Before I get started here, I would just like to say that I do not listen to nor do I support Rush Limbaugh. I think that some of the opinions he presents are not thoroughly researched, but of course that's true of most of the news media.
I've noticed lately that a lot of people are trying to convince radio stations not to carry Rush Limbaugh's radio station anymore. I understand that there are a lot of people out there that do not like him, but there are just as many that think that he's the unicorn's horn. I don't understand why you think that you have the right to push your opinions and beliefs and what not onto others. If people want to believe him, then go ahead and let them! There's nothing you can do about it. If you don't like him then you don't have listen to him! It's as simple as that. You're being fed just as many lies by whatever news channel you choose to watch.
I bet that there isn't a single one of you that hasn't bothered to go out and research anything yourselves. You just take whatever the reporters say to you as the truth and leave it at that. Then you get in an argument with someone when you don't even know what the fuck you are talking about.
How about before you decide that someone else is wrong you go find out the truth for yourself and you might find that you've also been getting the wrong idea the whole time as well.
Does anyone not remember the first amendment? You know, free speech and all that. People can say whatever the hell they want and if you don't like it, then tough shit. You don't have to listen to it and you don't have to care what they think, but for some un-known reason people do. They have a right to offend, just like you have a right to be offended.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
A Difficult Decision
Abortion is a hot topic in politics right now. I've thought about the issue a lot and it's hard to come to a conclusion. I consider myself to be a member of the pro-life group. Why you ask? Because any person that wants to kill an unborn child must be the worst possible person imaginable. I do really believe that. I do think that people who are pro-choice don't really think that abortion is moral, but they don't want to make a decision for another person. At the same time though, if you don't want to get pregnant then don't have sex. It's just as simple as that. If you don't have sex then you won't get pregnant.
Of course there is a whole other side to this issue. What if a woman was raped? I can see why she may want to terminate her pregnancy if one resulted from such a crime. I mean, who wants a reminder everyday of their life of one of the worst things that has ever happened to them? What if there is a complication with the pregnancy and the mother might die? What if the fetus has a medical condition that would cause them to have a short or very complicated life? These are situations in which I can see that abortion would be a viable option. I would not want to take that option away from someone in a dire situation.
With both of these points having been made, what is the solution? Well to me it is quite simple. You should keep it legal, but with certain conditions. It would mean that a woman could only have an abortion in one of the above situations. If she does not apply to these rules then she cannot have one. Some people may think that's cruel, but I'm sorry. This is life and people need to learn how to deal with the consequences of the choices that they make.
Of course there is a whole other side to this issue. What if a woman was raped? I can see why she may want to terminate her pregnancy if one resulted from such a crime. I mean, who wants a reminder everyday of their life of one of the worst things that has ever happened to them? What if there is a complication with the pregnancy and the mother might die? What if the fetus has a medical condition that would cause them to have a short or very complicated life? These are situations in which I can see that abortion would be a viable option. I would not want to take that option away from someone in a dire situation.
With both of these points having been made, what is the solution? Well to me it is quite simple. You should keep it legal, but with certain conditions. It would mean that a woman could only have an abortion in one of the above situations. If she does not apply to these rules then she cannot have one. Some people may think that's cruel, but I'm sorry. This is life and people need to learn how to deal with the consequences of the choices that they make.
Friday, October 7, 2011
gimme Gimme GIMME!!
You people are so damn ignorant. You just don't fucking get it. You don't understand that the government does not want to help you. And you may say "Well what about my food stamps and my WIC and my social security and my welfare and my government housing and my healthcare and BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!" I'll tell you about it. And I want you to just follow my argument and look at it logically and see that maybe, just maybe I could be right. Then you can make your decision.
First of all: What is the goal of a politician? To get elected. And then after that? To get re-elected. No one can dispute that. And in order for them to get re-elected they have to do something to please their constituents, whether it's in the best interest of the nation or not. No, that does not matter. It's all about instant gratification because most voters don't realize the long term consequences of some the dumbass shit that these congressman make into laws.
Anyway...back to the point. So maybe congress will decide to implement a certain social program. Let's take the Social Security Act of 1935 for example. It also happens to be the largest government social program in the world taking about 20.8% of the US budget each year, which is more than is spent on defense or Medicare/Medicaid.
Let me give you a quick rundown of how the system works. First of all, anyone that has a social security number is a part of the social security program.
***FUN FACT: No one born in the US is required to have a social security number. Most people apply for one for their children simply because it's easier to get a job or claim dependents on their income taxes. Once you are in, you cannot get out.***
The government takes 6.20% (in 2011 it is currently at 4.2% but will increase again) of an employee's wage as a Social Security Withholding Tax, but that's only half. The employer must pay the same 6.20% on the pay check as well (They are both also subject to a 1.45% tax that goes to the Medicare system). There are a few exceptions to the rule, but I won't go into that much detail here. And of course since a person has been paying into the system their entire life then they would expect to receive some benefits, and they do, but not until they retire. Most retirees receive a monthly check of an amount based on the wages they've made through out their life & how much the average wage has increased since they first started working. (Once again it's a complicated system that I won't try to explain here) There are other benefits for the spouse, widow(er), or children, and so on and so forth.
Now, according to the statistics and numbers (which most people have no fucking clue how to read by the way) the social security system will not be able to support itself past 2035 because the amount of money going into the system will not be proportional to the amount being paid out (in a nut shell). So, basically anyone paying into social security up to that time will never see any benefit because the system will fail. Anyone relying on the system at the time will have their only source of income vanish and they will have no where to turn.
So what I'm saying is that once the people have paid in then they expect the benefits. Once that happens they start to depend on the system. If any congressman were to try to abolish the system then anyone reaping the benefits of the system would not be likely to support/vote for this person. Therefore, any politician that keeps supporting the system would get their vote. In reality, the person who's trying to get rid of social security would be doing everyone a favor by saving them from a system that will inevitably fail and waste government time and money. It is exactly the same with all the other social programs that we have in affect today.
My main point in all this is that once a social program is in place then people start depending on it. Once that happens the politicians that support it will always get their votes because they need it. How could they learn to live without it? It's all a scheme. They make you think that they're helping you, but they're not. They create programs that will last long enough to get people to trust them and then you start seeing problems, but they can't be eradicated because they become so embedded into society that it is impossible to remove (and of course people would suffer). So then they promise that they will reform the programs when in actuality there is nothing that can be done. The charade continues as long as it can and everyone that voted for these people all these years are left empty handed.
The other bad thing is that people on the programs forget or never even knew how to do things for themselves. They never try to go out and do something for them self. If the program disappears then what will they do? Well, that remains to be seen. Maybe if you people understood how these government bastards really thought then you'd realize how fucked we really are. You have to make that choice for yourself. All I can do is push you in the right direction.
First of all: What is the goal of a politician? To get elected. And then after that? To get re-elected. No one can dispute that. And in order for them to get re-elected they have to do something to please their constituents, whether it's in the best interest of the nation or not. No, that does not matter. It's all about instant gratification because most voters don't realize the long term consequences of some the dumbass shit that these congressman make into laws.
Anyway...back to the point. So maybe congress will decide to implement a certain social program. Let's take the Social Security Act of 1935 for example. It also happens to be the largest government social program in the world taking about 20.8% of the US budget each year, which is more than is spent on defense or Medicare/Medicaid.
Let me give you a quick rundown of how the system works. First of all, anyone that has a social security number is a part of the social security program.
***FUN FACT: No one born in the US is required to have a social security number. Most people apply for one for their children simply because it's easier to get a job or claim dependents on their income taxes. Once you are in, you cannot get out.***
The government takes 6.20% (in 2011 it is currently at 4.2% but will increase again) of an employee's wage as a Social Security Withholding Tax, but that's only half. The employer must pay the same 6.20% on the pay check as well (They are both also subject to a 1.45% tax that goes to the Medicare system). There are a few exceptions to the rule, but I won't go into that much detail here. And of course since a person has been paying into the system their entire life then they would expect to receive some benefits, and they do, but not until they retire. Most retirees receive a monthly check of an amount based on the wages they've made through out their life & how much the average wage has increased since they first started working. (Once again it's a complicated system that I won't try to explain here) There are other benefits for the spouse, widow(er), or children, and so on and so forth.
Now, according to the statistics and numbers (which most people have no fucking clue how to read by the way) the social security system will not be able to support itself past 2035 because the amount of money going into the system will not be proportional to the amount being paid out (in a nut shell). So, basically anyone paying into social security up to that time will never see any benefit because the system will fail. Anyone relying on the system at the time will have their only source of income vanish and they will have no where to turn.
So what I'm saying is that once the people have paid in then they expect the benefits. Once that happens they start to depend on the system. If any congressman were to try to abolish the system then anyone reaping the benefits of the system would not be likely to support/vote for this person. Therefore, any politician that keeps supporting the system would get their vote. In reality, the person who's trying to get rid of social security would be doing everyone a favor by saving them from a system that will inevitably fail and waste government time and money. It is exactly the same with all the other social programs that we have in affect today.
My main point in all this is that once a social program is in place then people start depending on it. Once that happens the politicians that support it will always get their votes because they need it. How could they learn to live without it? It's all a scheme. They make you think that they're helping you, but they're not. They create programs that will last long enough to get people to trust them and then you start seeing problems, but they can't be eradicated because they become so embedded into society that it is impossible to remove (and of course people would suffer). So then they promise that they will reform the programs when in actuality there is nothing that can be done. The charade continues as long as it can and everyone that voted for these people all these years are left empty handed.
The other bad thing is that people on the programs forget or never even knew how to do things for themselves. They never try to go out and do something for them self. If the program disappears then what will they do? Well, that remains to be seen. Maybe if you people understood how these government bastards really thought then you'd realize how fucked we really are. You have to make that choice for yourself. All I can do is push you in the right direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)