Un-Liberaled Woman

Frivolous Govt. Spending = Okay
Private Sector Spending of Any Kind = Not Okay & Taxable

Remember when our new Liberal Dictatorship in DC went apesh*t over AIG throwing a $400k conference that ultimately would have helped them develop business (new business that would help them bring in revenue and payback the taxpayer-funded loan they were granted). Yeah, well, apparently spending that kind of money in the private sector is not okay and calls for pitchfork mobs in the media and then unconstitutional retroactive tax legislation. Geeeeeeeet ‘em Richies!!!!

But then fast forward a few months down the line and all of the sudden it’s okay for a literally failing and scheduled to be BANKRUPT (that is no funds) government organization to spend twice that – $700,000 to be exact – on a conference that includes airfare, hotel “entertainment”, motivational speakers, food, and WAIT.FOR.IT – dancers. Because nothing will make your SS account yield more profit than lazy government workers shakin’ what their mama gave ‘em.

Pot calling the kettle black, say whaaaaaaaat???

It turns out that Social Security, which I deem the federal government’s official Ponzi scheme that keeps the elderly & lower economic classes poor, can get away with spending double the amount of taxpayer money that they then publicly chide AIG for doing the same with. (via Instapundit)

I understand that AIG’s event was from the perspective of educating its sales force to then develop business for more high-end clients and that as such could have been more appropriate to have been hosted at the company’s headquarters. But so was this conference for the Social Security Administration:

The SSA provided ABC15 with a list of courses provided at the conference, which included “Techniques to Empower You,” “Mentoring the Generations,” and “Emotional Intelligence.”  But the information provided by the SSA did not mention an after-hours casino trip, family members staying at the hotel, or the 20-minute dance party ABC15 observed.

So if the conferences were technically the same in format, structure and participants how come it’s okay for the SSA but not AIG? Here’s what Obama said during the AIG occurrence:

“The Treasury should demand that money back and those executives should be fired.”

Gee, what’s the response now? I totally agree for once with the Unicorn Princess - Social Security should be eliminated and the tax payers should demand their money back.

In case you missed my first post on this, here it is…

Nowadays the term “healthcare reform” is like the new black of a fashion catwalk. People name drop it like they’re scared it’s going out of style and two-thirds of people can’t even explain why their advocating it. Here’s a question I pose to people when they jump on the universal healthcare soapbox – Name one federally-funded socialized service that either doesn’t operate in a deficit year after year OR can compete with its private counterpart. Cat got your tongue? If the current services government provides are operating in debt, don’t provide proper customer service, and aren’t equally productive to the private sector, then it has no business insisting to put our healthcare under a vice of bureaucratic red tape.

We want to make sure everyone has the freedom of opportunity to get long-term, high-quality healthcare but also that they have the freedom of choice in their physician or treatment. Under the current, regulation-constricted system this is not happening, but unfortunately under a NHS run by the government this won’t happen either. People talk about insurance companies dictating healthcare but then advocate a governmental system will do better. The model for an improved healthcare industry is there – our government should be turning to successful industry for guidance like cell phones, auto insurance and elective medical surgery industries. Competition in these free-market industries have created the environment for innovation, higher quality service and lower prices. Isn’t this what we want for healthcare today?

Over the last year we’ve heard criticism about our current healthcare system and skewed statistics as a basis for reform. While the system does have flaws, they are not for the reasons you hear touted by the media like they’re on a deadline to beat a dead horse. First is the “47 million” talking point most of you have heard about. The same 47 million figure that includes 12.6 million illegal immigrants. Non-citizens of this country should not be dictating government legislation that is funded on the backs of legal citizens paying for it out of their own pockets. Also, of that “uninsured” figure are 20% who make more than $75,000 a year. Clearly these are people who can afford insurance. A final nail in the validity coffin of this figure is that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated, in their 2003 report, 50% of the uninsured actually acquire insurance with 4 months. The main cause of this is job transitions which in are a direct result of the government regulation forcing employer-based insurance, thus not allowing for the medical insurance industry to be a true free market.

Right now, the federal government is funded by about $1.1 trillion in income tax revenues annually. The estimates for the reform proposed by the Obama Administration is around $4 trillion. These figures indicate that your income taxes will be affected – whether directly in your paycheck or indirectly through the reduction in salary, raises, benefits and jobs. And if you elect to stay with your private insurance, why should you pay twice to fund the public option? If we’re not willing to be taxed more for this “free” public healthcare, the other reality is services rationing in order to keep costs down. In NHS countries, like Britain, people on average wait six months to see a doctor about a serious medical condition. There are documented cases of young women dying from ovarian cancer because the government ordered a rationing of pap smears that would have otherwise caught the cancer in early, treatable stages. In Canada, people either go to court fighting for their right to medical care, or catch the next bus crossing the border to get it in the US. Where will we go when our healthcare is rationed under a government run system? China? Mexico?

Don’t forget about the customer service of healthcare. Are ER waiting rooms going to remove clocks like the post office so that people, not the government employees providing the service, can focus on why they’re there? Are we going to have to resort to volunteer doctors like our firefighters because we have to ration the costs? And will all our advances in prescription medicine go down in quality and development time? 96% of all drugs on the market come from the private sector because companies use their profits to fuel research and development. How can we expect the same advances under a government system which has never produced one single year of profit?

The current medical care programs government provides are not promising for what our future would hold under universal healthcare. In military hospitals women have been forced to share ultrasound rooms. Medicaid has always operated in debt and Medicare is scheduled to go bankrupt in 2019. In business, we base estimates of potential performance on historical data. What does this track record predict for us, and, more importantly, are we willing to risk our health on the premise of skewed statistics and empty promises? Since 86% of people are satisfied with their current insurance plan and healthcare service, is it justified to overhaul the entire system risking quality of care at double the costs to taxpayers?

A private solution to reform is possible. People, not government, need to be put in charge of their health. When’s the last time you shopped around for a deal on your medical physical or dental cleanings? But we all shop around when it comes to getting a new cell phone or carrier. We want to make sure we have the very best at the most cost-efficient price point. That prospect of choice forces companies to meet our demands as consumers. The positive returns are endless if 300 million citizens were freed from the government-mandated employer-based insurance. Then a real, free market for insurance and health services would be flooded with competition, leaving our health and our wallets to reap the benefits.

The post above is an excerpt from a column I have with another writer: Talking and Tackling (TNT) – The Issues. I’ll be linking to that blog here in the next few days. But in the meantime, I’ll be posting my parts of the column on the issues we’ll be tackling through friendly debates. I’ll then link to the column’s blog where you can read more articles and the other side of the debated issues.

If I hear one more flack crack about how great government care is a good thing, I’m about to scream. Honestly, QUIT basing your arguments on emotions and look at logic. I know that’s sooooooooooooo freakin’ hard to do, but honestly what does more harm – enabling people through the power of choice or suppressing a private industry that leaves those poorest with limited options in healthcare (if anyone at all). Tell me again how Democrats help those “less fortunate.” (If you read Neal Boortz, you know why I’ve got quotes around that phrase – heh.)

Anyways, Steven Crowder is at it again (via Youtube) with documented experience in the Canadian Health System. BTW, Michael Moore, this is how a documentary is done. Not with cute graphics, quick scrolls of faulty-analytics and skewed conclusions that favor your far-left propaganda narrative. Uh, your welcome!

So Trying To Grok’s husband has deployed on his later tour of duty (this  time to Afghanistan). Even I’ve got a case of the sads with it. Over the months she’s blogged about what his team has been going through with training and preparation. Then the other day on Facebook she uploaded a pic of his team/squad before they departed. For the sake of privacy, I’m not going to post the pic here but I’ll give you a description for my lady readers….

Holy bageeeesus!!!! Hotties Alert!

I know, just call me one of those “refined” ladies on Bret Michael’s Rock of Love Tour Bus. Honestly, people always crack on how sailors tally it up as though it’s the nature of sailors with the predisposition to rack up the hook-ups. But I must counter (oooooooof course!) because I think it’s the idea of men in the military that attracts so many women that they just come in like a stampede at the idea of making witty conversation with them and probably doing a Buffalo Stance (”iiiiiiiiiit’s swEEEEtness that I’m thinking of….So don’t u git fresh with me!).

The idea of a man who looks like the guy from the muscle-man magazine cover I think is appealing to some women, and then couple this with the fact that the guy most likely is a real man and not some douchebag out of My New Haircut or Guido Beach – Bonus!!!  Hot chicks with Douchebags they are not, nor do they validate their attractiveness by claiming every dude in the club is a cousin. No, military guys are just awesome guys that bring the swagger without needing to go to the tanning bed five times a week. Instead they get their tan on by defending democracy in 110+ sweltering heat.

This is not to say that guys not in the military don’t sound off the hottie-bo-body alarm. Please, my husband is probably reading this and of course he ranks right up there. So I better not get the stink eye tonight at home with a smirky “Hmmm…I read yo post.”

But this is just an appreciation post fo’  all da fellas out there in uniform protecting us and others – doin’ good while lookin’ good. Hollah!!!

Honestly, I love YouTube simply for the fact it is a hard smack of reality that people have waaaaaaaaaay to much time on their hands. Like how are people devoting so much time to these videos and celebrity culture (or trying to achieve it themselves)??? Could you imagine the progress of our country if people devoted the time they take to bad (and sometimes disturbing) choreography to getting an education or taking initiative at their jobs.

Instead people complain about how they’re entitled to a job and lean on the government to provide it or unemployment assistance to them. While I’m not completely against some unemployment assistance to families that need it, the reality is that a LOT of people in America want to just reap a benefit without putting in the work. That to me is sad and people should be embarrassed. If you’ve got time to shake yo’ moneymaker or talk about TOO MUCH INFORMATION at the webcam in your basement, then you’ve got the time to go out and do some labor. People need to learn how to survive, not coddled into just getting by.

In the meantime, you betta work guuuuuuuuuurl! Work! Work! Work it!

Beyonce again…OF COURSE

Uh….what would Spock say?

Watch at :54 for the money shot…

I’m like a firecracker, I make it HAWT…When I crack that whip, everyone gonna trip… (oh and wait for the special guest at the end – classic)

A douchebag complaining/boycotting Youtube while ON YOUTUBE – don’t you just love that liberal logic

Even middle America is at it…

I keep hearing from liberals only (of course) how Obama is going to be elected easily in 2012. They already start talking about his second term as if it’s in the baaaaaaaaaaaaag.  Right, and pigs fly too.

While I’m not saying 2012 is locked for the GOP to make a comeback, the idea that the Dems have it locked up after the last six months is for somebody not looking at reality.

There are tons of people pissed off about the policies being passed.  I have heard not one person, aside from the nutroots that frequent the Daily Kos, that think the current government is doing even a mediocre job, let alone a great job. Obama’s supporters from 2008 are starting to turn on their media-propelled manufactured puppet of a president. I think many are thinking fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. And nobody wants to put themselves in a position to face themselves with a big spoon of guilt. And if you don’t give people a payoff while you spend their hard earned money, guess what – they don’t want to walk alongside you the next go around. Why do you think Carter didn’t get elected a second go round? Just sayin’.

People don’t mind a government that spends if they’ve got money to spend as well. But when government spends, like Teresa on Housewives of New Jersey (3:40 mark), while they are forced out of work or to take paycuts, turns out folks don’t like that too much.

Go ahead and eat yo’ cake, Marie Antoinette President Obama. My guess is your personal chef will be coming back to Chi-town in about less than 4 years, and there will be no mo’ cake for you to feast on. So in the words of Veronica Sawyer - Lick it up, baby. Lick. IT. UP!

Case in point, Colin “Da Doofus” Powell. But the other thing is that movement of the tea parties, and the movement/feeling is growing not decreasing. Case in point deux – a rant for the ages. (via HotAir)

• Number of news media outlets salivating when Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama – thousands
• Number of news media outlets just even conducting basic reporting on Powell’s getting his wake up call on Obama – a few conservative bloggers

Don’t ya just love that supposed right-wing media bias. Here’s the latest on Powell and OH! once again proving how Dems are the mad hustlers of identity politics (via MyWay News via Daily Instigator)

Colin Powell worries that President Barack Obama is trying to tackle too many big issues at one time and he offers this advice: take a hard look at costs and consider the additional red tape that will be created.

“And I never would have believed that we would have budgets that are running into the multi-trillions of dollars, and we are amassing a huge, huge national debt that, if we don’t pay for in our lifetime, our kids and grandkids and great grandchildren will have to pay for it.”

Gee, Powell – why does Obama have to do anything you (a supposed Republican) wants him to do like having a smaller government?

He done already gotzzzzzzzzzz yo’ vote, biaytch!

That’s what happens when you vote on irrelevant characteristics like race, gender, age, class, etc. instead of basing your vote on f*cking policy and historical position/voting records.  You voted for the most-liberal senator who never met a tax hike or spending program he didn’t like (oh, except funding for the troops at war, oooooooooooof course). So why are you @#$@#$ing surprised now that he is spending like one of the Real Housewives on Bravo.

I mean this isn’t the first time Captain Doofus has induced involuntary eye rolls. Just this time MAH eye roll is coupled with a fatty I TOLD YOU SO.  You vote for a guy based on race (let’s be honest about it) and on the idea that you can be a part of history EVEN THOUGH he opposes all the principles you think our government leaders should be in alignment with. Then you expect him to throw away his principles and govern with your positions – it wasn’t Obama’s record that showed the story of a conservative-mindset when it comes to government. If you were blinded by mob mentality to see his governing/legislative past behavior, then that’s not his fault. That’s the person you see when you look at the man in the mirror that’s hopped up on Kool-aid on his way to the voting booth. Weeeeeeeee! Kool-aid! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

This is just a glaring example of why people should not let identity politics get in the way of educating themselves for their vote. You have people voting on emotions and not on educated judgments/facts, then getting pissed off about policy down the round because they weren’t paying attention. It was all out there – that’s why nearly 48% of the US didn’t vote for Obama’s liberal policies. If you’re not for liberal policies, then you shouldn’t have voted for a liberal in the first place, let alone the one ranked one of the most-liberals out there (even more liberal then John Kerry). The media would be saying the same thing about the liberal women who would have voted for McCain/Palin to then only complain about conservative policies down the line.

Take a cue from Clarence Thomas, Colin.  Learn to hold on to and understand your princples. And if you want to throw them all away to a donkey in a skirt the next election cycle, don’t come crying as if you were fooled. You done made yo’ bed – so learn to lay in it, sucka!

Got this from Phil over at Facebook. Looks like there is a coalition brewing to try and get some new blood into the state government here in Illinois. Thank god somebody is trying. William J Kelly has started his Reform Illinois in 2010 over on his blog.

William Kelly, Director of Reform Illinois, an Illinois nonprofit group, committed to government reform, announced today that his organization will run a reform slate of candidates in the 2010 Republican primary. “Today, I am announcing a new project from Rebuild Illinois.com. We are going to run a reform slate of candidates in the Republican primary for 2010. This is especially important now that Gov. Quinn’s reform commission does not seem to be living up to their promises. We can’t wait for another election cycle to go by and hope that the same cast of characters is going to do anything different,” remarked Kelly.

According to the Associated Press, Patrick Collins, Chairman of the reform panel appointed by Gov. Pat Quinn, has been critical. “If we’re trying to turn down the volume of big-money politics, this doesn’t do it,” says Collins. Collins points out that Illinois has virtually no restrictions on fundraising, which allowed former Governor Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat, to solicit donations of $25,000 and $50,000 at a time. Many of his big donors ended up with government contracts or appointments to state boards. Former governor Republican George Ryan is serving a 6 1/2-year federal sentence, in part because of similar allegations that he did favors for campaign donors.

“Real reform isn’t easy. It’s like rolling a boulder up a hill –like the proverbial Sisyphus – only to have it roll back down on him and start all over again,” says Kelly. “As citizens of Illinois, we have to hope that, eventually, that rock will make it to the top. But we need good people to help us get it there.”

By choosing to run a reform slate of candidates in the GOP primary, Rebuild Illinois may be upsetting a political establishment apple cart for both political parties. Kelly thinks that is exactly what needs to be done. “There is a difference between someone who runs for office just for the sake of winning and the person who has the guts to fundamentally reform government and the many bad people in it. It’s often hard to tell which one is which,” adds Kelly. “However, we have to step up to the plate and have some guts, take back our future – so there is one. And with Rebuild Illinois’ reform slate of candidates that is what we are going to do.”

For information or to schedule a media interview with William Kelly of Reform Illinois, please contact Laura Grock or Phil Collins at (312) 943-1100 or (312) 943-1106.

Well, not quite yet….But according to the latest analysis at Glenn Beck it looks like we’re actually closer than ever despite the UN’s unethical withholding of scientific reports that refute their inaccurate global warming myths (via Trying To Grok):

In case you can’t see the video, here’s the screencap from Sarah’s site with her insightful (aka COMMON SENSE) analysis: Read the rest of this entry »

During this recession we’re frequently lectured about helping the unfortunate, the misdistribution of wealth, and people who are victims of a capitalistic system that only benefits the rich. What’s really unfortunate is that you don’t hear the truth, which is that despite capitalism’s faults everybody living in America still has the very same freedom to create as much wealth as he chooses.  To quote Milton Friedman,

“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”

Having grown up in a lower-middle class, blue-collar family, I can testify that being poor is not an excuse for continued choices which result in lower economic returns.

The American dream is that you will raise children to be more successful than yourself. Individuals are responsible for the choices they make in life that determines the result of their economic standing. At frequent points in my childhood my parents were on temporary assistance when my dad was unemployed. However, due to working since age 13, my parents teaching me about saving, and them engraving (sometimes literally) a persistent focus on my education, I now earn more than both my parents. The income I started out of graduate school at was more than what my mom was earning at her job. This wasn’t because of some evil capitalistic conspiracy to keep her down, but an attribute to the results of choices – choices in career, choices in education, choices in risk to build wealth.

I could continue to have more wealth when I‘m my parents‘ age, but I could also choose to go on a spending bender like I’m Chicago’s Lindsay Lohan. I’m not hear to say that building wealth is easy for anyone – it wasn‘t for me. And your wealth can be flushed down the drain quicker then you earned it.

But the argument that the rich remain rich because they were born into an environment of more opportunities is an egregious fallacy. The reality is that 80% of millionaires in this country are first generation millionaires and nearly 85% went to public schools. In fact, most of “the rich” in America are not corrupt executives, but are small business owners who earn an average of less than $250,000. One of the biggest characteristics of the wealthy is that they follow the behavioral cycle you’ll hear on any financial advisor show – earn, save, reinvest, then repeat. Millionaires on average work around 60 hours a week. After they’ve spent the majority of their life either working or sleeping, they then save at least 15% of their income. They also reinvest another 20% of their remaining income. 97% own their homes, half of which have lived an average of 20 years in their homes, which provides time for the values of their homes to appreciate greatly. The common denominator among the wealthy is not the amount of income they earn (or liberals will say – their tax bracket), but the choices they make once the paycheck hits their bank account.

Free market principles enable us all to obtain long-term wealth. But when has a government bureaucratic program or redistribution of income made anyone wealthy?

Let’s talk facts about the myths of income inequality. According to the Census Bureau, income gaps grew more under President Clinton’s final seven years than all of President (GW) Bush’s first seven. To be specific about it, income inequality was 8 times greater under Clinton as compared to Bush, after factoring for inflation. Yet, in the media all you hear is how great the economy was under Clinton and how under Bush only the rich benefited. I don’t know about you, but I think I’d prefer an economic environment where the poor are making 8x closer to the income of the rich – wouldn’t you want the same?

The problem we have in America is that when it comes to the myth of income disparity and stagnation, we have silver-tongued politicians who base their RichHunt pitchforks, I mean arguments, on a skewed statistical category rather than actual human beings earning their own income. If you look at the last 30 years, household income only rose by 6% but income per capita (or individual) rose by 51%. It’s clear that people are actually earning more than previous generations. So why is this truth not mentioned when tossing the income gap political football? Because using the 6% income by household figure is better for a pseudo-crusader politician to mentally manipulate voters into electing him.

The larger crime against the poor is that people are more apt to hear out a conniving politician tell them what they don’t have than listening to their inner self tell them what they could have. I look at someone’s wealth and am not jealous or think it’s unfair. I think about how can I get to that point. I strategize about what I can do to get there. I’m tired of the materialistic nature that plays into our political process – using our government system as a piggy bank to buy votes for those who can get the biggest score out of the Treasury. It is shameful when a lady is screaming that a presidential candidate’s biggest asset is in his ability to take care of her mortgage and gas bills. That’s a huge red flag not only with our political process but also to the underlying definition of individual responsibility in this country.

The post above is an excerpt from a column I have with another writer: Talking and Tackling (TNT) – The Issues. I’ll be linking to that blog here in the next few days. But in the meantime, I’ll be posting my parts of the column on the issues we’ll be tackling through friendly debates. I’ll then link to the column’s blog where you can read more articles and the other side of the debated issues.