Friday, August 14, 2009

Healthcare Plan D

Here's the second summary. The whole thing was written by the Associated Press, so I take no credit. I tried to actually find this on the Associated Press website, but I couldn't find it.

WHO'S COVERED: The House GOP's plan, in outline form for now, says it aims to make insurance affordable and accessible to all. There aren't estimates about how many additional people would be covered.

COST: Unknown.

HOW'S IT PAID FOR: No new taxes are proposed, but Republicans say they want to reduce Medicare and Medicaid fraud.


REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: No mandates; small business tax credits are offered. Employers are encouraged to move to "opt-out" rather than "opt-in" rules for offering health coverage.

SUBSIDIES: Tax credits are offered to "low- and modest-income" Americans. People who aren't covered through their employers but buy their own insurance are allowed to take a tax deduction. Low-income retirees younger than 65 (the eligibility age for Medicare) would be offered assistance.

BENEFIT PACKAGE: Insurers would have to allow children to stay on their parents' plan through age 25.

GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: No public plan.

HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: No new purchasing exchange or marketplace is proposed. Health savings accounts and flexible spending plans would be strengthened.

CHANGES TO MEDICAID: People eligible for Medicaid would be allowed to use the value of their benefit to purchase a private plan.

Labels: , , ,

Healthcare Plan C

Here's the third summary. The whole thing was written by the Associated Press, so I take no credit. I tried to actually find this on the Associated Press website, but I couldn't find it.

WHO'S COVERED: Around 97 percent of Americans. Illegal immigrants would not receive coverage.

COST: Around $1 trillion over 10 years.

HOW'S IT PAID FOR: Possible sources include cuts to Medicare and Medicaid; a tax as high as 35 percent on very high cost health insurance policies; a requirement for employers to pay into the Treasury for their employees who get their insurance through public programs or receive government subsidies to help pay premiums. Looking to raise $90 billion by taxing health insurance companies as much as 35 percent on policies valued at $25,000 or more.

REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Expected to include a requirement for individuals to get coverage.

REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: In lieu of requiring employers to provide coverage, lawmakers are considering a "free rider" penalty based on how much the government ends up paying for workers' coverage.

SUBSIDIES: No higher than 300 percent of the federal poverty level ($66,150 for a family of four).

BENEFIT PACKAGE: The government doesn't mandate benefits but sets four benefit categories — ranging from coverage of around 65 percent of medical costs to about 90 percent — and insurers would be required to offer coverage in at least two categories. No denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: Unlike the other proposals the Finance Committee's will likely be bipartisan. With Republicans opposed to a government-run plan, the committee is looking at a compromise that would instead create nonprofit member-owned co-ops to compete with private insurers.


CHANGES TO MEDICAID: Everyone at 100 percent of poverty would be eligible. Between 100 and 133 percent, states or individuals have the choice between coverage under Medicaid or a 100 percent subsidy in the exchange. The expansion would be delayed until 2013, a late change to save money — the start date had been 2011.

Labels: , , ,

Healthcare Plan B

Here's the second summary. The whole thing was written by the Associated Press, so I take no credit. I tried to actually find this on the Associated Press website, but I couldn't find it.

WHO'S COVERED: Aims to cover 97 percent of Americans.

COST: About $615 billion over 10 years, but it's only one piece of a larger Senate bill.

HOW IT'S PAID FOR: Another panel — the Senate Finance Committee — is responsible for figuring out how to cover costs.

REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Individuals will have to have insurance, enforced through tax penalty with hardship waivers.

REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: Employers who don't offer coverage will pay a penalty of $750 a year for each full-time worker. Businesses with 25 or fewer workers are exempt.

SUBSIDIES: Available up to 400 percent poverty level, or $88,000 for a family of four.

BENEFITS PACKAGE: Health plans must offer a package of essential benefits recommended by a new Medical Advisory Council. No denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: A robust new public plan to compete with private insurers. The plan would be run by the government but would pay doctors and hospitals based on what private insurers now pay.

HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: Individuals and small businesses could purchase insurance through state-based purchasing pools called American Health Benefit Gateways.

OTHER PROVISIONS: Creates a new voluntary insurance program that would provide a modest daily cash benefit to help disabled people stay in their own homes instead of going into nursing homes.

Labels: , , ,

Healthcare Plan A

Here's the first summary. The whole thing was written by the Associated Press, so I take no credit. I tried to actually find this on the Associated Press website, but I couldn't find it.

Plan A

WHO'S COVERED: Around 94 percent of non-elderly residents (those not covered by Medicare, which kicks in at age 65) would be covered — compared with 81 percent today. Nearly half the 17 million non-elderly residents who remain uninsured would be illegal immigrants.

COST: About $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

HOW IT'S PAID FOR: Revenue-raisers include $544 billion over the next decade from new income taxes on single people making more than $280,000 a year and couples making more than $350,000; $37 billion in business tax increases; about $500 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid; sizable penalties paid by individuals and employers who don't obtain coverage.

REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Individuals must have insurance, enforced through tax penalty with hardship waivers. The penalty is 2.5 percent of income.
REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: Employers must provide insurance to their employees or pay a penalty of 8 percent of payroll. Companies with payroll under $250,000 annually are exempt. That level could rise to $500,000 under a deal between House leaders and fiscal conservatives.

Employers could apply for a two-year exemption from the mandate if they can prove the requirements would result in job losses that would negatively affect their communities.

SUBSIDIES: Individuals and families with annual income up to 400 percent of poverty level ($88,000 for a family of four) would get sliding-scale subsidies to help them buy coverage. The subsidies would begin in 2013.

HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: Through a new Health Insurance Exchange open to individuals and, initially, small employers; it could be expanded to large employers over time. States could opt to operate their own exchanges in place of the national exchange if they follow federal rules.

BENEFIT PACKAGE: A committee would recommend an "essential benefits package" including preventive services, mental health services, oral heath and vision for children; out-of pocket costs would be capped. The new benefit package would be the basic benefit package offered in the exchange and over time would become the minimum quality standard for employer plans. Insurers wouldn't be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: A new public plan available through the insurance exchanges would be set up and run by the secretary of Health and Human Services. Democrats originally designed the plan to pay Medicare rates plus 5 percent to doctors, but under Wednesday's deal with the fiscal conservatives the HHS secretary would instead negotiate rates with providers.

CHANGES TO MEDICAID: The federal-state insurance program for the poor would be expanded starting in 2013 to cover all non-elderly individuals with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level ($14,404).

DRUGS: Grants 12 years of market protection to high-tech drugs used to combat cancer, Parkinson's and other deadly diseases.

I want to hear what you think.

God Bless

Labels: , , ,

Four Healthcare Plans...

Good morning, Gentle Readers,

Here's what I'm going to be doing today...

I will use the information I found from the Associated Press to Outline the four different plans. The only change I'm going to make is to change their names to A, B, C, D. There's no reason to choose a plan because the Democrats created it or to reject a plan because it is created by Republicans. What I want is for everyone who reads the plans, to comment on the one they like or comment on the ones you don't like. And, don't just say, that sucks. Be specific. I'd like to know which healthcare plan really resonants with my readers.

God Bless

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Healthcare Email From the White House...

I received an email from David Axelrod Senior Adviser to President Obama. He included 8 facts about the President's Healthcare Plan, as well as 8 myths. I am copying these 16 points, without any comment, into this blog. I want you to come to your own conclusions.

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage
1. Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
2. Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
3. Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
4. Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
5. Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
6. Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
7. Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
8. Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

8 common myths about health insurance reform

1. Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
2. We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
3. Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
4. Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
5. Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
6. Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
7. You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
8. No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.

Okay, come to your own conclusions. Watch this space tomorrow. I'm posting summaries of the four plans. I found them at the Associated Press. Read them all and come to your own conclusions. Before the end of the weekend, I'll post my opinions.

God Bless

    Labels: , , , , , ,

    Sunday, August 09, 2009

    Palin on Healthcare Reform...

    Now, I'm not sure on how much of the Obama Healthcare plan I actually support. I am not even sure the government is on the right track on how to fix healthcare, but at least I'm not spouting lies on my Facebook page about it.

    According to
    CNN, Sarah Palin posted the following on her facebook page: "And who will suffer the most when they ration care?" she wrote. "The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

    But, what about the system we have right now, where 47million Americans have no access or cannot afford health insurance? Many of those 47 million Americans probably couldn't afford the proper care for a Down Syndrome baby. Some, when faced with that decision, might have aborted the child rather than have him. Which leads to the same euthanasia former Governor Palin claims the Obama Healthcare plan will cause.

    Admittedly, I don't know a lot about the great state of Alaska, but if they have a great healthcare system that was supported by former Governor Sarah Palin, I'd like to hear about it. Otherwise, just shut up. Attacking a system on grounds that outrageous and unsupportive is just crazy. If you can't offer constructive critism, then shut up. But, unfortunately, the Republican Party and their loonies -- such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck -- haven't offered a constructive thought in more than twenty years.

    So, is it me or have all the intelligent Republicans just given up? I know they're out there. Those Republicans who admire Theodore Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln, where have those guys gone? Richard Nixon was a President who did a great deal for this country (yeah, but only if you exclude Watergate). The man was intelligent, but not this band of so-called Conservatives. They talk about energizing their base, but their base -- white, lower middle class or even poor, right wing, uneducated Christians -- is a shrinking group and if they continue this pandering, they're truly not going to be a great party. Someday, I'll be telling my grandsons about what a Republican was.

    At least, the history books will have pictures of Roosevelt and Lincoln.

    God Bless

    Labels: , , ,

    Monday, August 03, 2009

    Birthers? Can Obama Be President According to the Constitution? And, is Joe Biden anti-Christian?

    Headline One:

    Birthers? Can Obama Be President According to the Constitution?

    Have you heard the big fuss being made over just where President Obama was born? I thought this was all resolved during the elections, but I was WRONG wasn't I? Apparently, 28% or 50% (depending on which blogger you wish to believe) of Republicans believe that President Obama isn't a natural born American citizen and, therefore, not eligible to be President.

    But, I saw this blog post over at the Huffinginton Post written by Chris Kelly and I WISH I had thought of this! The man is brilliant and a bit of a smart aleck. So, check out his post.

    Headline Two:

    Is Joe Biden anti-Christian?

    Saw this over at Huffinginton Post, too. I cannot believe that there is really a "Christian" group who thinks for one iota of a second that saying "Jesus Christ" is hate speech. Now, I know that I try my darnedest to not take the Lord's name in vain and I know that sometimes I fail. I say silly things like son of a biscuit and Holy Crap. But, that's getting me off track.

    In reality, taking Jesus' name in vain isn't a sin. The Ten Commandments only says that you cannot take the Lord's name in vain and Jesus isn't God now is He? He is the Son of God, so taking His name in vain is not the samething as taking His Father's name in vain. Actually, since Jesus considered all of us His brothers and sisters, perhaps, we could take each other's names in vain. Like, the next time I get mad, I could yell JULIE MARIE! (like my father often did when I was a kid) instead of JESUS CHRIST and then I'd be off the hook for any sinning in that grey area of whether or not taking Jesus' name in vain is a sin, which I think it isn't, so it really doesn't matter and I just made you waste five minutes of your life you'll never get back.


    Hmmm, kind of catchy, isn't it?

    God Bless

    Labels: , , , , , , ,

    Thursday, July 02, 2009

    Open Letter to President Obama

    Dear President Obama;
    I've sent comments to you on healthcare, but the box only takes 500 characters and I am much more long winded than that. Also, I haven't received any response. But, I'm not writing this to complain, but to help people take notice.
    First and foremost, we shouldn't rush any of this. Theodore Roosevelt wanted national healthcare at the beginning of the last century and we've lived this long without it. Let's take our time. I know there's a feeling of urgency what with the economy trying to climb out of the toliet and the American public supporting you by 65%, but let's not make hasty decisions.
    Second, any plan that adds yet another tax onto the backs of the middle class is not a plan worthy of mention. Those of us in the middle class pay enough taxes as it is. Right now, between Federal and State taxes, Social Security and Medicare, 1/3 of my paycheck is gone and I haven't even walked out of the building. Let's find the money some other way. (I'm for stopping farm substidies to large corporations and weekend farmers. The substidies weren't supposed to be paid out for more than five years when they started. It's just ridiculous that people like Sam Donaldson gets farm substidies, but I digress.) I'm pretty sure that at some point in the next few years, our taxes are going to have to go up, but let's not tax one of the few benefits we enjoy.
    Now, having said # 2, let me mention #3: Let's give HUGE tax breaks to companies that cover at least 75% of an employee's healthcare and even bigger tax breaks to companies that cover 90%. Let's not make them pay taxes on any money spent on healthcare for employees' dependents. A lot of the uninsured are children and by giving employers the push to do the right thing, we might be able to knock more than half of the uninsured off the list.
    Four, and this is big, let's not have national healthcare, but a national standard. And, here's why; we don't want to give companies a break on taxes and then have them use some shoddy fly by night insurance company that doesn't cover the basics. A pound of prevention is worth an ounce of cure, after all. We need wellness visits and mammograms, etc. to be covered. And, the standards set must be followed whether the company is self-insured or not. I spoke with a company representative where I work and she insisted that they didn't have to follow the minimums set by Illinois because they were self-insured. I couldn't find an answer on whether or not she was lying, so let's just get that part out of the way. If you follow at least the minimums, you get the tax break, if not, you don't. He who pays the band gets to pick the music, so companies shouldn't expect breaks, if they don't want to have the minimums.
    Finally, whatever healthcare plan we pick or whatever minimums we set; Congress should be set at the same standard. If they had to live with our healthcare, the healthcare system wouldn't be broken.
    I hope you see this, President Obama.
    God Bless
    A Concerned Citizen

    Labels: , , , , ,

    Tuesday, June 23, 2009

    Taxing Healthcare Benefits

    Okay, if you're a regular reader of my blog, you know that one of the three reasons I didn't vote for McCain was that he wanted to put a tax on my healthcare benefits. Yesterday, a co-worker of mine mentioned that he hoped I was happy now that Obama was going to start taxing healthcare benefits. I was more than a little stunned, especially since 1/3 of my reasons for voting for Obama was that he was against this idea. So, this morning, I have set out on a mission to see if I can find the justification for my co-worker's remark. I have found one article, but then my router went down and I discovered that my archives weren't working, so I haven't finished reading the article, but trust me, I will get to the bottom of this and I will be calling Feingold, Kohl and Ryan to let them know the taxing of healthcare benefits is wrong.
    One quick thought before I'm off:
    article I'm reading states "The wealthy enjoy the biggest boon from the policy, with their better jobs and richer perks. Still, Obama and many lawmakers are reluctant to embrace a tax." Well, I don't think I would be considered among the wealthy of the country, so there might be hope. I wouldn't be opposed to paying taxes on the healthcare if, say, they had to earn a certain amount, like $100,000 for a single person and $200,000 for a married person -- that, my dear friends, would leave most of us out of it.
    Anyway, I would like to formulate a better thought on this, but I want to do my research -- just like I did when McCain first proposed this idea.
    Oh, I almost forgot, according to my co-worker, this taxing of healthcare is Hillary's idea and it was part of the "deal" she made with Obama last year. Where is that coming from? Anyone know?
    God Bless

    Labels: , , , , , , ,

    Tuesday, June 16, 2009

    Did you hear the one?

    Sherri Goforth should not lose her job for sending a racist email. Actually, no one should and here's why.
    We live in a free society where all forms of speech are protected. Now, I happen to work in a zero tolerance environment where any non-work related email can get me fired. But, we're not talking about me. If we want to truly talk about tolerance, then people who send racist emails need to be shown compassion, not lose their jobs.
    I realize this woman works for the state, but racists happen to be people, too. Sherri Goforth said that she sent the email by mistake. Who hasn't hit reply all when they shouldn't? Firing her isn't going to change his racist views. It'll only make them worse. Trust me on that. Racists hate being treated nice -- especially by the race they hate the most, so if I was Sherri's African-American co-worker, I'd be as nice as all get out to her. It'll piss her off.
    But, that's just me.
    God Bless

    Labels: , , , ,

    Thursday, June 11, 2009

    I was thinking

    I was thinking this morning, as I was reading an article about Miss Porter's School for Girls in Vanity Fair about coddling and blaming. And, I was thinking about why the economy has failed and what needs to be done and the car companies and I came up with this disjointed blog you're now reading.
    First, what goes up - must come down. After the boom years of the '90s, it was only natural that the economy bottoms out.
    Second, deregulation and the allowing of banks to be investors, too, didn't seem to help. And, isn't that sad? For most things, I'm not really into government regulation. I think businesses should be allowed to run themselves. I do believe it is sad that we need laws that protect people based on their sexual orientation, religion and race. I have held three jobs where, once my immediate supervisor found out I was gay, he (and I say he because they were all men) would have fired me, if it wasn't illegal for him to do so. I worked one job in Illinois, where they didn't have the protection (they might now, I do not know) and when my boss found out I was gay, out the door I went. And, it is more than that. Our government shouldn't have to mandate a reduction in greenhouse gases. Businesses should be able to make changes without being told what to do like little children, but they don't do they?
    Case in point -- the car companies -- Chrysler is now own by Fiat, Ford is struggling (but the only one with a chance to survive -- and I've put my own money into that notion) and GM will be gone soon -- and, yet, why did this happen? Well, for one thing, no had to force Toyota and the other foreign car companies into building higher mpg cars. They did it and they won the car battle. Now, after taking government money, both Chrysler and GM are closing American plants that employ American workers and leaving foreign plants open. Isn't that a kick in the rubber parts?
    Finally, I think in the last eight years, there were bad decisions being made all around. As a country, we're fighting two wars, we cut taxes (for the rich, at least, the middle class is still screwed) and we didn't spend money on infastructure (our roads and bridges are falling apart). Add the thought that when given an option, people will do what is best for the greater good (on a whole) and suddenly, you have banks and investment firms failing left and right.
    And, now, the President wants to try to initiate a Pay as you Go plan and he's being critized by a bunch of people (Republicans) who claim to be fiscally responsible and weren't. How else could we increase spending ($10 billion in Iraq every month since the war began total? $720 billion and all of it borrowed, none of it we will see again and someone is now very rich and it ain't me).

    God Bless

    Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

    Monday, March 02, 2009

    Trail Obama

    I received in an email the following press release about a new site. It was started by a college graduate who has lost his job in the new economy. I checked it out and it looks interesting. Give it a read.

    As the world looks on in awe at the new day among us, a new era has begun in America. The folks at are well aware of the fascination with President Barack Obama and his every move. provides the public with insight into exactly what President Obama is doing day-to-day.
    The TrailObama staff selects the most relevant, unbiased content to showcase action items that the President is acting upon. Interestingly enough, the TrailObama team is comprised of both democrats and republicans in a bi-partisan effort to show the people that you can indeed come across the aisle to achieve a common goal. "Our goal is to get down to the meat and potatoes - to sift through the most relevant eye catching action items of President Obama so that the user can decide whether or not Barack Obama is doing a good job" says TrailObama content manager Bryan Bloom. The site was created when the TrailObama team noticed that when trying to keep up with current Presidential happenings, they couldn't easily find what's been checked off the President's to-do list. TrailObama gives you the uncanny ability to cut through opinions and hearsay and get straight to the facts so you can formulate your own opinions about his actions.
    Currently, the site allows you to get a daily serving of the President's tasks at hand, vote on weekly polls regarding the presidency, peruse news pertaining to President Obama from a variety of sources, scroll over a visual timeline of President Obama's first 100 days in office, and discuss each news item with other visitors. The team is expected to roll out a slew of new features and content over the next weeks, months, and years, including stock charts to see how the economy and each specific market has fared since Obama took office on January 20th, 2009. Beware of our Obama look-a-like contest coming soon!!!

    Labels: , , , ,

    Thursday, February 19, 2009

    Obama and Foreclosed Houses

    My dad was here today, along with my baby brother. Dad took us kids out for a late breakfast and Brian took care of the liter and other things I couldn't do because of my knee surgery. My dad made a comment about Obama "helping" me out and while I kind of let it go, the truth is my pop's is actually wrong.

    Nothing Obama has done so far in office is truly going to help me. Tax breaks for families don't affect unmarried, childless couples. (I'm waiting on the tax break that is supposedly going to place an extra $13.00 a week into my pocket starting in June.)

    But, even though I don't support everything in the stimulus, it's better than nothing. Now, I've been reading that Obama has an idea for bailing out 9 million families who are close to losing their houses. And, guess who is objecting even though the whole plan hasn't been revealed? Amazing, isn't it?

    I'm not too thrilled at the idea that people who haven't paid their mortgages are going to get to keep their houses while I the taxpaying, home owning, mortgage paying person pays the bill. On the other hand, every home that is foreclosed brings down the housing prices in that area and that does affect me. My city isn't going to reduce the assessment of my home when houses are being foreclosed on. And, if they do, they'd probably raise my taxes in order to justify it.

    And, wouldn't that suck?

    According to President Obama, this plan won't help "'It will not rescue the unscrupulous or irresponsible by throwing good taxpayer money after bad loans. It will not help speculators who took risky bets on a rising market and bought homes not to live in but to sell," Obama said Wednesday. "It will not reward folks who bought homes they knew from the beginning they would never be able to afford.'" (quoted from Now, I know a family where they purchased a home they could afford, but the breadwinner lost his job and now they're struggling. If this is who will gain assistance, than I'm all for it. As far as the stupid idea that banks shouldn't be forced to have mortgages adjusted down, why not? Aren't they the morons who loaned this money in the first place? In some cases, they loaned to people irresponsibly now. Shouldn't they have to pay for that? And, here's something else. Why do we need 75 Billion dollars to help 9 million families? That does seem a bit high. I think I could do it cheaper. But, at least Obama is trying to do something. He's starting the dialogue.

    Oh -- one last statement -- Republicans, you lost. You got us in this mess, so shut up. Most of us aren't listening to you jackasses anymore.

    God Bless

    Labels: , ,

    Wednesday, February 04, 2009

    Come and Get Me Rush Dittoheads...

    According to the Dignity Index in this week's Newsweek, Georgia Representative Phil Gingrey told Rush Limbaugh to pipe down. Then, the poor man had to "grovel for forgiveness" becasue of the heat he took for it.

    So, our great country has truly, truly lost its collective mind. We're going to give someone crap because he had the nerve, honor, brains and courage to stand up to this country's biggest no knowing blowhard?

    Did I wake up in the USSR?

    Let's face it, "folks", Rush's days are numbered. Anyone who has been listening to him for the last twenty years has to realize that he's just running scared. His "I hope he fails" and his creepy and unAmerican idea that any Republican who works with Obama isn't a real Republican is proving more and more that he's out of touch with reality and what America needs.

    In case you're wondering what Representative Gingrey said, I'm posting it below:

    "It's easy if you're Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don't have to try to do what's best for your people and your party. You know you're just on these talk shows and you're living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of that thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn't be or wouldn't be good leaders." -- source Atlanta Journal-Constitution

    The man has a point. Right now, the "right" is in trouble. Their old ways of "small" government and tax cuts isn't going to get us out of the mess we've gotten ourselves into over the last eight years. We're going to have to join together and work on fixing the country the best we can. Over the last sixteen years, we've neglected our infrastructure and over the last eight years, we've wasted the surplus we once had. Our issues won't be solved over night, but if we don't work together -- they won't be solved at all.

    Jerks like Limbaugh really don't want the nation's issues to be fixed. They live for the divisions morons like him have worked to create. On top of that, they would rather sacrifice America's future than be proven wrong or even admit there might be a better way.

    Remember that the next time the windbag appears on your radio -- he doesn't give a rat's ass about you or me or this country. He cares about ratings.

    God Bless

    Labels: , , , , , , , , ,