the workforce. You could view it as...well you understand. It's a horrible idea, but the moonbats eat this stuff up, and media loves it as well and will not criticize her, or ask questions, or let simple logic get in the way of their rush to crown her.
This whole idea of socialized health care is a classic liberal ploy of bait and switch. Sure, sounds good to make sure everyone has health care, but the people who are uninsurable, and thus have the highest premiums, are going to be completely subsidized by federal funds. The revenue from taxes only goes so far and a major, major tax hike is coming down the pipes if this goes down. The restriction of competition is always a recipe for disaster. Research and development of health care companies will see a dramatic drop in quality if there is no profit in it. I could rattle the saber on this one all night, but the thought of it is making me sick. Good thing I have some personal responsibility and voluntarily opted to pay my share of my premiums from my employer sponsored plan.
-Caomhin
Of course erecting barriers against the capitalist system is a recipe for disaster and a key Liberal goal. Take for example, this interview with Hillary, and this little gem of a quote:
She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview - like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination,"
If that doesn't rattle you a bit on a great deal of levels, you really don't get it. You could view it that you're essentially unemployable if the government doesn't have you under their thumb. You could view it as a means to restrict a vast number of people from the workforce. You could view it as...well you understand. It's a horrible idea, but the moonbats eat this stuff up, and media loves it as well and will not criticize her, or ask questions, or let simple logic get in the way of their rush to crown her.
This whole idea of socialized health care is a classic liberal ploy of bait and switch. Sure, sounds good to make sure everyone has health care, but the people who are uninsurable, and thus have the highest premiums, are going to be completely subsidized by federal funds. The revenue from taxes only goes so far and a major, major tax hike is coming down the pipes if this goes down. The restriction of competition is always a recipe for disaster. Research and development of health care companies will see a dramatic drop in quality if there is no profit in it. I could rattle the saber on this one all night, but the thought of it is making me sick. Good thing I have some personal responsibility and voluntarily opted to pay my share of my premiums from my employer sponsored plan.
-Caomhin
18 September 2007
Hillary Clinton: We will Own Every Aspect of Your Life
Of course she wants universal health care. What else can you expect from a socialist hack. Everything this woman stands for is personal power grabs and the establishment of all powerful federal government that will run every aspect of your life. How can they even claim to be even mildly supportive of capitalism? She is simply going for the sound bite for votes, and rest assured her liberal media buddies will not put the clamps to her. $110 billion a year, a conservative figure, is insane. Even worse yet, its mandated care. Forget choices and personal responsibility, the government will force you to get health care and routine check ups. Why not cap limits on lawsuits for example, the leading cause of rising health care costs in this nation. While you are at it, take a look to see how many innovative drugs are developed in other nations as opposed to this one. Eliminate the period of time granted to companies who fund R&D into innovative medicines and all incentive is pretty much gone to develop revolutionary new cures. The Weekly Standard does a very nice job, as usual, of getting a great point across in an articulate and concise means on this issue. Let's also keep in the mind the ginormousness of the costs associated with this asinine program. $110 billion does not pop out of thin air, the foot for this bill will come directly from the average citizens. Sure, Hillary can claim she wants to tax the rich, but let's be pragmatic in this discussion. The very rich will always have tax loop holes in which they can escape paying taxes. Should some type of restriction be placed on corporations in order to close a loop hole, rest assured, you will see inflation on a massive march. You can already see inflation increasing since the minimum wage hike took effect. The cost to the average citizen will be enormous.
Worse yet, the Hillary camp is keeping quiet on whether or not illegal aliens will be given the health benefits, which, given Liberal track records is an assurance that they will. Now couple this with the fact that the Libs want to give amnesty to 12 million plus illegals and basically want to take no steps to enforce border security and now you have a swelling population of illegals who will derive health benefits and not have to worry about paying into the system. Now ask yourself, if border security and illegal immigration is a huge issue now, what will happen when we have an unsecured border and the promise of free health care to those who illegally enter our borders? National security indeed. This is a recipe for disaster, not just from a health care stance, but from a security stance.
The Liberals have no intention of honoring the free market, the basis on which this nation was founded. Have they even heard of Adam Smith? What gives them the right to take away from the ordinary citizen the ability to make decisions on which coverage option is best for them. Uninsured people are pretty much screwed, I will grant them that. But what is the better option, a bureaucratic nightmare that will make current premiums seem like spare change, or a free market option with the promise of tax credit with the purchase of health care, much like the one on the Republican side of the debate. This option puts the responsibility on the individual and enables them to make choices while easing the burden of cost. It also keeps this very important aspect of your life, out of the governments hands. Ever dealt with the DMV? You want your health care ran that way?
I also consider you to look at the source who is offering this ridiculous proposal. Hillary is a power monger along the same political lines of the former Soviet Union. The great majority of positions she holds would earn her a Golden Bear award from the former republic. She slams our armed forces, calling them liars, while getting her pockets fed from criminals like Norman Hsu. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I'm sure many more corruption charges against her cronies are coming. Let's not forget Vince Foster, which is still mysterious. Of course Whitewater is nice little example of her business practices as well. Perhaps she can get further advice from Madeline Albright, her half wit adviser on foreign affairs...say how does she feel about Kim Jong Il again? If you trust these people with your health care, then you are really beyond reach. What our founders had in mind was a free market economy with a central government that would defend our interests and expressly left the rest of governing the state and local governments. What Marx gave us was the idea of a supremely strong central government with the citizens and all local governments at its mercy, the same model that Liberals are pushing hard for. Communists also crushed all dissent. Well, yes, you see that too from the Liberals as well. This is evidence from pushing for the Fairness Doctrine all the way down to their own liberal attack dog groups going after Brian Baird, Liberal, who had the audacity to support our troops. There are many other examples, many, many, examples. But then, this is the way the Soviets ran their shop as well.
-Caomhin
Worse yet, the Hillary camp is keeping quiet on whether or not illegal aliens will be given the health benefits, which, given Liberal track records is an assurance that they will. Now couple this with the fact that the Libs want to give amnesty to 12 million plus illegals and basically want to take no steps to enforce border security and now you have a swelling population of illegals who will derive health benefits and not have to worry about paying into the system. Now ask yourself, if border security and illegal immigration is a huge issue now, what will happen when we have an unsecured border and the promise of free health care to those who illegally enter our borders? National security indeed. This is a recipe for disaster, not just from a health care stance, but from a security stance.
The Liberals have no intention of honoring the free market, the basis on which this nation was founded. Have they even heard of Adam Smith? What gives them the right to take away from the ordinary citizen the ability to make decisions on which coverage option is best for them. Uninsured people are pretty much screwed, I will grant them that. But what is the better option, a bureaucratic nightmare that will make current premiums seem like spare change, or a free market option with the promise of tax credit with the purchase of health care, much like the one on the Republican side of the debate. This option puts the responsibility on the individual and enables them to make choices while easing the burden of cost. It also keeps this very important aspect of your life, out of the governments hands. Ever dealt with the DMV? You want your health care ran that way?
I also consider you to look at the source who is offering this ridiculous proposal. Hillary is a power monger along the same political lines of the former Soviet Union. The great majority of positions she holds would earn her a Golden Bear award from the former republic. She slams our armed forces, calling them liars, while getting her pockets fed from criminals like Norman Hsu. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I'm sure many more corruption charges against her cronies are coming. Let's not forget Vince Foster, which is still mysterious. Of course Whitewater is nice little example of her business practices as well. Perhaps she can get further advice from Madeline Albright, her half wit adviser on foreign affairs...say how does she feel about Kim Jong Il again? If you trust these people with your health care, then you are really beyond reach. What our founders had in mind was a free market economy with a central government that would defend our interests and expressly left the rest of governing the state and local governments. What Marx gave us was the idea of a supremely strong central government with the citizens and all local governments at its mercy, the same model that Liberals are pushing hard for. Communists also crushed all dissent. Well, yes, you see that too from the Liberals as well. This is evidence from pushing for the Fairness Doctrine all the way down to their own liberal attack dog groups going after Brian Baird, Liberal, who had the audacity to support our troops. There are many other examples, many, many, examples. But then, this is the way the Soviets ran their shop as well.
-Caomhin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
