Many senior citizens have been loyal to their auto insurance companies for years, often decades. Having the same honorable insurance agent and company is comforting. But the auto insurance industry has become more competitive, actively vying for the senior citizen market. It makes sense for senior citizens to gather information to compare their current rates, especially at the time of auto insurance renewal.
Getting quotes for auto insurance is an easy process. With just a few clicks on the computer or toll-free telephone calls, anyone can gather a list that compares auto insurance by services and rates. For senior citizens, who often are on fixed incomes, this can be a very cost-effective exercise, possibly saving them hundreds of dollars during an insured period.
Finding Comparable Rates
Buying auto insurance is like any other important, long-term lift. The key is to take time to research and shop for the best deal with reliable auto insurance companies.
The following is a sample of insurance companies and insurance brokers offering auto insurance quotes on the Internet. Many have specific marketing programs targeting senior citizens.
AARP: www.aarp.thehartford.com.
AARP is an advocacy organization for seniors that promotes the interests of people over 50 years old. They offer auto insurance to members through The Hartford.
Allstate: www.allstate.com.
Allstate is a well known insurance company. Quotes can be gathered at the above website or local agents can be found in the telephone book and are available to assist in preparing a free quote.
Farmers Insurance Group: http://www.farmersinsurance.com.
Online or in person, a Farmers insurance agent can review auto insurance coverage, befriend identify potential gaps, and include any qualifying Farmers Auto insurance discounts.
Progressive Insurance: www.progressive.com.
Progressive will provide a quote for their company along with comparables of other auto insurance companies for easy comparisons.
Geico Insurance: www.geico.com.
This company can be accessed online or at one of their many offices. It is easy to get a quote; they offer flexible payment options and competitive rates.
Costco: www.costco.com.
Costco offers membership insurance through Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance.
Autoinsure: www.autoinsure.org.
Autoinsure has a page with sterling insurance information for senior citizens. They can provide quotes from all the major auto insurance companies.
Esurance: www.esurance.com.
A rising star among insurance companies that take pride in stating: “Esurance doesn’t just offer reliable insurance coverage, we also occupy in educating consumers.” Their online quote process is easy to navigate.
US Insurance: www.usinsuranceonline.com
They will provide multiple auto insurance quotes tailored to specific needs within minutes of filling out their simple short acquire. It’s easy then to compare them side by side to find the best prices and coverage.
Car Insurance Rates: www.carinsurancerates.com
Their network of companies and brokers offer a variety of car insurances: Farmers, Allstate, AIG, Nationwide, AARP, Safeco Insurance, Liberty Mutual, MetLife and Mercury.
Every insurance rate: www.everyinsurancerate.com
EveryInsuranceCompany.com is a handy Internet directory to regain local insurance companies, insurance quotes and discount insurance rates.
Quote Scout: www.quotescout.com.
This website will provide quotes from a long list of auto insurance companies – literally from “A” to “Z”.
Insurance.com: http://www.insurance.com.
Insurance.com works directly with 15 highly rated car insurance companies in 46 states: 21st Century, Electric Insurance, Esurance Auto Insurance, The Hartford, Infinity, Liberty Mutual, Meritplan Insurance, MetLife Auto Insurance, Newport Insurance, Permanent General Assurance Corporation (The General), Progressive, QBE Insurance, Safeco, Travelers Insurance, and Unitrin Pronounce.
Keeping Auto Insurance Rates Down
There are ways that senior citizens can take responsibility to control their auto insurance rates. Here are a few suggestions.
According to seniorjournal.com, most of the major auto insurance agencies provide a 5% – 10% discount to drivers beginning at the ages of 50 or 55. However, as a group, drivers 75 and older have one of the highest rates of fatal daytime accidents. Because of this, it’s well-known that senior drivers stay proactive and involved in keeping their driving skills sharp.
Many states offer an auto insurance discount for mature drivers if a person meets a given age criteria and has taken an approved old driver safety course. Local colleges and senior centers are good resources to learn about the classes. AARP has local and on-line access to the course. Costco offers its members an online drivers’ safety training course through FirstNet: www.firstnetlearning.com.
Another way to keep auto insurance rates down is to drive a low-profile car, one that as fraction of a group has a lower rate due to minimum repair costs, considered safer and less likely to be stolen. Check the Highway Loss Data Institute, www.iihs.org, for the latest related data.
Examine unique auto insurance needs and requirements. Changing to higher deductibles or dropping collision or comprehensive coverage for older cars may make sense.
Always ask about discounts when purchasing or renewing auto insurance.
And finally, the best long-term advice: Always drive defensively, stay alert and follow the driving laws. Maintaining a safe driving record is the best way to keep auto insurance rates down.
The only Review of the State of the Union Address by President Bush you need to Read.
By ABH Alexander
Surprise, President Bush says some things are good; others could be better. For President Bush or any other President to engage in anything less than optimistic pitch for a State of the Union Address would be the real shock. Personally, it was a welcome relief from those that spend their time in address self-aggrandizing alleged accomplishments as if they did everything.
A rapidly overview of the reaction to the address on the Internet will showcase the shallow thinking Bush-haters. My only wish is that they would truly review what he said and find those elements truly worth amplifying on or criticizing in depth. Merely typing in, “gee, I almost puked” and “ugh” doesn’t really say much does it. All things considered for Bush, it was one of his smoother deliveries, although not up to be measured with a fine orator.
If you’ve yet to pull back and look between the lines, this review could make you sound even more informed than most of those high profile political pundits. Bush does provide enough targets to criticize and he also provides a few areas to endorse. For you the reader it’s now time to absorb. For the Bush-haters, get over it and please stop buying that propagandist research that we’ve already killed 700,000 Iraqis since the invasion. At least 50% of the research was paid for by George Soros and according to researchers on a novel Glen Beck point to, they found there were two other nebulous contributors who couldn’t be traced. There was also little evidence of the mechanics of the survey to be investigated, filled out copies of the survey etc. Beware you’ll start growing a personal credibility gap spouting figures like those.
The State of the Union Address
President Bush claimed in his opening remarks about the tests the United States faced, the war, economy, health, etc. His rather vague optimistic note was that we have answered the call, the reality is that it looks like the phone is quiet off the hook and there is collected a lot of answering to do.
The polarization between left and proper, conservative vs. liberal, Republican and Democrat is stifling in enough ways to consider its exact conclude on the economy.
Bush and many others want to make tax cuts permanent and stimulate the economy with another tax cut. Yet, within this stimulus is a major wart, a rebate for illegal aliens who have been here awhile. That is actually part of this bill that as of February 2, 2008 has not been passed. Fortunately civilians on the front watch line have faxed, emailed and phoned their reps and congressman to voice their protest and the bill has slowed down in the processing stage. You can make a contrast don’t ever forget that.
The mainstream press here won’t go into too many details on anything that would cost you taxpayers more money, particularly illegal aliens. This tax stimulus likely includes not only rebates for illegal aliens but who knows how many billions in pork.
When you hear about Congressman So&So or the President who is against a bill which on the surface has a very wonderful name, like the Let’s give back all the tax money act (yes, this is a fictional name) you will probably think that So&So is a jerk. It is likely there is more to be told and unless you dig it out yourself, you’ll just be manipulated during the news like a lot of folks. A few possibilities about what your not being told about the bill:
1)
So&So protests the bill because the earmarks/pork he/she had inserted in it are not part of the bill.
2)
So&So feels his efforts are not properly represented in the bill. This could be a good thing or a bad thing depending upon which way he goes with the special interests that are leaning on him/her.
3)
So&So supports more taxes and ways to take money out of peoples pockets whenever he/she can. While that would most likely make he/she a democrat, more and more Republicans are joining in with the get it while you can attitude. If So&So feels they could use this bill to find more from the people they may want to be positive that it will. This translates to control, power and that is what knowledgeable citizens used to call Socialism, where the site has nearly all the money and decides how to redistribute the wealth.
4)
You have in the blank here, and let me know what you can add.
The strategy of the more liberal side of the aisle has been transparent for years, simply buy your vote. With enough of your tax money, that rarely used road can be built, perhaps money for a business, or grant to one of your constituents who has contributed and forced other to contribute to your campaign.
It appears Socialism in spite of the terrible history surrounding it, is still resplendent to many Americans. There have been great accidental experiment that should be a reminder to all who believe a government big enough to give you everything you want, won’t take everything you have.
In 1945, Germany was devastated by WW II, between Allied bombers, tanks and the Russians laying waste to anything little was left standing. Eventually the eastern sector would be walled off from the western sector and the two economies would grow in vastly different ways for 45 years. Many agree there are quiet unification problems but they stemmed from trying to assimilate the Eastern Communist or Socialist system which paid its workers less, gave far less incentive for accomplishment and genuinely did its best to accelerate motivated people over and under the wall or die trying.
According to an article by Volker Kluepfel in the Baltimore Chronicle, “Infrastructure and industry did not approach the same level in the East as it did in the West. Large parts of East German housing were either neglected over the years or built with corrupt materials, or both.” A lot of badly needed building has been done since.
Simply by comparing two systems with the same people over the same time should serve as a very real comparison between capitalism and socialism. OK, capitalism is not perfect either, but compared to the phony redistribution of wealth proposed by most politicians today, we should know by now that just gets us more government control and intrusiveness and less income? Where is the media on giving staunch coverage to what a politician means?
Those in the news media rarely give fair and balanced coverage to anyone. However, to their credit, Talk show hosts like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Rielly don’t characterize themselves as news people and openly admit they are broadcasting their opinions. This is truly free speech and one that should continue regardless of what side of the political spectrum you fall on. If you don’t like it, don’t listen, if you don’t listen you’re likely no more equipped to comment on what they say than a monkey can recite the Gettysburg Address.
At least you know what your getting up front vs. the mainstream press, which uses every possible propagandist technique to sway your concept one map or another under the guise of journalism. It was reported that Katie Couric’s comment about the State of the Union Address was, “A lot of it was a Bush redux”. This was before CBS and most of the rest of the press lavished more time on discussing the recent endorsement of Sen. Barrack Obama by Edward “Teddy” Kennedy. Any cursory review of the amount of time the press fawns on the Democratic versus Republican candidates should be more than enough to convince them of biased, politically based broadcasting. In case you’re wondering what you’ll salvage, expect a 10-1 up to 50-1 advantage in time spent discussing the Democratic candidates over the Republican ones. How fair and balanced is that?
What about those Earmarks?
When Dr. Ron Paul (R) TX, was being grilled by Tim Russert in his December appearance on Meet the Press (MTP), he was slammed for submitting earmarks in Congress. Dr. Paul has about 50 earmarks he has okayed, which mostly concern themselves with water issues in his district. These earmarks would collect approved and Dr. Paul would then vote against them, earning him the nickname, Dr. NO. Putting them up for approval showed he was appeasing his constituency while voting no would keep his basic principals sound. Russert would hear of none of it labeling Dr. Paul “inconsistent” and moving onto another subject fast. Dr. Paul requested that Russert ask political candidates the same questions asked of him, Russert replied he would.
As most Presidential candidates have gotten only a portion of the MTP show to do the Q&A dance with Tim Russert, it was indicative of just how far the media will bend for NY Senator Hillary Clinton when her interview went on for the whole hour! Russert even said this was unprecedented. At least during the first 45 minutes it was even commercial free!
With all this time you would think the subject of Hillary’s earmarks might come up, Russert had promised and well, didn’t remark. Hillary Clinton has to her credit over 261 earmarks which are nearly 200 more than both Obama and Edwards combined (although Edwards doesn’t figure into it anymore). Most of these earmarks went to groups, organizations who also contributed to her campaign. According to a picture on thenation.com the Village Voice called her Mama Warbucks after she threw about 148.4 million dollars in earmark money to the defense industry in the Original York area. Is this how politics is tolerated now, public money being used to purchase your vote? For you history buffs, this is history repeating itself again; politicians as early as those in the decaying days of the Roman Empire did the same thing, it didn’t work than either.
While Russert played at acting tough and Hillary played at acting tougher both were engaged in a very softball interview game. It would seem most in the mainstream press can’t get on their knees fleet enough to bow before the new Queen.
During Bush’s address he appropriately targeted earmarks as a problem. (Duh) Bush wanted them reduce and the cost down, Congress has failed miserably. That polarization and congressional greed factor comes into economic play right here. The President said he would veto any such future bill. Unfortunately, President Bush has an oppressive habit of grabbing more power for the Executive Branch whenever he can and he stated, “I will issue an Executive Order that directs Federal agencies to ignore any future earmarks that is not voted on by Congress. If these items are truly worth funding, the Congress should rebate them in the commence and hold a public vote”. More power thru Executive Order can marshal more power and attention towards the sitting president and George W. Bush has pushed through a lot of Executive Orders. A fleet Google of “executive orders George Bush” will get numerous cites with the numbers since 2001 totaling up to 264 in his two terms. A quick comparison with his two-term predecessor, Bill Clinton reveals he’s still got a plot to go to derive up, Clinton had 354. Clinton detached lags a bit behind the other two-term President, Ronald Reagan with 380! Hey, this is a trend, what’s Congress doing about that?
The finest health care in the world?
Bush stated he wanted to fabricate a future of quality health care. Bush wants to do this by “expanding consumer choice, not government control”. Great to give consumers more choice from a selected list of well regulated health care providers, but a lot of people don’t want that. The alternative health care industry is growing by leaps and bounds, simply because it has become more of a business than anything else. People are waking up to the fact today that mainstream medicine is about finding treatments, not cures; it is about turning healthy people into long-term patients with pharmaceuticals which have side effects requiring additional pharmaceuticals. The real health care revolution will come when you can get your chelation therapy and homeopathic herbs paid for with your insurance money. The great news is that it would drastically reduce what people utilize on health care anyway. (Compare percentage of GNP spent on health care by other countries and what they gather for it). Shouldn’t we be finding ways to reduce what we pay and eliminate waste, not find ways to take money from other federal agencies to pay for it?
Bush proposed ending the tax code bias against people not buying health insurance thru their employer. The President stated, “This would put private coverage in reach for millions”. While Bush had other recommendations for Congress, the mainstream press did spend some time downgrading even this meager effort. NPR, announced in its critique, Such a move would only help about nine million of the forty-seven million who don’t have insurance. Where they got that nine-million figure from they never said.
For the citizens who have been grossly misinformed by this statement the 47 million total figure you need to be aware it is inflated with ten to twelve million illegal aliens, guess that one unprejudiced slipped by the NPR newspuppies. Furthermore, couldn’t those nine million use some kind of break?
The only question among Democrats about health care is how can we afford it? The assumption of increased costs is a given here. Taking money from agency D and putting it with agency H is their main solution.
Just so you can glean some idea what you are paying, Americans spend $5,267 per capita on health care every year, almost two and half times the industrialized world’s median of $2,193, according to a democratic blog on the subject : http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/? p=333
Republicans echo similar refrains, and then came up with the costly Health Care Savings Accounts. To their credit they do propose tax deductions for the cost of high-deductible health insurance premiums in conjunction with HSAs–and tax credits for low-income families buying their own health insurance.
The answers from both parties do not resolve the issue and it is likely due to the powerful special interest lobby from big pharmacorp it won’t be resolved in a more healthy more efficient user friendly way.
The price if we don’t pay attention? Currently somewhere between 783,000 and 999,000 people die or are injured needlessly every year in the U.S. health care system, the next one could be you or someone close.
You could do a lot for yourself and others by sharing what is happening in U.S. hospitals and how the actual quality of care and emphasis on treatment versus cure has undermined any proper ethical approach to the healing arts.
Check out: http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_death_02.htm
Trade Questions
The President did well in bringing up our deplorable international trade situation. When President Woodrow Wilson abolished many international import tariffs in the early 1900’s he greatly damaged what was then a very powerful and profitable country. To remedy the situation Wilson set aside the burden on the backs of its citizens with a progressive income tax. Sure it started out a lot smaller than where it is today, but that’s why Democratic politicians like Hillary Clinton have said they prefer to be called “progressive”. As Hillary Clinton has said, she has a thousand ideas; only its doubtful America has the money to fund them all. This progressive ideology is taken directly from what were called Fabian Socialists spawned before the 20th century and gaining a strong foothold in the Democratic Party by 1920. They have to find the money for all their ideas somewhere? By making all taxes progressively larger over time, the money will find a way out of your pocket and progressively into an every increasing bloated, inefficient bureaucracy!
Bush admitted to the nation, “Now I ask you to approve agreements with Columbia, Panama, and South Korea. Many products now enter America duty free, yet many US products face steep tariffs in their markets”. This has been going on since Wilson, we let them come in for free, often without even inspecting the cargo and they charge the U.S. when we export, what is fair about that?
Anti-Bushies and Socialists would call any revision of such policy protectionism or isolationist. After all, we can’t go backwards, that wouldn’t be progressive. If we could it might befriend to promote more respect for granting access to the greatest market in the world for exports. Making countries pay equal or fair tariffs would relieve in eliminating the income tax and would truly level the international playing field.
Energy Questions
When it comes to solving the energy query, it’s a shame that neither party lacks the adequate integrity to fully address the needs of the people.
The Democrats have been hijacked by the global-warming jihadists who claim we need hundreds of billions of dollars right now to solve the problem. After all, mankind is the sole reason for global warming right? Yes, mankind contributes, no doubt about it, but the right amount is what is debatable. When compared to what mother nature and the suns contributions to global warming mankind’s contribution has been estimated at a maximum of 10% or less by some (see the video Global Warming Swindle). The main cause of global warming, is our loveable sun, which is heating up the other planets in our lovely little solar system. FYI, recent observations of a immense polarizing sunspot in late 2007 indicate the warming trend in our solar system will not only continue but get worse before it gets better.
When it comes to mankind addressing the mess they make, according to the Woods Hole Research Center the standards set by the Kyoto Protocols “would result in a just a 5.2% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels, reducing anthropogenic emissions from around 7.2 billions tons per year to about 6.8 billion tons per year”.
Check website: http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/kyoto.htm
(as such emissions are related to man, don’t know if we can include cow methane aka cow farts, in that total, or if they were) Currently, the United States is already doing better than most of the other 36 developed countries in the 170+ who have ratified the accord when it comes to reducing our emissions.
Total carbon emissions by the United States in 2006 were less 1.5% from our 2005 total, the first drop since 2001
Check: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/
When you boil out all the propaganda in the global warming swear, the reality is that two-thirds of the world’s carbon emissions are produced by just ten countries. The most developed, the United States is top with about 25%, China was #2 in 2003 with Russia, Japan, India and Germany behind, but at least in Germany’s case they have decreased their emissions by about 9%.
On the other hand China continues to escalate its emissions up from 47% in 2003 to the most recent 54% announced at the UN’s Bali climate conference in 2007.
Check: http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/CO2/2004.htm
China seems to have other countries bullied into a position of tolerance because they are still “developing”. If you are looking to translate that into any real action against global emissions by China, forget it.
While Republicans in general suggest opening more oil fields in Alaska, reduced consumption, nuclear and coal power there is simply not enough interest in either side in promoting or doing serious research on technology that now exists that would solve the spot.
Bush mentioned his desire to complete an international agreement, “to stupid, stop and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases”. This agreement will be effective only if it includes commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride. The U.S. is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change”.
One can’t help but wonder if that was a veiled message to China that the U.S. would not tolerate their “we won’t do anything attitude”. Have you heard how bad it gets in Beijing on some days? If you are going to Beijing for the Olympics, be sure and bring or catch plenty of air filters or masks. Ah, the sweet smell of LA smog may actually be an improvement over Beijing.
Republicans seem to be enamored with the incredibly expensive ethanol gas products and even hydrogen fuel. The short story on ethanol, it just costs too much to produce and helps in jacking up the price of food stuffs. When it comes to hydrogen the government wants to institute a hydrogen fuel infrastructure with gas stations offering a hydrogen refilling space for you 50-100 gallon tank of hydrogen you are driving on. If you don’t mind riding on a bomb, paying billions of dollars to create such an infrastructure, than this ones for you.
There are promising solutions being worked on, not by major corporations yet, but dedicated scientists around this country who see the silver lining in the dark energy clouds ahead. The first to offer a solution was Nicola Tesla, which was in the early 1900’s! Tesla offered to construct a system where energy itself could be transmitted fair like communication waves are done today. This would allow any remote location the ability to tap into this energy, but without monitoring and paying for it his major sponsor Financial Power J.P. Morgan pulled all funding.
Today optimists still offer seeds of hope, one such man was Yull Brown, who found a way to perform a process called electrolysis of water, which separates the hydrogen from the water and provides the oxygen from that to burn it as fuel. The product would be called Browns Gas and it was first employed in the welding industry. If you’re still using acetylene or something else, man are you paying more money than you need to. Imagine your fuel is water and you can burn hotter, with the only residue, water vapor. Even wikpedia.com has more on this. You can find patents on these devices that date back to the 1977!
Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen
The lesson from Browns gas is that hydrogen gas could be produced on demand and there is no need to refill massive tanks creating that additional hazard. Could technology help motor our cars, power our homes? Some would say yes, among them Denny Klein of Florida who not only promotes the use of his HHO gas welding machine but also the conversion of this power to automobiles. The HHO gas works, it’s hotter, cuts down on welder’s time, safer, no soot residue and is fueled by splitting hydrogen and oxygen from the electrolysis of water. The case for using HHO gas to power autos and homes may not be proven yet. Win a few moments and Google HHO Gas to learn more (over 91,000 hits). Plus, you can review a few comments from the blogosphere:
This comment is about a big Venture Capitalist visiting Klein at his facilities in Florida, from: http://aquygen.blogspot.com/
Essentially, this person has visited with Klein at his facilities in Florida. His conclusion is that this is a classic case of a technology with many immediate practical applications but in needing of funding and guidance to enact it’s true potential. Accordingly, Aquygen has the potential to be a blockbuster invention. Will we all be driving water powered cars? Only time will convey. For my part, I did some poking around on this particular VC firm and found it to be involved in many enormous projects (read multi-billion dollar infrastructure type projects).
To find out how bureaucracy has hampered the development of a few really good alternative ideas to the infernal combustion engine, check out the video: Who Killed the Electric Car. Done in the guise of a not so mysterious murder, the film was released in DVD form in November 2006 by Sony Pictures Entertainment and shows how the promise of the battery operated General Motors car called the EV1 was killed off by oil, energy and auto interests. The important developer of the vastly superior batteries needed for the EV1 was Stanley Ovshinsky, who according to Wikpedia.com, has invented amorphous semiconductor materials, which gave rise to a whole unusual segment of material engineering, aiding in the construction of semiconductors, solar energy, and electric cars. Today, these materials are mature in photocopy machines, fax machines and LCD displays. Many hope Ovshinsky is not too embittered by how the EVI project was crushed and that he will continue to develop even more advanced batteries which are not patent protected by the company he worked with. (see photo of electric car)
The film shows numerous celebrities; Mel Gibson, Tom Hanks, Alexandra Paul, Ed Bagely Jr. and others driving the EV1 and many other protesting the final destruction of 79 of them in spite of the willingness of many to buy out the vehicles leases.
Even though the EV1 appeared to explain great potential GM felt that destroying these vehicles and converting the electric car plant to a Hummer vehicle factory was the thing to do.
The battery issue has likely been advanced further since the 90’s. Possibly by Ovshinsky and perhaps another company called EEstor, based in Cedar Park, Texas.
Again, the Wikpedia version of the company, The company claims to have developed a superior type of super capacitor, using barium titanate coated with aluminum oxide and glass, to accomplish a level of capacitance much higher than what is currently available in the market.
Using this technology the company claims that it can produce a high-energy storage device that will be suited to current chemical batteries. The company has started construction of new production facilities to bring their product to market.Richard Weir is CEO and President, as well as the inventor named on their necessary technology patent.
Within the blogosphere there was this statement: It looks like Lockheed Martin is adding credibility to EEStor’s claims by announcing an investment in their technology. Terms were not disclosed. From the article on CNET: EEStor is developing a ceramic battery chemistry that could provide 10 times the energy density of lead acid batteries at about a tenth of the weight and volume, according to Lockheed. A Lockheed spokesman said the company is interested in energy storage systems a soldier can carry, but also car batteries and energy systems for remote buildings. Check out the entire article at: http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9848081-7.html? tag=nefd.top
For skeptics out there they can always point to the efforts of the Clinton Administration, they created the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles which floundered for eight years. American car manufactures signed up, but Honda and Toyota did not and they did produce hybrid vehicles ahead of their U.S. counterparts. This was one of many instances where Bill Clinton demonstrated he was more concerned with perception than reality.
Immigration Issue
President Bush took a swipe at the illegal immigration issue, to his credit he didn’t succumb to the new phrase promoted by radical groups like La Raza who want to reframe the whole mess into a racial or civil rights reveal. That new phrase is “undocumented worker or undocumented individual”. Those using that phrase are usually going to promote illegal immigration as OK. The negative effects of gang, drug related deaths, US taxpayer paid free health care, taxpayer paid tuition at schools, the refusal to adopt the language of this country (unbiased press 2 if you want this text in Spanish) and let’s not forget all those stories of drunk illegal immigrants smashing and killing someone on the road and then being let off the hook and maybe sent back across the border. Perhaps when they come here again illegally, we hope they drive sober, but they don’t have to. My sympathies to those who have lost loved ones this way.
President Bush says he wants to create a lawful method for foreign workers to come here and befriend our economy. The fact that a lawful contrivance has existed for years and its called legal immigration is probably no longer politically correct enough to mention. The other problem is that with the current numbers of illegal immigration, sending them all back home becomes a logistical nightmare no right or left thinking politician wants to tackle.
It is correct that the labor of many hard working illegals does contribute to the economy? The real question is at what price is this contribution being made? And how much are they really contributing?
While Vincente Fox was El Presidente of Mexico, he made it a point to promote the illegal invasion and made a major point to tell those coming to the U.S. to send money support to your families in Mexico. The amount of that Mexican contribution is conservatively pegged upwards of 15 billion American dollars a year and growing.
This is not to blame those who genuinely come to the United States for any chance at a better opportunity to send money back to their poor families. Mexico is more of a narco-state and it’s surrendering to the drug cartels has done shrimp to build a sounder, safer more financially vibrant infrastructure south of the border. Do not blame the families, blame the governments who allow it to happen. Perhaps Mexico would get stronger if U.S. borders were tougher to penetrate.
“When it comes to hospitals; Illegal immigrants generally live at or below the poverty line, and are afforded no federal or state subsidized health care coverage. They are eligible for free emergency care, but this has traditionally been abused because illegal immigrants have no other source of care. Thus, they visit emergency rooms for non-urgent care, which contributes to the $250 million annual hospital reimbursements for free care provided for non-urgent visits.”
From: http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/courses/pps255s/2002/t-team-b/illegal.htm
Foreign war and policy matters
Many Bush haters blast the President for what are labeled nation-building efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. While these efforts are likely to have more holes than any nation can plug, an improvement in the situation is possible. Plus, historically, we have done it with Japan and Germany after WWII.
The so-called surge in Iraq has had a definitive do and it appears to be a good one. Less attacks, less casualties in the last three months of 2007 contrasted greatly with more problems earlier in the year.
Sadly, when it comes to press coverage on Iraq, one thing is for determined, even with positive results, at best, glimpse for continued marginalized coverage from the media. Most of the press was considerable more enamored with politicians like Harry Reid the Democrat from Nevada who said on April 22, 2007, “the war in Iraq is lost and Bush’s plan to send more troops there to quell sectarian violence won’t work”. According to Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., “Reid’s comments tell Al Qaeda and the rest of the world that terrorists have won.”
Whatever success U. S. troops and their allies have fought for will likely require a military presence for many years to come. Many in America today rightfully have problems with the many requirements for US troops acting as policeman around the world. This puts the country, politicians and the military clearly at another critical crossroads.
Both President Bush and Clinton do have one thing in common, they both told us big government is over and than proposed a long list of government programs to solve all our problems? Clinton was just better at selling the deception.
Part of Bush’s legacy could be one of triggering a much larger conflict or of doing the right thing at the right time even if the polls were against it. If any kind of victory is achieved, there will be a dash of vindication. Regardless, President Bush will be remembered for the incredible spending spree while in the White House, a bill that will come due now as well as later.
The real cost to the American public for not making an effort to stay informed is to repeat over and over putting the cross people into powerful positions. Ancient Rome made the same mistake, submitting to fear of their government instead of doing what was needed to change the bread and circuses of bad government. With the electronic instruments at our fingertips we have more convenience at watching, listening and sending them our two cents worth than ever before. We the people need to demand more from our representatives. The fact that 80-90% of their time in office is spent campaigning for reelection is no longer a good excuse. Let them know they have to actually represent and truthfully drawl the people who voted for them. Those in office now need to be reminded that We the People despise many of the agenda’s they have misrepresented. When our representatives work more for the elite the many will continue to suffer.
Everyone can succor in making that obvious change in America, objective do it one mind at a time, because America is too d**n good to waste.