Remember Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the out cry over the whole sub prime mortgage debacle. It always kinda bothered me that we never got a straight answer on who was to blame for that. I mean they did blame the banks and speculators but were they really the problem. I mean if the answer now is we need greater oversight and regulation in the housing sector, doesn't that kinda point the finger back at congress.
Who is in charge of regulating? The congress! Who is in charge of oversight? The government! So why then did government officials get a pass on this one. Why is it that no major media outlets have kept the spotlight on this and investigative reporters have not done extensive expose on this. No heads have rolled and government officials have been publicly scrutinized for this.
But be very careful writing a bonus check to a corporate executive these days because you might find yourself in court. We can deal with keeping secrets another time.
This is not the time for secrecy. This is the time for exposure of the facts so in an effort to be forth right with the facts I posted the following video for your viewing pleasure. See if this doesn't not shed some light on who is to blame for our current financial situation. One quick apologize here to any liberal progressives that might watch this. Sorry it wasn't Bush!
Friday, August 28, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Why Obama’s FedEx Comparison Doesn’t Make Sense!
While stumping for his public run health care system last weekend Obama addressed the notion that private insurers would not be able to compete against the government run system. President Obama did this by equating Private Run Health Insurers -vs- The Government Run Option to the U.S. Mail Service -vs- UPS and Fed Ex. This is now the third time I have heard him make this assement. However this comparison fails in several ways.
First it fails: because it bases the success of his so called side by side competition on the across the board comparison of a system that by his own admission is currently failing to succeed in side by side competition. Which is by its very nature an oxymoron.
Secondly it fails: because he is not saying he plans to fail, no he is saying everyones a winner, except the insurance companies. They are the bad guys. The greedy "illigitimate sons" who need to be brought down. Therefore he is implying that there would be a different outcome than that being seen in the current system. However, He does this without defining how he actually plans to achieve that goal; the revelation of which would be too transparent a venture for the secrecy by which this current administration likes to operate.
Lastly it fails: because by likening the Government Health Care Option to the U.S. Mail Service you are actually conceding to the fact that if ObamaCare is not able to compete with private insurers it will like the U.S. Mail Service use whatever means it needs to stay in the game. In the case of the U.S. Mail Service the Fed. has raised the price of postage steadily to stay in business. In the case of ObamaCare private insurers would most likely outperform the government system in a fair and competitive market. This is due mostly to the bureaucratic waste and abuses inherent in all government run programs. So that like the U.S. Mail the government would have to find ways to keep the failing system afloat, which would probably lead to one or all of the following, a loss in benefits, censored rationing, and or an increase in taxes to keep the government run option in the game.
The only way to avoid this would be to create an unfair playing field which favors the government program over the private insurers. However creating such a system would render the promise of a one stop insurance marketplace with multiple options for consumers a disingenuous political ploy to pass a single payer system dispite the will of the people.
First it fails: because it bases the success of his so called side by side competition on the across the board comparison of a system that by his own admission is currently failing to succeed in side by side competition. Which is by its very nature an oxymoron.
Secondly it fails: because he is not saying he plans to fail, no he is saying everyones a winner, except the insurance companies. They are the bad guys. The greedy "illigitimate sons" who need to be brought down. Therefore he is implying that there would be a different outcome than that being seen in the current system. However, He does this without defining how he actually plans to achieve that goal; the revelation of which would be too transparent a venture for the secrecy by which this current administration likes to operate.
Lastly it fails: because by likening the Government Health Care Option to the U.S. Mail Service you are actually conceding to the fact that if ObamaCare is not able to compete with private insurers it will like the U.S. Mail Service use whatever means it needs to stay in the game. In the case of the U.S. Mail Service the Fed. has raised the price of postage steadily to stay in business. In the case of ObamaCare private insurers would most likely outperform the government system in a fair and competitive market. This is due mostly to the bureaucratic waste and abuses inherent in all government run programs. So that like the U.S. Mail the government would have to find ways to keep the failing system afloat, which would probably lead to one or all of the following, a loss in benefits, censored rationing, and or an increase in taxes to keep the government run option in the game.
The only way to avoid this would be to create an unfair playing field which favors the government program over the private insurers. However creating such a system would render the promise of a one stop insurance marketplace with multiple options for consumers a disingenuous political ploy to pass a single payer system dispite the will of the people.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Enforcement of Immigration Laws: It’s the right thing to do!
I have not agreed with much this President has done, but when I do agree I am not afraid to say so. I herald Obama’s stepping back away from his former stance and stepping up enforcement of current immigration laws. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/30/obama-loses-immigration-allies/?source=newsletter_must-read-stories-today_headlines&page=2..
He is not saying he is opposes to immigrants or immigration. He is simply reinforcing that we are a nation of laws. Furthermore he is saying that we should work within the framework of the laws we have, until the law are adopted that better address the immigration issue.
Can changes be made that all Americans can agree on? I have no doubt that we can come to a consensus as reasonable people on what should be done. But whatever gets done should benefit the entire nation not just a single segment of our nation.
The need for border security goes far beyond just being of Hispanic decent. Border security is just what the words imply, “Border Security.” The possibility of foreign agency smuggling in a WMD is a greater threat to the collective good in this country than the sympathetic worries surrounding the immigrant worker population. We need to get beyond personal disapproval and consider the bigger picture.
We will always have immigrants and we will always welcome the Mexican people into our country. This issue is not about limiting access to those seeking employment in the states. There is a legal method by which Mexican workers can come to this country and work. Obama and Ms. Napolitano are simply advocating the legal process over the illegal crossing of the border. A stand that would be equally adhered to if the roles were reversed and it was American working who were seeking employment in Mexico.
I am sure going forward that legal immigration will be made easier and that any of those seeking employment will be able to do so in a way that neither jeopardizes our security as a nation, nor hinders them from the opportunities afforded by crossing the border for work.
He is not saying he is opposes to immigrants or immigration. He is simply reinforcing that we are a nation of laws. Furthermore he is saying that we should work within the framework of the laws we have, until the law are adopted that better address the immigration issue.
Can changes be made that all Americans can agree on? I have no doubt that we can come to a consensus as reasonable people on what should be done. But whatever gets done should benefit the entire nation not just a single segment of our nation.
The need for border security goes far beyond just being of Hispanic decent. Border security is just what the words imply, “Border Security.” The possibility of foreign agency smuggling in a WMD is a greater threat to the collective good in this country than the sympathetic worries surrounding the immigrant worker population. We need to get beyond personal disapproval and consider the bigger picture.
We will always have immigrants and we will always welcome the Mexican people into our country. This issue is not about limiting access to those seeking employment in the states. There is a legal method by which Mexican workers can come to this country and work. Obama and Ms. Napolitano are simply advocating the legal process over the illegal crossing of the border. A stand that would be equally adhered to if the roles were reversed and it was American working who were seeking employment in Mexico.
I am sure going forward that legal immigration will be made easier and that any of those seeking employment will be able to do so in a way that neither jeopardizes our security as a nation, nor hinders them from the opportunities afforded by crossing the border for work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)