Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Originally posted on The Road to Liberty:

A month into its debut and people are slowly coming to realize the debacle that is Obamacare. Individuals are being timed out from the website and are unable to complete their application. One of the excuses given for this issue is that the website is overwhelmed by the number of people signing on. But according to Alexa, which measures internet traffic on websites, Healthcare.gov is ranked 233 for web traffic in the United States. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/healthcare.gov That ranks it below Zappos, Norstrom, and Staples. I don’t recall hearing about people unable to select their favorite UGGS due to web traffic.

Healthcare.gov was incapable of handling one applicant, let alone hundreds. But lets face it, these will be the golden days of Obamacare. The will treat will come when millions of people see their premiums go up,  get kicked off of their health care plans, and be fined for not signing up…

View original 11 more words

A month into its debut and people are slowly coming to realize the debacle that is Obamacare. Individuals are being timed out from the website and are unable to complete their application. One of the excuses given for this issue is that the website is overwhelmed by the number of people signing on. But according to Alexa, which measures internet traffic on websites, Healthcare.gov is ranked 233 for web traffic in the United States. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/healthcare.gov That ranks it below Zappos, Norstrom, and Staples. I don’t recall hearing about people unable to select their favorite UGGS due to web traffic.

Healthcare.gov was incapable of handling one applicant, let alone hundreds. But lets face it, these will be the golden days of Obamacare. The will treat will come when millions of people see their premiums go up,  get kicked off of their health care plans, and be fined for not signing up onto a broken website. Or is that the trick.

Happy Halloween!!

This is just a fun thought experiment.
Dr. Richard Dawkins once said that, “On a scale of seven, where one means I know he [God] exists, and seven I know he doesn’t, I call myself a six.”

“Professor Dawkins went on to say he believed he was a ‘6.9’, stating:’That doesn’t mean I’m absolutely confident, that I absolutely know, because I don’t.’”

Under those conditions, the benefits of being an atheist could be defined as:

B= Y(.9857) – ∞(.0143)

.9857=probability of Dr. Dawkins being right

.0143=probability of Dr. Dawkins being wrong

B=Benefits of being an atheist

Y = years of living in bliss

∞ = years contemplating your error

What would logic and reason dictate under those conditions?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html#ixzz2Qje25nRS
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Everybody believes that the political gridlock in D.C. is preventing any real discussion to solve this country’s gross federal deficit. My idea in getting everyone to the table and start talking solutions is to garnish congressional wages at a level equivalent to the Gross Federal Debt/GDP ratio. So, if the Gross Federal Debt is 90% of the GDP, members of the U.S. Congress will have 90% of their wages garnished. And when the ratio is greater than 100%,  members of Congress have to pay out of their pockets the difference. Unfortunately such a law would never pass. Congress has never voted against its best interests. And right now, its best interest is to stay in power on our dime, or in today’s equivalent, our dollar.

 

This chart epitomizes the definition of insanity according to Einstein, “[D]oing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Compare the duration of unemployment in the 70′s, when Nixon declared that, “We are all Keynesian now,” to the 80′s and 90′s when America had the largest economic growth during peacetime. Those 20 years of economic growth resulted during a time when taxes were dramatically reduced, entitlements were reformed, and the budget was balanced. It was not single party that brought this growth about, but a single idea. The idea that our country’s economic engine runs better when the private sector is in the driver’s seat. 

Unfortunately we currently have an administration that believes our economic engine should be driven by the government. It believes that money spent by the government will be better for the economy than money spent by the private sector. This chart is one of many examples of what happens when we take money out of the economy and allow it to trickle-down our government bureaucracy. Stagnation. And don’t worry, Stagflation will be here soon.

~ Chuck

Yeah, I know I’ve detached myself from politics for over a year, but a certain league of individuals has recently admonished me for not having posted here in so long. So while I won’t discuss topical political issues in this post, I still have points concerning politics I’d like to address… mostly points concerning my distancing from politics.

1. The forums in which we debate politics (media sources, the floors of congress, the dinner table) have welcomed discussions fueled by almost only emotions, rather than rationale and the search for truth. The core tenet behind the multiple party system in America was the idea that through thorough and earnest debate, the truth will seep through as through a strainer. The problem is that the majority of debates don’t let the truth through because either side is looking to merely win, lockstep with a laundry list of ideals written by a party, as opposed to coming to the best solution for our nation.  Members from opposite parties will brandish the others moronic, only because they were unsuccessful in changing your mind to think as they do. How do they rationalize this? “They are simply too stupid to understand that what I espouse is the only correct/just/effective way.” Pride does not equal truth, and many are too scared of the hypocrisy tag to be able to say “I believe in this point my party believes in, but I don’t believe in that other thing it believes in.”

Possible Solution? Go into debates not looking to change the other person’s mind, but only with the goal to most honestly and clearly express your beliefs and opinions. If they don’t agree… so what? You walk away happy that you stood on your beliefs with integrity. And who knows… they might have gone away disagreeing with every word you said, but you planted a small seed that may grow into the deep-rooted memory that you were a sincere and amicable representative of your party, beliefs, whatever. Just remember, the second you tell someone they’re wrong, is the second before they stop listening to you.

I have to go to work, but I’ll continue the observations from my political hiatus… which I’m still happily engaged in.

- Julian

So has anyone heard the one about Democrats imposing a 35% tax on health care benefits that range from $8,000 for individuals to $21,000 per family?You haven’t. That’s odd. I am sure the MSM would be discussing a plan that would essentially be one of the largest tax increases in our history and would essentially reduce health care benefits to many Americans. Hmmm…what else could they be reporting on?

Oh that’s right. Our President is on a marketing tour in Copenhagen ensuring his cronies in Chicago make a quick buck from the Olympics. Thank God the MSM is on top that story, since it has such an impact on so many Americans. … Ok, now back to Congress shenanigans.

So the Senate Finance committee wants to impose a 35% tax on employer-sponsored health care benefits that cross the above mentioned threshold. This will inevitably lead employer’s to reduce benefits, fire employees, or increase costs to consumers.

Now why would Congress purposely increase the cost of employer-sponsored health care  benefits at the determinant of the employees and consumers. It is possible that Congress is purposely increasing the cost of employer-sponsored health care benefits in order to garner support in the business sector for a public option. Congress could pitch the idea that employers could avoid the 35% tax through a public option. And if the public option is passed, employers will inevitably dump their employees into a public option in order to avoid the 35% tax.  Even though there is no viable explanation why employer-sponsored health care benefits should be taxed, I am sure Congress is acting in our best interests in and not in its interest of increasing its reach into our lives. 

~ Chuck

Language on the 35% tax is found on page 202. Happy reading.

http://www.finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG%202009/091609%20Americas_Healthy_Future_Act.pdf

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.