Amendment Proposal

Good stuff

Off topic (sorry). Obama's aunt who is here illegally has surfaced in the news...

http://www.idahostatesman.com/aptopstories/story/1067325.html

And it says Obama has not talked to her since 2008 right before the election. Hmmmmmm.

Regarding the current topic on this blog---we will see if it passes. Bets anyone? Mine is a no. Good idea however and the way that it should have been all along.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_members_of_congress_pay_social_security...

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270E%2C*PLC8%22%40%20%20%0...

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/lawmaker-loopholes/

Are you still going to take credit for this recent "blag"? Are you going to change your tone after realizing you've been taken in by B.S. info? I doubt it....

have a lovely day...n1nn

Oh Jesus! Bazooka did you even look at the government link I posted? It's always a conspiracy with you people. Even when your shown real facts you dismiss it as the dreaded liberal conspiracy.

I could of posted up other Fact type sites, but I figured I got better things to do then fill up a whole page with links that not matter who runs them, are in on the world-wide agenda to con the righties. You people are so obsessed with secret societies and the like, that even when logic and facts are handed to you, you willfully ignore them out of pure stubbornness and fear of being wrong. Grow up, old man.

I'd be willing to bet if scientist proved that God was real, without a shadow of a doubt, you'd say it's conspiracy plotted out to control your minds.

Great to hear from you censored..now go crawl back under your rock!

Self proclaimed atheist? Weird?

Censored: Thank you for those links. I did go read them. I posted this blog for the purpose of raising awarness for Amendment 28.

http://www.the28thamendmentproposal.org/new/

However, I will apologize for any misconception that I may have protrayed with respect to Congress paying social security. I stand corrected.

I do stand by the need for Congress to not allow themselves to be exempt from any law, I am supporting A-28. If universal healthcare comes to be, all of Congress must be a part of it and no special treatment should be given to any of them. If they believe in this plan, then they should step away from their own "Cadillac" plan and fall into the medical cesspool that they created. Go ahead and jump in. I'm sure the water is just fine. (time: 7:40am)

I am the self-proclaimed atheist. Just to clear things up. Those links are good stuff but everything is subject to interpretation.

There is nothing to fix, in regards to that chain email that Kim posted. All of it was false,....

Jumping galaxies here but i have a question for any that care to read it.

I have an issue regarding a mobile home that I use to own. I am in need of an attorney. Do any of you have any referrals to offer? It would have to be in Boise, of course.

What I have been thinking about these days is if Obama doesn't get re-elected what do we have to look forward to? Seems to me all politicians are the same ............promises promises that never happen !!

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/014769.php

Twil: I know one good attorney that you could call. If he doesn't do that kind of law, he could refer you to a good on. Andrew Ellis. Good luck.

I find it interesting that from the time of the fall of the Roman Empire until about 1850, the conservative side of politics was all about increasing govt. control and the liberal side was all about leaving society to its own devices. Since then the tables have turned of course. Just an observation.

Big Govt. of today is analagous to the feudal system of lords/serfs/peons in the Middle Ages. This time is romanticized but it was miserable. When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution and other things, they were very aware of this dark past. Some of the ideas/amendments were in direct reaction to it. They sought to ensure that America would not digress to that of the Middle Ages.

Back to the topic, the dems holding the majority was a knee jerk reaction by the public. I counted down to the end of the Bush era but Americans exaggerate things. The Bush era was not akin to that of Pinochet, Mao, or anything horrid like that. Liberals made a bit too big of a deal out of this. Maybe, the past election would have turned out differently if not the sensationalist propaganda.

Not to get historical but our founding fathers were simply Europeans with different geography. Most of them were first or second generation Europeans with strong ties to that of across the pond. They knew all too well what happens when a despotic, absolutist ruler is allowed to have their own way. With no impediments to full rule, it would have become a feudal state. The atlantic ocean and its treacherous commute by boat were our best friends. Now matter how grand the plan had it not been for the mighty Atlantic, this would have turned out different. There had been ideas like that of Jefferson prior to this in the British Isles and they had been crushed like a bug. The 3000 miles and presence of other battles for the British Empire led to our independence.

I agree for the most part but it is the American public that gives license to alot of this borrowing.

thanks for the heads up.

I guess we need to elect new politicians with the backbone needed to withstand the harsh criticism that will come their way when they refuse to keep borrowing. Or we need to implore American people to not seek government intervention as the fix-all to any economic downturn. The lender needs to man up o the lendee needs to dig itself out its hole. Either way, tough choices will need to be made.

Americans, having been so well off, are a bit like spoiled brats who feel that they are owed this existence. Those of the past worked their ever-living tails off to make it this way.

One example that comes to mind is this. I was on a plane bound to Seattle last year. I was talking to a gentleman. Neither of us knew anything about the other. He goes on to tell me that his employees staged a mini-mutiny because he would not offer health insurance to them free of charge. He even showed them the raw numbers to show that this small business did not generate enough profit to warrant that. These same employees were mostly conservative, christian, working-class, salt-of-the-earth types. They continue to gripe feeling that the owner (this gentleman) is simply being cheap and does not value them. I would side with the owner. If offering health insurance to employees would result in eventual price increases and/or bankruptcy then dont offer it. He has an obligation to keep the business going. Having a job for the long run is better than being employed for 6 months but being insured for that short time. These same employees went on to try and have him investigated for paying low wages. Again, he showed them that he was paying them as much as he could. It comes down to this idea that management is out to gauge the lower class. Being the owner or mgmt. must mean that this person is arrogant and elitist.

These same workers are the people that stand up at town hall meetings and complain that the world is not working out for them. Employers are screwing them and the govt. is standing by and doing nothing. They demand action. Politicians are supposed to act upon the needs/desires of their constituents. Here we go with govt. intervention yet again. ......

Just curious, what is your take on these employees who cant accept that their employer is not out to screw them. He is being prudent and financially sound by not offering perks he cant afford and not artificially hiking above what the business allows. He even showed them the raw numbers to back this up and they still cant get past their distrust of anyone who is not one of them. I dont feel that this is an isolated situation.

Workers at GM and Ford have been doing this for the last decade. Knowing that they were losing competitive edge kept campaigning for higher wages knowing that it would lead to their imminent demise and loss of jobs.

I agree. I think that those people who would be willing to jeopardize their job in the name of pride and/or excess are counterproductive to what most want/need. Reading this blog and most editorials, I find that most blue-collar types are fixed in their thinking that anybody who is not one of them is working against them. Mgmt. or ownership inherently is out to screw them so they should keep campaigning for more without any resort to reason or logic. Blindly crusading is just as bad as sitting by and getting screwed.

As i read the newspaper yesterday, I saw that they are proposing tax increases next year in Idaho. One can look at the Idaho Statesman website to get the details. One short thought.

Yes, stimulus funds will run out. The tide of economic activity caused by that stimulus will subside. That is rather basic. My concern is that legislators will make this shortcoming an avenue to advance more frivolous matters. Let me elaborate.

Joe Senator from Pocatello sees this coming. He knows that to buoy the state budget (with its incessant waste) there will be a chance to increase tax revenues. Increased revenues means that there will be greater odds that his frivolous, pork-barrel, and completely unnecessary item will get funding. Now that prevents him from really caring about the present. Instead of helping the present day situation and avoiding any possible tax increase, he will just play dumb and say the right things.

What can we do as citizens? One idea is to not campaign for more stimulus funds. Let some things that are nice but not necessary go away. Not every thing given money by the state is absolutely necessary. Let those projects be put on ice til later no matter how unpopular that idea might be. Just an idea that I have had percolating for awhile.

A bit abstract but its been brewing in my twisted mind for a few days. Its hard to articulate these ideas without sounding like a nutcase.

By the way, did you see the interview that Jim Risch did concerning those people in Haiti and most of them being released. How he ended that was a nice dig at the media.

A new bill has passed or will so soon concerning letting employers off the hook for social security tax if they hire new employees. There is more to it but one can read that on their own.

Only one short comment. I think that it has good intentions. It is a decent idea but it will only benefit those who are already hiring. For those who dont have the position to hire more, this is just noise.

Will this benefit some? Yes and I am happy for those who are able to get off the bread line. My criticism is that politicians will spin this into being some cure all. It is a very small adjustment and will have minimal impact. People dont want to hear about small changes. They want sweeping, widespread, general fixes and this is not it. I would be curious to know what states ultimately benefit the most.