For those of you complaining about the structure of the proposed tax rebate structure, think about how you voted in the 2006 Congressional election. If you contributed to this mess of Democratic power, stop whining. If you did not contribute, let’s review. Instead of treating everyone as equals, the Democrats are wanting to discriminate by structuring the tax rebate so that those on public assistance get money back that they didn’t earn, but rather that we earned for them, while those doing the earning for them are penalized by not getting a tax rebate because they make too much money. How dare us!

Someone please bring sense to the madness. This structured rebate stemmed from conversations surrounding the fact that every dime of the last rebate did not go back into the economy. Their “studies” indicated that a third -those with a higher income- socked away the money for a rainy day, while two thirds -the lower income bracket- spent the rebate immediately. Let’s think about this for a minute. People who aren’t living paycheck to paycheck socked away $600 bucks apiece, and that hurt the economy? Please. Those who socked away the money are the same members of society who are carrying the economy through. They are spending and boosting the economy continually, so big deal that they got a little money to hang onto so they can save it for a sub-zero refrigerator, or a 102 inch projection screen television, or maybe some landscaping project. Should they be punished for making sound economical decisions?

Want to read more? Visit Jyll’s blog, which provides a good perspective and also a link to Citizens Against Government Waste. And, most of all, don’t forget to visit www.sensiblelife.com.

When I read about the male protesters asking Hillary to iron their shirts (first link below), my immediate reaction was, yeah, right. She probably paid them to heckle her so it would open the door for her to look competently grand as she calmly “handled” the situation. After all, what could be more appealing to voters than a high profile woman being insulted with a degrading comment such as that, and then efficiently handling it with grace and poise in front of her audience.

The second link below depicts my opinion -these guys were plants. If they were truly that biased against women in charge, would it be smart for them to publicly display that bias in today’s world? If they weren’t getting paid, or some other perk to do it? I have to wonder about the profile of these two men and why there were only two. Seems like there would be more to to back each other up.

Regardless, plant or no plant, in my personal opinion, I doubt Hillary’s competency to even iron. It’s too honest; too pristine and a task that must be done in the light -concepts that seem to escape both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23022499-401,00.html?from=mostpop

http://www.americandaily.com/article/21491

Happy New Year, and don’t forget to visit us at www.sensiblelife.com.