The greatest tax increase of our lifetime cannot get here fast enough for me. The beauty of Obamacare is that nobody really knows how much it's going to cost- I've got a pretty good idea.
I am a 52 year old non smoking male. Mandatory Obamacare sold through state exchanges starts Oct.1. My best guess via this website- for the CHEAPEST plan- will be 300 a month. Probably 400 a month for the CADILLAC plan.
Here is a site that tries to break Obamacare down. The problem now is that health insurers are cranking up premiums just as high as they can possibly go before all of this starts. So these figures have to go up.
http://truecostblog.com/2012/08/07/how-much-will-insurance-cost-under-obamacare/
I am precisely the type of person that the government is targeting. Anybody who is reasonably healthy or young who has opted out of health insurance and is not supplementing the bad health choices of all of those buffet dwellers and drug users - are being forced back in.
Forcing healthy people back in- is actually going to keep costs down dramatically- while the health care system receives a giant shot in the arm. In reality, the greedy bastards will never reduce premiums, they will simply steal more.
Seat belts save lives right? After all that life saving, did your auto insurance premiums go down?
Incidentally, this is a fantastic example of how corporations privatize profits and socialize losses.
It's how crony capitalism works. Corporations and government keep people enslaved- taking the lion's share of the profits and taxes and leaving workers' some crumbs. There will always be more workers. They are cheap.
The government and the insurance industry are trying to recapture all of those lost premiums over the last 5 years. That's all this is about.
In addition- the statists are going to try and price all smokers out. How does a 5000 dollar penalty sound? That's 800 a month (net) and now as the premiums take shape- the realization that you just lost 20% of your disposable income or greater under penalty of law- will come into focus. Can you imagine a 52 year old smokerpaying 800 dollars a mo. in premiums? http://news.yahoo.com/penalty-could-keep-smokers-health-overhaul-205840155.html
I'd love to see penalties for dope smokers and drinkers. Can you imagine the collective howl that would go up?
So what's America going to look like by the end of this year?
Broke. I can't wait.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
ReBlog: The Tyranny of the Majority and the Right to Secede
The difference between a republic and a democracy is an important distinction.
The United States was founded as a "republic" and not as a democracy. A republic follows a rule of law, a democracy is led by the majority. A democracy is simply mob rule. In a democracy, the minority is subjected to the tyranny of the majority. Here's a great link which distinguishes the two forms of government. http://www.garymcleod.org/republic.htm
Here is a definition and a summary of the two forms of government. A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good).
Unfortunately, if you ask 100 citizens of the U.S. what form of government they have, 99 of them will tell you that we have a democracy. Of course, this is wrong. It is also very emblematic of every thing that is wrong with this country. Quite honestly, the majority of the people in this country don't even have a clue what form of government we have. A republic protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Democracies habitually fail as the majority gains the upper hand and ignores the rule of law. This is very evident as government has turned a blind on everything from the banking industry to Benghazi.
Last night, I was reading the "Coyote Blog" which is one of my favorite blogs. Our writer there poses this question, "How is it possible that the majority (mob rule) can subject the minority to taxes?" He used a wonderful illustration. The voters in California recently voted to tax the rich- the minority. When asked if they all wanted to share the tax burden- the majority, refused. He details the Nov. 6 election results very nicely- right here.http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2012/11/can-the-majority-vote-to-have-a-minority-send-them-money.html
The question, "can the majority vote themselves largess at the expense of the minority?" strikes at the very heart of everything that is wrong in America. It is something I have written about extensively. We have abandoned the rule of law and thus the republic- in favor of mob rule.
The rule of law is what separates us from a banana republic. Law protects the minority. It allows capitalism to thrive because hard work is rewarded and protected. People succeed because the law provides a safe environment, it protects innovation, and with luck- it delivers the reward. All people have a fair shot and a reasonable expectation that if they work hard- they can succeed in a Republic.
Realistically, I think that is the best we can do. Until it gets short-circuited.
All of the good things that a republic is designed to do-disappear when a government decides that it can simply confiscate the proceeds of your work product. The government is not subject to the rule of law nor do they employ any due process when confiscating your property. They just do it with implied threats of force. Individuals seeking judicial relief are castigated and crushed. The government has it's own judiciary which consistently votes in favor of government seizure and expansion. The rights of the minority, especially the "rich" minority- are no longer a concern.
We now have mob rule.
Under those circumstances, secession becomes a viable option. There is no other way- short of a bloody revolution- to dissolve a government that has left the rails like ours has. As 2013 approaches, people in the United States are about to feel the pain of a government gone wild. A confiscatory government is going to do what it does best- it will continue to seize your money until it has all of it.
Secession is the right to leave the union. Time and time again throughout the annals of history, some sort of secession consistently occurs when government in whatever form- decides to seize the assets of it's citizens. That was the essence of the Magna Carta, it was also the foundation of the Boston Tea Party and our secession from England. Thousands of people are expatriating. Eighteen hundred people formally surrendered their citizenship last year. The United States is no longer the beacon of freedom for the world. It has devolved to mob rule where being successful means you have to suffer the biggest penalty. That is all Obamacare is. Another success tax to give to the mob.
The minority, the producers, will now be subjected to the will of the majority. Those with the means to do so will begin to look for greener pastures. The rule of law works but it cannot be abandoned. The rule of law and the Constitution used to guarantee all citizens a shot at success. All a mob rule democracy guarantees is that your work product will now become property of the state.
The United States was founded as a "republic" and not as a democracy. A republic follows a rule of law, a democracy is led by the majority. A democracy is simply mob rule. In a democracy, the minority is subjected to the tyranny of the majority. Here's a great link which distinguishes the two forms of government. http://www.garymcleod.org/republic.htm
Here is a definition and a summary of the two forms of government. A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good).
Unfortunately, if you ask 100 citizens of the U.S. what form of government they have, 99 of them will tell you that we have a democracy. Of course, this is wrong. It is also very emblematic of every thing that is wrong with this country. Quite honestly, the majority of the people in this country don't even have a clue what form of government we have. A republic protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Democracies habitually fail as the majority gains the upper hand and ignores the rule of law. This is very evident as government has turned a blind on everything from the banking industry to Benghazi.
Last night, I was reading the "Coyote Blog" which is one of my favorite blogs. Our writer there poses this question, "How is it possible that the majority (mob rule) can subject the minority to taxes?" He used a wonderful illustration. The voters in California recently voted to tax the rich- the minority. When asked if they all wanted to share the tax burden- the majority, refused. He details the Nov. 6 election results very nicely- right here.http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2012/11/can-the-majority-vote-to-have-a-minority-send-them-money.html
The question, "can the majority vote themselves largess at the expense of the minority?" strikes at the very heart of everything that is wrong in America. It is something I have written about extensively. We have abandoned the rule of law and thus the republic- in favor of mob rule.
The rule of law is what separates us from a banana republic. Law protects the minority. It allows capitalism to thrive because hard work is rewarded and protected. People succeed because the law provides a safe environment, it protects innovation, and with luck- it delivers the reward. All people have a fair shot and a reasonable expectation that if they work hard- they can succeed in a Republic.
Realistically, I think that is the best we can do. Until it gets short-circuited.
All of the good things that a republic is designed to do-disappear when a government decides that it can simply confiscate the proceeds of your work product. The government is not subject to the rule of law nor do they employ any due process when confiscating your property. They just do it with implied threats of force. Individuals seeking judicial relief are castigated and crushed. The government has it's own judiciary which consistently votes in favor of government seizure and expansion. The rights of the minority, especially the "rich" minority- are no longer a concern.
We now have mob rule.
Under those circumstances, secession becomes a viable option. There is no other way- short of a bloody revolution- to dissolve a government that has left the rails like ours has. As 2013 approaches, people in the United States are about to feel the pain of a government gone wild. A confiscatory government is going to do what it does best- it will continue to seize your money until it has all of it.
Secession is the right to leave the union. Time and time again throughout the annals of history, some sort of secession consistently occurs when government in whatever form- decides to seize the assets of it's citizens. That was the essence of the Magna Carta, it was also the foundation of the Boston Tea Party and our secession from England. Thousands of people are expatriating. Eighteen hundred people formally surrendered their citizenship last year. The United States is no longer the beacon of freedom for the world. It has devolved to mob rule where being successful means you have to suffer the biggest penalty. That is all Obamacare is. Another success tax to give to the mob.
The minority, the producers, will now be subjected to the will of the majority. Those with the means to do so will begin to look for greener pastures. The rule of law works but it cannot be abandoned. The rule of law and the Constitution used to guarantee all citizens a shot at success. All a mob rule democracy guarantees is that your work product will now become property of the state.
Great Chinese Employer, Apple, Getting Greased After Hours
The rout is on. Every hedge fund and retirement fund is heading for the exits.
Apple Inc (NASDAQ:AAPL)
During the Trading Day
| 514.01 |  +9.24 / +1.83% |
Data as of 4:00pm ET
|
Day’s Change
|
During After-Hours Switch to standard view »
| 463.49 |  -50.51 / -9.83% |
Volume: 8,724,000
|
Cowards, GOP Kick Debt Ceiling Can Until Mid May
Wow. Anybody who tells me the GOP is better than the Dems- is an idiot. But then again, I've been saying that for six years.
Time for another bank fueled market rally on the good news!
Link. http://getliberty.org/elimination-of-debt-ceiling-passes-house/?utm_source=WhatCounts+Publicaster+Edition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Elimination+of+debt+ceiling+passes+House+&utm_content=http%3a%2f%2fgetliberty.org%2felimination-of-debt-ceiling-passes-house%2f
More on the latest gimmick. No budget no pay- what a joke. http://news.yahoo.com/house-passes-no-budget-no-pay-191301982--abc-news-politics.html
Time for another bank fueled market rally on the good news!
Link. http://getliberty.org/elimination-of-debt-ceiling-passes-house/?utm_source=WhatCounts+Publicaster+Edition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Elimination+of+debt+ceiling+passes+House+&utm_content=http%3a%2f%2fgetliberty.org%2felimination-of-debt-ceiling-passes-house%2f
More on the latest gimmick. No budget no pay- what a joke. http://news.yahoo.com/house-passes-no-budget-no-pay-191301982--abc-news-politics.html
American DEM/GOP Voters
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
I Don't Apologize for Exercising My Rights*Updated
Nothing bothers me more than two things.
People who are chastised for exercising their GOD given human rights in some pre-emptive fashion or people forced to apologize for exercising those rights, particularly when they have done nothing wrong. With all due respect- screw that. If I wanted someone to tell me what to say, or how to say it, I'd get a job working for Vlad Putin.
We are supposed to be a FREE country.
The rights enumerated to you via the Constitution and more specifically, the Bill of Rights, were not given to you by men. You were born with them and they are God given. They were not meant to be filtered by a bunch of cowardly liberals with their chicken shit "politically correct" dictionary from Berkeley. And exercising free speech, including the truth, is not something you should ever apologize for.
I don't.
Three times this week I have commented on Huffpo about the statists' half baked opinions as viewed through their pink lenses. Three times they have censured me. No profanity, no personal attacks. I simply called them on the ridiculous rubbish that they write. About Katie Couric and whether she is wearing makeup or not. That kind of idiocy.
Liberals are the very first class of folks to censure free speech, especially if it doesn't agree with them. They want to control the dialogue. Tell you what to say and how to say it. I know a couple folks like that.
I didn't send them a meat and cheese tray for Christmas.
Today, Wes Welker's wife (New England Patriots) apologized for some comments she made about the Baltimore Ravens and Ray Lewis. Ray bashed the Patriot organization- and so Ms. Welker gave him a taste of his own medicine and mentioned Lewis' has 6 children from 4 women and has never been married. On Facebook. Ms. Welker also mentioned Lewis and the two people that he may have murdered, was indicted for, but never convicted of killing. It's not that he is innocent- it's just that they couldn't prove it. Kinda like OJ Simpson without the circus trial.
All of that is true stuff. So if Ray doesn't like people talking about it- well that ship left the harbor a long time ago. Here's the apology piece. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-on-football/21594941/wes-welkers-wife-apologizes-for-ray-lewis-facebook-comments
Next up on the apology tour is Phil Mickelson apologizing for stating his new tax rate is 63%. Who in the fuck should apologize here? How about a government confiscating 2/3rds of your money and mis managing it? When do they apologize? Pete Reilly at Forbes thinks Phil is "dumb." I think Reilly's dumb. You decide. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2013/01/23/why-phil-mickelsons-remark-was-really-dumb/
Et tu Phil?
So I've been having a little back and forth today- with what appears to be a semi liberal person who somehow thinks that the First Amendment has some provision that requires people to be "kind" when exercising their free speech rights. I must have missed that part.
So here is the last two bits of a little back and forth: (A decent commenter, thankfully)
Critical Thinking • Report Abuse
Me
There is nothing to "interpret." Accountability occurs when laws, both civil or criminal, are broken. There are legal remedies for that. My statement is not an opinion. It is a statement of fact. There is nothing in the First Amendment that says you will be held accountable for mis-using your free speech right. Free speech as written, is a God given right. It is not conferred on me or to me, with stipulations or conditions by men. I don't apologize for exercising free speech. Ever. I am not always nice either.
What happened since the founders put the Constitution and the Bill of Rights together was that the Supreme Court has "abridged" free speech any time it interferes with the survivability of this government. Certainly you would expect the Supreme Court to rule against anyone trying to get rid of our existing government which would include the Supreme Court. But we're not talking about overthrowing a government or whether or not the court erred. (I'd love to bet on whether the founders, after freshly kicking some British ass, would have thought free speech regarding toppling a government was an exception to the first amendment- I am gonna hazard a guess that they wouldn't agree)
What we are talking about here is whether or not Wes Welker's wife had the right to say what she said about Ray Lewis.
Clearly she did.
I am sorry she felt the need to apologize. Ray opened his yap first. I have not read where Ray Lewis apologized for any of the shit he has pulled- talking trash about the Patriots, fatherless kids, or murdered party goers not withstanding.
You have a right to state your opinion in this country. You are not entitled to dream up some fictional set of facts because you don't agree with the manner in which someone exercises their right. If that were true- literally nothing would exist. No art, no music, no books, no movies.. somebody would always object to someone else's use of free speech.
I don't apologize for stating the truth. I damn sure don't apologize to statists who think they can tell me what to say or how to say it. Or maybe hang a few derogatory labels on me when I don't agree with their views.
I apologize when I have mis-stated a material fact, been duped, or inadvertently hurt someone. Sometimes I state the truth in an effort to actually knock some sense into a person carrying number 9 pine ( a very dense wood) on their shoulders. Mostly, I am not going to apologize for breathing air, walking upright, or stating some inconvenient truth. That's just tough shitski.
I hope you don't either.
People who are chastised for exercising their GOD given human rights in some pre-emptive fashion or people forced to apologize for exercising those rights, particularly when they have done nothing wrong. With all due respect- screw that. If I wanted someone to tell me what to say, or how to say it, I'd get a job working for Vlad Putin.
We are supposed to be a FREE country.
The rights enumerated to you via the Constitution and more specifically, the Bill of Rights, were not given to you by men. You were born with them and they are God given. They were not meant to be filtered by a bunch of cowardly liberals with their chicken shit "politically correct" dictionary from Berkeley. And exercising free speech, including the truth, is not something you should ever apologize for.
I don't.
Three times this week I have commented on Huffpo about the statists' half baked opinions as viewed through their pink lenses. Three times they have censured me. No profanity, no personal attacks. I simply called them on the ridiculous rubbish that they write. About Katie Couric and whether she is wearing makeup or not. That kind of idiocy.
Liberals are the very first class of folks to censure free speech, especially if it doesn't agree with them. They want to control the dialogue. Tell you what to say and how to say it. I know a couple folks like that.
I didn't send them a meat and cheese tray for Christmas.
Today, Wes Welker's wife (New England Patriots) apologized for some comments she made about the Baltimore Ravens and Ray Lewis. Ray bashed the Patriot organization- and so Ms. Welker gave him a taste of his own medicine and mentioned Lewis' has 6 children from 4 women and has never been married. On Facebook. Ms. Welker also mentioned Lewis and the two people that he may have murdered, was indicted for, but never convicted of killing. It's not that he is innocent- it's just that they couldn't prove it. Kinda like OJ Simpson without the circus trial.
All of that is true stuff. So if Ray doesn't like people talking about it- well that ship left the harbor a long time ago. Here's the apology piece. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-on-football/21594941/wes-welkers-wife-apologizes-for-ray-lewis-facebook-comments
Next up on the apology tour is Phil Mickelson apologizing for stating his new tax rate is 63%. Who in the fuck should apologize here? How about a government confiscating 2/3rds of your money and mis managing it? When do they apologize? Pete Reilly at Forbes thinks Phil is "dumb." I think Reilly's dumb. You decide. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2013/01/23/why-phil-mickelsons-remark-was-really-dumb/
Et tu Phil?
So I've been having a little back and forth today- with what appears to be a semi liberal person who somehow thinks that the First Amendment has some provision that requires people to be "kind" when exercising their free speech rights. I must have missed that part.
So here is the last two bits of a little back and forth: (A decent commenter, thankfully)
Critical Thinking • Report Abuse
Not shaping the Amendment or interpreting things that are not there, but I do believe that people misinterpret it. "People have freedom of speech, but there is also accountability that accompanies misuse of the right". (I found this on a website regarding the first amendment) I am just stating my opinion just like you are stating yours. And you are right, if he feels that he has a case for slander or deformation of character, he can hire a good lawyer. He has the money to pay for it! Have a nice evening Brian!
Me
There is nothing to "interpret." Accountability occurs when laws, both civil or criminal, are broken. There are legal remedies for that. My statement is not an opinion. It is a statement of fact. There is nothing in the First Amendment that says you will be held accountable for mis-using your free speech right. Free speech as written, is a God given right. It is not conferred on me or to me, with stipulations or conditions by men. I don't apologize for exercising free speech. Ever. I am not always nice either.
What happened since the founders put the Constitution and the Bill of Rights together was that the Supreme Court has "abridged" free speech any time it interferes with the survivability of this government. Certainly you would expect the Supreme Court to rule against anyone trying to get rid of our existing government which would include the Supreme Court. But we're not talking about overthrowing a government or whether or not the court erred. (I'd love to bet on whether the founders, after freshly kicking some British ass, would have thought free speech regarding toppling a government was an exception to the first amendment- I am gonna hazard a guess that they wouldn't agree)
What we are talking about here is whether or not Wes Welker's wife had the right to say what she said about Ray Lewis.
Clearly she did.
I am sorry she felt the need to apologize. Ray opened his yap first. I have not read where Ray Lewis apologized for any of the shit he has pulled- talking trash about the Patriots, fatherless kids, or murdered party goers not withstanding.
You have a right to state your opinion in this country. You are not entitled to dream up some fictional set of facts because you don't agree with the manner in which someone exercises their right. If that were true- literally nothing would exist. No art, no music, no books, no movies.. somebody would always object to someone else's use of free speech.
I don't apologize for stating the truth. I damn sure don't apologize to statists who think they can tell me what to say or how to say it. Or maybe hang a few derogatory labels on me when I don't agree with their views.
I apologize when I have mis-stated a material fact, been duped, or inadvertently hurt someone. Sometimes I state the truth in an effort to actually knock some sense into a person carrying number 9 pine ( a very dense wood) on their shoulders. Mostly, I am not going to apologize for breathing air, walking upright, or stating some inconvenient truth. That's just tough shitski.
I hope you don't either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Earlier this week, graphs started popping up on X and other places. Most of those graphs showed the steep and dramatic increase in popular ...
-
Several years ago, as Ann Coulter (2016) was being laughed at for predicting the Trump presidential win, I was reading a piece about why wo...
-
There is a giant swath of folks in this country who simply cannot believe what is happening. They cannot believe that a "convicted felo...
No comments: