This article here, responds to another regarding choices of groceries or fuel. I agree that it is truley unbelieve that gas prices have reached an ultimate high, it cost over 12 dollars for 3 gallons!! Wow, and to think when I first learn to drive it was only a dollar per gallon. At this rate we are probably looking at 15 dollars a gallon in ten years. The response also considers the theory that gas is a way of population control. Maybe, but I think its just all about money.
If we actually sat down and thought about all the problems that United States is going through: poor economy,increase prices, war, politics, it all comes down to one thing, the fuel prices. What would actually happen if gas went down to 1.50? Well, there would definately be an increase in travel, and travel leads to tourism, and tourism leads to increase sales, which leads to more production, and production leads to job increase, that in turn leads to a stimulate economy. And a stimulated functional economy means that lady standing at the produce item debating rather she should purchase those bananas or use the money for fuel can stop worrying and do what she needs to do. Wow, I think I just solved the economy problem by taking 2 dollars off the cost of fuel.
But sadly things are neverly this simple because ultimately the defination of fuel is greed. Fuel price will never go down. Those big wig oil guys love the money too much. It doesn't matter who is sitting at the White House, Clinton, Obama, McCain, and it doesn't matter if the taxes are dropped. Actually those gurus probably are hoping for it, that just means a bigger chunk is going into thier pockets. It has nothing to do with population control. There's over 3 billion people in this world, and more coming, that means a bigger need for fuel, that exactly what oil companies want. United States is about freedom, but Americans are controlled by fuel. We hate it, but we can't live without it, and we will always give our money for it. And you thought crack was bad.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
The Soldiers in Walter Reed Medical Center
Washington Post breaks the silence for wounded Iraq soldiers by posting an article and slideshow of the treatment of soldiers at Walter Reed Medical Center. The center apparently cares for and houses disable soldiers of all kinds. The quality of care at Walter Reed is so astonishing you would think we were caring for criminals not heroes.
The Post points out the living conditions for many of these soldiers. The rooms are infested with rodents, rats, and mold. Which is not a surprise since the building has been around since the 1930’s, and it seems that no one has had any upkeep in the building. What is even a bigger shocker is the building is right down the street from the White House.
Living conditions are not the only thing the medical center is lacking. They seem to be unable to keep track of the soldier’s medical records as well. One wounded National Guard who had been at the center for more then a year, received a gynecological exam results. It would have been an understanding mistake, except for the fact that he is a male with a traumatic head injury. These conditions are not isolated to just Walter Reed Medical Center, other medical centers also have similar conditions.
Its so sad to think that much of taxpayers money are going to send men and women to Iraq but upon return, if injured, they are to live in poverty so they can get the hospital care they deserve. If the national budget does not allow for the care these soldiers deserve when they come back then we should not be sending them to war.
How does this affect our nation you ask?? Knowledge of these conditions can prevent people from volunteering for any arm services, which will deplete the number of soldiers and airmen, in the long run, if these numbers are down, what will the President decide? Maybe draft for more servicemen?
Vice President Dick Cheney promises improvements with all medical centers in the US. Why did the media have to point out what Walter Reed and other facilities were lacking for Congress to do something? It seems that soldiers get put on the backburner once they’ve done their service.The fact is these are our servicemen. They fight for our rights; they are the legs of this nation. Why would we even considering mistreating them?
The Post points out the living conditions for many of these soldiers. The rooms are infested with rodents, rats, and mold. Which is not a surprise since the building has been around since the 1930’s, and it seems that no one has had any upkeep in the building. What is even a bigger shocker is the building is right down the street from the White House.
Living conditions are not the only thing the medical center is lacking. They seem to be unable to keep track of the soldier’s medical records as well. One wounded National Guard who had been at the center for more then a year, received a gynecological exam results. It would have been an understanding mistake, except for the fact that he is a male with a traumatic head injury. These conditions are not isolated to just Walter Reed Medical Center, other medical centers also have similar conditions.
Its so sad to think that much of taxpayers money are going to send men and women to Iraq but upon return, if injured, they are to live in poverty so they can get the hospital care they deserve. If the national budget does not allow for the care these soldiers deserve when they come back then we should not be sending them to war.
How does this affect our nation you ask?? Knowledge of these conditions can prevent people from volunteering for any arm services, which will deplete the number of soldiers and airmen, in the long run, if these numbers are down, what will the President decide? Maybe draft for more servicemen?
Vice President Dick Cheney promises improvements with all medical centers in the US. Why did the media have to point out what Walter Reed and other facilities were lacking for Congress to do something? It seems that soldiers get put on the backburner once they’ve done their service.The fact is these are our servicemen. They fight for our rights; they are the legs of this nation. Why would we even considering mistreating them?
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Fighting and Spending: The Habits of Bush
This article points out all the spending habits of our wonderful President Bush. It seems as though Bush thinks the United States government has a unlimited line of credit with the taxpayers. He suggest drawing out more funds to continue war, yet wants to cut the funds for Medicare and Medicaid. However, the good news is many of us taxpayers ( and some that aren't) will be receiving a cut of the 145 billion dollar tax relief.
With all this spending, it seems like the tax relief is just a way for President Bush to say, " Hey, I know all of you are suffering. Sorry, about the war, the gas prices and house market rates. Here is 300 dollars. Go spend as you please." He is really just looking out for us.
And maybe this money that is going towards the war is really being used to pull our young soliders home where they belong. There's a good possiblilty that the funds being cut from Medicare and Medicaid because there are so many frauds out there using it. Just maybe.....
But the truth of the matter is, Bush doesn't know what he's doing. He only knows spending. He will always back the war, and as long as he is in the Oval Office, the economy will stink.
With all this spending, it seems like the tax relief is just a way for President Bush to say, " Hey, I know all of you are suffering. Sorry, about the war, the gas prices and house market rates. Here is 300 dollars. Go spend as you please." He is really just looking out for us.
And maybe this money that is going towards the war is really being used to pull our young soliders home where they belong. There's a good possiblilty that the funds being cut from Medicare and Medicaid because there are so many frauds out there using it. Just maybe.....
But the truth of the matter is, Bush doesn't know what he's doing. He only knows spending. He will always back the war, and as long as he is in the Oval Office, the economy will stink.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Education funds for Sex Offenders
The Austin Statesman reporter, Ryan Foley, has a very interesting article out that proves America really is that land of opportunity. It seems as though just about anyone, who is willing to, can get an education. This includes sex offenders nationwide. . The national government gives us unemployment benefits, social security, Medicaid, WIC and the list goes on. All these programs are controversial, but even after argument one can make sense and need to keep them. But there is a fine line in sense when it comes to funding education for a sex offender.
The Pell Grant is a nationally funded resource which gives low income students up 4,000 dollars for educational purposes. This premier grant bars those who are prison inmates and those with drug offenses, however, sex offenders have found a way to dip into these funds. If a sex offender is in prison he cannot receive aid, once transported to a treatment facility he has now made himself eligible for the national grant. One treatment facility in Florida 54 offenders received a combined total of $20,000 in financial aid. That is quite a large amount of money for someone who has made him/herself a predator to society.
Some argue that this is help for offenders, similar to a treatment that will better that person for society and it does make sense; offering education will help make work them to normalcy in our society, but what about the offenders with a bachelors or masters? Are we suppose to provide them with something as well? And if taxpayers are already funding for the treatment facility, what sense does it make to give more money to someone who has made him/herself a danger to everyone, particular children?
The article also points out that several offenders don’t even use the funds given for learning purposes, but rather to purchase miscellaneous entertainment goods like DVDs and CDs. Without a way to track their progress, it is impossible to prove that this is for the better good of an offender.
As a taxpayer, I would rather fund someone who is a cocaine addict for higher education and then a sex offender. At least if the drug addict went back to doing drugs it wouldn’t hurt society nearly as much if a sex offender went back to preying on children. Providing a place for treatment is more then enough help to give a sex offender. Paying for their education is asking for a smart predator.
The Pell Grant is a nationally funded resource which gives low income students up 4,000 dollars for educational purposes. This premier grant bars those who are prison inmates and those with drug offenses, however, sex offenders have found a way to dip into these funds. If a sex offender is in prison he cannot receive aid, once transported to a treatment facility he has now made himself eligible for the national grant. One treatment facility in Florida 54 offenders received a combined total of $20,000 in financial aid. That is quite a large amount of money for someone who has made him/herself a predator to society.
Some argue that this is help for offenders, similar to a treatment that will better that person for society and it does make sense; offering education will help make work them to normalcy in our society, but what about the offenders with a bachelors or masters? Are we suppose to provide them with something as well? And if taxpayers are already funding for the treatment facility, what sense does it make to give more money to someone who has made him/herself a danger to everyone, particular children?
The article also points out that several offenders don’t even use the funds given for learning purposes, but rather to purchase miscellaneous entertainment goods like DVDs and CDs. Without a way to track their progress, it is impossible to prove that this is for the better good of an offender.
As a taxpayer, I would rather fund someone who is a cocaine addict for higher education and then a sex offender. At least if the drug addict went back to doing drugs it wouldn’t hurt society nearly as much if a sex offender went back to preying on children. Providing a place for treatment is more then enough help to give a sex offender. Paying for their education is asking for a smart predator.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Will the Stimulus Plan stimulate?
Austin American Statesman writes about the new plan for bringing the economy up to par in this article. And in this one.
On January 24th congressional leaders pass an economical stimulus plan which hands out at least 300 dollars to tax payers and in some cases non tax payers. This plan was generated by President Bush to pull America out of the economical rut that it is in by given out a total of 150 billion dollars in hopes that spending will take place and economy will be stimulated.
The steps go as followed: Americans will file their taxes as usual and IRS will take care of the rest. Individuals will receive up to 600 dollars and married couples will receive 1,200, in addition to that another 300 will be given to each qualify child under the age of 17. The amount of the check will be based on income for each person/couple; in addition, those who don’t pay income tax may get a check from the IRS as well. The IRS will also team up with the Social Security Administration, AARP, and Veterans Affairs department to ensure that everyone over 50 will be getting their golden stimulus check. It is expect that 130 million households will be reached.
This plan seems to be quite promising, but is money really the answer to everything? Will giving out checks even going to make a dent in this pre-rescission economy? Democrats and Republicans in congress believe so. These checks are geared towards the lower income family. But it just so happens that lower income families do not make up all of America. On the plus side, government established programs like Fannie Mae will be able to increase their mortgage limit from 416,000 to a giant 730,000 dollars. For those in Austin, that means we can go from living in Round Rock to Westlake if we so choose.
It’s difficult to really know what this stimulus plan will do to the economy right now. It may even take a year to see results. US government aims to bring the economy up, and it may very well be that way. As for the rest of us, we shall hope for the best and prepare for the worst as we wait for our check.
On January 24th congressional leaders pass an economical stimulus plan which hands out at least 300 dollars to tax payers and in some cases non tax payers. This plan was generated by President Bush to pull America out of the economical rut that it is in by given out a total of 150 billion dollars in hopes that spending will take place and economy will be stimulated.
The steps go as followed: Americans will file their taxes as usual and IRS will take care of the rest. Individuals will receive up to 600 dollars and married couples will receive 1,200, in addition to that another 300 will be given to each qualify child under the age of 17. The amount of the check will be based on income for each person/couple; in addition, those who don’t pay income tax may get a check from the IRS as well. The IRS will also team up with the Social Security Administration, AARP, and Veterans Affairs department to ensure that everyone over 50 will be getting their golden stimulus check. It is expect that 130 million households will be reached.
This plan seems to be quite promising, but is money really the answer to everything? Will giving out checks even going to make a dent in this pre-rescission economy? Democrats and Republicans in congress believe so. These checks are geared towards the lower income family. But it just so happens that lower income families do not make up all of America. On the plus side, government established programs like Fannie Mae will be able to increase their mortgage limit from 416,000 to a giant 730,000 dollars. For those in Austin, that means we can go from living in Round Rock to Westlake if we so choose.
It’s difficult to really know what this stimulus plan will do to the economy right now. It may even take a year to see results. US government aims to bring the economy up, and it may very well be that way. As for the rest of us, we shall hope for the best and prepare for the worst as we wait for our check.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Courts allowing the sale of sex toys!!
This week federal appeals court has banned the law of prohibiting the sale of sex toys in the state of Texas, a law that has been around since the 1970's. It seems no one really has been charged of this crime, except one woman who did promote sex toys at a tupperware party, but the charges were dropped.
After reading this article, I realize a few of things, one: novelty devices really means sex toy and two: since there are already the sale of sexual devices in Texas, this ban will spring forth an abundance of sex shops, and third: like it or not prohibiting sale of sex toys voilates our constitutional right.
Realiable Consultants and PHE, INC (both operate adult stores or sex toy websites) joined forces to prosecute against Travis County District Attorney, Ronnie Earle and Texas General Attorney, Greg Abbott. They believed that this law voliated the people's 14th Amendment and business' 1st Amendment rights. The 14th Amendment gives people guaranteed privilages and immunites of citizenship and due process and equal protection, 1st Amendment which is our freedom of speech, press, and assembly.
As comedic as this is, I really do think that it voliates our constitutional rights. Who has the right to decide what a person does behind close doors in his or her own home? The plantiffs do make several very good arguments in thier appeal such as, married couples use these devices for their "sexual aspects" and it is used for those who can not any sexual contact due to "HIV" amongst other things. If the law prohibits commerical rights for these companies then it really is violating thier freedom of speech. Texas argues that it is "protecting" our liberial right, however, it is actually constricting our freedom. If an overweight adult walks into a resturant and orders three hamburgers, then that is his business, who has the right to say otherwise, that adult knows perfectly well what he is doing. Its the same for a married couple or unmarried or anyone to walk into an adult store and purchase a sex toy. Whatever that person chooses to do, it there business.
Even though sex toys are pretty controversial to many people, and there are those that rather not speak of such products,however, baning it takes away from our right that we so deserve.
Read the article here.
5th Circuit US court Appeals here.
After reading this article, I realize a few of things, one: novelty devices really means sex toy and two: since there are already the sale of sexual devices in Texas, this ban will spring forth an abundance of sex shops, and third: like it or not prohibiting sale of sex toys voilates our constitutional right.
Realiable Consultants and PHE, INC (both operate adult stores or sex toy websites) joined forces to prosecute against Travis County District Attorney, Ronnie Earle and Texas General Attorney, Greg Abbott. They believed that this law voliated the people's 14th Amendment and business' 1st Amendment rights. The 14th Amendment gives people guaranteed privilages and immunites of citizenship and due process and equal protection, 1st Amendment which is our freedom of speech, press, and assembly.
As comedic as this is, I really do think that it voliates our constitutional rights. Who has the right to decide what a person does behind close doors in his or her own home? The plantiffs do make several very good arguments in thier appeal such as, married couples use these devices for their "sexual aspects" and it is used for those who can not any sexual contact due to "HIV" amongst other things. If the law prohibits commerical rights for these companies then it really is violating thier freedom of speech. Texas argues that it is "protecting" our liberial right, however, it is actually constricting our freedom. If an overweight adult walks into a resturant and orders three hamburgers, then that is his business, who has the right to say otherwise, that adult knows perfectly well what he is doing. Its the same for a married couple or unmarried or anyone to walk into an adult store and purchase a sex toy. Whatever that person chooses to do, it there business.
Even though sex toys are pretty controversial to many people, and there are those that rather not speak of such products,however, baning it takes away from our right that we so deserve.
Read the article here.
5th Circuit US court Appeals here.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Democrats Vote Online
Voting is the base of our government. It allows citizens to have a voice in government, or at least those who are representing us. With this new election year coming and new candidates breaking White House normalcy of officer in chief, its no wonder everyone wants to get a chance to put in their vote. But what about those Americans who are overseas? Thousands of out citizens overseas who wants to cast thier vote must use an absentee ballot which must be mailed in.
The Austin American Statesman has a short article on a new form of voting for Democrats Aboard(Demcrats overseas). Overseas Democrats can now vote online. This option is convient and modern. If we look at the human error involved in counting and the lost of absentee ballots through the mail system, its a surprise that this wasn't an option since email came out. An independant company manages the online voting site and the expected Democratic vote is to be extremely high.
Republicans Aboard, however, do not have the luxery of online voting. They must use the tradition absentee method. But Republicans stand firm on placing a republic in the White House, even if they must mail in the vote.
Even though the absentee ballot will still continue to be an option for everyone, it seems the number one complaint with this is the high risk of getting lost through the mail system. Online voting lowers , if not eliminates, that lost making every vote count. Democrats see this online voting as a higher chance the Democrats will win the election because they are secure in knowing that their vote will count.
Based on what the article states, Democrats are ready for a change, and particularly one that leans towards thier ideals, such as foreign policy credentials. The results from Super Tuesday will not be annouced until later this month, Democratic turnouts are expected to be high due to the upper hand in voting convience. It seems that Republicans do no feel threatened about this. They believe that Republican candidates are not as "polarizing" as the Democrats. Modern technology faces off with two-term experience, either way it goes, the race is going to long and close, no doubt.
View Article Here
The Austin American Statesman has a short article on a new form of voting for Democrats Aboard(Demcrats overseas). Overseas Democrats can now vote online. This option is convient and modern. If we look at the human error involved in counting and the lost of absentee ballots through the mail system, its a surprise that this wasn't an option since email came out. An independant company manages the online voting site and the expected Democratic vote is to be extremely high.
Republicans Aboard, however, do not have the luxery of online voting. They must use the tradition absentee method. But Republicans stand firm on placing a republic in the White House, even if they must mail in the vote.
Even though the absentee ballot will still continue to be an option for everyone, it seems the number one complaint with this is the high risk of getting lost through the mail system. Online voting lowers , if not eliminates, that lost making every vote count. Democrats see this online voting as a higher chance the Democrats will win the election because they are secure in knowing that their vote will count.
Based on what the article states, Democrats are ready for a change, and particularly one that leans towards thier ideals, such as foreign policy credentials. The results from Super Tuesday will not be annouced until later this month, Democratic turnouts are expected to be high due to the upper hand in voting convience. It seems that Republicans do no feel threatened about this. They believe that Republican candidates are not as "polarizing" as the Democrats. Modern technology faces off with two-term experience, either way it goes, the race is going to long and close, no doubt.
View Article Here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)