One Man's Opinion

This story irked me a bit. It seems this contractor, Bob Kitts, was tearing out some walls and found 2 containers containing $182,000, which had been stashed there by the previous owners. He was doing work for the current owners.

So the homeowner, his client, the person he is working for who owns the house he is doing the work in, offers him 10%. That's $18,200. Pretty generous, if you ask me. But he wanted 40%. So they end up in court. That's what irks me. I'm a sub-contractor. We work in both new construction and existing, commercial and residential. And anything found on the customers property, is the customers. Especially if you found hidden money. He is, in my opinion, greedy and a disgrace. He should have been thankful that she offered him 10%.

Unfortunately it ended up in the papers, and the previous owners family sued also. I'm not sure what the law is, but I know what it should be. The cash should belong to the current owners. But the judge awarded part of it to the previous owners estate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081108/ap_on_re_us/house_hidden_money

One Man's Opinion

In a recent post I talked about the incendiary comments made by Rep. Michelled Bachmann http://my.opera.com/integrator/blog/anti-american-or-the-road-to-totalitarianism. The appalling thing is that she doesn't think it's an issue.

When the debate moderator, Gary Eichten, asked Bachmann about her 'Hardball' comments, she insisted that voters in her district just didn’t care.

“The number one thing people have been concerned about as they talk to me when I’m all over the district campaigning is the ($700 billion) bailout (of the financial sector)… They’re very upset about the bailout.” She voted against it.

The “anti-American” brouhaha is “not what people are interested in,” Bachmann said. “That isn’t what people have been asking me about…. The only people who bring that up are the media, not the people.”

I'm hoping it's only her supporters that she's been talking to. We don't need someone like that in Washington. We've had enough spying on US citizens.

One Man's Opinion

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081022/ap_on_el_ho/minnesota_congresswoman#full

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) says she regrets using the term "anti-American" while discussing Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's views, a remark that could threaten her re-election bid.

Bachmann told the St. Cloud Times on Tuesday that she "made a big mistake" by going on MSNBC's "Hardball," a show she said she'd never seen before her appearance last week. Her statement to host Chris Matthews that Obama "may have anti-American views" drew condemnation and helped her opponent, Democrat Elwyn Tinklenberg, raise more than $1 million in just a few days.

During an interview with the Times' editorial board, Bachmann said she walked into a trap and did not bring up the term "anti-American." Still, she said, "I should not have used that phrase."

Earlier in the day, Bachmann told St. Cloud Rotary Club members she would like to "take back" the statement.

"I did not say that Barack Obama was anti-American, nor do I believe Barack Obama is anti-American. He loves his country, just as everyone in this room does," she told the crowd. "Nor did I call for an investigation of members of Congress for their pro-American or anti-American views. That is not what I said."

Bachmann said that while she didn't question Obama's patriotism, "I'm very concerned about Barack Obama's views. I don't believe that socialism is a good thing for America."

I don't understand how people think they can deny they said something, which they know is caught on video. "Nor did I call for an investigation of members of Congress for their pro-American or anti-American views. That is not what I said."

On October 17th Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) suggested that the media should investigate members of Congress to determine if they hold anti-American views. "What I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would," Bachmann said. "I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America. I think people would be -- would love to see an expose like that."

I think most people would consider "do a penetrating expose" and "take a look at the views" as a call for an investigation. Does she think that because it's not a formal government investigation, than it's not an investigation? Or because she didn't use the word investigate?

You weren't tricked into saying anything. You said what you thought. And haven't tried to deny it until almost a week later, when you realized how many votes you were losing. The American People are not that stupid Rep. Bachmann. And the United States will be safer with you out of Congress.

One Man's Opinion

The arguments and accusations fly back and forth. It’s one of the most talked about, and most misunderstood topics in this election. And Joe the Plumber just made things worse.

I have to tell you...by the way so many say Obama is going to raise income tax, I am amazed at how many people I know that must be in the top 5% income level. I had no idea so many of my friends and acquaintances are so well off. I knew some were, a lot of my customers are doctors, bankers and business owners or executives. But so many others in professions like security officers and sales counter guys. I really need to change jobs.

Read more...

We've been hearing for months the charges against Barrack Obama, that he is anti-American. They try to use any reason they can to level these charges, from respected educator and former radical Bill Ayers to the Reverend Wright. Senator Obama has denounced the actions of both these men.

But that's not what this article is about. It's about the frightening direction our country is going. They are related, but actually started 7 years ago.

On October 17th Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) suggested that the media should investigate members of Congress to determine if they hold anti-American views. "What I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would," Bachmann said. "I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America. I think people would be -- would love to see an expose like that."

Scary words, if you're familiar with the late Senator Joe McCarthy or the House Committee on Un-American Activities 1938-1975.

Sen. McCarthy was noted for making claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government and elsewhere. Ultimately, McCarthy's tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led to his being discredited and censured by the United States Senate. Today the term McCarthyism is used more generally to describe demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents. Sounds like that term could be used on several Republicans of late.

Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) defending Sarah Palin recently on Face The Nation: Well, he [Obama] has talked down about America. You know, we’ve always had this history of saying, “Well, you know, politics ends at the water’s edge.” It didn’t for Barack Obama. He’s been critical not only of the President but of American policy and hence has kind of a negative view of America in the world.

She is basically saying that any criticism of "American Policy" is unpatriotic. The last time I checked the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteed our rights to Freedom Of Speech. This gives us the right to criticize American policies, as well as our leaders. We have a responsibility to Democracy, to not give up that right. What Representatives Bachmann and Wilson imply, which is in line with what Senator McCain & Governor Palin seem to believe, is that to question the policies and motives of our government is un-American.

Ideas like that, left unchecked is what will lead to totalitarianism. There is no end to the tricks by which people can be exhorted in the name of liberty to give up their liberty. There is a long list in history that in totalitarian states liberty has been suppressed in the name of liberty. We have already allowed, in the guise of the war on terrorism, the current administration to limit some of our liberties. And we have seen the government abuse the revised laws even further, such as in spying on American citizens without cause or warrants.

Charles Dickens stated: "The heaviest blow ever dealt at liberty will be dealt by this country [America], in the failure of its example to the earth."

The use of the term [anti-american] within the U.S. has parallels with methods employed by totalitarian states or military dictatorships. For example, in the old Soviet Union, the Kremlin condemned as "anti-Soviet" in order to suppress dissident or critical thought. That's a natural usage among people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture. In contrast, people with even the slightest concept of democracy treat such notions with ridicule and contempt.

We must be careful that we do not forget history, or we may be doomed to repeat it. In 1798 the Alien and Sedition Acts became law. Proponents claimed the acts were designed to protect the United States from alien citizens of enemy powers and to stop seditious attacks from weakening the government. The opponents, like later historians, attacked them as being both unconstitutional and designed to stifle criticism of the administration.

Twenty-five people, primarily prominent newspaper editors such as Benjamin Franklin's grandson Benjamin Franklin Bache but also Congressman Matthew Lyon, were arrested. Of them, eleven were tried, Bache died awaiting trial, and ten were convicted of sedition.

One act — the Alien Enemies Act — is still in force in 2008, and has frequently been enforced in wartime. The others expired or were repealed by 1802. Thomas Jefferson, who won the 1800 election, held them all to be unconstitutional and void, then pardoned and ordered the release of all who had been convicted of violating them. Over the following years, Congress repeatedly apologized for, or voted recompense to victims of, the enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Are Rep. Bachmann and Wilson intending that we charge Sen. Obama, and other congressman with sedition for voting against the Iraq war? Or for voting for a timeline? Would the news organizations be next on their list?

A final word:
The Greek philosopher Socrates said, "patriotism does not require one to agree with everything that his country does and [patriotism] would actually promote analytical questioning in a quest to make the country the best it possibly can be.”

One Man's Opinion

There's alot of talk of healthcare this election, and who has a better plan. But there's one thing I think everyone agrees on. That our current system is broken.

We have far to many people in this country without health insurance, or access to affordable health care. One problem is the way the insurance company is allowed to spread the risk in the form of how they classify a group. A group, for example a company with 5 employees has the risk spread across those 5 employees and their families. If someone is diagnosed with diabetes in that group, the rates for everyone in that group will skyrocket. In a group of 100, the rate increase would not be nearly as great.

I think the health insurance system needs reform. They should be allowed to set rates based on regions, because things cost more in New York than Missouri, for instance. They should then set rates based on age and gender. For instance, you have a baseline rate for a 40 year old male in Missouri. All policies for 40 year old males start with that baseline. If they are in a small group, maybe they get a 1% discount, and a large group maybe up to 5% at most. This would be for savings in administrative costs. It wouldn't matter if a person in the group had an illness, the risk is spread across everyone in the region. Obviously you would have different rates based on copays and deductibles and such. And you would have competition between insurance companies.

This would be a step in making insurance affordable to all, at least equally. It would help small businesses be able to afford offering insurance, regardless of their size, or whether they had an employee with a high cost health problem.

Did you know that about half of all personal bankruptcy cases are due, at least in part, to medical costs. And, among those whose illness led to bankruptcy, more than three in four had insurance at the onset of the illness. This is because catastrophic illnesses are so costly, and can last so many years. If someone gets cancer, they may have several years or more of extremely costly treatment. They will likely max out their out of pocket deductibles and copays, which can be $10,000 or $20,000 or even more per year. If it's an adult, they likely could lose a great deal of their income, from being off work. Some may have short or long term disability, but many do not. We need a stop gap for those situations.

We also need reform in the cost of health care, and what hospitals and doctors are allowed to charge. I don't mean regulating prices completely. But there is something wrong when the charge is $137, and the insurance company says the "usual and customary charge" is $62, whether the patient pays that with their deductible or the insurance company pays it. Because the person without insurance, they have to pay the $137. The same thing happens with perscription drugs. It's not just that the insurance company is pay part of it because you have 10/30/50 plan. It's also a hugely discounted price.

Why are medical providers and pharmacies allowed to gouge the uninsured? They should be allowed to negotiate a savings of maybe 10%. But that's about all that should be allowed.

Now I'd like to tell you the facts about McCain & Obama's plans, because there is a lot of false information out there.

Barrack Obama's plan does NOT call for universal healthcare. It only calls for mandatory coverage for children, either through your private insurance or government programs. Many states have similar optional plans now.

Obama's plan calls for insurance reform & mandatory guaranteed elegibility. It supports leaving in place current employer paid benefits, and encourages more employers to offer benefits. And it will help prevent insurance companies from "cherry picking" the young and healthy.

John McCains plan to offer a tax credit, payable directly to insurance companies will pay up to $2500 for individuals, and $5000 for families. But he will also tax the health benefits and insurance that your employer pays for you.

McCain wants government to promote greater access through walk-in clinics in retail outlets and to promote the availability of smoking cessation programs. John McCain would work with Governors to find the solutions necessary to ensure those wth pre-existing conditions are able to easily access care.

Now back to my opinions.

John McCain wants to give or keep tax cuts for the rich, but he will be increasing taxes to the lower and middle class who most benefit from employer paid health care plans. Yet John McCain says he opposes ALL new taxes. And by taxing your healthcare benefits, there is less incentive for employer group plans, possibly driving more people to individual plans, that generally cost more.

Let me explain what taxing your benefits mean. Let's say that your health insurance actually costs $750 a month for your family. That's a pretty low cost plan for a family, so it's likely much higher, especially if you have dental or vision, or a low deductible and copay. So that $9000 spent per year is deductible for both you and your employer. You and you emp. are each going to pay about $690 more on that for FICA (social security & medicare tax). You will also pay income tax on the $9000. You employer may have to pay additional state and federal unemplyment tax, and will have to pay more workers compensation insurance premiums. Your employers increased costs can affect what they have for raises and bonuses.

McCain wants to push a retail health care system, which means rarely the same doctor, and he wants to work with states. That sounds more like pushing the problem to the states, to me, and no standard mandate for minimum coverage requirements. Insurance companies will want to be in states with less stringent requirements on mandatory coverage, pre-existing and mental health benefits. I don't think McCain's plan will do much to help alleviate the health care crisis in America, and will probably make it worse for some, or at least more expensive.

Barrack Obama's plan isn't perfect by any means. It doesn't mandate my ideas outlined above. But it does more towards making health care accessable and insurance affordable to more people than John McCain's plan.

But don't just take my word for it. And definitely don't just take the word of the news channels, the networks or the newspapers. Do some research. Check out the links below, and see what you think.
Barrack Obama's plan
John McCain's Health Care Plan
Families USA McCain-Obama Comparison Report
Economic Policy Institute Comparison

John McCain, in an interview on June 11 was asked "Do you now have a better estimate of when American Forces can come home from Iraq? Sen. McCain replied "No, but that's not too important. What's important is the casualties in Iraq." He went on to mention Americans in South Korea, Japan and Gemany.

Read more...