Entitlements?

I apologize in advance if this post is long. I have covered many areas of contention, so please read to the end.

During the election season Ive seen many of my friends make posts that make them seem like, for lack of a better word, jackholes.

You see, I have liberal friends, and I have conservative friends. At times, both sides make generalizations and assumptions that flabbergast me. Sometimes these posts make my brain want to explode.

But right now…..its pretty much the conservative side that has done the generalizations and assumptions.

Depending on your ‘lean’ you might be one of the friends Im going to talk about.  I wont be calling you out by name though, since there are so many of you stating the same generalizations and assumptions.

Most, if not all, center around the entitlements argument.

*Welfare – First some history

Welfare programs similar to AFDC and food stamps existed since the early days in the United States (http://www.welfareinfo.org/history/) In reading the history in the link I provided, programs have pretty-much always existed to help those in need. In the 1930s Roosevelt enacted the Social Security Act and then it was amended to include the AFDC program that still exists today.

We can go further back to even state that programs to help the needy even existed in ‘biblical’ times. It is seen in Judaism and Islamic cultures as well as Christian cultures. (The New Testament even goes so far as to state that Jesus said to feel the hungry and take care of the sick)

Which brings me to the argument about President Obama and the ACA

* Heathcare

First of all, if you are religious, you SHOULD be wanting to take care of the sick, and conservatives…..just as an FYI, republicans were FOR an individualized health care mandate.

See video with Newt Gingrich and Hilary Clinton back in 2005

There is also a discussion regarding health care that makes me LIVID.

Yes, LIVID.

There is a belief that people who support the ACA are lazy and claiming they are entitled. Ill explain.

Those of us with multiple health issues or pre-existing conditions are not supposed to be turned down due to our health histories. While this is a partly true statement, insurance companies charge us out the wazoo for coverage that doesnt include the illnesses we will be treated for the most.

For instance: I have lupus and yet, health insurance would not pay for medications to treat the arthritis, steroids, anti-malarials etc that would be needed to treat that condition.

So, what would I get for my money? Apparently nothing……

Ive been told to apply for medicare. You need to be on disability to be approved for that program. In my case, to be approved for disability would mean that I can no longer work. (Funny how people suggest this considering their argument)

This is where the ACA benefits me directly. No longer will I have to pay the extraordinary cost to begin with because of my health issues, but that coverage would pay for the medications and treatments I would need.

And you know what? I could STILL work FULL TIME and receive these health benefits.

ADMISSION – Ive been on Medicaid because the cheapest insurance I could get was well over $2000 a month and wouldnt cover ANY of the medications I needed to take on a regular basis. Some of you have called me a mooch who is claiming ENTITLEMENT! ENTITLEMENT! because yes, I HAVE worked since I was 16 and I SHOULD be able to afford to keep myself alive.

* Abuses

I will not act like there arent people on social programs who arent abusing the system, because we all know thats not the facts. But we dont know those people or how they got into the situation that led them into the social service office.

We all hear those stories about the lady in the grocery store with 4 kids and food stamps getting into a nice car…..but whos to say she wasnt just recently dumped by her significant other and left penny-less? Whos to say that her husband wasnt recently killed? We dont know how long shes been using food stamps and we dont know how long shes had that nice car. Stop judging people you dont know!

* The luxury of having internet service

For the last two days, I have heard this phrase more than I can even count. Even this morning this phrase was posted in a discussion on my facebook wall.

FACT – We live in a time in which our schools expect our kids to have a computer and access to the internet.

It is a fact that high schools do not have the necessary accommodations or time to allow students to do their work on site. (Remembering how my daughter used to be up til midnight to work on school work)

It is also a fact that even the nicest public libraries do not have enough computers on site to accommodate every student, nor do they allow access for long periods of time if there are other students waiting to use those computers.

Local colleges (including community colleges) usually do not allow high school students access to their computers because they arent students of the school. They also do not allow these kids to check out library books…..

This morning, a friend of mine said that schools should provide computers. It was then that I did actually laugh out loud. Tax payer dollars pay for those supplies. Her response was that this was different. Education money is different than individual money…..

* Free Cell Phones / Obama phones

One has to scratch their head when people start talking about Obama phones. This program can be traced as far back as 1934 with The Telecommunications Act. There were specific provisions to ensure that everyone had access to phone services.

The Lifeline plan was started in 1984 (Ronald Reagan was President at that time) It was further expanded in 1996 (Bill Clinton was President at that time) to ensure that low income and rural citizens had access to these services (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/) In 1997, they added cellular services. And, furthermore, the Safelink program that everyone likes to associate with President Obama was started under President Bush.

It should be also noted that taxpayer dollars do NOT pay for these phones. The program is fully funded through the telecommunications industry.(http://www.fcc.gov/guides/universal-service-support-mechanisms)

* Lack of empathy

Without going specifically into the Presidential election and differences between the candidates, I can only gather to guess that those who voted against the principles outlines above have a lack of empathy.

And before you start in on the attack for that statement, let me explain…

I paid attention to the election. I listened when one of the candidates actually gave statements like (and Im paraphrasing) making $250000 a year is middle class, ask your parents for a loan, take the money from your savings…..

Those statements are why those of us who live paycheck to paycheck without savings or having rich parents voted for the other candidate.

 

Just who is blocking jobs in America? Senate Republicans, thats who.

So, this entire election the GOP has been on the attack about how President Obama hasnt created enough jobs, how unemployment is up…..blah blah blah

Well, the Senate Republicans keep blocking all the jobs bills. (Link: http://www.policymic.com/articles/11510/senate-republicans-block-another-jobs-bill-face-backlash-from-american-public )

As with almost everything political, it doesnt surprise me.

The GOP will stop at nothing to attempt to make the President look bad, when with this, its all on them. This is the NINETEENTH (19th) jobs bill they have blocked.

Even CNN has taken notice (See Link: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/19/politics/senate-bring-jobs-home-bill-blocked/index.html?hpt=hp_c1 )

The American people have been consistently let down by those in Washington who potentially have the power to make real changes. But instead, partisan politics rules.

They wont even allow debate on this subject, by their use of a filibuster.

I guess its more important to them to see the American people suffer, and the economy to tank to make them look good.

Im not a ‘fan’ of President Obamas policies for the most part, but lets stop this ridiculousness and make our country better by working across the aisle for the betterment of our country.

And lets put the blame on things that havent improved on the specifics of just exactly WHO is making sure things arent improving for once. And lets give politicians (including those we dont exactly support) the credit.

Jeesh.

 

Commentary about social media and elections

As I stated in my earlier post this afternoon, early voting began here in Maryland today. Reports are that over 50,000 people took part in this process. (This number came around 5 pm this afternoon. I do not have current totals now that polls are closed)

Statistics show that 7 out of every 10 people have facebook profiles, which brings me to the topic of this post.

During election ‘season’ (meaning the time from about one year prior to an election to election day itself) most of us will see our newsfeeds filled with ridiculous statements regarding any number of politicians. Some of these statements may be 100% true, but most of the time, all you will see is some ‘meme’ thats going around.

This election my feed has been filled with insanity. I decided to put all my political posting friends in their own lists and I only click on that list when I want a ‘good’ debate.

However, most posts that I see from my facebook friends, are not those that inspire a ‘good’ debate. On most posts, I need to give my friends facts – substance. And in the process, some of those debates become quite ugly.

Its almost funny what gets said to me in response to a comment. Ive been called alot of different things. There are some similarities in response to some of my comments, depending on their political affiliation:

• If I post that I wont be voting for Romney, they claim Ive drank some Obama koolaid.
• If I post that I wont be voting for Obama, they claim Ive drank some Romney koolaid.
• If I post that Im thinking about voting 3rd party, they claim Im giving my vote to Obama.

You just cant win when these arguments are made. Those posting these replies already have an idea about the opposition in their minds. Nothing you say can, or will change their minds.

Today, brought a new low in comments tho.

One of the local grassroots volunteers I know, posted some photos from the early voting location here in Carroll County. Among his comments were that the opposition did not have volunteers, that only their signs were present. This was a fact. (Mostly because here in our state democrats outnumber republicans at least 2 to 1) However, someone (who I actually know as well) posted that they couldnt find enough gays to volunteer for their ‘platform’.

This comment made me incredibly angry.

To assume that gay people can only be democrat, or that only democrats support gay issues…..or even to ignore that several conservatives have gay children or other family members ??

Thankfully this other persons comment was removed by the person who posted the photo. They, as well as many other conservatives, do realize, that to win an election as a republican, you NEED democrats to vote for you.

It makes me very angry to see people I used to associate with post hurtful comments regarding the other party and their members.

One such post Ive seen actually said that she didnt know where she went wrong, because her daughter is a liberal.

Are you kidding me? Just because your child doesnt agree with you politically does not mean you went wrong somewhere. It means that your child is their own person with their own thoughts. And thats a GOOD thing, whether you agree with them or not.

I also get angry when I see the total disregard for someone just because they disagree with a statement someone posts.

Even, if for the sake of argument, you act as ‘devils advocate’ attempting to get those people to look at the other side of the argument, its like those people cant see because they have blinders on.

Ive played this devils advocate role on the argument to having identification to vote. Suffice it to say, I was attacked by the conservatives during this ‘debate’.

These types of conversations turn very ugly, very fast. And while some of the people I have these conversations with I know personally, their responses have me shaking my head.

While words do not offend me, I am offended at both sides whose supporters have decided that those who support the ‘other’ side arent too smart. I dont care who the politician is, they arent stupid, they just dont agree with your views on a certain topic. Maybe, they actually DO agree with you, but they happen to have a different party affiliation. In any case, party affiliation does not determine ones stupidity.

People who disagree with you on these hot button issues are not stupid either. They just simply have a different view that you.

***** Just some background information *****

When I became able to vote, I registered as a democrat…..because thats what I was told to do. You see, my family (minus my father who has never voted) were all democrats. They were pretty moderate, but there were some issues that they were extremely conservative about.

Later, I would become a republican. I thought, well, the democrats werent changing anything. I became a pretty active republican, even becoming an alternative member and then locally elected central committee member.

There were definitely some issues I didnt agree with, but I never spoke publicly about them, since I was representing the republican party at the time.

About 4 years ago, I had it with the hard line conservatism that infiltrated the republican party and became a registered Independent (Or Unafilliated).

Im still pretty upset at our ‘two party’ system. Neither one really wants to work with someone across the aisle. Its ludicrous to think that good legislation will fail because it was crafted by someone with either a D or an R behind their name.

We, the American people, lose out over these petty party affiliation fights.

I do not vote for someone based on their affiliation. I take a look at what that candidates platform is, and if applicable, their voting record. Im not a single issue voter.

I have yet to meet or vote for someone I agree with on all issues. I also do not vote for someone in a particular office on issues they will not have an impact on. (i.e. council/commissioner members views on abortion)

I just wish that some of my friends would take a good long look at what they post online regarding politics and stop being so nasty to those who see things differently than they do.

 

Who knew republicans were so against birth control?

I have to admit that the past week has been eye opening. I say this because I never realized that the GOP was so anti birth control.

I admit that the GOP has had an anti-abortion stance. But against birth control?

First, you would think that the party of the no entitlements would be pro birth control. Its way less expensive to provide birth control to the less fortunate, than to actually pay for their maternity costs plus the costs of raising a child.

However, most republicans dont see it this way at all.

Some politicians have came right out and said they were against birth control. See Rick Santorum is coming for your birth control: (http://www.salon.com/2012/01/04/rick_santorum_is_coming_for_your_birth_control/)

Others have relied on the personhood argument to maintain this anti birth control stance.

The personhood argument is explained in many ways. The anti birth control argument regarding personhood is as follows (and can be found on wikipedia here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood)

Quote: A political movement in the United States seeks to define the beginning of human personhood as starting from the moment of fertilization, with the consequence that abortion, as well as forms of birth control that prevent implantation of the embryo, could become illegal.^[19][20] Supporters of the movement also state that it would have effects on the practice of in-vitro fertilization.

Here are some examples of our GOP Presidential candidates in action regarding this personhood/anti birth control stance:

Newt Gingrich: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/15/gingrich-post-conception-birth-control-should-be-illegal/

Mitt Romney: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/iowa-woman-schools-romney-anti-abortion-amen

Rick Santorum: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/rick-santorum-birth-control-sodomy_n_1181291.html

Ron Paul: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-ron-paul-signs-personhood-pledge-reservations

So there you have it. All four GOP Presidential candidates want to take birth control away. Make it illegal.

So if you are prone to voting republican, and a woman…..make sure you know what you are in for.

 

I can see Russia from here!

So after all the hype, I finally was able to watch a couple clips of Sarah Palin’s new show on TLC. (Clips here in case youre interested:  http://tlc.discovery.com/videos/sarah-palin-alaska/ )

So…..political pundits, what do you have to say? Nevermind, Im sorry I asked…..

I have no idea how this woman thinks that basically being the head of tourism for the cold state of Alaska (probably not a real position) can be turned into a presidential run in the future. Since when do our politicians turn into Travel Network reporters?

How can ANYONE who is serious about politics be a fan of THIS?

How can any self-respecting woman watch this and STILL take this Palin chick seriously? (yea, there are people who take her seriously)

Unfortunately, the former VP candidate, who claims to ‘leave her family out of it’, appears to be using this exact family to promote herself in this show. She is the EXACT example of hypocrisy! You cannot bring your family to the forefront like this and then expect no one to talk about them.

One last thing…..ya know that line that Tina Fey made famous? Ya know….the one about seeing Russia from her house? I think (dont quote me on it tho) Tina Fey made that line up without Palin actually saying it. Until now. Yep, Palin does say this idiotic line that -(wait for it)- made her a complete joke in the first place!

I know that laughing at yourself can be fun…..but really?

Please America – Spare us from Sarah Palin.

Real conservatives are asking for your help 🙂

 

My problem with Sarah Palin

Lets be honest….I started out liking Sarah Palin when she was chosen to run as the republican vice-presidential running mate of John McCain. As a conservative, she sort-of ‘legitimized’ the republican ticket….beings that McCain is more of what you would call, a rino (republican in name only). The first thing I can say that I still respect her for is that she is pro-life. She had the opportunity to abort a child that knowingly would be born with Down Syndrome, but carried him to term despite this knowledge.

However, soon thereafter came warning signs that she was not what we thought she was.

Granted, during the campaign, most of what was picked on were purely political attacks….to which I can only say, SOMEONE – ANYONE should have worked with her regarding the media. Im sure that part of her problems now could have been nipped in the bud W-A-Y back then, because she certainly hasnt improved in this arena. (writing on her hand, not responding directly to questions)

One of the biggest issues I have with Sarah Palin is that she quit midway thru her term as Governor of Alaska. Now, today I had a disagreement with someone I know personally, because apparently the words I should have used is Palin resigned….HOWEVER, the fact remains that her constituents elected her to serve a term, which is 4 years – and she only served 2. She resigned on her own accord. She is no longer the Governor of Alaska, is she? Therefore, it doesnt matter what you call it, she choose to walk away from this responsibility.

This is the snarky comment I posted that led to the conversation: http://twitter.com/sfaulstich/status/22364956559

And here is the definition of quit on dictionary.com:  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quit You will notice that the 3rd one on the list mentions resign 🙂

I am sorry to say, that during the conversation/debate it was stated that my argument was a democratic argument…..which completely perplexed me. Anyone who knows me (which they do) knows that I do not argue on a partisan level. I hate that crap!

And this leads right into my other problem with Palin….and well Glenn Beck. Both have inserted themselves into the tea party rally crowd as well as this odd new type of rally that is popping up.

The original tea party rallies were held over a decade ago by true non-partisan, independent, (do I need more adjectives?) people who were fed up with how big our government was getting and the fact that our freedoms were being taken, little by little. Most conservatives call these people hippies or liberals (or even worse). Most of the founding tea party activists are now with organizations like We Are Change and are leading the 9/11 truth movement these days. Today the non-partisan movement that is known as the tea parties, is filled with so-called conservatives and followers of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.

The tea parties and rallies that figures like Glenn Beck are leading, bring in those who have a partisan political agenda. There is no way for someone who is truly non-partisan and Taxed Enough Already to feel comfortable in that type of setting.

However, just what was Becks rally supposed to do? You have people who could be actually working for a viable candidate by knocking on doors, sign-waving, or making phone calls standing in the grass in the middle of DC……Way to go ralliers! You certainly showed the country just how active and participatory you can be!!!

Oh, and one more thing……Im not gonna stop calling em like I see em because she endorsed a candidate I also prefer. (Re: Murphy for Gov) That isnt the correct reason to like or respect anyone!

On the contrary, many people probably will overlook this candidate because of her endorsement. If you dont believe that there is a true conservative backlash to Sarah Palin, you havent been paying attention.

I just ask that you really look into who you are defending and see where people are coming from. This woman has inserted herself into situations that she doesnt need to. Her comments make no sense sometimes and make her look foolish. This is not a partisan statement. This is fact.

 

More Political Hypocrisy-this time a little more local

I realize that my opinions really bug people….but sometimes you have to look beyond who you call your friends. This is no exception within the confines of Maryland.

Ive been on both sides of the political aisle….as first, a registered democrat and later, a registered Republican. Ive pretty much seen smears from both sides. Im ashamed to say that at one time, Ive probably done some of the same. In retrospect, I realize my faults and have learned how hypocritical I may have acted.

In order for you to get where Im coming from, first an example of political hypocrisy.

Here is a blatant example  – When George Bush won the Presidency, there were democrats who screamed that he stole the election and claimed-Bush is NOT my President.

This seems like totally bizarre behavior coming from those who are supposedly adults.

Republicans were astonished that these people seemed oblivious to the fact, that George Bush was proclaimed to be the winner, whether they liked him or not. — Cut to the election of Barack Obama….He was elected the President of our country, whether there were some who agreed with him or not. AND, as in the last election, outcries of -He is NOT our President came from those who were previously astonished about similar statements when Bush was elected.

Hypocritical……yes.

If youre still here….here is a local example of political hypocrisy

Cut to my point: Yesterday the following article was posted on facebook regarding Mike Miller and Kathy Szeliga.  http://www.examiner.com/x-9345-Baltimore-County-Republican-Examiner~y2010m2d26-Mike-Miller-backs-down-from-call-for-Kathy-Szeliga-resignation-after-reaching-agreement

I wont bore you with what is contained in this article, and you can read it for yourself, but I find it horribly hypocritical that Republicans are attempting to sidestep campaign rules for the sake of supporting a possible candidate who just so happens to be on staff for a local MD Senator. Information is given about how to contact her once her website is taken down….

My question remains…..If this were a democrat doing such things, wouldnt the party be on attack mode? Lets be honest now….

 

Seriously, definitions — Sound familiar?

Now, we rise into a category that is apparently very touchy…So here are the definitions courtesy of Dictionary.com

so·cial·ism
–noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

com·mu·nism
–noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2.
a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3.
the principles and practices of the Communist party.

 

Technology as a campaign issue-Obama endorsed

I usually spend my Tuesdays and Thursdays updating my personal sites and blogs, today just seems like Ive been hit with an opinion arrow.

Anyway, I subscribe to T.H.E. Journal. “Transforming education through technology.”
Matter of fact, Ive been a long-time subscriber-I was introduced to it about 10 years ago while working for CCBC.

The reputation of T.H.E. Journal cannot be dismissed. There are many informative articles if you like to read about how technology can be used as an education tool.

Personally, I dont care who makes campaign endorsements. Normally I do not pay attention, since I have pretty made up my mind already. However, I will address T.H.E. Journal’s endorsement.

http://thejournal.com/articles/2008/10/01/president-ed-tech.aspx

It is no secret that our federal government did not plan wisely with NCLB (No Child Left Behind) and states and jurisdictions were misinformed about the programs. Our current administration should be appalled at the goals THEY set, but never accomplished (on average). Granted, there is NEVER enough money supporting our school systems, paying for qualified teachers, and for technology.

Our country needs a President who understands technology. We need something done so that our children are utilizing EVERY possible way to learn. Studies have shown that children with developmental disabilities as well as learning disabilities learn faster and retain more information when they utilize a technological tool. I have also seen the interest level rise when students learn that they can use the computer for projects.

And, since most people know who my “dog in this race” is – let me share with everyone something that may surprise you:

Democratic candidate Barack Obama has a technology plan that will provide support and direction that is crucial to our schools and students. After a quick review, his plan DOES seem as if he has subscribed to magazines of this type for years. (I disagree with posting student information online, no matter what type of security)

Republican candidate John McCain also has a plan for schools that includes use of technology. And while McCain has some decent ideas (concerning virtual learning), he falls short on the extense of the overall “project”.

If Barack Obama stops the bashing (I wish McCain would stop also) and brings THESE ideas out to the public, he will win the election by a landslide.

 

And now – for the other ism

The other ism is Sexism

Im just so sick and tired of hearing about sexism in politics. Of course, with a Hilary Clinton in the primary, and Sarah Palin in the general – this is a HUGE topic.

The difference I am referencing refers to how women are perceived based on party affiliation.

In the primary, Hilary was running for Prez. She gained support from many woman’s groups. When she did not win the primary, focus centered on whether or not, Obama was going to pick her for VP. When he did not pick her, those groups were “incensed”.

However, when it comes to Republican VP pick, Alaska’s Governor Sarah Palin, the same groups that spoke publically regarding how important it was to have a WOMAN in the White House, now support the democratic candidate, who is a man.

She successfully cleaned up the corruption in Alaska, and really is there for the people. However, due to her party affiliation, she is treated like a monster.

Its no secret that the democratic and republican parties have their own sets of beliefs and values, but its now at all time low when we do not consider someone to be a woman just because we do not share the same beliefs.