From Around the Web
The Health of Mothers Makes no Difference to John McCain. I fully respect her post and I don't even have a disagreement with her. In that, she's completely entitled to her opinion. I think that John McCain was speaking from a political standpoint about "health of mothers" I think he was saying politicians stand behind that when talking about abortion in general. But I didn't see the context, so I can't be sure.
And before we start yelling at me and my anti-feminist agenda, please note that I'm a small government girl. I don't want some judge in D.C. telling anyone what to do with any part of their anatomy.
But I do think abortion is wrong. And I am all about choice. Choose birth control.
There is apparently a movement to get THESE ads on in swing states (they are from rape and incest victims who got pregnant). They seem like a reaction to THIS ad from Born Alive Right to Truth from a woman who was born 31 years ago after a failed abortion. The only point here is ... everyone has anecdotal evidence.
Obama came out last week and told the now famous Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher how he planned to "spread the wealth around." The sad fact is, that people will listen to that and nod their heads and agree. People argue a lot with the trickle down theory, but I'm telling you I've never heard of a person making under $35K that ever gave a full time job to anyone. And we already have a system of wealth redistribution. It's called welfare. Obama's plan is to give even more.
His plan to give tax cuts to 95% of Americans is really a plan to redistribute the wealth of the upper middle class and down. Because something like 48% of people in that 95% don't pay taxes anyway, and his plan will give them a larger tax rebate. So they won't pay anything more, or do anything more, but they will get more money back from the feds.
Meanwhile, I will lose my marriage credit (more taxes there) and he's going to raise cap gains taxes (more taxes there). So while no, he's not planning on raising my federal income tax, he will be raising my taxes.
And yours.
I'm telling you. Look at what you bring home today. If you are at the same job, earning the same amount, report back to me this time next year. Did your check stay the same? Or did you lose a couple 5 dollars?
And those of you in that 45% (and you know who you are) congrats. You're the lucky winners of the Obama lottery.
And I tell you again. They are going to steal Ohio. Hook or by crook. 200,000 registrants have discrepencies. And don't forget that they had that period where they were allowing people to register, and then immediately vote via absentee ballot. None of those people who registered were cross checked against anything.
I should have sent my sister and brother to different spots, just to see if they could vote multiple times. Would have been an interesting case study.
I didn't watch the debate but I hear it was more of the same and most outlets are saying Obama won. Has there been a debate they didn't think he won? Neal Boortz said that McCain missed the boat (shocker there) and didn't hammer enough about the wealth redistribution bit. What Neal would have said at one point ...
Hugh Hewitt says a vote for Obama is a vote for a longer recession. He says Herbert Hoover raised taxes and limited trade and it is believed that he elongated the depression by doing so.
Who wants to do both of those same things? Barack Obama.
And another thing ... I got into (yet another!) argument with someone who shall remain nameless about illegal immigration. Their position is that if we fired all illegal workers, the prices of goods will go up.
To this I have a new argument.
My traditional argument is, if it were children being forced to work inhuman hours for substandard wages, the world would stand up and revolt. But because they are largely Mexican / Hispanic, we tilt our heads to the side and say, "but they have it so much better here than in Guatamala / Honduras / Mexico." We justify away the fact that they have no rights as workers, no recourse, no workers comp because ... well if they were in Mexico what would they have?
My argument on the price of goods ... it's bogus. For the love of all that is good and true, we currently subsidize farmers. And I would wager a guess, that what we would spend on fruits and vegetables (should the price go up), we would get back when millions of companies had to start offering health care benefits to undocumented workers, and the current cost of emergency care would go down. If you want me to pull up my health care research on Dallas in particular and how much our medical system has lost because of treatment of undocumented citizens. Just let me know.
Anyways this was not the point ... the point was this article from Catholic Online. It was referenced in the link to Hugh Hewitt above. It's about abortion, but something in it made me think of illegal immigration, or more correctly, the argument that we can't force businesses to hire documented workers because the cost of goods would go up ( the "we all benefit from illegal immigration" line). He mentions slavery, and how some people were against slavery but were against abolition. And the line that made me think of immigration is ...
Interesting, isn't it?
And while making them all citizens is clearly not the answer (we might as well annex Mexico then) enforcing current laws that are already on the books for employers is necessary. Because we shouldn't allow substandard working conditions, no matter who it is.
And before we start yelling at me and my anti-feminist agenda, please note that I'm a small government girl. I don't want some judge in D.C. telling anyone what to do with any part of their anatomy.
But I do think abortion is wrong. And I am all about choice. Choose birth control.
There is apparently a movement to get THESE ads on in swing states (they are from rape and incest victims who got pregnant). They seem like a reaction to THIS ad from Born Alive Right to Truth from a woman who was born 31 years ago after a failed abortion. The only point here is ... everyone has anecdotal evidence.
Obama came out last week and told the now famous Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher how he planned to "spread the wealth around." The sad fact is, that people will listen to that and nod their heads and agree. People argue a lot with the trickle down theory, but I'm telling you I've never heard of a person making under $35K that ever gave a full time job to anyone. And we already have a system of wealth redistribution. It's called welfare. Obama's plan is to give even more.
His plan to give tax cuts to 95% of Americans is really a plan to redistribute the wealth of the upper middle class and down. Because something like 48% of people in that 95% don't pay taxes anyway, and his plan will give them a larger tax rebate. So they won't pay anything more, or do anything more, but they will get more money back from the feds.
Meanwhile, I will lose my marriage credit (more taxes there) and he's going to raise cap gains taxes (more taxes there). So while no, he's not planning on raising my federal income tax, he will be raising my taxes.
And yours.
I'm telling you. Look at what you bring home today. If you are at the same job, earning the same amount, report back to me this time next year. Did your check stay the same? Or did you lose a couple 5 dollars?
And those of you in that 45% (and you know who you are) congrats. You're the lucky winners of the Obama lottery.
And I tell you again. They are going to steal Ohio. Hook or by crook. 200,000 registrants have discrepencies. And don't forget that they had that period where they were allowing people to register, and then immediately vote via absentee ballot. None of those people who registered were cross checked against anything.
I should have sent my sister and brother to different spots, just to see if they could vote multiple times. Would have been an interesting case study.
I didn't watch the debate but I hear it was more of the same and most outlets are saying Obama won. Has there been a debate they didn't think he won? Neal Boortz said that McCain missed the boat (shocker there) and didn't hammer enough about the wealth redistribution bit. What Neal would have said at one point ...
"Look, Senator Obama, I know you haven't spent all that much time in the Senate,Another time he would have pointed out that you can't cut taxes for 95% of Americans because of what I pointed out earlier.
but President Bush doesn't cast votes there. The Congresses own figures show,
however, that on key votes you cast your vote with the Democrat party 97% of the
time while I only cast my vote with Republicans 79% of the time."
Hugh Hewitt says a vote for Obama is a vote for a longer recession. He says Herbert Hoover raised taxes and limited trade and it is believed that he elongated the depression by doing so.
Who wants to do both of those same things? Barack Obama.
And another thing ... I got into (yet another!) argument with someone who shall remain nameless about illegal immigration. Their position is that if we fired all illegal workers, the prices of goods will go up.
To this I have a new argument.
My traditional argument is, if it were children being forced to work inhuman hours for substandard wages, the world would stand up and revolt. But because they are largely Mexican / Hispanic, we tilt our heads to the side and say, "but they have it so much better here than in Guatamala / Honduras / Mexico." We justify away the fact that they have no rights as workers, no recourse, no workers comp because ... well if they were in Mexico what would they have?
My argument on the price of goods ... it's bogus. For the love of all that is good and true, we currently subsidize farmers. And I would wager a guess, that what we would spend on fruits and vegetables (should the price go up), we would get back when millions of companies had to start offering health care benefits to undocumented workers, and the current cost of emergency care would go down. If you want me to pull up my health care research on Dallas in particular and how much our medical system has lost because of treatment of undocumented citizens. Just let me know.
Anyways this was not the point ... the point was this article from Catholic Online. It was referenced in the link to Hugh Hewitt above. It's about abortion, but something in it made me think of illegal immigration, or more correctly, the argument that we can't force businesses to hire documented workers because the cost of goods would go up ( the "we all benefit from illegal immigration" line). He mentions slavery, and how some people were against slavery but were against abolition. And the line that made me think of immigration is ...
Many people at the time of the American founding would have preferred a world without slavery but nonetheless opposed abolition. Such people - Thomas Jefferson was one - reasoned that, given the world as it was, with slavery woven into the fabric of society just as it had often been throughout history, the economic consequences of abolition for society as a whole and for owners of plantations and other businesses that relied on slave labor would be dire.
Interesting, isn't it?
And while making them all citizens is clearly not the answer (we might as well annex Mexico then) enforcing current laws that are already on the books for employers is necessary. Because we shouldn't allow substandard working conditions, no matter who it is.
Comments