Comments by gaetani
Posted on July 27 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Fritzdawg: I don't know where you get your information from but your PPACA percentages are way wrong. wmarincic isn't quite right either but he is closer. The actual percentages are about 70% opposed and 25 - 30% in favor of the PPACA. Fritzdawg I also take umbridge with your numbers about red and blue states and so what? wmarincic wasn't talking about states he was talking about people. Just because a state is overall conservative (red) or overall "liberal" (blue) doesn't mean anything. For instance both California and NY are "blue" but if you took away the large cities, they would be "red". Which is wmarincic's point.
Fritzdawg, here is the reality of the PPACA. It will cost everyone more, there are 20 new and additional taxes, you will lose your current health insurance, you will lose your current doctor, anyone over the age of 76 will not get treated for any diseases especially cancer or other life threatening diseases (that is in the law), anyone over 76 will be required to have end-of-life counseling, there will be a panel of 15 bureaucrats who decide what doctors are allowed to do to treat their patients, hospitals will not be allowed to expanded, new and improved medicines and medical equipment will not be coming on the market, you will have long waits to see specialists. Shall I go on?
This is all in the law. Read it.
Posted on July 27 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Exactly right. I sent a letter into the paper with similar sentiments but it hasn't been published yet.
Posted on June 15 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Great letter Mr. Cazer! Why hasn't anyone else written about this? And why does such a rich company like Golub need to get any money from the government?
Posted on June 8 at noon (Suggest removal)
Ms. Kimble: I wrote a similar letter to yours to The Gazette but they didn't publish it (yet). You said pretty much what I said although I also mentioned the Federalist Papers which explained the role of the Supreme Court more clearly. Anyway, thank you for setting Mr. Reilly straight.
Posted on June 8 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. DeSantis: Let me start off with I never voted for President Bush and I haven't voted for a Republican candidate for President since 1988. I am not a registered Republican either.
People such as yourself have no idea of the facts. First, President Bush did not have a $10 trillion debt. The amount of debt accumulated under President Bush was roughly $5 trillion. Secondly, yes President Bush had the cost of the wars off the books for good reason. If that cost was added to the budget, it would then become part of the baseline budget for the successive year. What this means is Congress would see how much was spent in the previous year to use that to base the next year's spending on thus keeping the high spending into perpetuity. President Obama has not included the cost of the wars in his spending but he is trying to claim the ending of the wars as spending reductions going forward. And under his administration, the debt has risen more than $5 trillion dollars in only 3.5 years as compared to President Bush in 8 years.
You then claim that the low in employment is due to some made up 30-year experiment in deregulation and free-for-all capitalism. This is so far from the truth it is laughable. What 30-year experiment are you talking about? What capitalism are you talking about? Do you even know what capitalism is?
The housing market collapsed because the government forced banks to give mortgages to unqualified people. And then was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. But guess what? That was all done during the end of the Clinton Administration. And our "illustrious" Governer who was Secretary of HUD, was jubilant over this.
You next blame the downgrade of our nation's debt on T.E.A. Party Republicans which is totally false. It was the Democrat controlled Senate that refused to even discuss any options. And the President who commissioned the Boles-Simpson Debt Commission, refused to even consider any of its proposals. I believe that is the so-called "Grand Bargain" you mention. The Democrats want nothing to do with reforming Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The Republicans have put several reform measures on the table.
Your last point that the Keystone pipeline is not stopped is true but that is misleading. That proposal has been in the works for more than four years. It has been revised to alleviate the environmental concerns and yet the President still refuses to give it a yes or a no. The reason is purely political and I will bet you a million dollars that after the election he will give it a thumbs up. There is not less dependency on foreign oil today and any increase in oil production is due to the permits that President Bush approved and oil production on private lands. What is being exported is gasoline and that is because out economy is so weak we don't need it here.
Posted on June 7 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Spencer: You only know about half your history. In 1912, there were four candidates. There were two Progressives - winner Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt, the incumbent Republican William Howard Taft, and the Socialist Debs. Yes there was a strong socialist and populist current in the nation's politics. But you are wrong that it was the workers' response to Fascism. Do you even know what Fascism is?
It is the state controlling the government and the economy. Just because businesses were using force to try to stop unionization and police were used to stop the riots, doesn't mean it is Fascism. In fact, the NAZIs full name is National Socialists. Socialism and Fascism are close but not the same. The Russians and Hitler were one time close allies. President Franklin Roosevelt admired both Hitler and Musonlini because of the way they ran their countries so efficiently. As with Fascism, Socialism and Progressive-ism the leaders of the government control all aspects of society.
Mr. Seeman was not trying to facetious. He was serous about taking a little Marx and others. If he was being facetious, he would have meant Groucho Marx and his brothers. I take that back, that wouldn't be so facetious because I could go for that.
To you last point that people on the right won't accept compromise. You are right because for too long we have been compromised by the left who in reality have never, ever compromised and have taken this country in the wrong direction. So, in order to get it back to center, the country needs a hard right turn but one that doesn't over correct. But that is alien to you people on the left.
Posted on June 7 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Blunt: While it is true that President Obama inherited two so-called wars, a bad economy, and large debt which did indeed nearly double over eight years of the Bush administration, here is the truth that you and your fellow cool aid drinkers don't want to see. Mr. Obama promised to end the wars as soon as he got into office. What did he do? Followed the time table of Bush for both of them. Mr. Obama promised to keep the unemployment rate below 8%. It has never ever been there since he has been President. Mr. Obama said that it is unpatriotic to have such large national debt and that he would cut it in half by the end of his term. He must be unpatriotic because not only has he not cut the debt in half, he has increased by more in 3.5 years than President Bush did in eight years.
For your information, the Democrats controlled Congress the last two years of the Bush Presidency and the first two years of the Obama Presidency. Guess what happened during that period? The deficits ballooned and they made the economy worse. Still the Democrats control the Senate and they refuse to do anything. In fact, they haven't passed a budget in three years.
So Mr. Blunt, it is not that Mr. Romney and others have amnesia, it is that you and the people who think like you are blind to the facts. And by the way, I never voted for Bush and I will probably not be voting for Romney.
Posted on May 3 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Peter Watrous, Maybe you should really check the facts before you accuse others of using false and misleading information. The sources you list as reputable for fact checking at best lean toward the Democrat point of view. Instead of relying on third party "fact" sources, try the first source. In this case the CBO itself.
On the CBO's own website, its revised cost for the Affordable Care Act is $1.1 trillion not $1.01 trillion. The time period is the same as its original estimate 2012 - 2021. The writer of the letter who stated that the new cost will be $1.762 trillion was correct but the CBO claims that will be partially offset by revenues of about $510 billion from penalties on employers and people for not having the proper health insurance coverage.
Another problem Mr. Watrous, the cost estimate includes two to three more years of revenue and only seven or eight years of costs. In the next ten year period the cost of this Act with sky-rocket. Furthermore, as we are all ready seeing, many large companies are going to be dropping their health insurance coverage for their employees because it will be cheaper for them to pay the fine. Granted they may offer the employees raises with the money saved but a lot of employees and their families will without employer provided coverage.
And sir if this Act is so great, why have so many friends of the Democrats and the President been given exemptions? The fact of the matter is any government intrusion into the market always leads to higher costs for everyone. Why do you think health care costs so much now? First, because of Medicare and Medicaid. And second because of the advent of HMO's which was a Teddy Kennedy initiative. The reason is these types of health insurances allow more people to use the health care system which causes the cost to rise. That is simple economics.
Finally, to this point we have only been talking about the cost to the federal government. There has been no mention anywhere of the increased costs to state and local governments. Or for that matter to personally to the American people in the form of higher premiums, prices for goods and services, taxes and fees. Examples of higher taxes are the increase in the Medicare tax of .09%, imposition of Medicare taxes on sales of homes and capital assets, and a 1% tax on all financial transactions.
So, Mr. Watrous, you see the costs of the Affordable Care Act will far exceed the benefits that only about 15 million people who now don't have health insurance might gain. Check you facts before you make absolute statements as fact to make your point.
Posted on April 6 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No, because we are not paying for it directly. The healthcare providers are considering it a part of their cost to do business to provide services for those who don't have health insurance and can't afford to pay for most health care so they price services accordingly. It is a huge misconception that everyone who doesn't have health insurance doesn't pay for their health care services. Many without insurance pay out of pocket for health care services. I don't believe that there is that big a number of people who don't have insurance and don't pay for any of their health care so that we have to indirectly pick up the tab.
The real crux of the Obamacare law mandate is that by the mere fact that one is alive they have to engage in commerce with a private company for no other reason than to some how keep the cost of a product - health insurance lower. If this is ruled constitutional, then the government can force us to by electric cars in order to keep the cost of gas lower. Don't you see a problem with that?! I do!
The other issue is is this really interstate commerce which is what the Commerce Clause is all about. I think not. No one is buying health insurance across state lines or generally engaging in health care services across state lines. And in the latter case which does happen, it is not health insurance that you are buying but health care services. So the only law that should exist is that your health insurance you purchased in one state should be effective in another. I don't believe that just because you are in a different state than your home state and you receive medical care you are necessarily engaging in interstate commerce either.
Posted on March 30 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Newsworthy, you are so wrong. Those technologies are not in their infancy. Wind power has been around for centuries. We are still using solar technology developed more than 50 years ago. I have been a fan of solar energy since I was in college 35 years ago. Wind power will never become too prominent and environmentalists don't like windmills. We won't be able to replace our energy needs with either of these. Do you know anyone flying a solar powered plane?
You are right about one thing though. Alternative forms of energy have been stifled by big oil, etc. In fact, there a way to generate electricity for free that was invented by Nicola Tesla about 90 years ago. He was ostracized so much about it that he is supposed to have gone mad. But I do material on how to build this generator and I have asked me engineer friend and my nephew who is studying engineering about it. They say it is real.