I have to admit, I was leaning heavily towards Ron Paul for president in 2008 simply because he wants to simplify taxes in this country. I think his views in relation to Iraq are a little Pollyanna-ish but if that was my lone problem, he seemed to be the man for me. Now Fred Thompson has come out with a comprehensive plan for taxes that have me a little excited about him.
See, right now, the tax code is so hard to understand only CPA's and attorney's can understand it. It's so complicated that IRS workers don't get it. I mean, have you ever tried to call into the IRS for help? It doesn't exist... CNN Money has an article about how wrong the employees on the IRS call help line can be.
Fred Thompson wants to go with a flat tax rate of 10% for joint filers making less than $100,000 a year and 25% for those making more. Fred Thompson also wants the standard deduction to become $25,000 for joint filers. Right now, I think my husband and I are sitting at $12,500 with a tax credit of $1000 for our son, which we'll lose in 3 1/2 years. The title of this blog post has a link to a Fox News article that explains his platform in relation to taxes more thoroughly than I can do here. Pay a visit. Take a look. See if what he's saying doesn't make sense?
There was one point I wanted to make. Incomes are rising in America, probably due to more people getting college educations and earning the six figure incomes, but they are rising. Perhaps the ceiling should be more along the lines of $150,000 for the 10% bracket? I mean, there ARE families out there making that much money and more and barely scraping by. With the rise in housing costs, a person has to make at least $100,000 to afford any kind of house. I was also watching a news story last night that food costs have risen 4.4% this year from the same time last year. I know gas prices are hitting us hard at almost $3 a gallon.
Anyway, I thought I'd share this with the rest of you. Fred Thompson's looking good to me. To be honest, Hillary scares the be-Jesus outta me. With her tax and spend policies, we'll all be in the poor house and on welfare in five years, which is where the Dems want us to be, poor and dependant on them for living our daily lives.
But who am I to judge? This is just my two cents.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Megan Meier commits suicide due to cyberbullying...
In October 2006, a young, nearly 14-year-old girl hung herself in her closet while her family sat downstairs. Why did she do this? What drives a young child to kill themselves when their lives are only just beginning?
It was a boy. There was a young boy that wrote messages back and forth via myspace.com to young Megan Meier. Megan, bullied by classmates, most of it a result of a confrontation with another girl her age that lived four houses down from her. This young boy, Joshua, approached Megan online and wooed her for 6 weeks. At the end of the six weeks, he broke off the relationship with no warning, telling her what a horrible person she was, suggesting she should kill herself, that the world would be a better place without her. Described by her mother as shy, overweight, less than social, Megan was prime for an online predator.
Oh, did I say predator? Yes, I did. Turns out "Joshua" wasn't a young boy at all but a woman named Lori Drew, mother of the little girl Megan had a falling out with a few weeks earlier. For weeks, Lori Drew religiously wrote messages to Megan, some of them suggestive and sexual in nature (per the newspaper reports) and also shared the password on the account with her daughter, some of her friends and a part-time employee so they could harass Megan as well. As a result of the "boy" breaking up with her, Megan committed suicide. It wasn't until weeks later the parents of Megan found out about the cyberfraud... Imagine their surprise when they found out it was their neighbors, the Drew's. Also, in the midst of this cyberbullying the Drew's asked the Meier's to store a Foosball table that was a Christmas gift for their wonderful cyberbullying family.
Here's the funny thing - the police knew absolutely nothing about the cyberbullying until Lori Drew herself told them about it. See, the Meier's, upon hearing the whole story, smashed up the Foosball table and parked it on the Drew's' front lawn. (I can't believe he had that much restraint, to not set their house on fire with them in it.) When Lori Drew FILED THE POLICE COMPLAINT she told them of the cyberbullying and subsequent death of the girl she did it to.
Wow, does that take an incredibly large pair of brass balls on this lady. She actually felt THAT above the law that she admits to the police of her criminal actions? Oh, wait, the prosecutor there can't understand the law of the land well enough to figure out what to charge her with. So, I guess she IS above the law because the prosecutor is too stupid to charge her with, I don't know, cyber stalking, being an online predator, negligent homicide (her intentional actions led to an unforeseeable death). After this bitch ATTENDED THE FUNERAL OF THE GIRL SHE KILLED she gave an interview and told the reporter she felt bad about it until she heard at the funeral that Megan had tried suicide before, and then she was okay with it all. What a stone cold bitch... What a psychopathic moron this is... This whole family is nuts to take part in this... Had Megan not attempted suicide in the past would Lori Drew feel badly THEN? Is Megan's suicide somehow more acceptable because she'd tried it before? To somehow mitigate the loss of this young life at her hands is simply a psycopath making excuses for their bad behavior.
I don't know what else I can say at this point that hasn't already been said. I did find the address of the St. Charles County prosecutor. Maybe a letter writing campaign would help this guy read a law book? Anyway, his contact info is as follows:
Jack Banas, Prosecuting Attorney
Courts Administration Building
Room 601300 North Second Street
St. Charles, MO 63301
PH: 636-949-7355
Fax: 636-949-7360
Also, I found out on another site that Lori Drew created a new site here on blogspot pretending to be a teenage girl, her own daughter. The link for that site is http://meganhaditcoming.blogspot.com/. I read the site and couldn't believe what I saw. This whore actually wants people to believe that Megan was such a horrible person death was the only satisfactory solution to her place in this world. To be honest, if anyone is a waste of air on this planet it's Lori Drew. That she condones and defends what she did tells me she's a total psychopath who is probably a danger to others, forget herself. (writer's note: I have read in other blogs that the daughter, Sarah Drew actually was the writer of the blog. Wow, is she sick as well! Her parents are doing as bad s job raising her as their parents did them, to have no conscience at all?)
And usually I'd say "who am I to judge" and I'm not going to say that this time because this is a woman who NEEDS to be judged. See, it was much more important to her that she be a "friend" to her kids and be the cool mom with "See what I can do!" attitude that she helped a little girl kill herself. What a sick child this Lori Drew is. I know, I know, chronologically she's an adult but emotionally she's a child in every sense of the word, to take part in a charade as harmful as this is.
That's just my two cents.
It was a boy. There was a young boy that wrote messages back and forth via myspace.com to young Megan Meier. Megan, bullied by classmates, most of it a result of a confrontation with another girl her age that lived four houses down from her. This young boy, Joshua, approached Megan online and wooed her for 6 weeks. At the end of the six weeks, he broke off the relationship with no warning, telling her what a horrible person she was, suggesting she should kill herself, that the world would be a better place without her. Described by her mother as shy, overweight, less than social, Megan was prime for an online predator.
Oh, did I say predator? Yes, I did. Turns out "Joshua" wasn't a young boy at all but a woman named Lori Drew, mother of the little girl Megan had a falling out with a few weeks earlier. For weeks, Lori Drew religiously wrote messages to Megan, some of them suggestive and sexual in nature (per the newspaper reports) and also shared the password on the account with her daughter, some of her friends and a part-time employee so they could harass Megan as well. As a result of the "boy" breaking up with her, Megan committed suicide. It wasn't until weeks later the parents of Megan found out about the cyberfraud... Imagine their surprise when they found out it was their neighbors, the Drew's. Also, in the midst of this cyberbullying the Drew's asked the Meier's to store a Foosball table that was a Christmas gift for their wonderful cyberbullying family.
Here's the funny thing - the police knew absolutely nothing about the cyberbullying until Lori Drew herself told them about it. See, the Meier's, upon hearing the whole story, smashed up the Foosball table and parked it on the Drew's' front lawn. (I can't believe he had that much restraint, to not set their house on fire with them in it.) When Lori Drew FILED THE POLICE COMPLAINT she told them of the cyberbullying and subsequent death of the girl she did it to.
Wow, does that take an incredibly large pair of brass balls on this lady. She actually felt THAT above the law that she admits to the police of her criminal actions? Oh, wait, the prosecutor there can't understand the law of the land well enough to figure out what to charge her with. So, I guess she IS above the law because the prosecutor is too stupid to charge her with, I don't know, cyber stalking, being an online predator, negligent homicide (her intentional actions led to an unforeseeable death). After this bitch ATTENDED THE FUNERAL OF THE GIRL SHE KILLED she gave an interview and told the reporter she felt bad about it until she heard at the funeral that Megan had tried suicide before, and then she was okay with it all. What a stone cold bitch... What a psychopathic moron this is... This whole family is nuts to take part in this... Had Megan not attempted suicide in the past would Lori Drew feel badly THEN? Is Megan's suicide somehow more acceptable because she'd tried it before? To somehow mitigate the loss of this young life at her hands is simply a psycopath making excuses for their bad behavior.
I don't know what else I can say at this point that hasn't already been said. I did find the address of the St. Charles County prosecutor. Maybe a letter writing campaign would help this guy read a law book? Anyway, his contact info is as follows:
Jack Banas, Prosecuting Attorney
Courts Administration Building
Room 601300 North Second Street
St. Charles, MO 63301
PH: 636-949-7355
Fax: 636-949-7360
Also, I found out on another site that Lori Drew created a new site here on blogspot pretending to be a teenage girl, her own daughter. The link for that site is http://meganhaditcoming.blogspot.com/. I read the site and couldn't believe what I saw. This whore actually wants people to believe that Megan was such a horrible person death was the only satisfactory solution to her place in this world. To be honest, if anyone is a waste of air on this planet it's Lori Drew. That she condones and defends what she did tells me she's a total psychopath who is probably a danger to others, forget herself. (writer's note: I have read in other blogs that the daughter, Sarah Drew actually was the writer of the blog. Wow, is she sick as well! Her parents are doing as bad s job raising her as their parents did them, to have no conscience at all?)
And usually I'd say "who am I to judge" and I'm not going to say that this time because this is a woman who NEEDS to be judged. See, it was much more important to her that she be a "friend" to her kids and be the cool mom with "See what I can do!" attitude that she helped a little girl kill herself. What a sick child this Lori Drew is. I know, I know, chronologically she's an adult but emotionally she's a child in every sense of the word, to take part in a charade as harmful as this is.
That's just my two cents.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Illegal alien saves the life of a 9-yr old boy
Anyone who reads me regularly knows I'm about an ant-illegal immigration as a person can get, but this particular story in yesterday's new caught my eye. As a result of this particular illegal alien, I believe there CAN be exceptions to the rule.
To encapsulate:
A young boy and his mother were traveling on a remote road on federal lands. The mom missed a turn and crashed over a cliff. Her son survived and mom hung on for several hours on the edge of death before succumbing. She was trapped in the vehicle and her son couldn't help her. The son, a tender 9 years old, went in search of help and found it in the form of Jesus Manuel Cordova, a 26-year-old illegal entrant to this country. Though the boy's mother had died, Cordova stayed with the boy throughout the night, keeping him warm and fed, via a fire and his jacket, and calmed him through the night, assuring him his mother was in a better place. It wasn't until the following morning some hunters happened upon the pair and got help. Border Patrol was the first on the scene and they took Cordova into custody.
Now, here's my take on it...
Cordova stayed to help another in spite of the fact it increased his likelihood of being captured. He tended to the needs and heart of a lost little boy who had just lost his mother, after having lost his father two months previous to this. Cordova was an angel sent from heaven and I don't think it's an accident his first name is Jesus (pronounced Hey-seuss in spanish). Jesus Cordova should be permitted to stay in this country for as long as he wishes. This is one man who has proven he belongs here, for this is the basis of one of the principles on which this country was founded.
Jesus Cordova was a brave man who put the needs of others above his own. He could have walked away from the boy when first approached. He could have walked away from the boy as soon as the hunters found them. He could have walked away from the boy when he found out help was on the way. But he didn't. He stayed. He stayed by this boy's side until he knew without doubt that he was safe.
To me, Cordova would make a better American than most Americans I've seen in my life. I believe most Americans would pass this by, believing it wasn't worth their loss of freedom to help a lost, frightened, cold little boy. Jesus Cordova is a hero amongst a world of cowards, those too afraid to help for fear of becoming involved. Too bad there aren't more like him in the world.
But who am I? This is just my two cents.
To encapsulate:
A young boy and his mother were traveling on a remote road on federal lands. The mom missed a turn and crashed over a cliff. Her son survived and mom hung on for several hours on the edge of death before succumbing. She was trapped in the vehicle and her son couldn't help her. The son, a tender 9 years old, went in search of help and found it in the form of Jesus Manuel Cordova, a 26-year-old illegal entrant to this country. Though the boy's mother had died, Cordova stayed with the boy throughout the night, keeping him warm and fed, via a fire and his jacket, and calmed him through the night, assuring him his mother was in a better place. It wasn't until the following morning some hunters happened upon the pair and got help. Border Patrol was the first on the scene and they took Cordova into custody.
Now, here's my take on it...
Cordova stayed to help another in spite of the fact it increased his likelihood of being captured. He tended to the needs and heart of a lost little boy who had just lost his mother, after having lost his father two months previous to this. Cordova was an angel sent from heaven and I don't think it's an accident his first name is Jesus (pronounced Hey-seuss in spanish). Jesus Cordova should be permitted to stay in this country for as long as he wishes. This is one man who has proven he belongs here, for this is the basis of one of the principles on which this country was founded.
Jesus Cordova was a brave man who put the needs of others above his own. He could have walked away from the boy when first approached. He could have walked away from the boy as soon as the hunters found them. He could have walked away from the boy when he found out help was on the way. But he didn't. He stayed. He stayed by this boy's side until he knew without doubt that he was safe.
To me, Cordova would make a better American than most Americans I've seen in my life. I believe most Americans would pass this by, believing it wasn't worth their loss of freedom to help a lost, frightened, cold little boy. Jesus Cordova is a hero amongst a world of cowards, those too afraid to help for fear of becoming involved. Too bad there aren't more like him in the world.
But who am I? This is just my two cents.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Illegal immigrant changes identity to become a cop
I read this news story this morning that was written by an AP reporter. Basically, we have a young kid who wants to become a cop. He made this decision at the tender age of 15, going WAY out of his way to take on the identity of a deceased cousin. Te befair, he didn't know he was in the country illegally until his father told him, eight years after the fact. But, he WAS in the country illegally and as such, he couldn't hold a position in law enforcement.
After stealing his cousin's identity, a child who was born in the US but died at the age of 7 from cancer (this REALLY sickens me, that he would willingly take on the life of a dead child for his personal gain) he changed schools and he started calling his mother and father Aunt & Uncle. His siblings became his cousins, he was no longer Oscar but Jose.
Oscar managed to hide his identity to hide his identity for years, becoming a police officer in, I believe, Milwaukee (the article never really says where he perpetrated this fraud) and eventually worked side by side with his brother, wait... his cousin... uh, his brother? Apparently these two were superheroes, solving crime and ending strife throughout the land (it seems the reporter on this story wants to wax poetic). And then it happened...
Someone, an anonymous "tipster" contacted Immigration and Naturalization and told them of this person, how he was using a false name and identity to be a police officer. INS did some research and found out this was true and they arrested Oscar/Jose at his workplace.
Now, here's where I have a problem with all of this... They guy was already an admitted felon when he applied to the police force. What were the felonies he committed? He had entered the country illegally, he assumed a false identity and he used this false identity to obtain governmental employment. The governmental employment he obtained with this false identity was as a police officer, one who is sworn to uphold the law. Apparently he wished to uphold the law only as it pertained to the rest of the world, excluding himself. His brother/cousin also hid his identity from the police force, violating the law. It would seem, as it pertains to this family, that the law only applies to anyone who is NOT family. Wow...
Oscar/Jose is awaiting sentencing from a jail cell. He could be given probation or a year's sentence in a federal facility (where "good time" is a fiction) and he will be deported. His brother, who IS a US citizen, having been born in the USA, was terminated from his job for hiding the fact his brother was a criminal. He is appealing the decision so he can get his job back. WHAT?!?!?!?!?!
These two were police officers who were supposed to uphold ALL the laws, not just the ones that made them comfortable. Where in all of this was there an illegal termination? What point of law is this guy using to make the case he did nothing wrong, much less break about ten laws? And you know what? He'll probably win his job back because the media is fighting to convince us all that the illegal aliens should be pandered to. The media desperately wants the rest of the United States to believe that people who break the law to even enter this country are fine upstanding citizens who simply want a better life.
I'm sorry, but if your respect for the law begins only AFTER you break it, where's the motivation to not continue to break it?
I intend to write a letter to the Milwaukee Police Department commending them on firing both these guys. Someone has to take a stand against illegal immigration, and it starts with the indivdual. I also commend the person who knew enough to know this was wrong subsequently turning these two lawbreakers over to the authorities. My guess is it was the father of the dead child. Oscar/Jose, a known lawbreaker and liar, tells the reporter he had the permission of this person to use his dead son's identity. But we already know he's a liar, we already know he plays fast and loose with the law as it pertains to him, why should we start believing him now? How do we know this isn't a case of taking everyone around him down with him? He sure implicated enough family members.
This makes me sick that both these guys will probably walk away with not much more than a slap on the wrist.
But who am I? This is just my two cents.
After stealing his cousin's identity, a child who was born in the US but died at the age of 7 from cancer (this REALLY sickens me, that he would willingly take on the life of a dead child for his personal gain) he changed schools and he started calling his mother and father Aunt & Uncle. His siblings became his cousins, he was no longer Oscar but Jose.
Oscar managed to hide his identity to hide his identity for years, becoming a police officer in, I believe, Milwaukee (the article never really says where he perpetrated this fraud) and eventually worked side by side with his brother, wait... his cousin... uh, his brother? Apparently these two were superheroes, solving crime and ending strife throughout the land (it seems the reporter on this story wants to wax poetic). And then it happened...
Someone, an anonymous "tipster" contacted Immigration and Naturalization and told them of this person, how he was using a false name and identity to be a police officer. INS did some research and found out this was true and they arrested Oscar/Jose at his workplace.
Now, here's where I have a problem with all of this... They guy was already an admitted felon when he applied to the police force. What were the felonies he committed? He had entered the country illegally, he assumed a false identity and he used this false identity to obtain governmental employment. The governmental employment he obtained with this false identity was as a police officer, one who is sworn to uphold the law. Apparently he wished to uphold the law only as it pertained to the rest of the world, excluding himself. His brother/cousin also hid his identity from the police force, violating the law. It would seem, as it pertains to this family, that the law only applies to anyone who is NOT family. Wow...
Oscar/Jose is awaiting sentencing from a jail cell. He could be given probation or a year's sentence in a federal facility (where "good time" is a fiction) and he will be deported. His brother, who IS a US citizen, having been born in the USA, was terminated from his job for hiding the fact his brother was a criminal. He is appealing the decision so he can get his job back. WHAT?!?!?!?!?!
These two were police officers who were supposed to uphold ALL the laws, not just the ones that made them comfortable. Where in all of this was there an illegal termination? What point of law is this guy using to make the case he did nothing wrong, much less break about ten laws? And you know what? He'll probably win his job back because the media is fighting to convince us all that the illegal aliens should be pandered to. The media desperately wants the rest of the United States to believe that people who break the law to even enter this country are fine upstanding citizens who simply want a better life.
I'm sorry, but if your respect for the law begins only AFTER you break it, where's the motivation to not continue to break it?
I intend to write a letter to the Milwaukee Police Department commending them on firing both these guys. Someone has to take a stand against illegal immigration, and it starts with the indivdual. I also commend the person who knew enough to know this was wrong subsequently turning these two lawbreakers over to the authorities. My guess is it was the father of the dead child. Oscar/Jose, a known lawbreaker and liar, tells the reporter he had the permission of this person to use his dead son's identity. But we already know he's a liar, we already know he plays fast and loose with the law as it pertains to him, why should we start believing him now? How do we know this isn't a case of taking everyone around him down with him? He sure implicated enough family members.
This makes me sick that both these guys will probably walk away with not much more than a slap on the wrist.
But who am I? This is just my two cents.
Monday, November 12, 2007
As the political year rolls along, Social Security is taking the hit...
Okay, we ALL know Social Security is in trouble. I am currently 43 but by the time I ready to actually retire, Social Security will be virtually non-existent. We have Democrats to thank for this.
See, Social Security, as a program, was in the black for decades. Begun in 1935, during the depression, President Roosevelt signed Social Security, with Disability insurance being created in 1956. At that time, Social Security taxes (FICA) was 4%. At the present time, we now pay over 10% in payroll taxes towards Social Security and it won't even be there when I and people in my age group are ready to retire.
The powers that be would have us believe Social Security is in trouble because of baby boomers hitting retirement age. While this may be true, there ARE a lot of baby boomers hitting retirement age lately, but these are the same people who have been paying into the system for so long. Shouldn't the money be there? Oh, you'd like to think so, wouldn't you?
In the 1970's, under a Democratic Congress, laws were passed pertaining to Social Security. Some of those laws were to make Social Security part of the federal governments finances. Remember when President Clinton was so proud of the fact he was able to hand a balanced budget to Congress? Wow, wasn't he a GREAT president to do that? What he didn't tell anyone was that it included the funds in Social Security. Since the mid-70's, Congress has been using Social Security as their personal slush fund, which is why it's now in the red. They SAY it's because more money is going out then is coming in because of the baby boomers, when the truth of the matter is this: CONGRESS is spending more Social Security money than is coming in. Here's an article which explains it better than I: How secure is Social Security?
And it was the Dems that accused Reagan and Bush of Voodoo Economics. They tried to present a budget to Congress that WAS balanced and DIDN'T include Social Security. Where's the Voodoo part? Seems to me it was the Dems that were trying to use a little Voodoo magic to make the money in the Social Security coffers disappear.
This seems to be the current hot button issue on the campaign trail since MSNBC had several articles online about it:
Obama to push for higher Social Security taxes
Thompson seeks to alter retiree entitlements
And to drive the point home, the media is jumping on the band wagon to help enforce the belief we the people need to push for higher taxes to cover the losses of Congress.
How much do we need to retire?
Gen Xers not saving for retirement
This is a typical Democratic response to any governmental financial issue: tax and spend, tax and spend. The Democrats keep making expensive mistakes and they just turn to the American public to pay for their mistakes. They are extremely expensive teenagers. Like teenagers, they want what they want when they want it and they don't care who they have to steal the money from to get it. At one time, there was a loophole in the laws that permitted groups to form and invest their FICA on their own. There was a town in Texas that did just that, and made millions in the process. The aforementioned article, "How Secure is Social Security?" has an interesting paragraph in it which illustrates how haphazard our government is being with our money:
A Texas Example
A loophole in the Social Security law once allowed states and municipalities to exempt their government employees from the Social Security system. In 1981, three Texas counties opted out of the federal system and created their own private retirement program. Under the private plan, employees paid the same amount of taxes, but instead of being funneled to Washington D.C., it went to a private insurance company that had competed for the right to invest that money (while guaranteeing a rate of return). To date, the private system has outperformed its federal counterpart. Some years have shown returns on investment of 12%, as opposed to an average of 2.2% under Social Security for a worker born in 1950.
People are SCREAMING for Social Security reform but the only solution the Dems can come up with is to charge the American people more money while doing nothing to stem the flow of money out of the Social Security coffers into Congressional hands.
But what do I know? This is just my two cents.
See, Social Security, as a program, was in the black for decades. Begun in 1935, during the depression, President Roosevelt signed Social Security, with Disability insurance being created in 1956. At that time, Social Security taxes (FICA) was 4%. At the present time, we now pay over 10% in payroll taxes towards Social Security and it won't even be there when I and people in my age group are ready to retire.
The powers that be would have us believe Social Security is in trouble because of baby boomers hitting retirement age. While this may be true, there ARE a lot of baby boomers hitting retirement age lately, but these are the same people who have been paying into the system for so long. Shouldn't the money be there? Oh, you'd like to think so, wouldn't you?
In the 1970's, under a Democratic Congress, laws were passed pertaining to Social Security. Some of those laws were to make Social Security part of the federal governments finances. Remember when President Clinton was so proud of the fact he was able to hand a balanced budget to Congress? Wow, wasn't he a GREAT president to do that? What he didn't tell anyone was that it included the funds in Social Security. Since the mid-70's, Congress has been using Social Security as their personal slush fund, which is why it's now in the red. They SAY it's because more money is going out then is coming in because of the baby boomers, when the truth of the matter is this: CONGRESS is spending more Social Security money than is coming in. Here's an article which explains it better than I: How secure is Social Security?
And it was the Dems that accused Reagan and Bush of Voodoo Economics. They tried to present a budget to Congress that WAS balanced and DIDN'T include Social Security. Where's the Voodoo part? Seems to me it was the Dems that were trying to use a little Voodoo magic to make the money in the Social Security coffers disappear.
This seems to be the current hot button issue on the campaign trail since MSNBC had several articles online about it:
Obama to push for higher Social Security taxes
Thompson seeks to alter retiree entitlements
And to drive the point home, the media is jumping on the band wagon to help enforce the belief we the people need to push for higher taxes to cover the losses of Congress.
How much do we need to retire?
Gen Xers not saving for retirement
This is a typical Democratic response to any governmental financial issue: tax and spend, tax and spend. The Democrats keep making expensive mistakes and they just turn to the American public to pay for their mistakes. They are extremely expensive teenagers. Like teenagers, they want what they want when they want it and they don't care who they have to steal the money from to get it. At one time, there was a loophole in the laws that permitted groups to form and invest their FICA on their own. There was a town in Texas that did just that, and made millions in the process. The aforementioned article, "How Secure is Social Security?" has an interesting paragraph in it which illustrates how haphazard our government is being with our money:
A Texas Example
A loophole in the Social Security law once allowed states and municipalities to exempt their government employees from the Social Security system. In 1981, three Texas counties opted out of the federal system and created their own private retirement program. Under the private plan, employees paid the same amount of taxes, but instead of being funneled to Washington D.C., it went to a private insurance company that had competed for the right to invest that money (while guaranteeing a rate of return). To date, the private system has outperformed its federal counterpart. Some years have shown returns on investment of 12%, as opposed to an average of 2.2% under Social Security for a worker born in 1950.
People are SCREAMING for Social Security reform but the only solution the Dems can come up with is to charge the American people more money while doing nothing to stem the flow of money out of the Social Security coffers into Congressional hands.
But what do I know? This is just my two cents.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Britney Spears and the leeches she acquired...
It seems to be that bashing Britney is a sport now. First, it's her ex-husband, uh, K-Fed? Then it's someone who's car she accidentally hit (OK, that one was legitimate), then it's, uh, K-Fed again, then it was K-Fed yet again, then it was some photographer who says she ran over his foot while he was stalking her in a parking garage (and we have to wonder if this is even true since we ALL know how wonderful and polite the paparazzi are), then it was, uh, K-Fed AGAIN! NOW, it's some company who says they did work for her to the tune of $15,000.00. When are people going to leave her alone?
It seems to me, uh, K-Fed, who's winning in all of this. She's being driven nuts by all this attacking her personally and professionally. Anyone, I don't care who you are, would crack under this much scrutiny. And the crazier she gets over all this, the less she gets to see her kids. The less she sees her kids, the more child support, uh, K-Fed gets. He's a money hungry leech who is sucking her dry, dry, dry.
However, to prove my point, here're some links to stories that discuss all of this:
Former manager sues
Britney Big Spender (note how much child support he gets. She's STILL supporting his dead ass)
Did Britney run over another foot?
And to me, there's an article out there which exposes the family court system and its' inequities towards parents. Family court should be the LAST place these decisions should be made. I mean, uh, K-Fed has his kids and all he's going to teach HIS sons is how to marry money and never have to work another day in your life. See, the family court visitation supervisor submitted paperwork to the court that Britney was uncooperative towards them. On one of the dates, Britney didn't even have the kids! What was the court visitation supervisor even DOING with Britney if she didn't have the kids? Seems to me the family court there is trying to stack the deck in favor of, uh, K-Fed, at the expense of these poor kids who probably love their mom more than anything. Anyway, to read the article, go here.
Seems to me Britney is getting hit hard from all directions and not all of it is true. Her leeching ex-husband is producing "witnesses" to Brit's bad parenting skills who have never even had contact with her. Now the court is producing "witnesses" who are saying Britney is a bad parent, even when she doesn't have the kids.
Wow, she needs a new lawyer. She might need the same attorney David Hasselhoff used since he got full and sole custody of his kids just days after a video came out on Youtube (put there by the same kids he won custody of, BTW) showing him drunk as a lord.
Brit needs a break from the family court system and her ex-husband. I'd say she needs to get the kids for a couple weeks and go to Louisiana to spend some time with her momma, her sister, her papa, anyone who would take care of her and the kids.
I feel badly for Brit and that makes me hate, uh, K-Fed even more since I was never one to follow the lives of "Hollywood". Now he's got me defending someone I don't even know, who doesn't know me, and she's rich and famous to boot. Gawd, I make myself sick.
But who am I to judge? Just my two cents.
It seems to me, uh, K-Fed, who's winning in all of this. She's being driven nuts by all this attacking her personally and professionally. Anyone, I don't care who you are, would crack under this much scrutiny. And the crazier she gets over all this, the less she gets to see her kids. The less she sees her kids, the more child support, uh, K-Fed gets. He's a money hungry leech who is sucking her dry, dry, dry.
However, to prove my point, here're some links to stories that discuss all of this:
Former manager sues
Britney Big Spender (note how much child support he gets. She's STILL supporting his dead ass)
Did Britney run over another foot?
And to me, there's an article out there which exposes the family court system and its' inequities towards parents. Family court should be the LAST place these decisions should be made. I mean, uh, K-Fed has his kids and all he's going to teach HIS sons is how to marry money and never have to work another day in your life. See, the family court visitation supervisor submitted paperwork to the court that Britney was uncooperative towards them. On one of the dates, Britney didn't even have the kids! What was the court visitation supervisor even DOING with Britney if she didn't have the kids? Seems to me the family court there is trying to stack the deck in favor of, uh, K-Fed, at the expense of these poor kids who probably love their mom more than anything. Anyway, to read the article, go here.
Seems to me Britney is getting hit hard from all directions and not all of it is true. Her leeching ex-husband is producing "witnesses" to Brit's bad parenting skills who have never even had contact with her. Now the court is producing "witnesses" who are saying Britney is a bad parent, even when she doesn't have the kids.
Wow, she needs a new lawyer. She might need the same attorney David Hasselhoff used since he got full and sole custody of his kids just days after a video came out on Youtube (put there by the same kids he won custody of, BTW) showing him drunk as a lord.
Brit needs a break from the family court system and her ex-husband. I'd say she needs to get the kids for a couple weeks and go to Louisiana to spend some time with her momma, her sister, her papa, anyone who would take care of her and the kids.
I feel badly for Brit and that makes me hate, uh, K-Fed even more since I was never one to follow the lives of "Hollywood". Now he's got me defending someone I don't even know, who doesn't know me, and she's rich and famous to boot. Gawd, I make myself sick.
But who am I to judge? Just my two cents.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
It's supposed to be No Child Left Behind
As a parent, this has been kind of a hot button issue with me.
There was a school teacher in Wisconsin who refused to take part in proctoring the state exams this school year. He sat out yesterday and today was told he would be fired unless he proctored the exams. This teacher feels the tests are too restrictive and arbitrary, he also feels the tests are used to punish the schools.
For years now, the schools are no longer giving our kids the rounded education they used to get. Now it's a matter of what is called "teaching to the test". "The test" is the yearly examinations, taking up about a week of school, usually followed by Spring Break, where each student is evaluated on how well they are doing academically. And here's where I see red...
If teacher's are using "the test" as a teaching basis, then our kids aren't learning anything else. Does the test ask any questions about Edgar Allen Poe? No? Well then, we just don't teach the kids about one of the greatest macabre writers EVER! Does the test discuss haiku? No? well, then guess what the kids don't learn about? Does the test ask any questions about John Quincy Adams? No? Okay, one less thing to teach. The only time I've ever seen teachers divert from the test is when it comes to teaching Black History. They'll take a week or more discussing great Black leaders and history makers, which is about the length of time my son's old History teacher spent on it, but she spent a DAY on the Constitution.
Wow, once these kids get to college, they are actually brainwashed enough to believe that being politically correct is more important that being educated. At the rate the liberal educators are forcing this crap down the throats of our children, that all they need to know is on a test, the easier it's going to be to convince them as adults to think one way and one way only. Oh, if only life were that linear.
This Wisconsin teacher, standing up and saying no more, well, he should be an example to the rest of the academic world. Instead, he's threatened with the loss of his job by the very organization that should be protecting him and admiring him for taking the stand he took.
Anyway, it's my general opinion that most parents couldn't care less about this and it would take too much energy to take a stand. Most parents are just so happy their kids aren't in their hair and to try to change the thinking of their child would mean engaging in an actual conversation with their kids. Most parents are too busy with their own lives to take a hard look at what their kids are learning, and again, to ask them what they ARE learning would mean engaging their kids in a discussion. So many parents are more concerned with being their kids' friends than they are with being a parent.
Anyway, what do I know? That's just my two cents.
There was a school teacher in Wisconsin who refused to take part in proctoring the state exams this school year. He sat out yesterday and today was told he would be fired unless he proctored the exams. This teacher feels the tests are too restrictive and arbitrary, he also feels the tests are used to punish the schools.
For years now, the schools are no longer giving our kids the rounded education they used to get. Now it's a matter of what is called "teaching to the test". "The test" is the yearly examinations, taking up about a week of school, usually followed by Spring Break, where each student is evaluated on how well they are doing academically. And here's where I see red...
If teacher's are using "the test" as a teaching basis, then our kids aren't learning anything else. Does the test ask any questions about Edgar Allen Poe? No? Well then, we just don't teach the kids about one of the greatest macabre writers EVER! Does the test discuss haiku? No? well, then guess what the kids don't learn about? Does the test ask any questions about John Quincy Adams? No? Okay, one less thing to teach. The only time I've ever seen teachers divert from the test is when it comes to teaching Black History. They'll take a week or more discussing great Black leaders and history makers, which is about the length of time my son's old History teacher spent on it, but she spent a DAY on the Constitution.
Wow, once these kids get to college, they are actually brainwashed enough to believe that being politically correct is more important that being educated. At the rate the liberal educators are forcing this crap down the throats of our children, that all they need to know is on a test, the easier it's going to be to convince them as adults to think one way and one way only. Oh, if only life were that linear.
This Wisconsin teacher, standing up and saying no more, well, he should be an example to the rest of the academic world. Instead, he's threatened with the loss of his job by the very organization that should be protecting him and admiring him for taking the stand he took.
Anyway, it's my general opinion that most parents couldn't care less about this and it would take too much energy to take a stand. Most parents are just so happy their kids aren't in their hair and to try to change the thinking of their child would mean engaging in an actual conversation with their kids. Most parents are too busy with their own lives to take a hard look at what their kids are learning, and again, to ask them what they ARE learning would mean engaging their kids in a discussion. So many parents are more concerned with being their kids' friends than they are with being a parent.
Anyway, what do I know? That's just my two cents.
Carol Gotbaum was drunk? That's just crazy talk!
To be honest, I really hadn't intended to more than one post on this story but there's something about this article that fries my shorts... Hit the link that is embedded in the title of this post and read the newspaper article that was in today's paper. Go ahead... I'll wait here.
Hi, welcome back. Now I'll outline what angers me so much about this:
Hi, welcome back. Now I'll outline what angers me so much about this:
1. ...the new documents also show that Betsy Gotbaum, the New York public advocate and Gotbaum's mother-in-law, called the day of the death and asked Phoenix police to use Carol Gotbaum's maiden name in its reports to shield the Gotbaum family from publicity.
Seriously? Is this how things are done in New York? That someone who imagines themselves to be of some importance where they live can just call another police agency and receive that kind of special treatment? What is this? Mayberry? Her "beloved" daughter-in-law just died and her first thought is, "Oh, we gotta keep our name out of this." Damn, I'd be an alcoholic too with a M-I-L like that.
2. While a member of the flight crew recalls serving Gotbaum a cocktail in the galley, a passenger told authorities that said she didn't see Gotbaum drink alcohol.
I don't know, I mean, call me crazy, but I'm leaning towards the flight crew on this one. The "other side" has already been able to produce a "witness" who saw everything that happened (making the police the bad guys), in spite of the fact there was a camera disproving everything the "witness" told the authorities and we're supposed to believe them? Also, what passenger gives their FULL attention to anything the other passengers are doing? Even if they're sitting right next to the person, they can still fall asleep, get up to go to the bathroom, stare out the window, sit back in their seat, close their eyes and listen to a Walkman or MP3 player. For anyone to be THAT privy to the details of a passenger in their proximity on a cross country flight, well, they have to be a stalker. I believe the flight attendant. He or she has nothing to gain by lying whereas a private citizen might want nothing more than to see their name in the paper. There are loons everywhere.
3. Michael Manning, a Phoenix attorney who represents Gotbaum's husband and three young children, downplayed the drink Gotbaum may have had on the flight, noting that witnesses disagree about that.
Well, OF COURSE HE DOES and of course they do. Go to any accident scene and there might be ten witnesses to the accident. All ten will have a different version of events. Also, this guy is a hired gun. This guy is NOW a high priced hired gun. This guy is someone no one outside of the Phoenix courtrooms has ever heard of and he wants his name out there badly. Name recognition gets business. Now he's going to be known as "the guy who took care of the drunk woman's family."
3. The Gotbaum family, which has been critical of the police, has hired its own team of experts to probe the case.
Um, let's see... Carol Gotbaum, an obvious emotional problem walking, dies in the custody of the Phoenix police at an International Airport, thereby assuring it will make national news. Carol Gotbaums mother-in-law calls the Phoenix police to help her cover it up and they refuse. The Gotbaum family has fallen under intense scrutiny and criticism for not handling the delivery of their "beloved" daughter-in-law, wife, mother to the rehab center. Maybe it's just me but, do you think the Gotbaum family has an axe to grind with the Phoenix Police since, apparently unlike the New York City police, they refuse to kowtow to a wealthy family and get involved with a corrupt request? Do they have any reasons at all to want to deflect the attention away from them and onto the Phoenix Police department? To be honest, I don't know that "financial justice" really exists here in Arizona. I've never really seen it being made available to the highest bidder or the one with the most influence to pedal.
I don't know, maybe I'm reading too much into this but the whole thing stinks like yesterday's garbage.
But who am I to judge, that's just my two cents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)