Posted on April 13, 2012. Filed under: Government, Legislation, Life | Tags: , , , , , |

This first link takes you to a youtube video of a black man discussing rally for Treyvon Martin, the youth recently killed in Florida by a white neighborhood watch captain.  It is powerful and compelling.

The next two links concern a recently passed, (and signed into law), piece of legislation that removes an individuals right of free speech.  It doesn’t restrict the free speech, it completely removes it.

This first link is to a television news story discussing the law.

This link is to a printed article about the law.

The President has stated many times that we need a new Constitution, guess he’s going to change it any way he can.

And finally, for those of you who didn’t know, the President recently signed an Executive Order allowing him to declare martial law.  The powers granted under this Executive Order are broad and sweeping, allowing the government to walk all over our Constitutional rights.

Here are several links discussing this Executive Order.

National Defense Resources Preparednessexecutive order…/nationaldefenseresourcespreparednessexecutiveordCached
You +1’d this publicly. Undo

Mar 18, 2012 – We’re getting a lot of e-mail this weekend about an executive order issued on Friday afternoon by President Obama titled “National Defense


Thought I better get all this information out there before the Government restricts any political discussion or dissent in blogs.
That’s my 2 cents.


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )


Posted on February 11, 2011. Filed under: Life | Tags: , |

I got this from the good people at Human Events

365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy

Praise Joe Biden, historian, by quoting him:

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.'”

 The stock market crashed in 1929. FDR was elected in 1932. And televisions were still in the laboratory.

Isn’t it nice that our leaders know so much about our history.

That’s my 2 cents

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

I Don’t Mean to be Depressing, but …

Posted on September 8, 2010. Filed under: Government, Legislation, Life | Tags: , , |

Yesterday I let you know about the proposed 50 Billion dollar stimulus package that will be paid for with increased taxes, but here is more tax information on a different matter.

The “Debt Free America Act” (H.R. 4646) proposes a 1% “transaction tax” of every financial transaction, except for the purchase or sale of stock.  (Source:

The Congressional Research Service, (part of the Library of Congress), has produced the following summary:

“Debt Free America Act – States as purposes of this Act the raising of sufficient revenue from a fee on transactions to eliminate the national debt within seven years and the phasing out of the individual income tax. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to impose a 1% fee, offset by a corresponding nonrefundable income tax credit, on transactions that use a payment instrument, including any check, cash, credit card, transfer of stock, bonds, or other financial instrument. Defines “transaction” to include retail and wholesale sales, purchases of intermediate goods, and financial and intangible transactions. Establishes in the legislative branch the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action to review the fiscal imbalance of the federal government and make recommendations to improve such imbalance. Provides for expedited consideration by Congress of Task Force recommendations. Repeals after 2017 the individual income tax, refundable and nonrefundable personal tax credits, and the alternative minimum tax (AMT) on individuals. Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to: (1) prioritize the repayment of the national debt to protect the fiscal stability of the United States; and (2) study and report to Congress on the implementation of this Act.”
So until the income tax is finally repealed, (and will Congress ever really eliminate a tax once it is established), you will be paying the annual income tax as well as this 1% tax.  (The current writing of the legislation does require that the income tax be phased out completely, but there is plenty of time to change that part of the law.  Also, you get a tax credit on your income tax equal to 1% of your Adjusted Gross Income (see below).  On the plus side, the legislation does eliminate the Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT)).
For that matter, once a tax is created does Congress ever leave it alone and not increase it every year?
In looking at the full text of the law:
So, when you deposit your pay check 1% will be withheld by the bank and sent to the Government.  Your car payment, mortgage, credit card payments, and any other loan you pay will have 1% taken out and sent to the Government.  It would seem to me that if the institution making you the loan is suddenly out 1%, they will simply raise your payment to include the 1% fee or tax or whatever you want to call it.
I always get terrified when Congress wants to “improve” something, it just seems like they never get it right.
That’s my 2 cents.


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Dr. Seuss

Posted on August 19, 2010. Filed under: Government, Life, Political Science, Politics | Tags: , , , , , |

(I received this in an e-mail so I claim no credit, but my congratulations to whomever created this.)

I do not like this Uncle Sam,
I do not like his health care scam. I do not like these dirty crooks,
or how they lie and cook the books.
I do not like when Congress steals,
I do not like their secret deals.
I do not like this speaker Nan ,
I do not like this ‘YES, WE CAN’.
I do not like this spending spree—
I’m smart, I know that nothing’s free.
I do not like their smug replies,
when I complain about their lies.
I do not like this kind of hope.
I do not like it. Nope, nope, nope!
Go green…

recycle Congress in 2010!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Arizona – MSNBC survey

Posted on June 30, 2010. Filed under: Government, Legislation, Life, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , |

President Obama, his administration, and many in the media have been very critical of Arizona’s new law on immigration, even though they never even read the legislation.

This MSNBC survey is only one question long, and simply asks:

“In July, Arizona will begin enforcing a new law that requires law enforcement officers to check someone’s immigration status if they have reason to suspect that he or she is in the country illegally. Do you think this is a good idea?”

So far the results are:  95.8% Yes, 4.2% No.

Today is June 30, 2010; I don’t know how long the survey will be open for voting, but you can go to the link below and cast your vote.>

That’s my 2 cents.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )

Freedoms Lost Under ObamaCare

Posted on March 23, 2010. Filed under: Government, Health, Life, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , |

In a March 21st blog post David  Hogberg wrote an interesting piece, which is reproduced below.  Under ObamaCare the Government knows what is best for you, and you will comply.  Reminds me of one of the Star Trek series where the evil Borg would say “resistance is futile”.  Well, buckle up kiddies, the Democrat run Congress is just getting started.

(Begin Hogberg’s post)

Of course, the overhaul is supposed to provide us with security. But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care. We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin’s adage, “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”

The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employees’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 50 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).

The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).

That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

(End Hogberg’s post)

Get my FREE Business & Marketing Newsletter

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Impeach the President?

Posted on March 19, 2010. Filed under: Economy, Government, Health, Legislation, Life, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

In a Washing Times article, author Jeffery Kuhner raises the question:  Should we impeach the President as well as Speaker Pelosi and other Democrat leaders?

The heart of his argument is that the proposed “Slaughter Solution” is unconstitutional and anyone voting for a bill under this tactic has violated the Constitution. 

The article is presented in its entirety, or you can read it at:

(Begin article)

The Democrats are assaulting the very pillars of our democracy. As the debate on Obamacare reaches the long, painful end, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is confronting a political nightmare. She may not have the 216 votes necessary to pass the Senate’s health care bill in the House.

Hence, Mrs. Pelosi and her congressional Democratic allies are seriously considering using a procedural ruse to circumvent the traditional constitutional process. Led by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Rules Committee, the new plan – called the “Slaughter Solution” – is not to pass the Senate version on an up-or-down vote. Rather, it is to have the House “deem” that the legislation was passed and then have members vote directly on a series of “sidecar” amendments to fix the things it does not like.

This would enable House Democrats to avoid going on the record voting for provisions in the Senate bill – the “Cornhusker Kickback,” the “Louisiana Purchase,” the tax on high-cost so-called “Cadillac” insurance plans – that are reviled by the public or labor-union bosses. If the reconciliation fixes pass, the House can send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature without ever having had a formal up-or-down vote on the underlying legislation.

Many Democrats could claim they opposed the Senate bill while allowing it to pass. This would be an unprecedented violation of our democratic norms and procedures, established since the inception of the republic. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution stipulates that for any bill to become a law, it must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. That is, not be “deemed” to have passed, but actually be voted on with the support of the required majority. The bill must contain the exact same language in both chambers – and in the version signed by the president – to be a legitimate law. This is why the House and Senate have a conference committee to iron out differences of competing versions. This is Civics 101.

The Slaughter Solution is a dagger aimed at the heart of our system of checks and balances. It would enable the Democrats to establish an ominous precedent: The lawmaking process can be rigged to ensure the passage of any legislation without democratic accountability or even a congressional majority. It is the road to a soft tyranny. James Madison must be turning in his grave.

Democrats make final reform push
Health-vote ally Nelson to get a new hospital for Nebraska
Obama backs plan to legalize illegals
Poll finds stubborn suspicion of census

Mr. Obama is imposing a leftist revolution. Since coming to office, he has behaved without any constitutional restraints. The power of the federal government has exploded. He has de facto nationalized key sectors of American life – the big banks, financial institutions, the automakers, large tracts of energy-rich land from Montana to New Mexico. His cap-and-trade proposal, along with a newly empowered Environmental Protection Agency, seeks to impose massive new taxes and regulations upon industry. It is a form of green socialism: Much of the economy would fall under a command-and-control bureaucratic corporatist state. Mr. Obama even wants the government to take over student loans.

Yet his primary goal has always been to gobble up the health care system. The most troubling aspect of the Obamacare debate, however, is not the measure’s sweeping and radical aims – the transformation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, crippling tax increases, higher premiums, state-sanctioned rationing, longer waiting lines, the erosion of the quality of medical care and the creation of a huge, permanent administrative bureaucracy. Rather, the most alarming aspect is the lengths to which the Democrats are willing to go to achieve their progressive, anti-capitalist agenda.

Obamacare is opposed by nearly two-thirds of the public, more than 60 percent of independents and almost all Republicans and conservatives. It has badly fractured the country, dangerously polarizing it along ideological and racial lines. Even a majority of Democrats in the House are deeply reluctant to support it.

Numerous states – from Idaho to Virginia to Texas – have said they will sue the federal government should Obamacare become law. They will declare themselves exempt from its provisions, tying up the legislation in the courts for years to come.

Mr. Obama is willing to devour his presidency, his party’s congressional majority and – most disturbing – our democratic institutional safeguards to enact it. He is a reckless ideologue who is willing to sacrifice the country’s stability in pursuit of a socialist utopia.

The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime – a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy.

It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment. The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government – meeting the threshold of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” If it’s enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office.

It is time Americans drew a line in the sand. Mr. Obama crosses it at his peril.

(End article)

My thoughts, I doubt if Congress would impeach President Obama; the House would have to bring the charges, and to say that the President violated the Constitution would incriminate the members of the House, so that wouldn’t happen.  Even if it did, there are enough Democrats in the Senate to prevent a conviction.  So really, right now at least the idea of impeachment is a moot point.

That’s my 2 cents.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the daily host of “The Kuhner Show” on WTNT 570-AM ( from noon until 3 p.m.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )


Posted on March 8, 2010. Filed under: Government, Life | Tags: , , , , , |

I received the following in a recent e-mail and thought it would be good to post here.

1. “Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do
not.”  ~Thomas Jefferson

2.  Those who trade liberty for security have neither. ~ John Adams
3.  Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.  
5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
6. Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.

7.  You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

8.  Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
9.  You don’t shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
11.  64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
12.  The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

13.  The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the

14.  What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you NOT understand?

15.  Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.  
16.  When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create slaves.

17.  The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

That’s my 2 cents.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

PRUDEN: Obama’s Third World press rant

Posted on October 24, 2009. Filed under: Government, Life, Political Science, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , |

The article reprinted below is from The Washington Times, and it’s the press being critical of President Obama, which is something you don’t see too often.  However, in all fairness to the press they are starting to raise objections to some White House practices — such as the recent “enemies list” issue.

What with unemployment at 10%, (nearer 15% if you include those who have given up on looking for work); out of control spending, even for Democrats; a dollar that is falling faster than ever; and the “ram it down their throats” attitude towards health care reform . . . well, a lot of people are starting to think that maybe, just maybe, the Emperor has no clothes.

(begin article)

By Wesley Pruden

Throwing rotten eggs at “them lyin’ newspapers” has always been great sport in America, and sometimes even effective politics. But it has to be done with wit and humor, which may be above Barack Obama’s pay grade.

Thomas Jefferson despised newspapers, with considerable justification. They printed libels and slanders about him that persist to the present day. Yet he famously said that if he had to choose between government without newspapers and newspapers without government, he would cheerfully choose to live in a land with newspapers (even not very good ones) and no government.

Harry Truman threatened to demolish the manhood of a newspaper music critic who criticized his daughter’s singing. Richard Nixon compiled an enemies list, prominently including newspapermen. I made Bill Clinton’s enemies list and dined out on it for weeks. George W. Bush confessed, no doubt accurately, that he never read newspapers.

The president’s media environment is “target rich,” but as any bombardier could tell you, there’s more to scoring a bull’s-eye than opening the bomb-bay doors. In a fit of pique, John F. Kennedy canceled the White House subscription to the New York Herald-Tribune (may it R.I.P.) because he thought it relished stories about Democratic zits and covered up Republican pimples. The ban didn’t last; the White House soon subscribed again, and JFK poked a little fun at his over-the-top pique.

EXCLUSIVE: Murtha, Moran steer millions to defense firm
Blacks to test ‘Obama effect’ in Va., N. J. governors’ races
Czar war escalates between Congress, W.H.
Gaps found in Va.’s absentee ballot access

Politicians who actually get their revenge on press tormentors do so with rapier thrusts of whimsy and clever insult. An early 20th-century governor and U.S. senator from Arkansas (from whom Mr. Clinton took pointers) delighted in sharp thrust-and-parry with the Arkansas Gazette (may it R.I.P.), the state’s leading newspaper.

“My wife and I have a little boy, and we have great ambitions for him,” he would tell audiences gathered on courthouse lawns at the foot of the monument to the Confederate soldier. “If it turns out that he’s as intelligent as we think he is, we hope to make a Baptist preacher of him. If he has just average intelligence, that’s all right, we’ll send him to law school. But if it turns out he’s the village idiot, we’ll just send him down to Little Rock to edit the morning newspaper.”

Good fun. But something more sinister is afoot in Mr. Obama’s carefully plotted campaign to destroy his perceived enemies in the press, television and even business. Rush Limbaugh is only the face of the opposition, and the ultimate target of the White House scheme is to marginalize and destroy the Republican Party first, and then everyone else unwilling to get in the lockstep parade toward the hazy dream of Utopia.

Mr. Obama and his White House can’t seem to get their brains around the fact that the election of ’08 is over, and he won. A candidate feeds on red meat, but a president is the president of everyone, and must set a different table. Mr. Obama campaigned with promises of a post-racial, post-partisan, post-rancor administration, and millions of Americans responded with enthusiasm. The candidate who said he took inspiration from Abraham Lincoln of Illinois now acts as if he takes inspiration from the distinguished statesmen of the Third World, where press opposition to the leader is usually a bloody no-no.

The remarkable White House attempt to define which news organization is legitimate and which is not began in August, as Mr. Obama’s poll numbers began a dramatic slide. Suddenly the man who yearns to be the permanent president of the Student Body, loved by all and adored by the co-eds and their mamas, is rendered human after all. Anita Dunn, the director of White House communications, says that when the administration began planning for autumn (with important gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia), the president “needed to be more aggressive in defining what the choices are, and in protecting and pushing forward our agenda.”

Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge and Fox News are big enough to take care of themselves, but the implications of what the Obamanauts are trying to do are scary, indeed. Brisk and even brutal opposition is something every president must endure; it’s a pity that Mr. Obama skipped school the day the class studied American history. The candidate insists that the critics who scoff that he isn’t really the messiah, but another Chicago politician, are just being cynical. This week Ms. Dunn insisted that the Obama image is intact. “He’s who he has always been.” So we are learning, to widespread sorrow.

Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.

(end article)

That’s my 2 cents

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Cash for Clunkers

Posted on July 31, 2009. Filed under: Government, Legislation, Life, Political Science, Politics | Tags: , |

Just a day or two ago the Government started the Cash for Clunkers program, and hundreds (if not thousands) of people started buying new cars.  That was great for the dealers and the car industry.

This morning I hear that the EPA changed the average mileage on a number of those “clunkers” and people who had just purchased a new car under the program were getting calls from the dealership saying “You have to pay an extra $4,500” because your old car no longer qualifies as a clunker.

So a person buys a car under the program, and after the fact the Government changes the rules and the individual gets stuck with an extra $4,500 bill.  What a load of horse manure.  If a private business had done that the government would be all over them like flies on stink.  But since the Government did it . . . well, that’s all right.

And now the loveable Government has completely stopped the Cash for Clunkers program completely.  They can’t administer a simple little proram like this and we are supposed to think they can easily and efficently administer the health insurance program they’re trying to ram down our throats?

Here’s the link – Government to suspend Cash for Clunkers program

Other Links:  ‘Clunkers’ Program Running Out of Cash…

Car dealer: ‘If they can’t administer a program like this, I’d be a little concerned about my health insurance’…

That’s my 2 cents

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

« Previous Entries
  • My charming self

  • Subscribe to My Newsletters

  • Visit My Website

  • Connect With Me

    View Brock Henderson's profile on LinkedIn
  • Twitter

  • Get Increased Traffic to Your Web Site

  • July 2018
    M T W T F S S
    « Aug    
  • Top Posts

  • Archives

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...