Main | February 2007 »

January 25, 2007

Bush's new healthcare plan

Bush announced a new health care initiative Tuesday night at the State of the Union address that I haven't really heard many people talking about. So I thought I would take a jab at it.

Bush's plan: to allow people who are currently paying for health insurance to deduct it from their taxes at the end of the year (with limits I'm sure). One's gut reaction would probably be: "wow, that sounds like a pretty good deal." But I fear that the devil is hidden in the details (as he usually is).

The plan seems good for middle class Americans, like myself, who have to shell out a couple hundred bucks each paycheck to cover my families health care. I'm pretty lucky that the company I work for offers a really good health insurance package, however it definitely comes with a pretty steep price tag.

So naturally, the idea of being able to write my health insurance premium off at the end of the year sounds pretty good to me. But I have to remember that only a few short months ago I was among the millions of Americans who cannot afford health insurance or who work for companies that do not provide health benefits.

Bush said that his new plan would "level the playing field" for those that do not have or cannot afford health coverage. But how exactly does he think this will work? Allowing people to write off their health insurance premiums at the end of the year does not mean that they are going to be able to afford the outrageous up-front monthly costs involved. Knowing that at the end of the year I will probably get back a good chunk of the change I put into my health insurance does not make that money available to me when I need it the most -- the day it is taken out of my paycheck.

Low-income is low-income and just because you are getting a tax break at the end of the year, doesn't change the fact that you are still struggling to make ends meet.

I think Bush's plan is a nice fantasy that was put together to make sure that the private insurance companies aren't hurt in any way. Of course, he also suggested to Congress that federal funds be granted to states (such as California) who are working to provide all of its citizens with affordable health care, but is that really enough?

Bush's plan does not change the fact that the United States is the only remaining first world country that does not guarantee its citizens health care coverage. There is still no excuse why the richest nation on the planet has such a high percentage of its population without decent medical insurance.

With all of his talk about "balancing the budget" and getting rid of the national deficit, it never ceases to amaze me that someone can be so disconnected from the reality of things. How can someone talk about reducing the deficit and helping out the people that cannot afford medical insurance when this administration is spending billions on an illegal and immoral imperial war?

Just imagine who many health insurance plans that money could buy.

File Under: , , ,

Ford posts biggest loss in its history

Ford Motor Company has posted the biggest loss in the company's history. The auto giant is reporting a $5.8 billion loss in its fourth quarter making its total deficit for the year $12.7 billion.

So my question is this: if Ford is $12.7 billion in the hole for the year, how can it produce advertisements claiming that Fords are the #1 selling cars in America? Seems to me that if that was the case, they wouldn't be hurting so badly.

File Under: , ,

January 16, 2007

Obama forms presidential exploratory committee

Senator Barack Obama has filed paperwork to form a presidential exploratory committee. According to a video statement that he released, come February 10, he will announce whether he will run for the office or not.

This is probably the most exciting announcement in politics I've heard yet. Obama will have my vote if he runs and can secure the party nomination. But the real question is: is the country ready for real intelligence in the White House after 8 years of having a complete idiot as president?

I think that the right is rather terrified of Obama running. It's the only way I can explain the numerous "slip-ups" that have appeared on channels like CNN where Obama's name was replaced by Osama. One bit that especially disturbed me was a piece on CNN where Obama was compared to the Iranian president because of the clothes that he wears.

I'm sorry, but things like this serve one purpose and one purpose only: to get the American public to associate Obama with Islam and terrorism. There's no other reason for it. I work for a marketing/advertising firm. I know the tricks. Even little slip ups like "accidentally" replacing Obama with Osama gets into the heads of people.

But the point is, the right should be afraid of Barack. The man is not only highly intelligent, but he's an amazing orator, something that the White House has lacked for many years. And let's not leave out the obvious issue of race. Electing to first black president to the White House could change the face of politics in this country forever.

So here's to hoping that Obama's exploratory committee leads to the Barack Obama for President committee.

File Under: , ,

34,000 Iraqis killed in 2006

That's great. Way to make a country more "stable." I bet Saddam couldn't even boast numbers like that when he was in power. I bet the Iraqi people are incredibly thankful for being "liberated" by such a tyrant.

You're absolutely right Mr. Bush...they sure as hell do owe us a bunch of gratitude.

File Under: , , ,

Chavez turns "hard left"

CNN's Alberto Padilla has written a rather damning piece of "analysis" against Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez in the wake of the president's re-election.

Given the announcements made last week, when he was inaugurated for a new term and named a new Cabinet, we can say that Venezuela is heading towards the old communism of the last century, and more in the Cuban or North Korean style than the Chinese.
So what makes a man a "hard left communist" in the eyes of Padilla? Apparently anyone who refuses to play ball with American economic interests and corporate domination of the globe.

Padilla notes how Chavez is nationalizing Venezuela's largest telephone company (which is currently controlled by Verizon) as well as the electric company (which is also currently controlled by a U.S. based company). Of course, we all know that Chavez's popularity with the rich elite began to take a nose dive when the president started redistributing the oil wealth of the country to the poor.

Reading "analysis" such as this, it becomes rather obvious why people loathe people like Hugo Chavez. It's all about the so-call "free market" -- which of course translates into countries that play ball with American economic interests. If you are the head of a state that refuses to adopt the neoliberal doctrine of the "free market," then you best watch your ass. Uncle Sam doesn't like it when you don't play ball...especially if you decide to help out the impoverished people of your country.

Pieces such as Padilla's always fail to mention the sweeping social reforms that Chavez has put into place in Venezuela. Chavez's government has set aside some 44.7% of the 2007 budget for social investment. Can the U.S. government say the same -- as we spend billions a year on an imperial war?

Somehow I highly doubt it.

File Under: , , , ,

January 12, 2007

Wal-Mart supporting piracy?

It seems that our good friends over at Wal-Mart think that supporting the "illegal" act of downloading movies and music from the internet is a good marketing strategy. A report on IMDB News yesterday says that the nation's largest (and most notorious) retailer has been purchasing advertising on the Pirate Bay, one of the largest bit-torrent tracking sites on the internet.

Do they honestly think they are going to get all the people that go to the Pirate Bay to get their movies and music for free are going to jump up and run to Wal-Mart to pick up the latest box set?

Quite hilarious in my opinion.

File Under: , , ,

January 11, 2007

744,000 homeless in U.S.

The first national estimate in over a decade on the homeless population in the United States has been released, and it doesn't look too good. The study shows that some 744,000 people are homeless in America, although this number could be higher since it is extremely difficult to count people who don't have a permanent address.

California came in as the state with the highest homeless population (at around 170,000) while Nevada had the highest percentage of its population without homes (around 0.68%).

File Under: ,

New U.N. cheif wants Gitmo shut down

Doesn't seem like Bush Co. is going to have any easier of a time with the new U.N. Sec. Gen.

File Under: , , ,

Brink of war?

This headline from Reuters caught my eye this morning:

Bush sending more troops to Iraq on brink of war
Brink of war? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Is that not what's been going on in Iraq for the last 3 years?

Of course they are referring to the civil war that everyone wants you to believe does not exist. But seriously...are we still having this debate?

Also, a new AP-Ipsos poll shows that a majority of Americans disapprove of Bush's new escalation plans in Iraq -- and not just by a tiny margin. A full 70% of Americans disapprove of sending more troops to Iraq according to the poll. Support for the war is also down to 35%. 60% of Americans also believe that it is unlikely that a stable democratic government will come about in the war-torn country.

It's a good thing Bush Co. doesn't pay any attention to what the public thinks.

And finally, U.S. forces have apparently stormed the Iranian consulate in the Iraqi town of Irbil and seized computers and documents from the facility. But of course, the Pentagon is refusing to authenticate the reports. Is this what Reuters means by "brink of war?" Is this the U.S. flexing its muscles against Iran, hoping to goad them into giving the U.S. reason for attack? That does seem to be our favorite tactic.

File Under: , , , ,

So which is it?

With all the double-speak that comes out of Washington these days, it's really hard to know what the hell is really going on.

It was reported that Monday, U.S. war planes struck a village in southern Somalia in an effort to take out "Al-Qaeda suspects" in the region. According to the earlier reports, the Air Force was successful in their mission. Today however, Reuters is reporting that U.S. officials are now saying that the attacks were in fact a failure and that the alleged suspects are still at large.

Somalian officials are claiming that dozens of civilians were killed in the attacks, but naturally, the Pentagon is denying such claims.

File Under: , , , ,

January 10, 2007

BTW

And by the way, Mr. Bush ... "accepting responsibility" for you mistakes in the Iraq fiasco does not justify the deployment of 20,000+ more American troops into your illegal, imperialistic war.

So we'll just add this to your tally of mistakes. How's that sound?

File Under: , , ,

Is this Bush's way out of Iraq?

The Grand Emperor said something I found rather interesting in his speech tonight. As he explained why it was necessary to send and additional 20,000+ U.S. troops to Iraq, he made this comment:

I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people -- and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people.
So is this his true new strategy? Put all of the weight of the disaster that has become Iraq on shoulders of the Iraqi "government?" What I heard in this comment was "you see...if this 'new' plan doesn't work, we can pull out of Iraq and say, 'hey, we warned you! You let this happen so it's on you. We're gone.'"

I really wouldn't put it past this administration. It's the only way I see the Bush administration weaseling their way out of this mess and still managing to get out while making it look like we "won." "Hey, we didn't screw up...the Iraqi government did. Not our problem if they're incompetent."

Well either way, I'm interested in hearing the Democrat responses in the morning. Especially from Kennedy since the first wave of new troops has already arrived in Iraq.

File Under: , ,

Those pesky Democrats

The Democrats are proving to be a troublesome lot as they begin their self-imposed "100 hour agenda." Trying to bring back checks and balances, institute 9/11 Commission recommendations that Bush didn't think were necessary and -- oh the audacity -- trying to institute some social change. Who do these people think they are?

First there was Senator Kennedy bitch-slapping Bush's plan for escalation in Iraq in front of the National Press Club. And then that crazy liberal decided today that it might be a good idea for Americans to have universal health care. I mean it's bad enough that we have a Republican governor wanting universal health care...but everyone knows that Arnold is nothing more than an actor who's married to the Kennedy's anyway.

But the real cake topper is the bill that passed in the House today calling for an increase of the federal minimum wage to $7.25 per hour. Are you serious? Why would anyone need that much money to live on? Have the millions of Wal-Mart employees out there not proven to us that you don't need high salaries or health care to survive?

What is happening to this country? At least Bush is sending more troops to help out the Iraqis. There may be hope yet.

File Under: , , , ,

Somalia: Did we or didn't we?

According to stories by Reuters and the AFP that hit the wires earlier today, a Somali government source said that the U.S. Air Force had begun launching new air strikes in the African nation.

However, the BBC issued a report later in the day that had the U.S. government denying that any new air strikes were underway.

So which is it? Is Somalia to be the next battleground in the so-called "war on terror?" Didn't we already learn our lesson there? Is this a way for Bush to get his imperialistic rocks off since anyone with half a brain knows that it would be political suicide to go near Iran at this point?

File Under: , , , ,