SUPPORT OUR VETS

SUPPORT OUR VETS - Makes a great magnetic sticker for your car. Too many Americans think that putting one of these magnetic stickers on their car fulfills their obligation to our vets. How sad. Most of these people support the current Administrations sending our loved ones to risk their lives to occupy Iraq for an unclear goal. Thousands of service people have died and a great many more have come back wounded only to find the republicans, including John McCain, voting against bills that would provide them with decent benefits.

The Walter Reed Hospital deplorable living conditions are an example of the need for improvement to vet facilities. It took a journalist working undercover to expose this lack of support for our troops.

McCain has been consistent in his lack of support of legislation aimed at updating the benefits for our vets. He voted against vets in 2004, ’05, ’06 and ’07.

McCain has recently refused (he did not vote) to support the new GI Bill. He said it was too expensive. What a slap in the face for our service people. In a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars republican friendly corporations like Halliburton (KBR) and Blackwater seem to make out quite well, making huge profits, but there is not enough money in the budget to support the minimum needs of our vets.

The republicans do support the troops of Blackwater, a corporation run by a friend of Bush/McCain. These mercenaries all get top notch treatment and get paid many times more than our troops.

And don’t forget the horrible living conditions at Fort Bragg revealed by a father and his camcorder. More evidence of lack of troop support.

Support our troops means not voting for McCain/Bush.

Good article in a recent “The Nation” magazine by Brian Beutler, “McCain Sells Out Vets”.

FAKE PATRIOTS

Patriotism is defined as devotion to the welfare of one's country. Nowhere in the definition does it speak of flag lapel pins, magnetic car emblems, nor hanging a flag on the front of your house. But that is how some narrow minded people define patriotism. You see it is so much simpler.

False Patriot: “I wear a flag pin therefore I am a patriot”.
Questioner: “So how do you feel about your government eavesdropping on your phone calls and emails?”
FP: “That’s complicated, and I refuse to think about it. Did I mention I have flag in front of my house?”
Q: “Do you believe idiots should be allowed to vote?”
FP: “Huh?”
Q: “Never mind, go back to your patriotic Budweiser (or Coors).”

Our founding fathers founded this country to be free of aristocratic tyranny. A true patriot should be aware enough to fight attempts by unscrupulous groups that try to establish aristocratic tyrannies. A true patriot stands by the Constitution and is willing to fight to the death against those that try to eliminate the freedoms established by the Constitution. Someone famous said, “Give me liberty or give me death”. Now that was a true patriot. Wonder if he had a lapel pin.

The Con’s don’t like democracy because it gives the lowlife "people" too much power. The top Con, G.W.Bush himself said that government would be so much easier to run for a dictator. Sadly the Con’s find it way to easy to motivate the gullibles. You see the gullibles need simple tests to determine right or wrong, good or bad. So the con’s help them out. For example, if you wear a lapel pin…good, if you don’t…bad. That’s about as deep thinking the gullibles ever get.

Here’s a test to see if you’ve been paying attention.

A person burns an American flag. Is that person patriot or not?
(a) No, they should be sent to Guantanamo.
(b) Yes they are a patriot.
(c) Need more information

Of course (c) is the answer. They could be burning the flag because it was old and damaged and they were following the patriotic flag edicate. Also, if the person is doing so to show “devotion to the welfare of one's country”, in protest of the tyranny our fore fathers fought and died against.

Insurance Isn't Rocket Science

Understanding insurance isn’t complicated. A large number of individuals throw money into a pot and those that are unfortunate and need help take money out. Hire some administrators and pay them a reasonable salary and bingo, insurance.

But the con’s see insurance as an opportunity to get something for nothing. They start their insurance company and after everyone throws their money into the pot, the con’s take a big chunk of the money for themselves. This money comes directly out of the pot and will effect the amount left for helping people. There wouldn’t be a problem if these con’s would pay themselves a reasonable salary but some are taking obscene amount and calling it salary. One exec took over a billion dollars compensation for himself when he retired. Even an idiot should recognize the problem when half your premium goes directly into Mister Money Bags pocket.

Now the Democrats and republicans differ on how to handle this. The Democrats want to help those that are insured while the republicans want to help the execs get more profits.

The execs of course give a generous cut of their booty to their republican friends.

The Democrats want regulations to keep the unscrupulous execs from stealing all the money from the insured. The republicans want to eliminate regulations to encourage competition. Competition, you see, is good when defined by the con’s. I agree that competition can be good for things that are not essential. Things like mp-3 players and computers. Competing companies have to deliver a good product for a reasonable price or the public would do without. But for essential services like health care, competition doesn’t work. For example, in many communities there is only one local hospital. When community owned the community determined the quality of care per dollar. The administrator execs were paid reasonable salaries and the overhead costs were kept reasonable. Now Mr. Big Bucks comes along and pays off he local politicians who in turn deregulate and allow him to buy the hospital. He then of course will pay himself a huge multimillion dollar salary. The inflated salary is covered either by a reduction in the quality of care or an increase in costs. This isn’t rocket science people. Where is the competition?

One purpose of government (which is us) is to protect ourselves from the unscrupulous. For essential services, we need regulations to keep the predatory con’s away.

Rationalization is the Key to Happiness:

The public has been bombarded for years by propaganda that corporations will take care of us better than government agencies. Enron is a great example of a corporation that spent millions paying politicians to deregulate so they could prey on the vulnerable. Social Security is a system that has low overhead costs (no exec is paying himself hundreds of millions) and have served the people well for decades.

THE SUB-PRIME MORTGAGE CRISIS ISN’T COMPLICATED

The general public is protected from unscrupulous predators by government regulations. If you don’t want some crook taking advantage of your old grandmother you better hope there are government regulations helping protect her. But the Con’s* figured out that if they paid off their republican Congress people they could get the regulations that protect the unsuspecting, changed or eliminated to allow them, the con’s, to prey on those that are the most vulnerable.

So the con’s and their bought and paid for legislators, mostly republicans, get the regulations changed. This allows them to lend money to people that will never be able to pay it back. This was called “loan sharking” when the mob did it 40 years ago and was against the law. But the con’s made it legal if “legitimate” corporations did it. Of course, after the unsuspecting get robbed, the rest of us, not wanting to see them starving on the streets, help them out. The Con’s get rich, their legislators get rich, and we pay the price.

EDIT ADDITION: Deregulation is the monster here. And both Democrats and republicans have been busy deregulating since Reagan. Enron is the prime example of a corporation going wild after deregulation.

Rationalization is the Key to Happiness:

Some will rationalize that those that were swindled should have known better and should have read the fine print. Let me ask this, if a swindler sells your poor old grandmother siding for her house that she doesn’t need, do you tell her she should have read the fine print. First of all there might not even be fine print. Fine print would only exist if the regulations require it and remember who is in charge of the regulations. Second, I dare anyone to read the fine print that is not a lawyer. All of us rely on regulations to help us avoid getting swindled by the shysters.

*Con is defined as an unscrupulous conservatives that puts money ahead of principles. Since not all conservatives are this devious and greedy it is necessary to distinguish the Con’s from the legitimate conservatives. I am borrowing it from Thom Hartmann.

Let's Give This a Try

When discussing politics inevitably one runs into conservative talking points. Conservatives have made this an art form.

Fox News gushes with such talking points and even coordinates their release. It is hard to counter these talking points without recommending that actual research is needed to back up or refute the talking points.

I would love to have counter talking points or debunking points that are fairly simple but can be quickly used to counter the conservative talking points.

I will try for that here based entirely on truthiness.

Please feel free to help me out.