A Compassionate Deficit

I would like to personally thank your children for funding my government.

Thanks!

Ronald Reagan did it. George HW Bush did it. Bill Clinton.. (oh yeah that's right he had a surplus at the end of his 2nd term). George W. Bush is doing it. Why is the only time we've had a balanced budget in the last 26 years was when a Democrat was President? (Don't bother with "Bill Clinton had a Republican congress" bull-poop. So did President W. Bush, and they all had veto power)

Maybe the Republicans don't care about your children (well, after they're born, anyway.)
I had a good deal of credit card debt when I was in college. The government won't let me make my children pay for that. Why? I mean because I went to college, I'll make more money, so my kids will have a better education, and in turn make even more money. Why not make them pay for that privilege? That seems to be the American way of late.

We have soldiers overseas fighting for our freedom, and we're told if we don't support them, we're un-American. I'm afraid they're funding themselves, they just have to do it with interest. To me, that's not supporting the troops, in the most literal sense. And its not like even when Congress funds them, they get the equipment they need, and deserve. We have the ability to protect our troops from roadside bombs, we just can't get them on their vehicles.

Whitney Houston believes the children are our future. President Bush believes the children are our financiers. I have to agree with Ms. Houston on this one

Gangsta's Paradise Remix

I found this video, and it may be old news (I seem to behind on some of my posts, forgive me, I'm still pretty new).

I wanted to post this, and see what thoughts my readers have to say. I'm honestly not sure what to think. Its very interesting.


Gangstas Paradise Remix

So You Say You Want A Healthcare Revolution? Libertarians and Health care

Well, we all want to change the world.

But there is a better way. Now I’m sure my liberal and conservative friends can agree (finally, The-G-Blog, a uniter, not a divider) that the current way is not working. So do we let the government step in to once again solve our problems (like the war on drugs, like the prescription drug plan, etc).

Healthcare is outrageous. So is health insurance. So why shouldn’t the Federal Government implement a plan to solve the crisis?

Because they’ll make it worse, that’s why.

The government requires insurance carriers to carry certain coverages on all policies they sell. So if you are a 70 year old female who’s had your tubes tied, most likely you are required to buy pregnancy coverage through your healthcare provider, I guess just in case. Silly requirements like these drive the price up. You can’t go out and get a simple policy that covers an unexpected loss. Not because these policies wouldn’t make money, but because the state requires them to add on extra coverages, which cost extra

What about the cost?

If you have healthcare insurance through your company, the company pays about 50% of that premium (on average). So when we move to Government healthcare, your taxes will need to be increased by 2x the amount you pay now toward healthcare. And do you think that once competition is eliminated, the hospitals are going to lower their price?. Is that what we need, solve the problem by doubling our burden? I say not.

Now, I’m all for a non-profit healthcare program sponsored by the government to offer basic healthcare to those who don’t get it through their company. I would also like to see a safety net for those who couldn’t afford the premiums that the non-profit program provided. Call me the libertarian Dennis Kucinich if you will.

We should concentrate on Tort reform, more competition, and less government intervention. It’s the American way... Or at least it used to be!!

Gore And Gingrich: A Match Made In Heaven: blogs from a Political Standpoint

If I could get one wish, I’d make it a Gingrich-Gore Presidential race in 2008. Say what you want about their policies, and idiosyncracies, but both of these non-candidates could really change the course of our country.

Vice President Gore has experience in the Senate, and in the Executive branch that no other candidate has (even Hillary Clinton). He knows foreign relations, he understands complex issues, and for heaven’s sakes, he invented the internet! I think he would have read into the memo that stated Bin Laden was determined to attack the US with planes. Sure, he might go a little overboard with the environmental cause, but it beats war, and I doubt he’d get many of his pet environmental projects through a divided Senate.

Newt Gingrich is the father of the line-item veto, and the “Contract with America”. Agree, or disagree with his ideas, this is an intellectual man (he’s a former history professor) with a lot of ideas about changing our country. He’s not your run-of-the-mill Republican, and he could really convert the middle. Sure, he’s had personal issues, but haven’t we all? I’ve always thought of him as an intellectually honest man, even when I didn’t agree with his position. Like Gore, I believe that he would have read into the memo that stated Bin Laden was determined to attack the US with planes.
I hate to say it, but I’m not sure we’ve got the best of the best candidates running for President on either side of the Aisle right now. I like Huckabee, Edwards, Obama , and sometimes McCain. But in my opinion, only two people have the experience and the ideas that could lead us into a new decade for America. Both have not decided to run yet.

Is that smart? I think it is. Its just another reason that they are on another level, at least where politics are concerned. These guys are going to wait for the Also-rans in their party to eliminate each other. Then they’re going to try to take the winner.

I think they’re winning already

The Leftist Media Declares Victory In Iraq

I was watching CNN the other day, and get ready for this........
Two correspondents, Heidi Collins and some other guy were discussing the fact that we seem to have, in part of the country anyway, found a way to win the war in Iraq.
It appears we have made agreements with several former Bathe Party leaders to give them local power in exchange for the elimination of Al Qaeda in those areas. And it seems to be working.
So now instead of U.S. troops fighting Batheists and Al Qaeda, we're letting Batheists fight Al Qaeda. Basically Saddam's army is fighting Bin Laden's army. But I thought they were friends?
Say what you want about Saddam Hussein, but he was not an Islamic Fascist. I mean, he was a Fascist, and he was Islamic, but he ran a non-sectarian government. Tariq Aziz, one of Saddam's right hand men was a Christian. He had Sunni's and Shia in his upper "management". In case you didn't want to be tortured by a Sunni, he could have a diverse group of men hang you by your toenails.
Maybe we should not tell President Bush about this. We seem to do better when he's doing the YMCA to African music. The administrations excuse always appears to be "we didn't know it was happening". Sometimes I believe them.
Of course, this is only one part of Iraq. The Shiite majority have no ties to Al Qaeda and "the list" never really got into this part of the country (Bin Laden is a member of the Whabi (sp) sect of the Suni Muslims, and we all know sunni and shia don't play nice right now). Our biggest problem now seems to be with this group. Also, where Shia and Sunni (who once lived in relative peace under Saddam) live in the same neighborhoods, there are still many issues. Neither seem to be getting better.
Maybe when Saddam's army beats Al Qaeda, we can sic them on the rest of the country. It worked for Saddam, why wouldn't it work for us?
So now it appears the best case scenario is for the Bathe Party to control the country, the elimination of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and a Stable centralized government, ran by the largest minority in the country.
That's the exact scene as the day before we invaded Iraq. But at least Haliburton and Exxon made a killing, right?

Virginia Tech Shooting

I know today's school shooting at Virginia Tech has really been terrible, on so many levels. I pray for the people who did and didn't make it, their family and friends, and anybody associated with Virginia Tech who has been personally affected by this tragedy.
I think it's a good time to have a discussion about gun-control. I'll give my thoughts first, and I hope everyone else can give their perspective.

But First:

2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I think that most Democrats want to forget it's there, and most Republicans don't read what it says.

Well-regulated means, well,,,,regulated. This is why I never believed the Brady Bill to be unconstitutional. I could site specific disagreements with the bill (some things are on there that shouldn't and some things aren't on there that should), but overall, I believe it to be constitutional.

I don't hunt. I'm not against it, bu to me ts boring, and I'm not sure I could pull the trigger. I like to eat the meat though, and I think that anyone who wants to go out and hunt, should, because I know a lot of people who really enjoy it. But you usually have to wake up early, I'm warning you!
I do own a gun. I don't get to carry it everywhere, but you better believe I can get to it if I need it (thank God I never have). If you knew what I did for a living (don't worry its legal), you'd understand.

"If firearms are outlawed, only outlaws will have them". There's some truth to that (I hate buzz words, but this one make sense) statement. I mention that because if someone in the Virginia Tech dorm or classroom other than the gunman had a gun, the story would not have ended the same, and if the shooter knew someone would, he might not even have tried.

http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=43109
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OthWr/principal&gun.htm

I could go on, but I want to make this short. I'm sure nobody is going to agree with The-G-Blog on this one, so let the debate begin!!

I wanted to title this blog "Imus Isn't Half As Bad As Your Government Is", but I'd already used my mandatory Imus headline.

The drug war has done to more harm to society, minorities in particular, than the Iraq war has. Richard Nixon coined the term "war on drugs" in 1971 after my parents got to have all their fun (BOO!)

Approximately 55% of federal inmates are drug offenders. (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/prison.htm) It costs us about $22,000 per inmate, per year (http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/22/22006.html) to keep these people in Federal prison (Republicans: This could have been a tax savings of about $19,133,840,000).

The "war on drugs" has torn families apart, clogged up our prisons and courtrooms, created terrible governments at our door in South America (Don't even let me get started about Afghanistan), and created a vacuum of poverty and crime (that does suck!!) in many low-income areas all over our country. (Democrats: if we taxed drugs, you'd be able to try to fund rehab programs, after school programs, all kind of spending :))

I'll be honest. I've wrestled with this issue, as far as crystal meth is concerned (thought it might need to be excluded from legalization), but the current way isn't working.

One of my good friends has become addicted to that crap (don't ask me how, I have no idea), and the last time I saw him, he was a shell of the person he was before. He's gone to jail several times, had to hire attorneys, pay fines, and a bunch of other things. If he'd taken the money he's spent on fines and attorneys, he could have gone to rehab by now. If he wasn't constantly having to look for it, he'd probably still have his job. My friend is not a criminal, he's got an addiction.

There has to be a better way.

The Government is winning the war on drugs. They just didn't tell us, we are the targets
This is an issue worthy of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

My "Mandatory" Imus Headline

News and Politics

Sorry, Everybody's got a "Imus" headlines now, and I kinda felt left out
But I think we've got bigger fish to fry.

I don't think the Republicans or Democrats are being intellectually honest with us about the war in Iraq, or Afghanistan. (In unison, YEAH!!)
We need to have a serious debate (not just here, but in the White House as well) about our foreign policy. (YEAH!)

Our government is cashing checks that our kids are going to have to pay for (with interest). We've got to figure out a way to stop that now. (YEAH!,,,,,, YEAH!!!)
I think we should eliminate the Postal Service and open the market up to regulated competition. (WHAT THE.&^%#!!).

I think I could convince a Postal carrier to support my position. But we need to solve the 1st three problems first. I'll blog about that another time (I'm supposed to leave you wanting for more, right?). Until then, lets discuss these issues until we can demand answers from our representatives.

Read my blog "info on tonight game" (www.myspace.com/thegblog). This whole thing is just another great example of the media (which I think is Republican biased by the way), chasing us off the government's sent. I agree, it is an issue, but there is a lot of things that aren't getting payed attention to right now. And everybody in the government is happy about that.

My Mandatory Imus Headline

Sorry, Everybody's got a "Imus" headlines now, and I kinda felt left out
But I think we've got bigger fish to fry.

I don't think the Republicans or Democrats are being intellectually honest with us about the war in Iraq, or Afghanistan. (In unison, YEAH!!)

We need to have a serious debate (not just here, but in the White House as well) about our foreign policy. (YEAH!)

Our government is cashing checks that our kids are going to have to pay for (with interest). We've got to figure out a way to stop that now. (YEAH!,,,,,, YEAH!!!)

I think we should eliminate the Postal Service and open the market up to regulated competition. (WHAT THE.&^%#!!).

I think I could convince a Postal carrier to support my position. But we need to solve the 1st three problems first. I'll blog about that another time (I'm supposed to leave you wanting for more, right?). Until then, lets discuss these issues until we can demand answers from our representatives.

Read my blog "info on tonight game". This whole thing is just another great example of the media (which I think is Republican biased by the way), chasing us off the government's sent. I agree, it is an issue, but there is a lot of things that aren't getting payed attention to right now. And everybody in the government is happy about that.

I'm Coming Out Against Gay Marraige

I am against gay marriage....

Of course, I'm against any government sanctioned marriage, so don't start calling me a homophobe yet (they'll be plenty of room for that in the comment section)

Being gay, to a gay person, is as normal as being straight is to me. I've always been straight, and don't remember ever deciding not to be gay, so I'm pretty sure its not a decision that gay people make either. I've seen my gay friends put up with vandalized vehicles (from spray-painted slurs to keying to knifing the tires), unwarranted comments and accusations, people treating them differently because of who they sleep with at night, and act like it never happened. I've gotten a lot more hostile at the word "faggot" spray painted on a vehicle of one of my friends than he did. He said "you have to get use to this kinda stuff when you are gay." Well I don't think they should. But I guess I can see his point.

Oh yeah, gay marriage.........I've got a better idea.

Lets spend our time and resources (Americans, not just gay Americans) removing social engineering from the government altogether. Lets take away the carrot (which we pay for in dollars and liberty) that the government dangles in front of us to get us to behave the way they want us to.

Many companies offer benefits to gay couples, and I think if your gay, you'd be wise to try and get a job with one of those companies (if your companion needs the benefits). Buy from companies that offer that benefit (I"m for boycotting companies that do if you disagree with their stance, so don't start with hypocracy accusations), and boycott companies who don't. It'll do a lot more to get the company to change its ways (either way), than asking the government to step in.

If a Baptist minister doesn't want to marry a gay couple, that's within his (I don't think they allow women Baptist ministers) rights (I've not really heard the gay community say otherwise), but homosexuals feel that they deserve the same rights as someone who isn't gay, and marriage is the carrot that is dangling. Well I say keep it all out of the governments hands. We (Americans) don't really have the habit of sending our best and brightest to Congress (or the state legislature for that matter), on either side of the aisle. I'd rather them make less decisions about my life than more. I feel I'm pretty consistent on that issue.

This is an open forum, but more than one line of your beliefs regarding homosexuality is a waste of your time and cyberspace (I"m sure I'm going to get them anyway).

This shouldn't be a debate about whether they're going to hell, or tearing down our nation. I'd like it to be a debate about government involvement in our personal lives. But the comments are yours to make.

Enjoy!