House Votes To Repeal Obamacare

[kcjenkins]

In 2011, Massachusetts "overhauled" its ethics guidelines for legislators. The State Ethics Commission has finally come up with new training for lawmakers stressing transparency and accountability. At least, that's what they say the training emphasized: the training session was closed to the public and reporters who showed up to observe. "Can I tell you --" Ethics Commission Chairman Charles Swartwood III said, interrupting himself when he was asked why ethics training of public servants was held behind closed doors. "Don't argue with me." When asked to identify himself for the record, the public official replied, "I'm not saying, because that's a private matter." When lawmakers left the session, they said they were "more confused than when they entered," because the ethics officials contradicted themselves when discussing the new regulations. (RC/Boston Herald)

ALL POLITICIANS SEEM TO BE THE SAME, DON'T THEY?

[Guest Taxed]

Since you mentioned Mass. The Lt. Gov. Tim Murray under some cloud after an accident with his official car just resigned the 120,000 yr position to take up a $200,000 job in the private sector!

No unemployment benefits here!!!

If you or I totaled our boss's car I think we would have been shown the door right away and our last paycheck garnished!

[kcjenkins]

The FBI received a tip that a Facebook user was seeking to pay for an assassination of someone in Cleveland, Ohio. An agent posed as a hit man and corresponded online with the individual. The Facebook user, later identified as Meredith Lowell, 28, allegedly told the agent she wanted him to kill someone -- anyone -- who was wearing fur outside the Cleveland Heights-University Heights Public Library. "I am paying you to kill one person wearing fur who is 12 or older (but hopefully at least 14 years, however 12 years old or older is fine)," Lowell allegedly wrote in a message. The report also indicates Lowell wanted to be present for the killing so that she could hand out anti-fur industry literature. A psychological report found her mentally incompetent to stand trial and not capable of being rehabilitated to competency, so the judge freed her. (MS/Cleveland Plain Dealer)

WHO IS MORE INSANE, THIS WOMAN, OR THE JUDGE? OR THE LAW THAT ALLOWS THIS?

AND YES, IN THE 'REAL WORLD' THERE WOULD BE REAL COSTS FOR DOING SUCH A THING.

[OldJack]

These 11 States now have More People on Welfare than they do Employed!

AL, CA, HI, IL, KY, ME, MS, NM, NY, OH, SC

Last month, the Senate Budget Committee reports that in fiscal year 2011, between food stamps, housing support, child care, Medicaid and other benefits, the average U.S. household below the poverty line received $168.00 a day in government support. What’s the problem with that much support? Well, the median household income in America is just over $50,000, which averages out to $137.13 a day. To put it another way, being on welfare now pays the equivalent of $30.00 an hour for a 40-hour week, while the average job pays $20.00 an hour.

[Guest Taxed]

I believe the Govt. also pays 4000 bucks for Toilet seats under the special discounted prices for defense requisitions!

[David1980]

These 11 States now have More People on Welfare than they do Employed!

AL, CA, HI, IL, KY, ME, MS, NM, NY, OH, SC

Last month, the Senate Budget Committee reports that in fiscal year 2011, between food stamps, housing support, child care, Medicaid and other benefits, the average U.S. household below the poverty line received $168.00 a day in government support. What’s the problem with that much support? Well, the median household income in America is just over $50,000, which averages out to $137.13 a day. To put it another way, being on welfare now pays the equivalent of $30.00 an hour for a 40-hour week, while the average job pays $20.00 an hour.

Assuming all government employees count as welfare recipients for the 11 states, and assuming all welfare goes to households below the poverty line for the $168 value. Numbers that try to match the benefits to the number of people who actually receive them are lower per household on welfare received (because it spreads out to more households than just those in poverty).

[Guest Taxed]

How many think Ms. Lerner will be charged with a felony by the end of this year? I think she may make a deal given immunity.

[kcjenkins]

I think she may well do that.

[Catherine]

I think a legitimate debate should be the role of the Federal Govt? I think once we can agree as a nation what the role of Federal Govt should be then the rest can be tackled at a state level. Some states will go the way Catherine likes, and others may go completely different direction. BUT the important point is the citizens voted for that!

Just watching the devastation in Moore, OK I am thinking can OK deal with this disaster with just local and state resources?

Do the citizens of OK demand that the Feds help them?

All valid questions to debate.

That debate was long and arduous. It was held in 1787, when a convention was called to re-vamp the Articles of Confederation, a "perpetual union" that was falling apart after only ten years. That convention came up with the Constitution, which was presented to the states and ratified in 1789. Read the works the Framers read (Aristotle, Plato, Marcus Aurelius, Cicero, Bastiat, Locke, etc.; I have read portions of their works and am in absolute awe over the breadth of knowledge of the framers -- there is NO equivalent group today) about the structure and purpose of government, the history of governance, inherent rights, the origins of civil society, the causes of breakdowns of civil societies over the ages... You'll not do much better than they did no matter how long you take.

As for your very valid question about OK damages -- yes, they _would_ do well with no Federal help. Look at recent history: after Superstorm Sandy, church groups and private charities got to _more_ places and gave _more_ aid than the feds did -- and the help they gave was pertinent to that specific spot's needs. Was there one over-arching group over all of them? No. Did some places get missed? Probably. Do places (and people) get missed when the feds are in charge? Yes. Do people scam the system? Yes; more likely to succeed with larger agencies. Private groups _will_ step in to fill voids. If the feds backed off, more private groups would step in. There was a drought in TX during the administration of Grover Cleveland (Democrat). Congress voted $50K in aid to be sent for relief. Cleveland vetoed the bill, saying there was no Constitutional justification for that aid coming from the feds. In response, private groups raised and sent over $100K to TX in relief. So TX came off two times better relying on private aid alone.

Here is a link to a great true story involving Rep. Davey Crockett (of "Remember the Alamo!" fame): http://personalliberty.com/2010/04/09/sockdolager-a-tale-of-davy-crockett-charity-and-congress/

[Catherine]

<snip>

Keep in mind the whole capitalistic society is based on consumption. Without that high consumption it completely falls apart.

<snip>

You make several excellent points (and I'm with you on the vacations and paying off the cards monthly). The one point I'll make here is that capitalism is based on PRODUCTION, not consumption. The Keynesian economists have this exactly backwards. (Read Peter Schiff's "How An Economy Grows and Why It Crashes" before tackling von Mises or Hayek; it's where I send my daughters' friends when they have questions.)

Quick proof? The iPod. No one was clamoring for it before it existed. Production first; then comes consumption.

Proof some more? FedEx. The guy who started the company got an "F" on the project where he laid out the business model; the prof said flat out that "no one needs documents overnight and besides there are fax machines." Production (here, of a service -- that now has a huge air and truck fleet too) first.

[Catherine]

In 2011, Massachusetts "overhauled" its ethics guidelines for legislators. The State Ethics Commission has finally come up with new training for lawmakers stressing transparency and accountability. At least, that's what they say the training emphasized: the training session was closed to the public and reporters who showed up to observe. "Can I tell you --" Ethics Commission Chairman Charles Swartwood III said, interrupting himself when he was asked why ethics training of public servants was held behind closed doors. "Don't argue with me." When asked to identify himself for the record, the public official replied, "I'm not saying, because that's a private matter." When lawmakers left the session, they said they were "more confused than when they entered," because the ethics officials contradicted themselves when discussing the new regulations. (RC/Boston Herald)

ALL POLITICIANS SEEM TO BE THE SAME, DON'T THEY?

KC --

First THANK YOU for the link to the Galveston County program; I had been looking for that and couldn't find it.

Next -- here in Mass we have had way too many House speakers, Senate presidents, and other officials leave office only to shortly thereafter end up in the hoosegow for illegal activities while in office. I was told some years ago that the Democrat Party in Mass (we essentially have single-party rule here; the Republicans have a scant handful of office holders and no Independents at all) _wants_ ethically challenged petty (or not-so-petty) crooks who could not get elected without strong party support -- because they TOE THE LINE and do what they are told by the party -- else they lose their cushy jobs and all their chances to enrich themselves illegally. Once out of office, the party doesn't care what happens to them -- so off to Club Fed they go.

So we end up with rep's stuffing their bra's with bribes, on camera. Rep's appearing at press conferences without their trousers to bi+ch about how "the man" is against them. Rep's claiming to know nothing about their in-law's illegal businesses and having no idea where their personal wealth (from the spouse working in that illegal business) came from... et cetera.

It is disgusting.

[Guest Taxed]

Catherine I hope you would agree that the world and America has changed drastically since 1789.

I just can't see how a country would survive natural disasters today with charitable help only and no Govt. help. How many bake sales do you need to rebuild town and city infrastructure as was evident after Katrina, Sandy, OK etc. People would have to pray for others kindness to rebuild their lives.

I do agree that there is Govt. inefficiency, waste and fraud and that must be reduced to the best we can. There will never be a 100% efficient system as long as humans are involved!

Finally on the question of Capitalism. I think there has to be a demand for a 'solution to a certain problem' that leads to innovation and production and then consumption. I don't think any company will produce something that has no consumer demand and then hope that it will sell. They do market research before embarking on any project to introduce a new gizmo etc.

Just like everything else there has to be a right balance. Folks who are big consumers and charge up everything they like, whether they can really afford sure are helping those companies stay in business, and employ people etc. But it is pushing them deeper and deeper into debt. I have friends that will charge up a $2000 per person cruise each year and have like $10 in interest income. No savings at all for the rainy day?

I read an article about a small country called Bhutan in the Himalyan mountains. Until recently they did not have internet etc. There was no credit cards etc. People basically lived off the land like it was 100 years ago. The survey showed that they had the least stress related disease and were overall happy and peaceful than neighboring countries that were consumer driven!

[Jack from Ohio]

I read an article about a small country called Bhutan in the Himalyan mountains. Until recently they did not have internet etc. There was no credit cards etc. People basically lived off the land like it was 100 years ago. The survey showed that they had the least stress related disease and were overall happy and peaceful than neighboring countries that were consumer driven!

Have you considered immigrating there? Otherwise, what is the point of your comment?

<<<"Catherine I hope you would agree that the world and America has changed drastically since 1789">>> Maybe 1913 would better fit your example??

[Guest Taxed]

No, but I would like to visit that region. The point is a simpler lifestyle leads to less stress.

[OldJack]

No, but I would like to visit that region. The point is a simpler lifestyle leads to less stress.

If you are concerned about stress, you are in the wrong business!

[Guest Taxed]

If we have another repeat of the 2013 tax season, i may have to seriously consider retiring or cutting back hours!

[Catherine]

There was a great cartoon in The New Yorker magazine a couple years ago: two cavemen sitting & talking. Once says to the other, "I don't get it. We get lots of fresh air and exercise, the water and air are clean, everything we eat is organic and free-range -- and no one lives past thirty!"

[Catherine]

Rabbi Daniel Lapin says, "The more things change, the more we must rely on the principles that never change."

Do some reading on the Constitution and its principles -- I've cited web sites, books, articles, YouTube videos; take your pick. Yes, the _world_ has changed -- but the principles of freedom, morality, self-government, self-regulation, responsibility including our duty to aid our fellow humans -- NONE of those have changed one iota. THOSE are what the Constitution is founded upon.