Saturday, February 13, 2010


I believe that taxes should not be raised in a down economy because of the negative impact it will have on the economy.

I believe the federal government should NEVER have bailed out banks, insurance companies and auto companies to begin with and that it has way overstepped its bounds in doing so.

I do not support any kind of amnesty for illegal immigrants.

I beleive English should be the official language of the United States of America.

I believe that former illegal immigrants who gain U.S. citizenship by whatever means should NOT be granted Social Security benefits retroactively.

I believe that federal court nominees should be properly and carefully "vetted" before being approved to sit on the bench.

I believe that government school operation should be returned to local governments with no involvement from the federal government.

I believe that school performance standards should be stringent and administered by the individual states.

I believe that health care is NOT a right. (If you believe it is, where does that right come from? Is it unalienable? Where has it been in the history of the universe?)

I believe that creating a government-funded "Citizen Volunteer Corps" (pronounced "core," by the way) is a contradiction of terms.


Pedaling said...

you are awesome!

Joe said...

Pedaling: Thank you for the visit and for the kind words.

ablur said...

Now there is an idea. I will have to work on my list later. It is going to be another long day. We are buried at work. Having work may be nice in this economy but the insanity level can weigh pretty heavy.
Going for 18 days in a row on number 7 of 10 or more hours. My crews are actually pretty pumped about it. Guess they are as brain damaged as I.

Black Republican Women said...

Great work Joe, I like your style.
Please keep up the fight and the great work.

tammy said...


Anonymous said...

You can stick your random beliefs where the sun don't shine!

Joe, I have seen and read some of the vile things that you have said and posted about Sue and many other liberal bloggers so don't come around sucking up and ass kissing pretending to be anyone's friend.
With friends like you we don't need any enemies.

President Obama is going to be around for a long time, get used to it.

Joe said...

Napqueen: Here's a challenge for you: find, copy & paste here one single vile thing that I have posted about Sue or any other blogger/commenter. Make it something on the order of your " don't come around sucking up and ass kissing..." if you can find it.

I don't do vile, period.

You wrote: "You can stick your random beliefs where the sun don't "shine!"

In typical liberal fashion you would begrudge me the expression of my doubt in the name of free speech.

Joe said...

Napqueen: Seemingly you are afraid to let those who disagree with you speak, so I have commented about your latest post here, mostly to let everybody know how brilliant you are.

Is it your intellect (From your sidebar: "I enjoy human intellect and I love engaging in deep intellectual conversations.") that causes you to make your title: "For The First Time In My Life, I Am Ashamed Of My Country" and then say in your post: "I am not ashamed of my country..."?

Do those two phrases ean the same thing?

Help me out here.

BTW: Do you let your nastiness spill over in the children's classroom where you purport to teach music?

Z said...

ablur..are you pumping SNOW? Good luck with your workload, whatever it is.

Joe, I can't imagine you being VILE and think that you'll get a list of your vile statements right after the White House calls that red phone on Glenn Beck's TV show set to show him where he's wrong. :-)

Great list....

I'm on my way to Black Republican Women Blog..I LOVE the sound of to my ears.

Oso said...

Just to touch on a couple points if I may.

Healthcare not being a right.A coworker always uses a "where do you draw the line" analogy.If HC is free, then should car insurance be free,for example.But what if you look at it in the other direction?

If someone is destitute or dying, you would possibly agree to some sort of heroic measure to sustain their life. Someone else might agree to take it a bit further, with some sort of basic care to avoid spread of disease.Another person might extend that basic care to preventative medicine.

I'd read where there was evidence of Neanderthals keeping a tribal member alive far past his ability to contribute (bone forensics). So there is human precedent.

I believe a society has an innate need to care for its members,it might be a kind of racial/tribal memory or in more modern times a Christian duty.

So I believe capitalism gives us the opportunity to make a living thru our inventiveness and hard work but it needs a social safety net due to its ultimately predatory nature.

So there needs to be liberal and conservative sides for balance, both working as loyal opposition to the other.

Hey gonna get on your case about econ policy at some point,put on your thinking cap:)

Oso said...

I also opposed the bailouts, probably didn't explain my thoughts on it well.

The stated intent was to restore confidence in short term funding.That could have been accomplished in a sort of "let the crack house burn while protecting the surrounding neighborhood" scenario,if you will.

Paulson and the Fed needlessly panicked people. They were planning on backstopping short term lending all along. IMO the real intent was to prop up Wall St at the expense of Main St, as you may agree.

I think our disagreement is more regarding Stimulus and Deficit spending.

Joe said...

Z: I've been to BRW's site and it is very nice.

Oso: I suppose we could have enumerated many rights in our Declaration of Independence. The phrase, "...that among these..." is not restrictive, although it lists only three (Life; Liberty; The Persuit of Happiness). However, those three are said to be "self-evident."

I totally agree that we should take care of each other. Where we might part company is over who should be doing the taking care of.

A fire in our neighborhood left a family homeless. For the next 7 months families in our neighborhood provided them a place to stay and basic necessities until they got on their feet. Not a penny of federal or state money was spent on them. In fact, except as required by law, it was not even reported to the feds.

A child in our town with cancer, who is from a "poor" family, has had all of her medical bills taken care of through the community and the good will of the hospitals.

I just don't think the federal government is the right entity to take care of our health care needs.

I am on Medicare, into which I have paid from its inception. I also pay for a supplemental plan. I have NEVER seen such a disjointed, messed up, fragmented and inconsistant system in my life.

Medicare is run by the same government that wants to have a hand in our health care.

That's just not a very good idea.

Medicare is MUCH smaller than the proposed heal care bill(s), and if the government can't do IT right, what evidence is there that they can do every-day health care right?

Oso said...

I don't have much knowledge about Medicare.I've heard it said that if it was better funded there would be less fraud. I'm assuming they mean it would allow for more oversight?

If there were a Medicare-for-all plan, it would insure a larger and arguably healthier base which would increase funding in proportion to membership amounts.

Do you feel these two points carry some validity? As I stated, I have had no dealings with Medicare.Yet!

Joe said...

Oso: Trust will, under two conditions: if you live long enough and if Medicare survives.

The "spread the cost" thing is what all insurance companies do. Each of them knows pretty much how many people in their system will not use their services, and the cost of care is spread among them as well as among those who use the service.

The profits they make are pretty good (witness the buildings they erect in their own honor), and from a business standpoint the majority of insurance companies (those with a B rating or higher) are very effecient.

For a very long time they have been prohibited from spreading their costs over any more than customers in the state in which they are operating.

Each insurance company must operate as a separate entity in each state in which it desires to sell plans.

This results in gross ineffeciencies which the insurance companies MUST make up through increased premiums.

If each company could operate in all 50 states, the costs would be spread, as you suggest, over a larger population of well people as well as sick, resulting in increased effeciency and lower premiums.

The problem I see with your suggestion is NOT that it is the wrong way to supply insurance, but that it is the wrong entity supplying it.

The governmnet neither knows nor cares about effeciency, because if they need more money they either raise taxes (fees, or whatever) or just print it. They are not bound by the rules of business, and they have the power to make whatever rules they want to make and to follow them or not.

That represents a severe conflict of interest and opens the door to more corruption and greed than we currently experience in the insurance industry as it is now.

The real solutions to the costs of health care are tort reform and fewer regulations restricting the sale of insurance plans.

We still need regulations governing the illegal sale and practices of insurance companies, but my observation over 68 years of life is that the government makes a very, very poor businessman.

the malcontent said...

Joe you ARE awesome. And for what It's worth I got your back buddy.

Tom said...

Somehow, I can't fathom anything you post or comment on being considered "vile". You state your opinion respectfully and for consideration by others.

And as far as this post is concerned, there are a bunch of people who believe what you just posted.

ablur said...

I sold insurance for a couple of years with multiple lines and multiple state licenses. Each state had various twists or modifications that needed to be met in order to sell it in their state. These modifications always increased the cost of the product. I can't recall a single case where we could sell a generic policy that met the needs of the masses. Each state added there regulations and requirements that kept me on my toes.
Just by crossing over the state boundary I could offer an entirely different plan. I could tell them that policies vary state to state. Legally I couldn't discuss these variations but I could invite the prospect to a meeting in the other state.
Where I sold the plan was always important to list on the policy. The policy holders residence often wasn't an issue.

Have you ever looked at what your state requires when you sign up for an insurance plan. Home, Health, auto, Life, etc.......

I have covered the costs and how to make healthcare cheaper and it really isn't that hard. Ironicly, not one single item on my list has made it into any of the versions of Obama care.
I can't find any reason other then control for the current offerings.

Healthcare isn't a right. It is an obligation of family and friends to help one another. The government has no right to use the peoples money in this way, yet they have the authority. Freedom is a tricky thing. Our government has lost the image of real freedom.

Joe said...

the malcontent: Thanks for that. It's a big back to cover.

Tom: Yeah. It's not the way I operate. 'Bout as vile as I get is to call someone's IDEA stupid. I don't even do that very often.

ablur: I tried to sell both life and health insurance. I couldn't sell ice blocks to a desert dweller. But I DID learn the rules.

Life insurance is pretty stable, but health insurance is a real maze.

Tammy: I think I missed saying, "Hi" to you. Thanks for coming by.

Lone Ranger said...

We ALMOST agree. I don't believe taxes should be raised in ANY economy. If it is a bad idea in a down economy, it can't be a good idea in a healthy economy. Besides, the economy swings like a pendulum. When the economy takes a downturn, you will still be stuck with those taxes. To have an immediate effect on the economy, Obama should level a 10% income tax on everyone, regardless of income. He should do away with the inheritance and capital gains taxes. And he should freeze government spending. The economy would be humming in a month. And after we are better again, he could eliminate the income tax forever. Pffft, yeah. That's what he'll do.

Joe said...

LR: I agree with you 100%.

I have long been an advocate of a level, fixed percentage income tax on every earned dollar above a poverty line, both individual and exemptions and no deductions.

That would mean no special incentives, no political pay-backs, no corruption, etc.

One form; four lines: how much did you earn; subtract poverty line; X 0.11; equals. That's your tax.

This would give the government more than it knows what to do with...though they'd figure it out soon enough.

"To have an immediate effect on the economy, Obama should level a 10% income tax on everyone, regardless of income. He should do away with the inheritance and capital gains taxes."

(Pumping fist) Yessss!

ablur said...

Let me add a $5000 deduction per family member and business would get a $5000 deduction for all employees who work more then 1600 hours in a year. After that the flat tax.

I just increased job security and job creation.

lisa said...

Joe you have some really good ideas here.
I read an idea also in the paper today that insurance companies can bid on insuring the uninsured and the lowest bidder can get the funding from the government which would cost about 800 billion dollars less than a complete government takeover of the health care system which congress is proposing.
I love the way the liberals write nasty things to you on your blog and then call you out like it was you saying those nasty things.
They alway want it both ways.
I think they feel threatened that you can one up them on the issues.
Not that you have to try that hard either.
Glad I found you. I am really enjoying your posts and your insight.

Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe said...

ablur: I like the $5,000.00 deduction idea.

lisa: Thanks. They don't really bother me as I take the humorous approach with them.

I just went over to Sue's blogs and wrote "Boo!" in her comment section.

She has moderation enabled, so it won't get on her blog, but she'll have to read it to restrict it.

Poor thing is very paranoid.

Chris M. said...

I'm sure that if you wrote enough I would finally find something to disagree with. But these are some good subcore principles.

Joe said...

chris m: Well, either I should quit writing. lest you find something to disagree with, or I should write really long posts so we'll have something to talk about.

Thanks for the visit!

I'm A Pitt Bull said...

Joe said...

chris m: Well, either I should quit writing. lest you find something to disagree with, or I should write really long posts so we'll have something to talk about.

Well don't Quit. We need you and more guys like you.

Joe said...

Im A Pit Bull: convinced me. Thanks for the visit, BTW.

Tapline said...

Joe, outstanding post as usual......I agree and would probably add more, but that
a start.....They are starting on the central Health Information systems in the states already, ours got 6.5 million to start it/ so advises the Maine senators in their weekly newsletters.....Sorry off topic!!stay well...

Joe said...

tapline: Thanks. You know what? You need to do more blogging. I like reading your stuff.