So Here's the Deal...

So I guess I don’t understand why it’s ok for any member of congress to switch party affiliations in the middle of a term.

As everyone knows by now, Capt. Richard Phillips of the ship Maersk Alabama, was rescued by the US Navy.

If we set the standard of taking a very tough stance and not giving in for any reason, we won’t have the issue any more. And if others follow the same example, its going to change the way the pirates handle themselves as well.

I am just wondering, does anyone out there still believe this whole "Bailout" is working?

So now AIG is saying that if they don't dish out about 165 million in bonuses, they can be sued, for twice that much.

and NOW the government is saying... Whooooo, slow down, you cant do that, The taxpayers wont stand for it.

what we are not hearing about is the fact that the government (Us, that is...) owns about 80% of AIG at this point, thanks to about 170 Billion dollars (yeah, with a B)

How did we get ourselves into this? The wonderful world of bailouts... or what we really should be calling it, "Socialization"

what the government isn't saying is that they didn't know what they were getting themselves (Us) into.

They are to busy saying "We will help struggling banks and investment houses", what they should be doing is looking at the financial obligations that these companies have before they jump into bailing them out. If these companies have a financial obligation to payout bonuses, or other debts that are legitimately owed... they certainly CAN do that.

If you purchase a small business that has $100,000 in debt, guess what, you now own $100,000 in debt, it doesn't go away because there are now new owners. What you do as a responsible adult, and caretaker of your family's funds, is research all of the financial obligations that that company has, credits and debts. If it is a good investment, you purchase it, if its not, you pass... I wonder what kind of researching the US Government did before they actually decided to throw this money at these failing corporations?

What it comes down to is, these bailouts are nonsense.

lets look at the way the federal government has handled the other things they have jumped into... like disaster relief, millions of dollars in relief materials rotting in storage after Katrina, because they didn't have the infrastructure in place to distribute the relief, war efforts (if you agree with them or not, you have to admit... we still haven't seen any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq), a medical program that overcharges those that have insurance, to pay for those that don't and a welfare system that is downright criminal, paying people to sit at home and have children instead of forcing them to get out and find jobs.

Do you guys really want or trust the government to handle giving out money to companies that need it?

I want them to defend us and our borders, and keep their noses out of our business, and businesses.

If these companies are failing, it is the governments duty protect our national interest if any are involved with that company...meaning, assume that part of those companies that are vital to our security, and then let the company go bankrupt. Let the investors take the hit not the taxpayers. I didn't choose to invest in AIG... yet I still am invested. Funny how that works.

 People are freaking out about the stock market, and saying if AIG goes down.. stocks will plummet, and others will follow. So is it now OUR jobs to keep the stock markets afloat.

Maybe we need to see that the stock market isn't a real representation of our economy. Its a more elaborate way of gambling. and I don't want my government taking my money to the casinos. I was always told the same thing about casinos and the stock market, don't put in more than you can afford to lose.

So, yesterday, the stock market closed at its lowest point since 1997.

The unemployment rate is at 7.6 % and is "expected to peak" at about 9%

Food pantries, and soup kitchens are at capacity

The Presidents ratings are starting to slip, But the economy cant really be that bad could it?

If it really was, then how could we be pledging $900 Million to help rebuilt Gaza?

Guys, I don't get it... If my family were going hungry, I sure wouldn't be sending money to someone around the world instead of feeding them.

It seems to me, the help should be in concentric rings emanating at YOUR HOME. You help YOUR family, YOUR friends, then your neighbors, then your local community, State, Country... and Only then should we be giving away out tax dollars to another country. 

Are we prepared to leave OUR people without food, and unemployed just so we can be keep up the humanitarian facade? Looks like the answer is yes, we are... or should I say "Yes, we can"

I'm now losing faith in you Mr. President. I feel like we are going back to the same old same old, Government as usual.

When are we going to see that this whole "Save the world" attitude, isn't working anymore. Lets pull the guys into the ship that are treading water around us before we sail somewhere else to help a sinking ship (not that Gaza is a sinking ship but in this context, it fits the analogy)

Hey, I'm all for saving the whales, and the dolphins, and the wolves, and the hungry in other countries and the little men on Pluto (they have to be feeling really bad, they don't even belong to a planet anymore)

But it has to start at HOME. lets fix US before we fix anyone else. I think we are already stretched a bit thin, and we need to start worrying about what we need, and then what we want.

I have come to the conclusion in my head, that either the economy isn't as bad as our government wants us to believe (because then it would look like a greater achievement when it is fixed) or This new regime is just as bad at spending as the last one.... or two.... or 6

Maybe the media should just start saying that the economy is fine... nothing to worry about.

wouldn't that put people at ease, and get them out to "Stimulate" the economy a bit more, in reality.. this did all start with the media talking about how bad its going to get. people get scared, start pulling their money out of the banks and hiding it under their mattress.

I don't know, I think this is going to be a roller coaster for a while.

So, heres the deal.

I didn't vote for Barack Obama. Not because I don't like him or because I like McCain, And not because I am a Republican (I am a true independent)

I didn't vote for him because no one could tell me before the election one single thing that Barack Obama did for our country, And I'm talking good or bad.

I had a member of his campaigning group come to the door, and I asked the same question. "What is one single action Mr Obama has done for the betterment of our country?"

Response....

"He was a great community servant in Chicago, active in local issues," blah blah blah 

So, that is my reasoning behind Voting for McCain, I figured he wouldn't be able to single handedly kill us all in four years, and with a democratically controlled congress, it would be very hard for him to push thru anything without great scrutiny.

So, am I bitter? Do I wish McCain would have pulled of the upset?

Nope. Truth is I am really digging Obama. I wouldn't say I am ready to drink the Kool-aid just yet, But, I like the way he speaks, and acts with the American public, I like the way he connects with the common man. And I really like the way he has selected his advisers based on experience rather than political affiliation. (well, except the tax evading Timothy Geithner... thats another story, Anyone that has ever received a call or letter from the IRS should be downright pissed about that guy) Other than that, I like just about everyone else he has aligned himself with.

I am all for giving this guy a chance to prove himself, lets see what he has got.

What I don't want to start hearing is, "He cant do much because he inherited a trillion dollar deficit from Bush"

He said he could, he didn't campaign with the slogan "We will see what we can do"

I think he is off to a good start, I like the stimulus package that he put together, especially the part that allocates funds for uniforms to be spent on AMERICAN MADE PRODUCTS.

I tend to believe that a great portion of the downturn in the economy is all fear related. I think we are the same country that had money to burn 3 years ago, everyone was spending money. It was when the media started uttering the words "recession and depression" that everyone started clamming up with their wallets, and from there it trickles down.

I think that if our country picks itself up, dusts off the last year or so, and starts thinking positive, it will all come around.

I am pulling for Barack....

Mr. President.... show us the way.

About this time of year, everyone starts their food drives and holiday soup kitchens.

and about 4 years ago, My family started our yearly pantry clean out, figuring the two would go hand in hand.

except for one problem... WE COULDN'T FIND ANYONE TO TAKE THE FOOD!

I drove to multiple places trying to donate canned and boxed food. At least 3 people told me, "hey there is that food pantry over on wherever and whatever", guess what, they only accept money so they can buy food to hand out. I get the concept there, The can specially formulate the menus and food package to be healthy and as nutritionally balances as possible.

Problem is, on the other side of the coin, I am not sure that the homeless guy that is coming to the soup kitchen really cares about what is in his belly, as long as its warm and the belly is full. He has more important things to worry about than if he got his recommended daily supply of niacin.

The same thing is true for toys. My family is very blessed with just about everything we want and definitely everything that we need. My child has toys, upon toys, Many that he has never played with, except to unwrap and put in one of his at least 3 toy boxes.

When it comes time to purge some of those toys, to make room for the next wave where do you go with them?

The only thing I know to do with them is take them to goodwill, which is a fine organization, except, I don't really want other people to have to buy toys that we are trying to give away.

I don't want to come off as some elitist jerk here, we do absolutely give our fair share to charity, and we do donate the new food, and diapers at the pic n save bins (admittedly not as often as we should), and we have taken the homeless guy into the subway downtown and bought him 2 subs, one for now and one for later. My son wants to put money into the salvation army buckets every time he sees them. We have taught him that we are very lucky in life. and we have taught him that others are not as lucky as we are, and that we shouldn't pity people, but we should help if we can.

Both his mother and I have lived on that other side of things. Not as bad as some have it, but not as good as it should have been.

I can tell you this, when I didn't have anything for the holidays, I would have loved a can of soup, or a new-ish toy under the tree for Xmas.

I wish there were some place that we could take our good warm clothing, our good food stuffs, and our used toys that would distribute them, without cost to anyone that wants them.

If you guys know of any places, post them here, there has to be others out there that have this same issue.....

and that food that we couldn't find anyone to take, we have been just boxing it up and dropping at a large church on Whitenall  that advertises a food pantry on certain days.

I figure, If I box it up, and drop it off early on the days that the food pantry is open, either they will take it in, they will throw it away, or someone coming early to get some "help with food" will find it and put it to good use

Interview Questions for the common conservative

In a recent post, I asked for a few conservatives and a few liberals to join me in an unbiased, moderated live debate to be posted in my forum.

I received numerous replies from conservatives, that were wishing to share their views on current political issues, and received none at all from any liberals. I was actually quite surprised, because I was thinking that I would have liberals coming out of the woodworks, looking to voice their opinions of "Change".

That being said, I am changing the format a little, I am going to let the people that responded to my request, go ahead and tell me how they feel, and what their concerns are.

I again make the same offer to any liberal minded readers as well, contact me and I will make out a question and answer sheet for you as well, or if you would be interested in the original debate I would still like that as well.

My questions are in bold and responses form my conservative friend are not.

• 1. Number one on my mind, in recent political issues.. The Bailout. Now in all fairness I understand that congress and the president are not taking my 700 Billion and giving it to Wall Street, There is a formula that comes out to the US Government making money on this if it all works out as planned. That Being said, at is your opinion of the bailout situation, whom is to blame and should we even bail out publically traded companies?

The problem was caused by our not-so -well meaning government, in their attempts to win/buy votes with government policy changes.  Go back and read the New York Times from the 1999 time frame (who was president then)?  It's all there, how the Clinton Administration was inflicting policy on lending institutions that required minority quotas for loans given, and tied a financial institution's ability to transact business to their adhering to these guidelines.  In other words, the free market risk avoidance that normally occurred was removed forcibly by the government.

Later, when the Administration (now Bush's) tried to warn congress about the fraudulent practices taking place within these agencies, they were greeted as follows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

How much more plain can it be that Democrats caused this.  The original policy that worked so well at qualifying the unqualified was then discovered by the middle class, who bought homes by the thousands that they could not afford, or extended themselves wildly because all the pieces were already in place to do so.  All of the events in question are a matter of public record, even videotaped (CSPAN) in many cases.  We need to run out these elected representatives who can be shown to be directly involved, throw out (with only their shirts on their backs) the industry leaders who willingly played along, and adopt minimal, but effective oversight to protect investors in the future.

The bailout package should be a purchase of preferred stocks, with built in provisions to ensure that the first opportunity to extract profit is granted to the US taxpayer.  The selloff should occur as soon as possible, but provide maximum benefit to the taxpayers. 

• 2. What is your honest opinion of John McCain? Do you think he is a good candidate and are you concerned that he is not conservative enough?

I think John McCain is a good honorable man.  I find him too quick to abandon conservative approaches, and lean toward government/Democrat fixes for the issues we face.  A case in point would be the campaign finance reform he crafted with our own "Maverick" Russ Feingold.  Have you noticed a reduction in the number of 3^rd party political advertisements since this brilliance was produced?  Another move "across the aisle" was the immigration legislation he was pushing with Ted Kennedy.  This was rightfully described as an amnesty bill, which would reward illegals for their behavior, and perpetuate the continued flow of illegals. 

I believe he does these things with the best of intentions, but he thoroughly relishes his own "Maverick" label.  He was not my choice out of the primary process, but it might be true that he is the only Republican who might be able to win in this unusual election year.

• 3. Does Sarah Palin have the experience to be a capable VP and/or President if McCain is incapable to complete his term(s)?

If Sarah Palin does not have the experience to be the VP, then how can a community organizer (one of many), a state legislator (one of many) who frequently voted "present", and a US Senator (one of many), for 18 months be qualified for the top spot. 

She has been a mayor (executive position), on the state energy board (one of many), and a governor (executive position). 

I believe they are running for the top EXECUTIVE spot, so if you don't discuss Obama's experience, leave Palin alone.

• 4. What do you see as the best part of the McCain/Palin platform?

Taxes kept as low as possible with spending/earmarks under attack.

• 5. What do you see as the worst part of the McCain/Palin platform?

The fact that McCain has knuckled under to the fraudulent claims of the global warming,,,,,global cooling,,,,,,no, wait, the climate change crowd.  It tells me that

he is a bit of a liberal when it comes to answering the focus groups to chase votes.

• 6. What issues concern you the most if Obama is to be elected?

The tax climate he will create is going to stagnate the economy, and when you figure in his apparent affiliations with people who detest a capitalist America, I have to wonder if his goal is to move America, on several fronts, toward socialism, not just the "socialism light" that is American liberalism.

• 7. Are there any issues that you agree with Obama on?

Since he has completed the deal (so liberal that he made Hillary sound like Barry Goldwater) in the primaries, he did the customary hard turn to the right in the general election.  He now sounds almost like a hawk with regard to some defense issues, even though I know he's not being truthful.  Those are the issues I can most closely relate to him on (right now).

• 8. Is there a democrat that you can think of that would make a good president? And if so, Whom?

Zell Miller is a democrat who, like Ronald Reagan, has been left behind by the modern democrats.  He is the only democrat that comes to mind as a person that I share a basic set of values with.  I don't know his stance on all the issues, but I think we agree on the basic role of government.  That might not sound like much, but it's a big part of the battle these days.

• 9. What is the most important political issue that is at stake in this election?

I would say there are two issues: National Security and Supreme Court appointments.  Without security, we will not have the environment to live freely as Americans, but without justices willing to uphold the tenets of the constitution, we won't have the framework to exist as Americans.  As an example, I have seen several times in the last few years instances where Justice Kennedy was basing his opinion on the reading of foreign law.  Is there anyone who can explain how foreign law helps one determine the intentions of the U.S. framers?  If he is searching for context, many of the framers were widely published in their own right.

• 10. Understanding that it is hard to get your views across while asking direct questions, I would like to give you this opportunity to write whatever you would like about the current situation of politics today.

The 3^rd issue to deal with, in answer to question 10, is voter fraud.  Conservatives have been worked up about voter fraud for some time now, but if anyone can point out a single reason to not scrutinize same day and early voting along with the ACORN voter registration drives, I'll buy them lunch.  (Bear in mind that I will be the judge of whether or not I pummeled your lame excuse senseless before I provide the Beans & Weenies.)

Jim Doyle and the state Democrats are lying cheaters for standing in the way of voter ID.  Every time they have ponied up a bogus excuse, it is answered promptly, to the point that they have no longer tried to present good excuses.  They know that cheating is the only hope they have, they like it, and they want it to continue.

Bill Gramann

I have to tell you guys, I am pretty pissed off about this whole bailout thing.

Not only am I pissed off that our government is taking money and funneling it to wall street (and other private sectors) but I am down right pissed that this even happened in the first place. It is our governments job to protect us as citizens, and they did not. This whole mess isn't something that happened overnight, there is a long laundry list of people that have blood on their hands here, all the way back to the Bill Clinton era.

A great deal of this started by the house democrats at the urging of Bill Clinton to extend sub-prime loans to under qualified individuals.

This can be looked at in a few different ways, it can be said that Bill and his backers were working for the blue collar workers that didn't have the qualifications to own a home according to the standards set by the lending organizations.

It can (and will) be said that the democrats were using this tactic to increase support for the Democrats voting base, and that the fallout if any would be handled down the road in a future administration.

I am also a little upset at the whole insistence  that banks make sub-prime loans anyway, what right does the government have to urge a private sector (loan companies) to extend mortgages to individuals that aren't qualified? There are tens of millions of us our here in this country that work hard to eek out a living and are trying hard to keep our credit ratings where they need to be, either building credit the right way, or rebounding from previous mistakes (who doesn't have a few of those). We check our credit reports vigilantly, we make the right decisions on applying for credit, and we make sure our payments are on time. And all this for what? So people that are not doing all of these things can get a short cut called sub-prime loans.

Look, I don't care if someone is black, white, Asian, a legal immigrant, or just some schmoo from around the block, we are all supposed to have the same standards of living, the same rights and the same standards. Right is right. and now the government is discriminating against hard working Americans that are doing the things that they said we need to do by keeping our credit ratings in good shape, so we can get loans, and other forms of credit. Way to show everyone that we are equal there congress. Ridiculous !!

So after all of these sub-prime loans were secured, there were some members of congress that actually saw that we were heading for disaster (years ago). There are members of both parties that expressed concern, and lets give credit where credit is due here, Both Obama and McCain wrote letters to the treasury department letting them know that there were holes in that situation.

So why didn't anyone do anything about it?

MONEY, of course.

the following is from a British newspaper called "The independent" this is one of the few true independent unbiased papers that I have found for reference materials:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-democrat-fingerprints-are-all-over-the-financial-crisis-949653.html

Of all the characteristics of a successful politician, none is more essential than bare-faced cheek. Never has this been more evident than in the past fortnight, as senior Democrat members of the US legislature have sought to lay all the blame for the country's financial crisis on the executive arm of Government and Wall Street.

Neither of these two institutions is blameless – far from it. Yet when I see such senior Democrats as Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Christopher Dodd, Chairman of the Senate's Banking Committee, play the part of avenging angels – well, I can only stand in silent awe at the sheer tight-bottomed nerve of it. These are men with sphincters of steel.

What is the proximate cause of the collapse of confidence in the world's banks? Millions of improvident loans to American housebuyers. Which organisations were on their own responsible for guaranteeing half of this $12 trillion market? Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the so-called Government Sponsored Enterprises which last month were formally nationalised to prevent their immediate and catastrophic collapse. Now, who do you think were among the leading figures blocking all the earlier attempts by President Bush – and other Republicans – to bring these lending behemoths under greater regulatory control? Step forward, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

In September 2003 the Bush administration launched a measure to bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under stricter regulatory control, after a report by outside investigators established that they were not adequately hedging against risks and that Fannie Mae in particular had scandalously mis-stated its accounts. In 2006, it was revealed that Fannie Mae had overstated its earnings – to which its senior executives' bonuses were linked – by a stunning $9.3billion. Between 1998 and 2003, Fannie Mae's executive chairman, Franklin Raines, picked up over $90m in bonuses and stock options.

Yet Barney Frank and his chums blocked all Bush's attempts to put a rein on Raines. During the House Financial Services Committee hearing following Bush's initiative, Frank declared: "The more people exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness [at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae], the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially." His colleague on the committee, the California Democrat Maxine Walters, said: "There were nearly a dozen hearings where we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Mr Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly at Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Mr Franklin Raines."

When Mr Raines himself was challenged by the Republican Christopher Shays, to the effect that his ratio of capital to assets (that is, mortgages) of 3 per cent was dangerously low, the Fannie Mae boss retorted that "our assets are so riskless, we could have a capital ratio of under 2 per cent".

Maxine Walters' complaint about previous attempts to bring the great state-sponsored housing finance bodies under stricter control was partly a reference to Bill Clinton's efforts. Last week the former President acknowledged that "responsibility" for the absence of proper regulation rested "with Democrats who were resisting any efforts of Republicans in Congress, and earlier when I was President and tried to impose tighter standards on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac". Then, as now, members of his own party saw all such initiatives as unwonted attacks on the chances for low-earners, and particularly African-Americans, to own their own homes.

From its inception in 1938 Fannie Mae (and later Freddie Mac) was designed to make housing finance available to "ordinary Americans". This was a noble aim. In the 1970s another Democrat President, Jimmy Carter, introduced legislation which demanded that such bodies enhance their lending to minorities. Again, this was based on a noble idea: to stamp out racism in the mortgage market. Thus by 1998 you had the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston producing a document entitled "Closing the Gap: a Guide to Equal Opportunities Lending", which instructed banks that an applicant's "lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor" in obtaining a mortgage. As Stephen Malanga of the Manhatta *Institute notes: "Of course the new federal standards couldn't just apply to minorities. If they could pay back loans under these terms, then so could the majority of loan applicants. Quickly, these became the new standards in the industry. As the housing market boomed, banks embraced these new standards with a vengeance. Between 2004 and 2007, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became the biggest purchasers of sub-prime mortgages from all kinds of applicants, white and minority, and most of these loans were based on lending standards promoted by the Government."

One of the few journalists to see where this would lead was Jeff Jacoby, of the Boston Globe. Last week he reminded his readers what he had written in 1995: "Our banks are knowingly approving risky loans to get the feds and the activists off their backs... When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians and regulators plans to take the credit?". Jacoby adds now: "Barney Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco."

It's true that the improvident lending was not initiated by Fannie and Freddie: their role in this was to buy these loans and sell them on – but then the music stopped. Cynical students of the American political system will note that the biggest recipient of campaign contributions from the munificent duo of Fannie and Freddie over the past 20 years was one Christopher Dodd, Democrat Chairman of the Senate's Banking Committee.

Rather surprisingly, given that he has only been in the Senate for four of those years, the second biggest beneficiary was Barack Obama. In August the Washington Post reported that Obama's presidential campaign team had sought the advice of Franklin Raines "on mortgage and housing policy matters". Perhaps Mr Obama's team just wanted to know where all the bodies are buried – there are rather a lot of them.

The saddest outcome of all this within America – apart from the crippling cost to the nation's taxpayers – is that the very people the Democrats had intended to help will be the biggest victims: for many years to come banks will demand the most stringent terms for mortgages to the least well off.

In the meantime, let us praise Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama, who confessed this week: "Like a lot of my Democrat colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised. I wish my Democrat colleagues would admit that we were wrong." I fear Congressman Davis will not go far with this attitude – but at least he will be able to look at himself in the mirror.

d.lawson@independent.co.uk

I don't absolve the republicans from guilt here. If you see that there is something of this magnitude going on, its your job to bring it to the attention of the American people. The republicans can say whatever they want about not getting unbiased media time, but rest assured that if the president calls a press conference, it will get on the air, LIVE and globally at that. so that excuse doesn't really work.

They should have addressed this, and I can guarantee you that there would have been alot of people that are losing money from there 401k that would have moved their monies elsewhere.

Lots of blame to go around here guys, and lots of people pointing the finger at the other side, and lots of this shucking responsibility just to win an election, when we should be finding a way to fix this. maybe they don't want to fix it until the election is over, then the winner can take credit for the upswing and leave the crisis firmly behind them with the easiest scapegoat presidency legacy in history. I mean, everyone hates Bush so much, its easy to throw this on him as well. And it will stick.

some of it with justification and some not.

Ok, thats it for me this week guys,

I am trying to link my blog to twitter in the near future, so anyone that is interested can follow along with the blogs as well as my general ramblings at my twitter address,

Ivanspappa is my twitter name, see you guys there

I keep hearing about the unemployment rates in the US climbing.

I have a very firm opinion on unemployment in our country,

See, I am a farm boy.... Born and raised in an old plantation home in Virginia.(ok, born in a hospital then brought home) We worked for a living. Actual honest hard work.

When I was growing up, we were up at 4:30 in the mornings to tend to the animals. we had cows, pigs, horses, a donkey, a mule, Chickens and the list goes on and on.  after all of the animals were fed and we brought the firewood in for the day, we got ready for the hour and fifteen minute bus ride to school.

After school it was the same routine, come home, finish whatever homework you couldn't get finished on the bus trip home, then feed the animals, go pull weeds out of the garden, bring in firewood for the night, eat dinner, have a bath, and if its not too late you could watch an episode of wheel of fortune, or the news before bedtime.

then in the summer time, the young men would go out with their dads and cut firewood that you would sell in the winter or harvest watermelons and tomatoes for the little side of the road veg/fruit stand to make ends meet.

 When you get a little older, you were hired out to neighbors to help plow fields or harvest tobacco (thats a fun one there, if you have never been on a tobacco farm  crawling around on hands and knees all day pulling tobacco leaves, give it a shot, then tell me about how working at McDonald's is so hard)

My point here is this. When I read about people not being able to find jobs, and hearing about how the unemployment rates are so high, then I look at the paper and see that there is STILL a help wanted section in there and there are still job openings, Or I see help wanted signs in windows.  I wonder how people can be unemployed.

I think that every man or woman that can work, should work (with the exception of the mothers or fathers that stay home to raise their children out of choice)

I don't think we should start handing out taxpayer money to people that are perpetually looking for work. If you are an able bodied American citizen, and there are jobs to be had, there is no reason for the government to start handing you a check.

If you had a factory job and got laid off, and you cant find another factory job.... don't sit around waiting for another job to find you, Go get some kind of job, any kind of job, and if you still don't make ends meet, then THAT is the time for the government to start handing out assistance.

There are times that people think that some jobs are below them, that if you were a VP of a company, there is no way you should be forced to work at a fast food chain before the government will help you. that is an insult to EVERYONE that works in a fast food chain. No one is better than anyone when it comes to unemployment.

and when the day does come that we have no jobs left, we can start talking about illegal immigrants that are working in our country. they have to be working somewhere. and if they are working and you are not, then you should be angry about that.

I am currently looking for a few Democrats, to take part in a moderated debate forum that I am putting together.

the Idea here will be kind of like a Larry King discussion about topics, mainly political, sometimes not.

the concept is, I would put together a chat that brings Democrats and Republicans together to discuss the topics in a controlled environment so there is no talking over one another, or just rambling to the point that the other side does not get a chance to give their opinions.

It will be completely unbiased, the questions will not be given ahead of time but the topic will. I will post the questions in a chat room, and give perhaps 3 minutes for one side to answer, then the other, then a minute or two rebuttal for each side.

All participants can remain anonymous, as I will remove personal information from the chat logs before posting in the blog. If you would like to have your information posted, I would include that as well.

I am thinking of doing this maybe every 2 or 3 weeks as an ongoing blog segment, but perhaps a little more frequently as the elections approach.

I would like to have intelligent debates on the issues,

If you are interested in just insulting th other participants, or just making general statements about political parties, (like the bush regime is the downfall to everything good in the world, or Obama will destroy life as we know it)  don't get involved, that will not get posted, i will edit it out.

If you know party platform, and want to make sure people are getting the information that they should without being skewed by mudslinging, post here, and I will get in touch with you.

So today I want to take a break from pointing fingers at the Elephants and the Donkeys and talk about a much more simple idea of how to handle one of our biggest issues in our country.

What if we just put aside our right-left "Team loyalty" for a minute and think about what is the right thing to do.

have you guys ever seen that commercial where the firefighters are running congress, and the chief says.."Who thinks we need to have clean water?... everyone votes yes... motion carried, clean water for everyone, see this isn't too hard..... "

I think sometime in politics we don't realize that somethings can be that easy.

lets try it, "Who thinks that every US Citizen should have health care?"

I don't see anyone opposed out there. so Health care for everyone, Right? what? No? how did that work out?

I don see the rational for not having some form of national health care.

No don't get all freaked out here my elephant friends, I am not jumping way left on you here.

I understand that you don't want the government to support everything.. but the reality is, they already do, and what they don't pay for, you as a private citizen pay for when you get treatment.

I think there is a right way and a wrong way to do this.

I think that the first thing that we need to do is lay the groundwork for getting big medicine out of the insurance business, If you go to the hospital and you end up getting treated with a couple aspirin and a bottle of water (yes I know that is a little bit of an exaggeration) why should you pay an astronomical amount of money for those aspirin? I agree that the medical staff is expensive, and the hospital itself is expensive. But come on marking an aspirin up by 300% - 1000% is gouging a little don't you think.

I think we need to start looking at the the people that set these prices, I understand that If I pay 10 bucks for a Tylenol at a hospital, its because I am paying for 3 others that are going to someone with no insurance, is that fair?

I don't go to get an oil change and pay 4 times the cost because 3 other people needed an oil change and couldn't afford it.

If the government is going to mandate that hospitals HAVE to treat whomever walks through the doors, the the government should be responsible for both paying for those treatments and making sure the cost is within an acceptable range.

I shouldn't be up to me as a private citizen to have to give to charity if I don't choose to.. Can I write off the overcharges on my taxes, not as medical expenses, but as charity?

So the way to handle this entire situation is a few simple steps

Pay fair prices for what you receive, like anywhere else. If you have insurance or not. If you go in for a broken toe, and they charge you for a "Broken toe package" that includes Xrays, and a blow-pop, and you didn't get the blow-pop, you shouldn't be charged for that.

We should make sure each service received is itemized and not in some sort of package. That insane. Its like going to McDonald's and ordering a large soda, and they charge you for a #7 combo, because it includes a large soda... and you don't even get the 6 piece nuggets, or the fries.

Get the Al LA Carte extras out of the hospitals without advising the patients of the costs first.

If I want toothpaste and mouthwash, tell me what kind to have my family bring, or tell me upfront that this is going to cost me $75 bucks. at that point I promise, you WILL give that stuff to me for free.

That will help bring health care prices back out of the stratosphere and down to a reasonable amount,

Next step, implement a national health care system that covers major medical and preventive medical.If Suzie wants a tummy tuck and bigger lips, she is gonna have to save for it. And it is like an HMO based deal, you don't get to pick your doctors, you go in to the nearest health care facility and get treated, If you have to wait in line, thats the cross that we all have to bare.

And, (See I didn't forget you elephants either I could see you guys turning red over there...lol.. OK bad joke)

 If I choose to have my own health care I can get some sort of voucher to offset the premiums or deductibles that I pay.

If the government is shelling out 3000 per person on the national health care system, send me a check for 3000 so I can take care of my own premiums. Fair is Fair.

I also get to go to whatever doctors that my insurance allows,

And if my doctor decides to privatize, thats his business.

and I get to have that tummy tuck that I have been wanting (long overdue)

I know I am making things way oversimplified, and I know there is a lot more to it than this.. But I also think that the "A lot more to it than that" is the "we have to find a way for big business to not get cut out of things here"

Lets try to look at right and wrong, and not right and left sometimes.

If you are a good republican (conservative) you believe that global warming is a farce, and that there is no scientific evidence to support the claims that the worlds warming has much to do with humans producing carbon gasses. 

If you are a good democrat (liberal) you believe that humans, in their industrialization of the earth over the last however many years, are contributing greatly to the accelerated warming of the earth.   Here is where the tricky part comes in…. they are both right, and they are both wrong.Yea, I said it…. The OTHER side can actually be right about something.  The facts are out there, you just have to be open minded enough to go get them. And not form a partisan source. And by that I mean from actual scientific studies.

A lot of times people fall in to political alignment and just go along with what the others in that party believe, and it doesn’t matter what evidence is out there to support otherwise. They will pick up on something that is either said mistakenly from the other side and key in on that or take it out of context and redistribute it as fact. 

The earth IS warming. Any debate on that fact is basically non existent. The debate is… Why is it warming?, What is causing it? Is the warming even significant?   The fact is, we are still coming out of the last ice age. Therefore by definition, the earth is warming up. It is also true that Mars is also coming out an ice age and it too is experiencing global warming…. Yes, global warming is occurring there without humans.In fact there are studies that suggest that global warming is happening across our solar system.   On the other side of the coin, you have to ask yourself “Why are all these scientist saying that we are causing global warming?” Well the answer is both simple and complicated.

The fact is that we ARE contributing to global warming; any Animal that lives and breathes is contributing to global warming. In fact, that isn’t even all, even when you die, you contribute to global warming just by decomposing. All organic matter that decomposes creates carbon gasses.

Sheesh, we can’t do anything right, this is like being married. 

Man-made and natural carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises 99.44% of all greenhouse gas concentrations. (Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service; in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal)

Pretty convincing right?   Except, in the same letter he writes that water vapor which is 95-100% natural is not taken into account for all the global warming debates, is directly responsible for 95% of all greenhouse gases. Factor in the natural disasters such as volcanoes, lightning strike forest fires, and decaying algae in the oceans and humans are directly related to 3.618 of the total of Co2 gasses, which are only among many gasses thought to make up the global warming cocktail. And just to throw a more surprising number at you, in the end this study suggest that we are really responsible for just 0.117% of all global warming. 

I understand that this is just one study, and I understand that you guys could pull up a billion studies from other sources that contradict and paraphrase these numbers as well.

This is a never-ending battle. And the fact is, neither side really knows what the real situation is.   Now, I do believe that we have a responsibility to leave our planet in a better condition than we found it, our children deserve it.

I don’t however believe, and I actually refuse to go thru each day apologizing for being human. Anyone that wants to say that Bush lied to us and sent us into Iraq using information that he didn’t know was correct, or anyone that says Bush was using scare tactics by tying the 9/11 tragedies to Iraq needs to be  freaking out about this. (and believe me, I’m not far off that bandwagon myself) Al Gore is doing that exact same thing, except he is trying to tell us that we are the weapons of mass destruction.He is trying to convince us that we need to spend billions of dollars on a mission that we don’t even know is justified. And he is trying to scare us into believing that global warming is going to wipe out the earth.

Sounds pretty similar to me.

Are you guys really willing to spend trillions of dollars to offset a global situation that we don’t even know for sure really exist? Not me.

 

For anyone interested, do your own research and find out about the carbon offsets that you can purchase, also look into Al Gore and the fact that all the carbon offsets that he wants you to buy are from a company named Generation Investment Management, This is a company that he founded, partially owns, and is the chairman.  That to me is like Bill Gates telling me that Apple is evil and we should all stick to Windows because Apple is going to destroy the earth. 

Here is where I stand on this situation;

I want to help the environment as much as the next guy.But I am not going to spend my hard earned money on something that in reality, we don’t know about.  And let’s look at the extremes as well, if we could really change the global climate just by trying harder, what’s going to stop us from changing it too far in the other direction, “overcorrecting.”What would Al Gore say if we trigger the onset of Global Freezing? Is a “Whoops my bad” good enough? Or how about when we don’t go thru all this global warming correction, and the temperatures cool off on their own, is a “Guess we didn’t need to do all that anyway, but we were playing it safe” good enough?

It wasn’t good enough when George Bush was “playing it safe” 

Let’s look at everything in moderation here; I have no problem with people pursing the carbon neutral life if they want to not impact the environment.  When I have the overwhelming proof that I am causing global warming, I will go in that direction as well.

Until then, I will just go with the theory of… All I know is that we don’t know.  I guess if we really want to get away from global warming we will have to go to Mars… Oh wait.. that won’t work either will it?

So here's the deal,

I am always a little taken aback by the talk of the new fuels of tomorrow that are right around the corner.

We have everyone in the world that depends on oil for basically everything, trying to come up with new, cheaper ways to power our lives.

We have the U.S. Government handing subsidies to all of the people involved in the "Ethanol Boom" which is at this point , is far more expensive to produce and far less efficient to actually run. (It takes more fuel for the same energy output as gasoline)

Then on top of that we have the political sides arguing about how you shouldn't be using our food sources (corn primarily) as fuel because it drives the prices of everything up as well.

And you have the other side, trying to tell us that we have to start getting used to using other sources of fuel because you "Can't drill your way out of this oil crisis"

WHAT IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN? Are they actually saying that if we drill for more oil, then we won't have more oil? What kind of political double talk is that?

We have the next...NEXT big thing which is Hydrogen.

This was actually the next big thing that was coming around the corner until a couple of years ago when after literally hundreds of billions of dollars; we decided that the technology was still too far away from being a reality to be a viable alternative. So it got bumped down the line a little behind the ethanol.

While I have to admit, in my opinion Hydrogen does look to have a promising future, and I hope it does, we have to do something about the little issues like only costing about a billion and a half bucks for a car..... Then the fact that you have a fuel range of about 200 miles which is not too bad, except you will have to drive to California to refuel each time you run out.

There is the electric alternative as well. Electric cars that you plug in every night (or every couple nights)

From the research that I have done on most of these, Electric cars are a good option; the fueling infrastructure is obviously there already. The technology is proven and reliable and actually cheaper per mile that Gas as well.

So, the main thing there that is holding us back is our energy grid.

We don't have nearly enough power plants to support even a very very small percent of the population using electric cars. And then there is the other whole argument of... the power plants, if we built more, we would have to power them somehow. And not all of them could be powered by rivers, so by a show of hands, Who wants a coal or nuclear power plant in there back yard?

There are a couple of smaller players on the field as well, such as Natural gas, and Propane.

These are both a bit cheaper than gasoline and a bit cleaner as well, but we don't seem to be all that quick to change our engines in our cars to accept these fuels. (Although in some parts of the world these fuels are used in duel fuel cars quite well)

But then again,Isn't that going down that road kind of the same as the oil that we are hooked on now?

If we did start to us these gasses more, it would be nice for a while, but don't you think big oil would get there hooks into those profits more as well?

I often wonder why we don't use bio-diesel.

Of all the setbacks all of the other fuels have, Bio-diesel doesn't have many at all.

A lot of people look at all the true "GREENIES" out there as a little bit of an odd eccentric sort. Now I am not talking about that recycle even when they don't have too, or the people that buy the new CF bulbs for their house, I mean the people that actually see everything that they own, Move out to the middle of Oregon with their families and actually put up solar panels, and wind turbines for electricity. Take themselves off of the grid, and then buy "Carbon Credits" with whatever money they have left in their bank accounts. To atone for the sins of "carbon output"

While I do admire these people for having such rock solids beliefs in keeping our world around for another thousand generations. I think they are a little bit over the top, ok, I admit, I am one of the ones that think these people are tipping the scale a little into the "Kooky" category.

I did see a show about one of these guys that was manufacturing his own bio-diesel that was very interesting.

He said in an interview that we could solve a lot of the oil crisis with using the diesel engine the way it was intended to be used instead of using it to fill the pockets of big oil. He continued to say that diesel engines weren't built to run on petroleum, they were built to run on peanut oil. I, at this point was thinking that this guy was completely nuts, and this was another wacky conspiracy theory type nut-case that was completely misinformed, or that he somehow misinterpreted something in the history books.

So, I sat down and started doing the research, guess what??? It was all true!!

The diesel engine WAS built to run on peanut (and other bio-fuels).  Rudolf Christian Karl Diesel, did in fact build his engine to be run on peanut oil.

Mr. Diesel said in 1912 "The use of vegetable oils for engine fuels may seem insignificant today. But such oils may become in the course of time as important as the petroleum and coal tar products of the present time"

SO,, I think I am on the bio-diesel band wagon, It has all of the advantages to keep the "greenies" happy, it is completely renewal, very versatile as far as the source of the oils that it can use, so the GOP can stop worrying about us using up all of our corn for fuel and driving the costs of everything else up. (and on a side not there as well, it is our government that thought it was a good idea to give the subsidies to the ethanol producers, making the corn prices inflated in the first place.)

The infrastructure is in place and ready to go NOW. All we need is for the Big 3 to start using different fuel lines on the cars that they produce and the new engines can use the fuel as well.

(hold your breath on that one)

There are a few minor setbacks. Such as very cold weather areas having trouble with the fuels freezing, or "Gelling" but apparently they are working on that with blends and purification techniques, and supposedly the cold weather bio-diesel would only be a concern in about 20% of the US.

It makes you wonder why everyone knows about Ethanol, and Hydrogen, and the others, but very few people know about the history and capabilities that we have already on the market.

Big Oil?  Big Ethanol?  Big Government?  Conspiracy theories? Kooky Hippie guys wearing Eco friendly underwear?  Maybe a little of all of that. 

Next week, Global Warming.

I should be able to piss off the Democrats, and the Republicans with this one.

Here’s The Deal Cudahy

(I apologize in advance for the formatting of some of my paragraphs and any additional spaces and/or lines that are appearing here. it's my first post here, and the copy/paste is acting a little wacky... stick with me, I'll work it out)

Obama’s message seems to be so strong that even the republicans believe it.