How dare you on the left tell Americans to "stop talking", or "get out of the way". Is not Free Speech a basic Constitutional right? Obama, the Dems and much of the citizenry on the left seem to be unhappy with those on the right speaking out about something they do not agree with. Please, someone explain to me why this is wrong. Obama says to stop talking; should we then just lie down and let his administration run its course? Joe Beltran of North Las Vegas would like the anti-health care contingent to "get out of the way"; should we then just step aside and wait for the results of this monstrosity to take the U.S. deeper into economic turmoil?
I, FOR ONE, WILL NEVER BE QUIET OR GET OUT OF THE WAY!!!
Mr. seems to think the RNC is in the pocket of the HMO lobby; where is the proof? Why not try Opensecrets for a dose of reality. Here you will find that: during the 2008 election cycle in the Senate Dems received $3.2M from HMO's while Reps received $1.4M (Obama himself received $1.4M). I also have the figures for the House in 2008, and both chambers for the upcoming 2010 election cycle. Or maybe this site, geared toward use in a classroom discussion.
Mr. Beltran, I realize it is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but please try to base your comments on facts.
Lastly, I will always speak out against issues I disagree with; that type of behavior is what makes this country as great as it is. But while 'talking' and 'getting in the way', I will also call you, and anyone else, out on facts.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
MISINFORMATION?!?! Only from the Left!!!
In response to Edith Lifschultz's letter in the Tuesday Las Vegas Review Journal, I just want to urge the public (Left, Right and everything in between): take the time to read what Obama's Health Plan is about. At the very least, ask your representatives in Washington to read the bill before they vote on it. I mean really, do you honestly want any politician to vote on something they have not read?
Edith, Please, I urge you, go to the plan and read it. Misinformation is being fed to the public by the White House and their lapdog, the left-wing media. I challenge you to take a look at page 16 of the Health Care bill. Obama says we can keep our current plan/provider if we so choose. However, his bill states that is the case, ONLY if you stay with the employer you had, and the plan they provided, at the time the bill goes into effect. If the smallest detail of the plan you have in effect at the time of the bill's passage, you can no longer keep that plan. This is just one glaring instance of the MISINFORMATION being fed from those who wish to blindside the public into thinking they need this horrendous plan.
Now that I have said I do not like Obama's horrendous Health Plan, who is going to report me to the White House for voicing my opinion?
Edith, Please, I urge you, go to the plan and read it. Misinformation is being fed to the public by the White House and their lapdog, the left-wing media. I challenge you to take a look at page 16 of the Health Care bill. Obama says we can keep our current plan/provider if we so choose. However, his bill states that is the case, ONLY if you stay with the employer you had, and the plan they provided, at the time the bill goes into effect. If the smallest detail of the plan you have in effect at the time of the bill's passage, you can no longer keep that plan. This is just one glaring instance of the MISINFORMATION being fed from those who wish to blindside the public into thinking they need this horrendous plan.
Now that I have said I do not like Obama's horrendous Health Plan, who is going to report me to the White House for voicing my opinion?
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Support Obama?!?! WHY???
This is a very late response to Mike Lombardi in the Las Vegas Sun, Thursday, July 30, 2009. Please explain why I should support something I do not agree with? Let's turn the tables, where was all of the support from the left regarding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Gee, it wasn't President Bush's fault that planes were flown into buildings. It may have been his idea to go to war, but he did so with the approval of both Houses of Congress. Where was the support from the left, in the media and the public? Exactly! How about another example. Mike, if your Dr. said the best way to cure your migraines was to jump off the top of the Stratosphere, what would you do? I am guessing you would not support his idea, and instead opt for a plan you had a little more faith in: an aspirin.
The bottom line is this: If I do not like his plans, why should I support them?
So, Mr. Lombardi, enough with this "We need to support President Obama's efforts to bring this country back from the destruction of the last 8 years." Listen Liberals, it's getting old, time to come up with another excuse or scapegoat. You see, part of the problem for the displeasure with Obama is that you, and almost ALL of those on the left anointed him as the savior of all mankind. Gimme a break. If he really is the end of all that ails the US, why are we still mired in unemployment? If his health plan is so incredibly good for this country, why is it not passed already? If the Obama economic team is so brilliant, how is it that they have made two major miscalculations already (effect of the stimulus and the 'Cash For Clunkers')? But you want us to simply support him for no reason. Explain why we should support him, instead of complaining that we don't.
The bottom line is this: If I do not like his plans, why should I support them?
So, Mr. Lombardi, enough with this "We need to support President Obama's efforts to bring this country back from the destruction of the last 8 years." Listen Liberals, it's getting old, time to come up with another excuse or scapegoat. You see, part of the problem for the displeasure with Obama is that you, and almost ALL of those on the left anointed him as the savior of all mankind. Gimme a break. If he really is the end of all that ails the US, why are we still mired in unemployment? If his health plan is so incredibly good for this country, why is it not passed already? If the Obama economic team is so brilliant, how is it that they have made two major miscalculations already (effect of the stimulus and the 'Cash For Clunkers')? But you want us to simply support him for no reason. Explain why we should support him, instead of complaining that we don't.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Tax Plan to Help Others
This is a very rough outline of a potential plan to cover charitable giving, taxes, health care and any other enterprise or people in need. (In trillions, please allow for rounding)
Total Personal US Income 12.1
Federal Expenditures (Less 10 % = 2.9-.29) 2.6
Remaining Personal Income 9.5
5% Tax of Remaining Income for Giving Purposes .475
That’s $475M to be given away. To cut federal expenditures 10%, I think we can all agree, would be easily done. Now, allow that $475M to be dispersed as the taxpayer(s) sees fit, and designate the recipient on their tax return. The total tax bite to all taxpayers would decrease approximately 5%, and we the taxpayers would decide the most worthy cause(s) to receive our assistance. This would also allow the federal government to maintain its current level of funding for entitlements it deems worthy. Also, there would be no need for a bureaucracy to handle the transfer of monies from taxpayers to recipient. By entering the appropriate code for your designated beneficiary, your form 1040 would then generate an ETF to the intended recipient.
It is a bit simplistic, yes, but you get the idea.
Total Personal US Income 12.1
Federal Expenditures (Less 10 % = 2.9-.29) 2.6
Remaining Personal Income 9.5
5% Tax of Remaining Income for Giving Purposes .475
That’s $475M to be given away. To cut federal expenditures 10%, I think we can all agree, would be easily done. Now, allow that $475M to be dispersed as the taxpayer(s) sees fit, and designate the recipient on their tax return. The total tax bite to all taxpayers would decrease approximately 5%, and we the taxpayers would decide the most worthy cause(s) to receive our assistance. This would also allow the federal government to maintain its current level of funding for entitlements it deems worthy. Also, there would be no need for a bureaucracy to handle the transfer of monies from taxpayers to recipient. By entering the appropriate code for your designated beneficiary, your form 1040 would then generate an ETF to the intended recipient.
It is a bit simplistic, yes, but you get the idea.
Further Discussion of the Health Care Debate
My latest contribution to the discussion at the Las Vegas Sun.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JahReb-
Welcome to the discussion. However, I find it utterly incredible how much you miss my point. I am not denying the need to help one another. What I am saying is, do not tell me who, when and how much to help. Instead of helping a fellow citizen with some genetic difficulty they were born with; maybe I would rather help children with AIDS. Another 'someone' born with an ailment not of their choosing. By choosing a child born with AIDS, I know where my resources are going. By giving health care to those who choose not purchase it is not how I want my resources spent.
Additionally, when I give of my resources, I DO NOT EXPECT ANYTHING IN RETURN! Mine is not a 'me first' attitude. Mine is a 'I choose who is first' to receive my resources attitude. When I choose to make my contribution to society, it is the freedom that this country was founded on that says it is my right I choose where to contribute.
Once a month I drive over 400 miles, round trip, to spend a weekend in the Arizona desert to clean, feed and shelter exotic animals. I am not paid to do this. In fact, I spend my own time and money for tools, travel, food and lodging. Please explain what benefit I could possibly gain from this endeavor.
JohnF-
You are absolutely correct when you say "we are all endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". However, do your rights include diminishing mine? I would think not. And no, I would not rather see you die. But my tax dollars are already being used to pay for health care for those in need. Now you want more. When will it end? I have in fact faced medical difficulty without insurance. I paid for the surgery; not government or anyone else. It was not fun, which is why I choose a path in life which minimizes health care needed and the cost thereof.
Again, for families similar to yours, I am all for providing all the government (or other) assistance necessary. But you have not addressed my concerns with regards to those who choose not to buy insurance or lead less-than-optimal lifestyles. Is this not, albeit indirectly, a 'me first' attitude? Are you a proponent of providing health for those people?
Lastly, I believe you make my argument with your closing remarks to Gordon. Yes, it very unfortunate for anyone to experience the plight that he, his family and others endure. "Thankfully the MS Society was there to help you" is my point exactly. If I choose to donate to MS, cancer, or children with AIDS, it is my choice as to how much and when. By having the government provide the assistance you needed you are denying my 'right to liberty and happiness': the liberty of choosing who, what, when and where, and the happiness of having done so. Would I be morally bankrupt for choosing cancer to receive my resources over MS? I hope not, but it is my choice. Further, it is not your place to determine who is morally bankrupt. That decision rests with the Creator. lazyfaire will answer to his Creator at the appropriate time; it is then he will suffer the consequences or benefits of his choices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JahReb-
Welcome to the discussion. However, I find it utterly incredible how much you miss my point. I am not denying the need to help one another. What I am saying is, do not tell me who, when and how much to help. Instead of helping a fellow citizen with some genetic difficulty they were born with; maybe I would rather help children with AIDS. Another 'someone' born with an ailment not of their choosing. By choosing a child born with AIDS, I know where my resources are going. By giving health care to those who choose not purchase it is not how I want my resources spent.
Additionally, when I give of my resources, I DO NOT EXPECT ANYTHING IN RETURN! Mine is not a 'me first' attitude. Mine is a 'I choose who is first' to receive my resources attitude. When I choose to make my contribution to society, it is the freedom that this country was founded on that says it is my right I choose where to contribute.
Once a month I drive over 400 miles, round trip, to spend a weekend in the Arizona desert to clean, feed and shelter exotic animals. I am not paid to do this. In fact, I spend my own time and money for tools, travel, food and lodging. Please explain what benefit I could possibly gain from this endeavor.
JohnF-
You are absolutely correct when you say "we are all endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". However, do your rights include diminishing mine? I would think not. And no, I would not rather see you die. But my tax dollars are already being used to pay for health care for those in need. Now you want more. When will it end? I have in fact faced medical difficulty without insurance. I paid for the surgery; not government or anyone else. It was not fun, which is why I choose a path in life which minimizes health care needed and the cost thereof.
Again, for families similar to yours, I am all for providing all the government (or other) assistance necessary. But you have not addressed my concerns with regards to those who choose not to buy insurance or lead less-than-optimal lifestyles. Is this not, albeit indirectly, a 'me first' attitude? Are you a proponent of providing health for those people?
Lastly, I believe you make my argument with your closing remarks to Gordon. Yes, it very unfortunate for anyone to experience the plight that he, his family and others endure. "Thankfully the MS Society was there to help you" is my point exactly. If I choose to donate to MS, cancer, or children with AIDS, it is my choice as to how much and when. By having the government provide the assistance you needed you are denying my 'right to liberty and happiness': the liberty of choosing who, what, when and where, and the happiness of having done so. Would I be morally bankrupt for choosing cancer to receive my resources over MS? I hope not, but it is my choice. Further, it is not your place to determine who is morally bankrupt. That decision rests with the Creator. lazyfaire will answer to his Creator at the appropriate time; it is then he will suffer the consequences or benefits of his choices.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Left-Wing Control of the Media?
The following is an email sent to "letters to the editor" of both the Las Vegas Sun & Las Vegas Review-Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Sunday edition of the Las Vegas Sun, editor Brian Greenspun states he enjoys the “modern-day letter to the editor’ section that comes at the end of stories and opinions called ‘comments’”. Apparently he doesn’t really enjoy it all that much: his are the only stories or opinions that do not allow the aforementioned ‘comments’. I have not checked every other story or op-ed piece, but between the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Las Vegas Sun, editor Brian Greenspun is the ONLY PERSON WHO DOES NOT ALLOW COMMENTS TO WHAT HE WRITES.
Brian Greenspun, please tell Las Vegas why you do not allow comments to what you write?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Sunday edition of the Las Vegas Sun, editor Brian Greenspun states he enjoys the “modern-day letter to the editor’ section that comes at the end of stories and opinions called ‘comments’”. Apparently he doesn’t really enjoy it all that much: his are the only stories or opinions that do not allow the aforementioned ‘comments’. I have not checked every other story or op-ed piece, but between the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Las Vegas Sun, editor Brian Greenspun is the ONLY PERSON WHO DOES NOT ALLOW COMMENTS TO WHAT HE WRITES.
Brian Greenspun, please tell Las Vegas why you do not allow comments to what you write?
Monday, July 13, 2009
Letter to Brian Greenspun, editor Las Vegas Sun
This letter was emailed to Brian Greenspun, editor of the Las Vegas Sun, Monday, July 13, 2009. As I am somewhat calling him to the carpet, it will be interesting to see if he publishes any portion of my letter. It is in response to his op-ed piece of Sunday, July 12, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Greenspun,
I thoroughly enjoy, appreciate and respect your opinion(s). While I generally disagree with you on most points, you tend to stay away from the far left lunacy that could be the demise of this great country. Rest assured opinions from the far right would do just as much harm.
First, why do you not allow readers to comment on your opinion? Thomas Mitchell does at the RJ.
In yesterday’s Sun you state that the ‘GOVERNMENT CAN DELIVER GOOD HEALTH CARE’. While that may in fact be possible, I disagree wholeheartedly on basis for that conclusion.
Now, my neighbors are not complete strangers. That is not to say I know all of the households within one mile of my home, but I know who my neighbors are. Further, to assume that my neighbor is indigent is foolish by definition; they are not lacking a roof over their head.
To begin, I agree completely that the health care debate does not have to be Constitutional. If it is not however Constitutional, who will pay for the plan laid out by the Obama administration? To use my own interpretation of a George Will article that ran in your paper, a more accurate number of citizens needing health care/coverage would be 7 million, not 40+ million. Based on an estimated $1 trillion in cost, this equates to approximately $142k per person, to cover the 7 million. How can this possibly be OK when, for example, the homes of quite a few gainfully employed citizens of this valley are not worth that much?
Now, what you describe as “the biggest lie so far – that government can’t run a good health care delivery system”. Let me start by saying that I am one of those that think the government would be unable to run health care. I could be proven wrong, but I doubt it. You imply the phenomenal work at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center as being run by government. I beg to differ. Simply because the Center is part of the UT system does not make it government run. The original funding was split $500k each from the M.D. Anderson Foundation and the state legislature. For fiscal year 2008 we have the following: research is 44.6% government funded, 78.3% of operating revenue is from patient (fees). Hardly government run. To further my example one need only look at the funding for the building located at Maryland Pkwy and University Rd. As a graduate of UNLV (sorry, but I spent most of my time at Beam Hall as an accounting student, before Greenspun was erected) I am very appreciative of all your family does for UNLV; with good fortune I hope to do the same. My point is this: universities may be under the guise of state/government control, but without the generosity (direction) of benefactors such as the M.D. Anderson Foundation and the Greenspun family, there would be few, if any, institutions as revered as the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center or the Greenspun College of Urban Affairs.
Thank you for the Las Vegas Sun.
Sincerely,
Daniel A. Wollam
http://nevadapoliticsbydan.blogspot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Greenspun,
I thoroughly enjoy, appreciate and respect your opinion(s). While I generally disagree with you on most points, you tend to stay away from the far left lunacy that could be the demise of this great country. Rest assured opinions from the far right would do just as much harm.
First, why do you not allow readers to comment on your opinion? Thomas Mitchell does at the RJ.
In yesterday’s Sun you state that the ‘GOVERNMENT CAN DELIVER GOOD HEALTH CARE’. While that may in fact be possible, I disagree wholeheartedly on basis for that conclusion.
Now, my neighbors are not complete strangers. That is not to say I know all of the households within one mile of my home, but I know who my neighbors are. Further, to assume that my neighbor is indigent is foolish by definition; they are not lacking a roof over their head.
To begin, I agree completely that the health care debate does not have to be Constitutional. If it is not however Constitutional, who will pay for the plan laid out by the Obama administration? To use my own interpretation of a George Will article that ran in your paper, a more accurate number of citizens needing health care/coverage would be 7 million, not 40+ million. Based on an estimated $1 trillion in cost, this equates to approximately $142k per person, to cover the 7 million. How can this possibly be OK when, for example, the homes of quite a few gainfully employed citizens of this valley are not worth that much?
Now, what you describe as “the biggest lie so far – that government can’t run a good health care delivery system”. Let me start by saying that I am one of those that think the government would be unable to run health care. I could be proven wrong, but I doubt it. You imply the phenomenal work at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center as being run by government. I beg to differ. Simply because the Center is part of the UT system does not make it government run. The original funding was split $500k each from the M.D. Anderson Foundation and the state legislature. For fiscal year 2008 we have the following: research is 44.6% government funded, 78.3% of operating revenue is from patient (fees). Hardly government run. To further my example one need only look at the funding for the building located at Maryland Pkwy and University Rd. As a graduate of UNLV (sorry, but I spent most of my time at Beam Hall as an accounting student, before Greenspun was erected) I am very appreciative of all your family does for UNLV; with good fortune I hope to do the same. My point is this: universities may be under the guise of state/government control, but without the generosity (direction) of benefactors such as the M.D. Anderson Foundation and the Greenspun family, there would be few, if any, institutions as revered as the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center or the Greenspun College of Urban Affairs.
Thank you for the Las Vegas Sun.
Sincerely,
Daniel A. Wollam
http://nevadapoliticsbydan.blogspot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)