When defending yourself from an enemy that states openly they intend to destroy every last person in the country, there is no such thing as going too far. Israel has shown much more restraint than we here in America would under the same circumstances. If Canada or Mexico were firing rockets into American cities even once or twice a year, let alone every day, the governments and leaders of these countries would be wiped out. The danger from Mexican drug cartels is one of the reasons why border security is such a high priority for the people of America.

Another waste of money.

Following are two emails that I sent to President Bush. the first was at the time the bail outs were being considered. I sent similar emails to Vice President Cheny, Sen. John McCain, and Gov. Palin. The second is on the day that the bail out was voted into existence. No one pays attention to a handyman, but they should have.

--- On Wed, 9/24/08, Mike Vontz handymanvontz@yahoo.com wrote: From: Mike Vontz handymanvontz@yahoo.com Subject: Bail Out To: "comments@whitehouse.gov" comments@whitehouse.gov Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2008, 10:52 AM Dear President Bush, Please reconsider supporting the "bail out" that is currently being debated. I know that you are a good man and that you are looking out for what you believe is in the best interest of this nation. Please bear with me and consider this.

A mortgage backed security is a security that has a group of mortgages an the underlying value of the asset. A mortgage has the value of the real estate as the underlying asset for the loan. If a homeowner is not paying his mortgage as per terms, then the lender may take back the real estate to satisfy the lien. If the value of the real estate has dropped as we have recently experienced, then the mortgage holder may not want to take back the real estate and suffer the loss of value. In that case, it seems to me that both the homeowner and mortgage holder have a vested interest in renegotiating the terms of the mortgage to help the homeowner maintain ownership of the real estate. While this may cause a loss to the security holder, the loss should be less than what they will incur if they complete the foreclosure process. MOST IMPORTANTLY.... If the government does do this bail out. MORE HOMEOWNERS WILL BE FORCED INTO FORECLOSURE BECAUSE THE MORTGAGE HOLDER WILL HAVE NO REASON TO WORK WITH THE HOMEOWNERS. They will merely accept the bail out. The ultimate result will be money changers make out while homeowners get screwed. People do not buy homes with the intention of letting the home go into foreclosure. They buy homes to provide themselves with a place to live. They may go into foreclosure, either due to reasons beyond their control, or reasons entirely within their control, but not just for the fun of it.

You and your Presidency have been through many trying world events and suffered through the effects of political enemies carping at your every decision. I believe that you will go down as one of the best Presidents we have ever had. God bless you and our nation in this event as well.

Sincerely, Mike Vontz

--- On Wed, 10/1/08, Mike Vontz handymanvontz@yahoo.com wrote: From: Mike Vontz handymanvontz@yahoo.com Subject: Bail out To: comments@whitehouse.gov, "vice_president@whitehouse.gov" vice_president@whitehouse.gov Date: Wednesday, October 1, 2008, 12:26 PM

To the Bush Administration,

You have guided us through some very rough times, starting with an election in which you were accused of voter fraud, inheriting a recession, followed by Sept. 11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, hurricanes, etc. Through all of this, the Democrats have accused you of incompetence and fought you at every decision. Do you remember that they accused you of not connecting the dots and blamed you for Sept. 11? Yet it turned out to be Clinton administration policy that prevented inter bureau communications. And now they accuse you spying on every American.

I keep hearing that this bail out is critical to the economy. Yet I keep finding that the bail out bill includes all sorts of graft for Democrat special interest groups. How can the people believe it is critical if it is filled with pork? If there is one penny that is something other than meat and potatoes, your administration will go down as a failure because the Democrats will continue to blame you and the Republicans wont care enough to fight them.

This is WAY to big a sum of money to spend that is not specified as to what is being done with the money. To the penny. I want to know who gets how much and when. Make the actual spending of the money be something that is voted upon also.

Profits, if any,(I know that there will be none) should go to reduce the deficit.

An Obama (Democrat) administration will waste this money in self interest. That would be a total waste.

The biggest problem with your administration is that you have never defended yourself. Even now you are trying to solve this problem without placing the blame. How can the people elect the proper candidate if they do not hear both sides of the story. You have the bully pulpit. You have the executive power. Use it. Show your justifiable indignation at the fact that the Democrats are placing the blame for this on your shoulders when they have so much fault. I keep hearing the Democrats ask "Are we better off today than we were 8 years ago?" The Democrats took over congress 2 years ago. What I want to know are we better off now than we were 2 years ago? We are not and you must make that case.

Thank you to whomever has to read this.

Mike Vontz 30 Savoy Drive Lake St. Louis, MO 63367

No

It is not a working model. It collects taxes for three years before it pays out any benefits. Insurance companies have to pay out benefits as soon as they collect the first premium.

When someone else is paying for something, the cost is irrelevant to the purchaser. Any sort of government health insurance will fail for this reason alone.

Unknown

The members of the Obama administration should have to forfeit their entire accumulated wealth for dragging their feet in the response.

From the beginning, their intent was to harm BP and not to solve the problem. I cite for example the idiot press secretary, with a grin on his face, in the early days of the spill, proclaiming that "We have our foot on BP's neck". It is equivalent to saying "We have a knife at their throat." or "We have a gun at their head."

I also cite the fact that it took the Obama Administration 70 days to allow other nations to provide oil clean up services. This help was offered early on and refused by the Obama Administration.

After the Obama Administration have contributed their entire current wealth, then BP should have to pay the rest.

The moratorium is a foolish idea that will continue the ruination of the economy. Only the Obama administration could be that stupid.

We should drop social security taxes completely. The people need to be in charge of their own retirement plans and assets. When I tell people that we need to means test social security, they tell me that they have paid into the system and deserve the benefits. Maybe, but they also allowed the federal government to take the money from social security, spend it elsewhere, and the money is gone. We as a nation have screwed up by letting our politicians tell us that they are smarter than we are. They are not, and our national debt, and deficit spending proves this fact. If we give people the freedom to invest into their own retirement program, the worse case scenario is that some people will fail to provide for themselves. This is better than having the politicians fail to provide for the entire nation.

When social security was set up the life expectancy was about 62 while the retirement age was 65. Based on this you can see that the government that set up social security never intended to pay for the benefits which they promised.

The model for a "successful social security system" can only work with an ever increasing populace combined with a steady or decreasing life expectancy. We have an increasing life expectancy, a decreasing population and increasing health care costs. The system has not worked and cannot work. We have to accept the facts and try to make the needed changes before our only alternative is to drop everyone all at the same time and see who survives.

Additionally, successive politicians have increased the benefits

To reduce the deficit we need to cut federal spending and increase the prosperity of the people by cutting tax rates. There is an inverse proportional relationship between tax rates and prosperity. The higher the tax rate the lower the prosperity. Taking the extreme examples, if you earned $100 and the government took $99 you would have $1 to spend. You standard of living would be equal to what $1 could buy. If you earned $100, and the government took $1, you would have $99 to spend. Your standard of living would be 99 times better than the first example. You would be more prosperous. Most people live proportional to their prosperity. Because of this, greater prosperity equals greater spending which creates more wealth for additional people. Greater prosperity pushes more people into higher tax brackets and because we have a graduated tax structure, this causes greater revenues to the government. This can be proven both mathematically, and historically.