Got Screwed?

So, the economy is sucking and the government decides the best way to fix the problem is to let people have more money. I'm sure you've all been hearing about this. The latest proposal would give everyone within certain qualifications a rebate check. Everyone is getting all excited about this and all I can think is, "What a bunch of suckers."

Consider this, why don't you give me $100 of your hard earned money. I will then proceed to spend a lot of that money on frivolous and unproductive things "for your own good" and/or "for the children". Things like the TSA, which works so well, pay farmers to grow crops, only to throw them away, support a losing drug war that really only benefits the drug cartels, give your kids an education that's falling behind in the world, pay a majority of your money into a retirement account (actually I say I'm doing that but really I'm going and buying some booze, which means your retirement is bunk), pay for your sick neighbor's health care because they deserve it (their smoking habit isn't their fault!), and on and on. Then, when you realize you could've used the $100 for something better and actually for your (and your family's) good, I'll give you a quarter back and see how happy you are. This is exactly what's going on right now and yet people are all excited for their big check. Anyone else see a problem here?

Another point I'd like to make - if giving us back some of our own money is what it takes to stimulate the economy, why the F$#%K do they not let us keep it to begin with? Who do these "expert" politicians think they are? They tax us and think they know how to best spend it, and have all these pet projects for the "benefit" of us all, only to have them actually suck. Fools! What we really need is for us to keep our own money and we will inevitabily spend it where we see fit, which (as the new "program" proves) is what it really takes to make the economy good.

Sorry for the "hate" here but this has been peeving me all day and I needed to rant. I really am a happy person I swear.

A New Constitutional Amendment

When I get all the facts straight I would like to post a blog highlighting the current financial crisis the US is facing that no one seems to pay much attention to (realistically, it is the biggest issue on the table and will soon make all other issues such as health care, the war in iraq, immigration, etc, meaningless). In the meantime, I was thinking today about federal government accountability and how they basically aren't held accountable for fiscal issues. The framers of the Constitution did this on purpose because they wanted the government to be able to respond in times of war or emergency, however, because there are no limits the federal government spends way beyond its means and this is going to put us in a world of MAJOR hurt soon.
Therefore, if I were the dictator of America, I would propose a new Constitutional amendment. This amendment would make it a requirement for the federal government to provide for a surplus in the budget until we're out of debt, and when that happens (if ever) then the budget must simply remain balanced. All states abide by this concept and I believe it is the only way to handle money. The only exception to a balanced budget would be in a time of declared war (keep in mind we haven't been in an official war since World War II) or devastating natural disaster (such as Hurricane Katrina). If I were running the budget I would actually put a little away for such emergencies and make it a priority to never go into the red if we can help it.
But that's if I was in charge....

P.S. Vote for Ron Paul

Universal Hell-Care

If the title doesn't make it obvious, I am firmly against socialized medicine. Someday when I have time I would like to actually research this topic and present a full on essay about why it shouldn't be done and my solution to the current health care crisis. However, that day will not likely be soon. So, in light of the resurgence of interest in the topic due to the presidential primary races (go Ron Paul), I would like to offer my biggest complaint. I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR YOUR HEALTH CARE. Plain and simple. I would like to pay for my own and my wife's, and that's it. I like to think I live a relatively healthy lifestyle and try to avoid medical fees when possible. I look around and see people smoking, eating nothing but junk food, calling a jaunt to the refridgerator excercise, and a host of other health issues. I have no problem with people doing those things, but it's putting them at a higher risk. So why should I have to pay for their medical problems ensuing from their own life choices? Also, why should I have to chip in to pay for someone's health care when they might be too lazy to go get a real job? I shouldn't. It's lame. That is one of my biggest issues, among a whole lot of other ones (which maybe someday I can effectively write down and present). If someone thinks they can effectively persuade me as to why I should be resonsible for other people I would like to hear it.

P.S. I know I'm a selfish bastard but I also believe strongly in personal responsibility. Take care of yourselves and don't rely on anyone else. Period.