Monday, August 31, 2009

What the Elite Don't Get about Resistance to Obamacare

I think a recent article by Michael Kinglsey (http://comments.realclearpolitics.com/read/42323/432370.html) illuminates perfectly what elitists on the left (we've got them on the right, too) don't get about the average guy's resistance to the healthcare plans being promoted by Congress and the Administration. Liberal elites just think the average guy is dumb, and that because he is dumb he resists change.

That is not it.

I have impeccable elitist credentials, Princeton undergrad, got a PhD in Materials Engineering, rose through the ranks, became the boss, did the IPO, all that stuff. And I did it in manufacturing, working with the average guy. Here is the news: he's not dumb. He is also not afraid if you can say something to him that adds up. I've sold lots of change to organizations (union and non) and it works if, and only if, it makes sense to the average guy and he sees it to be in his (and his family's) best interest.

Here is what I think the average guy has figured out about what has been proposed: 85% of the people are supposed to put what they have (health insurance) at risk so that 15% of the people can get something they don't have. And, they are told that costs will go down long term.

More coverage and less cost. What has to give? When the average guy hears detractors say that the government will impose rules to control cost and access (rationing), I'll bet that makes sense to him. More coverage and less cost does not make sense to him (me neither!).

The problem isn't the audience, it's not the forum, and it is not the speaker (well, the Speaker, for sure), it is the message. If you want the majority to buy into change then you need to propose something that is in the majority's interest.

Hags

Sunday, August 30, 2009

And then there is this.

And while one can quibble about water boarding, as in, no, I would rather we not engage in the tactic and agree with its cessation (although I also would like to point out that I wish it had not been necessary to water board a few terrorists who brought this on themselves after they escalated a low scale war into a grand one by incinerating 3000 of our citizens and no, I do not think it is wise to investigate the previous administration).

Anyway, it gets really crazy in C. Rich liberal land when he responds to G. Will's article on CA's imploding economy.

don't you ever get tired of being wrong? the California problem is due to the foolishness of the voters...who will not allow enough tax $ to pay for basic services like most Publicans you want the poor, the elderly, the uneducated to pay for the mistakes of the middle class voters...the same people who need 50 inch tvs but need to put it on their credit card. loveRM


So our problem is we just don't tax and spend on government services enough? Because if the CA citizenry would have been stupid enough to cough up the taxes to pay for their social boondoggle, the liberals would have said...great...done. We are not growing government any more. Earth...Rich...Hello?

And ummm....C. Rich, the folks who pay the taxes, you know, the top 5% who pay 70%? They Generally are not the ones who put their stuff on cards they cannot afford (nor purchase unaffordable houses). They are the folks showing up to town meetings.

We cannot afford our promised safety net, not as designed. This is not longer debatable and now clearly a matter of fiscal survival. At some point we have to stop. Or I guess in your world, not? Where is a good bond ghoul when you need one.

I await C. Rich's response and will post it ASAP.

Love, Jim G.

Crazy Rich says:

To be clear we have two Rich's who contribute to this blog, one who is crazy and ultra liberal and one who I thought had an iota of sense until I read his response to Tom's post.

Anyway, Crazy Rich responds to me and I post his thoughts. Says he:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.did it work the first time or the 183rd.?..Bush/Cheney were wrong..torture is not usefull...mention the possbility of lead up your ass and you'll never stop talking.....Ali Soufan has written an excellent article...mandatory reading for you... http://catherinemacivor.com/2009/04/24/top-interrogator-torture-does-not-work/..but you will be glad to hear that I am not happy with my Black Pres...he has made Afganistan his war for no other reason then to prove the size of his scrotum...our war is with Al Queda not the Taliban..Karzai is complettely corrupt..there is no future there..waste of men and $....our son is currently n Bagdad...going to Kabul in the fall

I am finally getting the idea of what it takes to have a left mind, first and foremost it involves, not reading and stating so much that is not so.

It did work, it probably prevented future attacks, it was carefully thought out and "cleared". It was limited and applied to a mass killer. It was not, and there is no evidence to remotely suggest, an infringement on someone not directly involved in terrorism.

The war on terror persists. It is not a "police action" instead a war against a broad movement which will be over when we win and change the dynamics in that area of the world. Let's state that again, the war is against who we chose it to be with and not those who chose us.

And as your brave son continues to chose to serve for this long time, we salute him.
The CIA waterboarded all of three high-level detainees -- then stopped in March 2003 -- when Bush White House lawyers determined the technique to be legal.
Moreover, it was a CIA official who, learning that some agents and contractors may have abused detainees, began an investigation in November 2002 that resulted in an agency request for an inspector general probe in January 2003. Hence the 2004 report newly released by the Obama administration.

The Helgerson report and other documents revealed that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave up crucial information about planned terrorist attacks as a result of the CIA's detention and interrogation program. There's no way to prove that the enhanced interrogation techniques -- also known as "torture" -- led to those disclosures, but they may have saved lives by thwarting plans for attacks on London's Heathrow airport, to fly planes into tall buildings in California and even a plan to weaponize anthrax. The Washington Post notes that there is no proof that the attacks were "imminent." OK, but they were in the works.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/30/president_obama_should_pardon_cia_interrogators_98086.html

By George Will

The most ominous domestic event of the 1970s was the collapse of self-government in New York City, which before being put into receivership by the state was liberalism's laboratory. Since then, California has been the slate on which liberalism boldly writes its recipe for decline -- high taxes, heavy regulation, subservience to public employees unions and environmentalism that is simultaneously apocalyptic and chiliastic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdtqtfXdR-c

Friday, August 28, 2009

Amazing Krugman BS. Somehow deficits did not matter when they were smaller.

The Nobel Laureate Explains

Till Debt Does Its Part

By PAUL KRUGMAN
So new budget projections show a cumulative deficit of $9 trillion over the next decade. According to many commentators, that’s a terrifying number, requiring drastic action — in particular, of course, canceling efforts to boost the economy and calling off health care reform.

The truth is more complicated and less frightening. Right now deficits are actually helping the economy. In fact, deficits here and in other major economies saved the world from a much deeper slump. The longer-term outlook is worrying, but it’s not catastrophic.

The only real reason for concern is political. The United States can deal with its debts if politicians of both parties are, in the end, willing to show at least a bit of maturity. Need I say more?

Let’s start with the effects of this year’s deficit.

There are two main reasons for the surge in red ink. First, the recession has led both to a sharp drop in tax receipts and to increased spending on unemployment insurance and other safety-net programs. Second, there have been large outlays on financial rescues. These are counted as part of the deficit, although the government is acquiring assets in the process and will eventually get at least part of its money back.

What this tells us is that right now it’s good to run a deficit. Consider what would have happened if the U.S. government and its counterparts around the world had tried to balance their budgets as they did in the early 1930s. It’s a scary thought. If governments had raised taxes or slashed spending in the face of the slump, if they had refused to rescue distressed financial institutions, we could all too easily have seen a full replay of the Great Depression.

As I said, deficits saved the world.

In fact, we would be better off if governments were willing to run even larger deficits over the next year or two. The official White House forecast shows a nation stuck in purgatory for a prolonged period, with high unemployment persisting for years. If that’s at all correct — and I fear that it will be — we should be doing more, not less, to support the economy.

But what about all that debt we’re incurring? That’s a bad thing, but it’s important to have some perspective. Economists normally assess the sustainability of debt by looking at the ratio of debt to G.D.P. And while $9 trillion is a huge sum, we also have a huge economy, which means that things aren’t as scary as you might think.

Here’s one way to look at it: We’re looking at a rise in the debt/G.D.P. ratio of about 40 percentage points. The real interest on that additional debt (you want to subtract off inflation) will probably be around 1 percent of G.D.P., or 5 percent of federal revenue. That doesn’t sound like an overwhelming burden.

Now, this assumes that the U.S. government’s credit will remain good so that it’s able to borrow at relatively low interest rates. So far, that’s still true. Despite the prospect of big deficits, the government is able to borrow money long term at an interest rate of less than 3.5 percent, which is low by historical standards. People making bets with real money don’t seem to be worried about U.S. solvency.

The numbers tell you why. According to the White House projections, by 2019, net federal debt will be around 70 percent of G.D.P. That’s not good, but it’s within a range that has historically proved manageable for advanced countries, even those with relatively weak governments. In the early 1990s, Belgium — which is deeply divided along linguistic lines — had a net debt of 118 percent of G.D.P., while Italy — which is, well, Italy — had a net debt of 114 percent of G.D.P. Neither faced a financial crisis.

So is there anything to worry about? Yes, but the dangers are political, not economic.

As I’ve said, those 10-year projections aren’t as bad as you may have heard. Over the really long term, however, the U.S. government will have big problems unless it makes some major changes. In particular, it has to rein in the growth of Medicare and Medicaid spending.

That shouldn’t be hard in the context of overall health care reform. After all, America spends far more on health care than other advanced countries, without better results, so we should be able to make our system more cost-efficient.

But that won’t happen, of course, if even the most modest attempts to improve the system are successfully demagogued — by conservatives! — as efforts to “pull the plug on grandma.”

So don’t fret about this year’s deficit; we actually need to run up federal debt right now and need to keep doing it until the economy is on a solid path to recovery. And the extra debt should be manageable. If we face a potential problem, it’s not because the economy can’t handle the extra debt. Instead, it’s the politics, stupid.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

OK you policy wonks

I put a little effort into this and came up mostly empty, but it may have supported Rich(ie), which I dislike politically but will help me sleep better at night.

What if:

Tax receipts increase to 20% of GDP and we return to historic economic growth (about 3.5%, what happens to the deficit?

Tough call and a lot of potential political massaging of the data (what year, GDP growth, effect on behaviour).

The calculations I did were based on 2008 numbers which quite frankly are not germane but what was available, showing the deficit would have been reduced to about $100B. And yes this is an overly rosy scenario.

Now Mark...you will obviously have an professional advantage and so if you chose to participate, please, if you would, present the best and worse case scenario. My impression has been that we are screwed under any scenario, but perhaps not.

I had a difficult time finding the data and in fact ultimately went to the CIA web site. I tried various other government web sites.

Wonk away.

To Rich & Terry

Rich & Terry, Please try to put aside your partisanship for a brief moment. I am truly curious about your liberal viewpoint. Do either of you ever think/worry that this administration may be leading this country down a bad path? For example: I thought our previous administration totally lost control of fiscal responsibility and that Tom Delay was a bigger asshole than Nancy Pelosi. I admit that grievous mistakes were made. Do either of you ever have doubts? This current state of affairs is reminding me of the Hamilton/Adams vs Jefferson debate about the role of government in our lives. I am worried about the future of our freedoms. Honest answer please.

True, I think

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Ted Kennedy

Ted Kennedy was born in an America where white kids and black kids could not go to school together in some parts of this country, they could not serve in the Army together, where millions were denied jobs, and opportunities.

Yes it's true, even tho you try to forget it.

He worked to give 18 year olds the vote, he watched his family being drugged thru the mud by ignorant people, who if they had the Kennedy's money would have never opted for public service.

It saddens me that in the midst of some titanic struggles in this country their are so many willing to just criticize.

There is a difference between those who get in the arena (FDR) and roar and those who merely squeak and flee.

Finishing the day with a little "Conservative" humor

OK...only a little

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO2eh6f5Go0
Seems he is heading us in the post-America direction.

The Lion dies

Rush (gasp) has discussed an interesting point.

Senator Kennedy set a wonderful example during his illness and death.

He sought and received excellent medical care for a illness with limited prognosis with the support of his family and friends. He passed, I'm sure, surrounded by family, which were circumstances of his choosing.

HE DID NOT...receive health care under a government model, rationed with a wait list (or in his case refused given his limited life expectancy), with government encouragement to instead just receive hospice services.

CIA and Torture

Here is the only question we need to ask ourselves...Lets say that you had your son kidnapped by terrorists, and there we two of them and you caught one of them, and he said your son has 24 hours to live. Tell me what means of extraction would anyone of us use to get the information out of the captured terrorist to get our son back...sitting down at the table with a cup of coffee and trying to negotiate with him, or pull his finger nails out or put his buster browns in a vice until he spilled the beans on where your son was located. Answer this question honestly. Me he would only hope the vice is all I used

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Monday, August 24, 2009

Will he be correct again?

The left's next target.

However he does seem like one tough Marine.

I wonder if they will "Joe the Plummer" or "Palin" or "Katy Abram" him.

You know, pull his tax records or investigate his family or call him stupid.

What a class group is the left.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rRE5UK6NQU&feature=related

Sunday, August 23, 2009

PK bull again

The whack job does not even include the impending Medicare bankruptcy or the cost of government run health care.

Just a little $9 trillion, no big deal, except it is always underestimated.

Damn profit motive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9GMKK_fWKg

The Guns of August

An excellent column by Frank Rich

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Health Care Liberal and Conservative

Health care should be both a liberal and conservative mission.
Securing care for all Americans is the liberal part and containing the alarming rise in health care costs which fuels corporate costs and hurts in the global marketplace is the conservative part.
Republicans who say they can't support a trillion dollar bill already have in their 2006 prescription drug bill which will cost 1.08 trillion over ten years.
There was nothing conservative about the Medicare drug bill, no way to pay for it and other than borrowing on future generations.
This cozy capitalism to the drug companies, and health insurance industries are just the "let the marketplace work" work with a little help from our friends.

The future of the GOP

Even better are the comments that follow.

10-year deficit may leap by $2 trillion

Friday, August 21, 2009

So, the accurate way to frame the opposition point is that the Democrats are proposing extensive government control of health care, which may lead to government-run health care.
The most consequential misrepresentation in the health care debate is when Obama and other supporters claim that if people like their doctor and their insurance plan, they will get to keep them. The reason for the heavy stress on that reassurance is the belief that health care reform that jeopardizes what people currently have isn't going anywhere.
The promise is false, however, even by the terms of the committee bills. Existing plans are grandfathered in, but only for five years. After that, they have to meet the new federal mandates, whatever they turn out to be. In the interim, they can accept no new enrollees.

I was going to post the following as a response to crazy Rich, but it turned out so well, I thought... hey! Let's make all the lefties crazy.

This global warming thing..shouldn't there be like, you know, global warming?

Shouldn't China and India be included?

Doesn't it sound "fishy", that they are not? Is there a White House web site to report them?

Shouldn't there be a history of successful prediction of past "climate changes"?

Shouldn't there be further debate, given that beyond physical and chemical laws, there is no true "settled science"?

Shouldn't the folks who most strongly support reducing greenhouse gasses be willing to reduce their consumption, allow windmills in their view and support nuclear power?

Shouldn't a party, mind set or whatever we want to call it, that has a history of hostility to business and the successful be viewed with suspicion when they propose a dramatic change in our way of life on the basis of a theory that has not predicted what has happened and conveniently only includes "developed" country's.

If a benefit of such a proposal, even if the reason for the proposal was not true, was reduced foreign demand for oil, shouldn't we open up all our resources including a small postage sized area in Alaska and far out areas off our coast?

Shouldn't folks who emotionalize the management of livestock, throw blood on those who wear material not to their liking, clog our courts with spurious suits over minor species (basically to retard growth) not be trusted to give objective evidence about a scientific theory and instead should be viewed to be as they always are, agents against growth, success and Capitalism.

I don't know about Global Warming and I am for a clean environment but I do know that the left cannot be trusted and the best way to protect our environment is as it always is, through freedom and free markets. (Terry should be rushing to the hospital now after a severe gagging attack).

The Presidency and the Polls

http://www.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx


Cut and paste to read the above Gallup Report.

Please someone tell me why there are people in this country who actually believe that our government can run health care for this nation

Barry the genius compared the running of the health care system, fully 1/6 th of the US economy, to the US Postal Service. Sorry but have you noticed how fast postage has gone up in this country? I also saw a liberal black woman on Fox News claim say that she was educated at the University of Virginia and look at how good that is being run by a government body. Excuse me but has she observed how fast college tuition has risen? Faster than health care. Medicaid and Social Security are technically bankrupt. If you subject them to the accounting standards you subject any US business to they would need to accrue there liabilities. There unfunded liabilities are monstrous. When your liabilities are greater than your assets you are considered insolvent. Two more examples of the Government's ability to run something into the ground.

Now they are talking about Coops. You mean sort of like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Just another game to get more and more of their cronies in control of the US economy. The majority of American people are showing they are smarter than what the arrogant liberal elites like Barry, Rahm, Waxman, Reid and Pelosi think they are. The track record is an abysmal one.

You are truly stupid if you do not look at all of the other programs the government runs, the cost overruns on every single one, and still believe the BS they are trying to feed us that they can do it less expensively and more efficiently than private companies can. Either Barry and friends destroyed way too many brain cells during their undergrad years or their motives are nefarious. If he is so intelligent like Rich and Terry say he is then how come he can't face the facts that the federal government cannot run anything well? Oh I know. He has come to the conclusion that we are all sheep and need big brother to take care of us.

Another Democratic fox watching the hen house.

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Big Government: Ron Bloom, who heads the government's auto task force, may soon have a new job. As Bloomberg reports, the White House wants him to become a new de facto manufacturing czar. What next?
Once in power, Democrats love nothing more than finding a problem so they can create a new level of government to deal with it. Even if there's no problem, they will — pardon the phrase — manufacture one.
So it is with the possible appointment of Bloom, a former United Steelworkers union adviser who now heads the U.S. auto task force, to be a kind of national industrial policy czar.
The manufacturing sector has indeed been hit hard by the downturn. But so has the rest of U.S. industry. The only real growth sector, as the Rockefeller Institute reported Thursday, is government. While private jobs have shrunk 6.9 million since the start of the recession, state and local governments have added 110,000 positions.
Problem is, President Obama signed a $787 billion stimulus bill in February and vowed to create 3.5 million jobs over the next two years. And a major part of his support comes from unions.
His "stimulus" isn't working, and he must be seen as "doing something." Thus, Bloom gets named factory czar.
The question naturally arises: Do we really need a factory guru, especially one whose expertise is in advising labor unions — the cause of much of the U.S. steel and car industries' woes?
The obvious answer is no. This is just another attempt to revive the long-discredited idea of industrial policy — the notion that markets are inefficient and unfair, and the economy can best be managed by government "experts."
In the case of manufacturing, it isn't as sick as we've been led to believe. In fact, total value added by the nation's factories in 2008 hit a record $1.64 trillion for a gain of 21% since 2003.
And despite talk of the U.S. losing its industrial might, we still make up 25% of the world's manufacturing value added — nearly 2 1/2 times China's output, U.N. data show.
True enough, manufacturing has lost jobs in recent years. But most of the decline is due to rising productivity. Since 1990, factory output has soared 44%, while the number of factory jobs has fallen 32%. This may be the greatest productivity boom since the Industrial Revolution — an economic triumph rather than a tragedy.
Do manufacturers need a bureaucrat as boss? Or even as their advocate? Of course not. They need what the rest of us need — a healthy private economy. Create conditions for that — with lower taxes, fewer regulations and freer trade — and factories will flourish. And Obama's 3.5 million jobs might not be such a pipe dream.

Global Warming

Al Gore noted the power of propaganda when he once told Grist, a magazine for environmentalists, that "it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."
So why all the distortions about global warming? To save the planet, to save us from ourselves? No. To choke economies in developed nations, particularly the U.S.
"We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth," Leipold told the BBC's Stephen Sackur in the same interview in which he acknowledged Greenpeace's mistake. "The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model."
This same thinking is found in the minds of so many of the global warming alarmists. They say they can make the trouble go away if they can just force the U.S. and other developed nations to cut their levels of consumption.
When all the pretense about science is stripped away, it becomes clear that the global warming scare is not about the planet, but about establishing egalitarianism across the world. It's about making everyone more equal by slowing growth in rich nations rather than increasing growth in poor and developing countries.
The mind-set can be found in campaigns such as Climate Justice, which "is not only the right tool for climate stabilization," says Jin-woo Lee, a policy analyst for the Energy & Climate Policy Institute for Just Transition, but also "the underlying principle for global equity."

Thursday, August 20, 2009


This should settle the matter.

Lets talk about the debt

“There is another responsibility we have to our children… to ensure that we do not pass on to them a debt they cannot pay. With the deficit we inherited, the cost of the crisis we face, and the long-term challenges we must meet, it has never been more important to ensure that as our economy recovers, we do what it takes to bring this deficit down.” - Obama, 24 Feb 2009

Let’s look at that Bush budget deficit: During the last administration, it took over 2.5 years for the National Debt to increase a trillion dollars. But by the time former president George W. Bush left office, he had run up the deficit by a record amount: $4.9-trillion over eight years. When the Democrats gained control of Congress on January 4, 2007, the national debt was around $8.67 trillion. In the two years Pelosi and the Democrats were in charge of the national purse during the Bush Presidency, the National Debt grew to $10.7 trillion. That means $2.03 trillion has been added to the national debt for an increase of 23% increase in the two years the Democrats have controlled Congress under Bush. This is almost one half of the entire increase under the Bush Presidency. Under Barry's leadership the Democrats have presided over increases of more than a trillion dollars. This is in around 7 months! So under the Democratic leadership in Congress the debt has increased over $3 trillion in 2.7 years. Unprecedented numbers in history. Now the Democrats want to ram government run health care down our throats which will cost another $1 trillion as estimated bt the CBO. When is it going to end. The interest on the debt is something like $500 billion a year alone.

Before we as a nation perform any more socialist tinkering we need to stop this spending before it is too late.

It takes a village

Seems to me that the sum of recent events demonstrates the following: (as I attempt to state without too much hyperbole).

The left wants to move the country to a Socialist system (perhaps by another name) with centralized government control of much, focusing now on health care. Their rational is that it takes a village, paid for by the wealthy.

They are offering a health care plan which would clearly take us on the path to universal, government controlled coverage.

The majority of the American public has now twice rejected such and option, understanding the argument that with such a largess comes a loss of freedom. There need be no hyperbole or doubt about the eventual development of commissions to ration care (read death panels).

Sen. Demint said this would be the "O"'s Waterloo and I think he is correct. The American public has said no to Socialism (that is what this is about-not just health care).

I again state, if he had started with tort reform and HSA's and included expanded coverage in the existing marketplace, he would have been a true leader and improved our country.

Too bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc&feature=player_embedded

Excerpt

I strongly suggest reading the whole article.

I want to emphasize that there is nothing evil or destructive in an increase in debt that is proportional to an increase in income or assets. As the resources of individuals, corporations and countries grow, each can handle more debt. The United States remains by far the most prosperous country on earth, and its debt-carrying capacity will grow in the future just as it has in the past.
But it was a wise man who said, “All I want to know is where I’m going to die so I’ll never go there.” We don’t want our country to evolve into the banana-republic economy described by Keynes.
Our immediate problem is to get our country back on its feet and flourishing — “whatever it takes” still makes sense. Once recovery is gained, however, Congress must end the rise in the debt-to-G.D.P. ratio and keep our growth in obligations in line with our growth in resources.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT

Mark says Obama clearly not qualified to be President. I thought the choice was between someone who graduated 5th from the bottom of his class, against someone who was the president of the HARVARD LAW SCHOOL AND GRADUATED AT THE TOP OF HIS CLASS. Did I miss something, who would you hire for your company Mark ?

The most dishonest President in History!

Who can forget the chants by the left wing anti-war mobs "Bush lied people died"? Of course we all know that President Bush did not lie about the War in Iraq which has been proven numerous times. In fact it is more of a lie to make the statement in quotes above.

No we have a Presidnet that continually lies and makes outrageous statements in conjunction with his attempts to ram Health Care Reform down our throats. Another enlightening article for that Conservative Giant the Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/16/AR2009081601887.html
Barry has repeatedly asserted that if the health care reform he supports is enacted, everyone will be able to keep their current coverage. For example, on Saturday, in Grand Junction, Colorado, he declared:
"I keep on saying this but somehow folks aren't listening. If you like your health-care plan, you keep your health-care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health-care plan."

Similarly, in Portsmouth, New Hampshire Barry stated:
"Now let me just start by setting the record straight on a few things. I've been hearing out here about reform. Under the reform we're proposing, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

And at a July 28 town hall meeting with members of AARP, Barry proclaimed:
Here's the guarantee that I've made: If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance.

He knows these are lies. First, under the health care legislation written by all three House committees, eligible employers could move workers into a new marketplace for insurance (called an exchange). There is no guarantee that any of the options available in the exchange would be the same as the coverage currently provided by one's employer.
Second, the reform legislation could prompt some employers simply to stop covering employees. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that three million Americans would lose their coverage in this way.
According to the Post, even White House spokesperson Linda Douglass has acknowledged that there will be some dropping of coverage. Yet Barry persists in making the patently false claim that everyone who likes their plan can keep their plan.

The biggest reason that Barry's favorable ratings keep dropping is that more and more his credibility is being squandered. Barry's continued lies and outrageous gaffes are causing more and more people to view him as someone who cannot be trusted. Once you lose your credibility it is very hard if not impossible to get it back. Of course I told you a long time ago that Barry lacked the wisdom required to be the President of the United States. On top of this he is the most arrogant and divisive President we might ever have had before. We are all going to pay for electing someone who clearly was not qualified for the job.

Rich you are wrong again

Rich's being wrong about things is becoming the rule. The other day he disagreed with his buddy Terry when Terry pointed out that the country as a whole is right of center. Rich went on to say that the country is actually left of center depending on how many voters turn out. Well I am sure you have seen the latest polling data from Gallup which shows you are wrong again.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx
If Barry keeps trying to ram spending and socialist programs through the Democratic party will suffer their Waterloo in 2010 and Barry will be a one term President.

Rich also keeps claiming that I am lying when I say that President Bush tried to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The following is from that bastion of Conservative news the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

From the beginning of the Pravda article:
"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."
"Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/06/business/06cnd-fannie.html

From another Conservative giant the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091102841.html
"During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole. Meanwhile, Dodd -- who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 -- actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation. "

"Bush got involved in the effort personally, speaking out for the cause of reform: "Congress needs to pass legislation strengthening the independent regulator of government-sponsored enterprises like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, so we can keep them focused on the mission to expand home ownership," he said in December. He even mentioned GSE reform in this year's State of the Union address. "

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said the following on Sept. 11, 2003: "We see entities that are fundamentally sound financially. . . . And even if there were a problem, the federal government doesn't bail them out."
Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.), later that year: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
As recently as last summer, when housing prices had clearly peaked and the mortgage market had started to seize up, Dodd called on Bush to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" reform proposals. Frank, now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said that the president's suggestion for a strong, independent regulator of Fannie and Freddie was "inane."

So Rich where exactly did I lie when I stated that Democrats blocked President Bush's attempts to increase regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? It is now obvious that you did not watch any of the videos about this that were placed on this blog during it's earlier times. Before you call someone a liar you need to actually do some research.

A Democratic Health Insurance Bill

The new polls are interesting. Yes, Obama is down a few ticks (I'm saving you a post, Mark) and the polls have moved with respect to favoring a public option. The surprise is that they only moved 4 points from favoring the approach to opposed. After all the sound and fury of July and August and all the town tantrums, Americas view has changed... by 4 points.

The good news? It is crystal clear that there will not be any Republican votes for reform, with the possible exception of the two Maine senators. Grassley is facing a potential primary opponent and has dropped any pretense of negotiating in good faith.

So - the House will pass a liberal health insurance reform bill in September. The Senate will pass a more conservative one in October, without the public option. We'll get 60 votes for cloture. The Blue Dog Democrats will still have two chances to vote against the bill without killing it (there are 4 Senate Blue Dogs up for reelection in 2010). First, when they vote on the bill after cloture, we only need 50 votes. Second, after House/Senate reconciliation we'll only need 50 votes in the Senate. So - the hurdle is cloture and the Dems should be able to get affirmative Blue Dogs to "simply to allow a vote!"

Then - we will have meaningful health insurance reform in 2009. The bill will either have a public option or a non-profit option (that can be made public soon enough).

God Bless America!

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

So who is in charge of the Barry administration?

This administration just cannot get their stories straight. http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090818/US.Obama.Health.Care.Overhaul/?cid=NET_SZHeadlineRSSLinks&attr=article_news_general_US.Obama.Health.Care.Overhaul

So the worst press secretary in history, Robert Gibbs, is now saying that the Barry adminstration never meant to say that they were backing of from the public option and anything to the contrary is "overblown". What?

The other day Barry said his proposal for a government-run plan "is just one sliver" of overhauling the health care system. Worst White House Press Secretary of all time (WWHPSAT) Robert Gibbs hinted for several days that the administration is willing to look at alternatives if they provide adequate choice and competition. OK I guess none of the alternatives presented provide adequate choice and competition. Like the public option will?

Barry also said at a town hall meeting in Grand Junction, Colo., on August 16 "The public option, whether we have it or we don’t have it, is not the entirety of health care reform,". I guess this statement is not backing away from the public option either.

Also on August 16 Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/16/sebelius-public-health-ca_n_260511.html

So it now appears that there are some radical left wing groups that have tremendous power with Barry since he is now saying through his minions that he never meant to say what he said or that he never meant to have Gibbs and Sebelius go on national television and say what they said. These groups must have been very angry to get Barry and his crew to look more and more like the incompetents they are by saying one thing on Sunday and then something else again on Monday.

I have to say that every day this administration continues to demonstrate that they are not ready for prime time. Who is running the ship?

Terry...you think we are going to run from this?

Yes, Terry, we (most) Conservatives would repeal the Socialist programs of Medicare and Social Security...and replace them with something better!

This is exactly the point, these entitlement programs, started as small entities are consuming our whole budget and forcing the country into bankruptcy. And now the fools want to "Medicare" the whole industry! Tort reform, competition and direct patient involvement with payment (HSA's) would fix health care!

We have promised too much, entitled too many and are paying dearly for liberal giveaways to gather votes.

Remember when Bush tried to "reform" S.S.? There was no help, just a lot of demagoguery. Every time Conservatives have tried to institute a morsel of fiscal responsibility the liberals have dragged out some grandmother eating dog food.

Rich, you harp on tax cuts, but the problem is run away entitlement spending and unfortunately there is nothing on the horizon except bankruptcy (unless, har, har, har, the bond ghouls save us!)

Terry, at what point do you quit attacking the successful who provide the jobs and feed the coffers of our country and place the blame where it belongs, with the liberal politicians who buy votes in the name of compassion?

Monday, August 17, 2009

George Bush vs the Big O

Well left wingers this should give you something to think about...god don't you just hate it when things are factual

Saturday, August 15, 2009

The Republicans and Terri Schiavo

The Republican party's opposition to the Obama health care has a unique twist, they decry "death squads" from the Government who will decide to" pull the plug on grandma".
Yet when Terri Schiavo's family decided to pull the plug on her, it was okay for Bush and his cohorts to " get involved" and try to over rule the family.
I guess it's okay for the government to decide the cost and value of one's life.
It seems to me that the Republican party is against things when it suits them, where is the moral compass?
The conservative figures taking potshots at Democrats for wanting to fund voluntary discussions about end of life decisions didn't feel that wayback then, what has changed?

An End to Polarization?

How about an omnibus federal election amendment to the constitution?

I have previously suggested that the 22nd Amendment be scrapped or at least modified so a former president can serve new consecutive terms after sitting out a full term. I believe that would strengthen the president’s hand in dealing with Congress as well as foreign governments. The US president would no longer be the one and only lame duck sitting at the table, wherever it may be.

We should also consider open elections for Congress and the presidency. Right now, we have few competitive congressional elections in a typical election cycle. In fact, it has been said that Congress enjoys a higher re-election success rate than did the Politburo. The safe seats end up beholden to each party’s activist base, which tends to lean too far in one direction. It rarely ends up closely reflecting the views of the respective district. While the extremes are well represented, it can be argued that two-thirds of the electorate are not.

We can solve this problem with three changes in federal elections (House, Senate, President):

1> Do not limit the number of candidates to one from party per se – allow up to three candidates per party.
2> Require a 50% plus one majority to win the election. Absent such, a runoff will be held (two weeks – four weeks - pick a time period) after the general election amongst the top two candidates.
3> Scrap the Electoral College – this change obviates the need for that anachronistic institution. One region of the country will not be electing a president.

What will this do?

It will greatly expand the choices of the electorate and create a system that will elect those whose views are more in synch with the voters. Districts that are currently “safe” and elect party firebrands may end up with runoffs between two members of the same party. All of the very effective gerrymandering across the country will be largely mitigated. Congressman will no longer feel insulated from their district, safe in the knowledge that their base makes them bulletproof.

This system at the federal level will encourage similar laws in our state houses and legislatures. The problems of gerrymandering are often more pronounced at the state and local level than they are federally. This one change can do more than many other efforts – term limits, redistricting commissions and criteria – to reconnect our elected officials with their constituents.

Many presidents have won office with a plurality rather than a majority. This pattern has continued in the post-war era, with mere pluralities in 6 of the last 16 presidential races (one of those even elected a candidate that received the second most votes). Wouldn’t it have been nice to have a runoff between Bush and Gore without Nader or Buchanan on the ballot? How about Clinton against a Republican with no Ross Perot to siphon votes? Wallace probably changed the 1968 election and we’ve had several other close calls. Voters would be able to vote their conscience in the first round – perhaps Libertarian or Green – since they would still have another vote coming if it mattered. Third and fourth parties would gain purchase in our system – one more way to enfranchise and increase the voice of the voters writ large.

The parties could still have conventions to form a “final three”. What would have happened in 2008 if Hillary, Obama and Edwards appeared on the ballot along with McCain, Romney and Huckabee? Who could complain about having a lousy choice? Perhaps we would have had the same two to ultimately choose from, perhaps not. We will never know. However – over time – we are not going to be electing polarizing figures and they will be working with a Congress that is more connected to the people. The likes of Gingrich and Pelosi will not get to run the show nor will the system encourage the worst impulses of the majority. Perhaps, we will even see a marked reduction in the level of perceived conspiracies.

Alas, an American utopia? Uh, no. It will merely be a major improvement over the status quo. We need better tools in our toolbox to meet the challenges ahead.

45 years, same arguments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt1fYSAChxs&feature=fvw

I do endorse this!

Terry, just a reminder about liberty and freedom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

Socialist/Hypocrites

I ask all you Republicans on this blog to ask your Republican Congressmen, and Senators, to repeal Social Security, a socialist program, introduce legislation to end medicare, a government run single payer program.

You cannot say you are against socialistic programs, government run health care, without condemning these programs, well you can if you are hypocrites.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Rich and Terry come on and come clean with us

Rich and Terry,

You can do it. It will clean your soul. The truth will set you free.

As you may recall many of the conservative contributors to this blog have on numerous times stated that President Bush made many errors. That he was not as conservative as we thought he was.

However we have yet to see either of you admit to the facts that this administration is nothing like what you both thought it would be. Did you both think that within the first year they would already be using force and intimidation to silence those that disagreed with their policies? We are seeing Chicago Politics at their worst on a national scale and it is really ugly. I warned you many times before the election and now we are getting the kind of slimy, manipulating, arrogant elitist policies that are turning more and more Americans away from this administration every day. It is certainly not Fox News and Talk Radio that are doing these things but the Democrats themselves that are lying to us and villifying those who speak out in opposition.
http://deceiver.com/ Scroll down to the third story on this website about Madam Botox's hypocrisy.

Then: “I’m a fan of disruptors. Nothing could be more American.”
Now: “Disruptors are simply un-American.”
Then: “I understand your anger.”
Now: “I can’t stand your anger.”
Then: “Shout it out.”
Now: “Shut it up.”
Presumably Pelosi knows what cameras are, and that they were being aimed at her during this event. Did she think nobody would dig this up? Did she think she wouldn’t have to eat her own words? Did she think (at all)?

Again just like her BS on not being told by the CIA about the aggressive interrogation techniques used on a few Al-Queda operatives. No wonder her poll numbers are dropping faster than Barry's she is even a bigger lier than he is.

Are you two proud of your party now? What do you think their end game is? It certainly can not be what they promised when they put their hand on that bible and swore to uphold the constitution of the United States. Are you happy with the facist / communist tactics that they are using on a daily basis from asking people to rat each other out to sending SEIU thugs to beat up health care protestors. Are you both glad that this administration is trying to take this country 180% away from the teaching of the founding fathers?

On a daily basis Barry is demonstrating to us that he is not as smart as some of you thought he is and that he lacks wisdom. Please you can tell us how disappointed you really are, it will make you sleep better at night.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to buy airline tickets to Canada?

Why doesn't the government offer to pay for the travel expenses to the socialist health care country of their choice for everyone who is in favor of Obamacare or is uninsured. That would have to be less than the trillion dollars that Obamacare is going to cost us.

Let the rest of the over 83% of Americans who are happy with their health care alone.

The lying by Democrats is just way over the top

So the Democratic party under the leadership of Barry continue to follow the Saul Alinsky playbook and try to get Obamacare passed by lying and villifying those that oppose it.

Barry has been caught telling so many lies that his credibility is heading for the toilet with the average American. Hence the continous drop in the polls. Then he shows that he is really not as smart as everyone thought he was by making the Doctors the bad guy by claiming that they would rather amputate the foot of a diabetic because the Doctor makes $50,000 for every foot they amputate instead of trying to get the diabetic to change his or her lifestyle.

I am somewhat perplexed here because I haven't noticed all of the people hobbling around on one foot. At $50,000 an amputation I would think that those greedy doctors would have amputated the feet off of every diabetic in America by now.

Than you have Madam Speaker of the House of Botox asserting that opponents of Obamacare were bringing swastikas to townhall meetings. Madam Botox said they’re a pack of astroturfing cranks because they’re holding up swastikas. Which was then “confirmed” when somebody dug up a picture of one protester in Colorado holding up a small handmade sign with a swastika… inside a red circle with a line through it.

Okay, so maybe the protesters are against Nazis instead of being Nazis themselves, if you can even extrapolate that from a single person holding what looks like a piece of typing paper. The claim is ridiculous; she just made it up. Sort of like when she claimed that she was never told about the aggressive interrogation techniques.

Left-wing TV networks MSNBC, NBC and CNN made a deliberate effort to associate an image of Barack Obama with a Hitler mustache that was created by the Lyndon LaRouche organization with the Obamacare protesters, virtually none of whom have ever heard of LaRouche. For the record, LaRouche is a nut, a Communist or former Communist, a member of the Democratic Party, and a candidate for President who did rather well in Democratic Party primaries as recently as 2000. Of course the liberal media left all of these important facts out in an effort to villify the protestors.

Finally Presidential spokesman Bill Burton made the remarkable claim, on Fox News, that anti-socialized medicine protesters are "showing up at events dressed up as Hitler, with signs evoking Nazi Germany..." This of course is an outragoeus lie. You noticed both Burton and Madam Botox used the plural form when they made their comments as well.

These are the people who, to borrow another one from Madam Botox, are Un-American. We are seeing the craziness on the left, as manifested by people like Nancy Pelosi and Bill Burton. Their hallucinatory attribution of swastikas and Hitler costumes to citizens who oppose them on socialized medicine is a continuation of their false attribution of swastikas and Hitler analogies to President Bush and others in his administration from around 2003 until 2008. Basically, they are so ill-informed, so hateful and so intellectually lazy that the first idea that comes to mind whenever they are faced with political opposition is to try to associate those who disagree with them with Nazi Germany. That's always been crazy, but perhaps its craziness is becoming more patent when the targets are senior citizens who attend townhall meetings on health care.

We are actually seeing the rise of facism in the way this administration does everything. They actually bussed in people to Obam's meeting in New Hampshire in an attempt to silence the dissent. http://www.wmur.com/video/20358253/index.html Pay attention as you watch the actual story, there is first an ad for New Hampshire, because there are two places where the reporter states that Barry's supporters were bussed in, once early in the day and then for the actual meeting they bussed in a bunch of people so that he would have his supporters fill the hall. Everyone already knows about the set up question from the 11 year old as reported in the liberal Boston Globe.

You really can't make this stuff up. The Democrats mutter darkly about opposition to their power grab being orchestrated by some sinister forces, when in fact it's just citizens showing up. But it's easy to see why, when they see large numbers of people opposing their plans, they think it must be Astroturf: when that many people show up on their side, they are bussed in.

Some more great news

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/pennsylvania/election_2010_pennsylvania_senate_election

Serves the traitor and lying piece of garbage right. That is a 23 point swing since June. I don't think he is capable of lying his way out of this hole. It is about time they throw this old bum out of the Senate.

I do not endorse this

However it did make me laugh.

This being an adult blog, I think we can handle offensive humor.

And...I did keep thinking about if the tables were turned, it would not make a ripple.

http://la-gun.com/email/manning/

Rich asks what I think.

Rich requests that I post my thoughts, not articles. Being that this blog remains in the slim remnant of society not yet nationalized, I could say bug off, but he is nice, so...

I think of Freedom, free markets, self responsibility, law and order and a strong national defense.

I think this country elected, without thought, a ultra-liberal and are now getting buyers remorse. His election (as was Clinton's) was the by product of special circumstances (a flawed Conservative candidate and anger some deserved and some invented by the media at the previous administration). He is governing from the left and being tugged leftward.

But now his oratory is meeting reality and this right center nation is understanding the consequences of the candidates pablum.

Left vs. Right comes down to government control vs. freedom. "Health care for everyone-it is a right", may sound nice, the reality of rationing and big brother involved in your health decisions and therefore potentially every aspect of everyones life, has awakened the country against those who value our freedom so lightly. And Rich, you just don't get this and never will.

As I previously posted, he could have started by including tort reform but chose to serve his special interests, just as he has done with the Auto bailout and the "stimulus", which ultimately, I think, will define his presidency, "Special interests before country".

It is too bad because he had a chance, he could have, like your St. Clinton did a little, been post partisan and post racial but he chose instead to describe police as stupid and nominate a justice primarily on the basis of her race. He could have cut taxes, which even he knows would have helped the economy recover.

Lastly, I think it is a joke, with our government awash in a sea of red ink for the fools on the left to state that the "bond ghouls" will save us. The liberal democratic party is for a never ending expansion of government which will inevitably take a larger share of economic production (a prime example is health care) and to somehow criticise Conservatives who want to limit government and spending and taxes, while placing our future in the hands of "bond ghouls" is well...a joke.

I could go on and probably, at some point will, but the current dose of morning coffee is waining and the beach calls.

WSJ

Elderly Americans are turning out in droves to fight ObamaCare, and President Obama is arguing back that they have nothing to worry about. While claims about euthanasia and "death panels" are over the top, senior fears have exposed a fundamental truth about what Mr. Obama is proposing: Namely, once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, rationing care is inevitable, and those who have lived the longest will find their care the most restricted.

Far from being a scare tactic, this is a logical conclusion based on experience and common-sense. Once health care is a "free good" that government pays for, demand will soar and government costs will soar too. When the public finally reaches its taxing limit, something will have to give on the care and spending side. In a word, care will be rationed by politics.

Yes, the U.S. "rations" by ability to pay (though in the end no one is denied actual care). This is true of every good or service in a free economy and a world of finite resources but infinite wants. Yet no one would say we "ration" houses or gasoline because those goods are allocated by prices. The problem is that governments ration through brute force—either explicitly restricting the use of medicine or lowering payments below market rates. Both methods lead to waiting lines, lower quality, or less innovation—and usually all three.

The political and fiscal pressure to further ration Medicare would increase exponentially if government is paying for most everyone's care. The better way to slow the growth of Medicare is to give seniors more control over their own health care and the incentives to spend wisely, by offering competitive insurance plans. But this would mean less control for government, not more.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Just for you Terry more health care debate

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/support_for_congressional_health_care_reform_falls_to_new_low

Most notable, however, is the opposition among voters not affiliated with either party. Sixty-two percent (62%) of unaffiliated voters oppose the health care plan, and 51% are strongly opposed. This marks an uptick in strong opposition among both Republicans and unaffiliateds, while the number of strongly supportive Democrats is unchanged.

Hey Rich how about this for building our base? The Republican Party can just sit back and watch Barry single handedly destroy the Democratic Party.

Waxman-Markey the ultimate in left wing lunacy

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/cda0904.cfm

Let us all pray that the left wing lunatics never pass this unilateral cap and trade bill that will do absolutely nothing to curb greenhouse gases world wide given the fact that India and China will not do anything that can dampen economic progress.

Just some lowlights from the artcle:

Heritage finds that Waxman Markey would, by 2035:
* Increase gas prices 58% above the increases included in the baseline forecast.
* Increase electricity prices by 90%.
* Raise energy costs for an average family of four by $1,241 per year.
* Cause the average family of four to pay $4,609 more per year, including increased taxes.
* Reduce GDP by an aggregate amount of $9.4 trillion.
* Increase the national debt by an additional $12,803 per person.

Given how woefully bad the underestimates have been by this administration as to the negative economic impact of anything they have been in favor of we must conclude that these estimates are far closer to the truth than what the Democrats are telling us.

Out of all of the terrible bills that the majority party have introduced this year this one must be the absolute worst.

Watch those poll numbers keep on plummeting for the Democrats.

The Architect-Karl Rove in the WSJ

The administration could strain its credibility further when it updates the government's fiscal projections in the soon-to-be-released report called the "Mid-Session Review." It's likely that the president will blame his predecessor for a larger than previously projected deficit.

It's true that the deficit was $455 billion when Mr. Obama took office, with $325.3 billion of that from the bank rescue bill Sen. Obama supported.

But since Jan. 20, Mr. Obama has only added to the red ink. He has signed into law a $787 billion stimulus package and a $33 billion expansion of the State Child Health Insurance Program. He's greenlighted spending another $330.4 billion in bank rescue money. And he signed a $410 billion bill to fund discretionary spending for the second half of the current fiscal year, an increase of 8% on an annual basis. By supporting each spending initiative, he robbed himself of the ability to credibly blame others for the size of the deficit.

More health care crap

From Palin no less... she has a point.

Terry is tired about talking about health care because his "President" the great "O" is getting his brains beat out.

This episode mostly teaches that we remain a right center nation and his election was in part a euphoria of "hope and change" but now that he actually enacting his agenda there is serious buyers remorse forming.

All Conservatives need to do is slow things down and let these schemes see the light of day and viola, they come to a screeching halt.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Michael Vick VS Dante Stallworth

Michael Vick was sentenced to 30 months ( 2 1/2 years ) for bankrolling a dog fighting business. Has never been seen at a dog fight nor killed any dogs according to testimony.
Dante Stallworth killed a guy, and was sentenced to 30 DAYS in Jail and released after 23 Days.

And we are worried about who gets on the the Supreme Court!! PLUS

I need a break from all this health care crap, because there isn't even a bill yet to argue about. So all this talk is about nothing, until you have the actual bill and can read it all the rest is just posturing by both sides.

Monday, August 10, 2009

He who pays the piper Vol I

If voters back such steps for their own health, of course, that's one thing. But to claim they're essential to save taxpayers bucks gets the logic backward -- because, again, without nationalized health care, there'd be no nationalized costs. Folks would make their own choices -- and just pay the consequences.
Actually, sin-taxers understand this. By slapping levies on soda and cigs, they're implicitly telling folks: You can consume these products and possibly drive up health-care costs, as long as you're willing to pay the tax.
But why only soda and cigs? What about ice cream, Chinese food, salted pretzels -- laziness? Why not tax TV and Web time? (Not to give anyone ideas.)
Economist Gerald Prante goes further, asking: Rather than taxing fattening foods, why not tax obesity itself? Taxpayers could declare their height and weight on their 1040s, and pay an "obesity tax" based on the resulting Body Mass Index.
And no reason to stop there. If the goal is to make each of us pay the health costs linked to our own indulgences, there's a more efficient way to do it: Simply make everyone pay his own medical bills -- and scrap nationalized health care altogether.

Who is going to pay for this? Post Racial we be.

By SAM ROBERTS
Published: August 10, 2009
Westchester County officials have entered into a landmark desegregation agreement that would compel the county to create affordable housing in overwhelmingly white communities and aggressively market it to non-whites in the county and in neighboring New York City.

The agreement, to be formally filed Monday in Federal District Court in Manhattan, would end three years of litigation by the Anti-Discrimination Center over Westchester’s responsibility to enforce fair-housing goals.

“Residential segregation underlies virtually every racial disparity in America, from education to jobs to the delivery of health care,” said Craig Gurian, executive director of the Anti-Discrimination Center, which filed the suit under the federal False Claims Act.
The agreement calls for the county to spend more than $50 million to build or acquire 750 homes or apartments, 630 of which must be provided in towns and villages where blacks constitute 3 percent or less of the population and Hispanic residents make up less than 7 percent. The county has seven years to complete the construction or acquisition of the affordable housing units.

Jim vs. Rich(ie)

Saturday, August 8, 2009

Honest, the best article ever! Rich(ie) won't read it, just comment.

Obamas Dog

Well think about this one...Obama took more time deciding on what kind of dog he wanted for his family then he did no wanting to rush through his health care program before the summer break...think he's got his priorities a little out of WAC

Friday, August 7, 2009

More good news for Rich and Terry

http://rasmussenreports.getmobile.com/site?t=Nqvaxf7SOZMsGxWMKKFy.A&sid=rassenreports-feblzqlu

Rich I thought you said the Republican party was dead. Oops it looks like you spoke too soon. Pelosi and Obama are starting to take the party down the drain with them.

Voters not affiliated with either party prefer Republicans two-to-one - 43% to 22%. How about that for increasing the base.

http://rasmussenreports.getmobile.com/site?t=E4SoYdvlfm1bDLooyF7pgg&sid=rassenreports-feblzqlu

By a 54% to 34% margin, voters say that middle class tax cuts are more important than new spending on health care reform. Seventy-one percent (71%) of voters also believe Obama's policies have increased the federal deficit. My obvious question is what form of hallucinogenics are the 29% taking? I am sure that most of them believed that OJ was innocent to.

So cash for clunkers is the Barry admins idea according to Rich

I pointed out that cash for clunkers was just a variation of what we have already been doing through the tax code. You get tax credits for purchasing energy efficient cars. You also get a charitable contribution if you donate your clunker to charity. The only difference is in cash for clunkers you have to use the money to buy a car now and your old car is destroyed instead of going to a charity.

However the current form is certainly not something that the Democratic party in this country dreamed up. From Barry's own mouth before the plan passed: “Such fleet modernization programs, which provide a generous credit to consumers who turn in old, less fuel-efficient cars and purchase cleaner cars, have been successful in boosting auto sales in a number of European countries.”

Our current plan is mostly modeled after the one that has been in place for a while in Germany. Proponents of the cash-for-clunkers program stated when it was first proposed as a federal plan that Germany’s plan, which offers rebates slightly smaller than in the proposed U.S. version, shows how the government can accelerate the modernization of the auto fleet—and make it cleaner at the same time.

The plan has also been in use in some states, such as California, which have run limited versions of a cash-for-clunkers program for years.

Like I said earlier it is such a shame when someone takes credit for another's idea.

A bigger shame is what will happen to the auto industry when the cash runs out. Maybe they should have dome this before the government pumped all those billions into GM and Chrysler. You think that if sales would have increased dramatically that the government would have had to take control of GM? Of course that would have defeated the goal of Barry's of having the government run US business as well.

The Russians are not coming, they are here!

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=334363262212097
Two Russian nuclear attack submarines have taken up positions along our East Coast in recent days, another sign of renewed assertiveness by the former communist giant. The move comes as Moscow inks a deal with the communist relic of Cuba to drill for oil we refuse to go after. ...
Drilling will be done off America's coast soon enough. But thanks to a treaty signed by President Carter, the new oil and gas resources that will be discovered in the region will be discovered by Russia and Cuba to their economic benefit.
Normally, economic zones extend 200 miles off a country's coastline. In some cases, conflicts can arise based on resources and geography. In 1977, Carter signed a treaty with Cuba that essentially split the difference and created for the communist country an "exclusive economic zone" extending from the western tip of Cuba north virtually to Key West. Cuba has divided its side of the Florida Straits into 59 parcels and put them up for lease.
Foreign countries, including China and India, have acquired the rights to develop 16 of them.
"This is the irony of ironies," complained Charles Drevna, executive vice president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association. "We have chosen to lock up our resources and stand by to be spectators while these two come in and benefit from things right in our own backyard." ...
It is certain that at least some of Cuba's wells will tap oil pools that straddle the boundary separating our zone from Cuba's. In other words, Havana will get oil that should be ours. ... If Russia, Cuba and others can drill off the coast of Florida, why can't we?

Wouldn't you know the only other President comparable to Barry would have his hands in this pot. I wonder why Barry didn't send him to North Korea instead of Slick Willie.

A little more important than Obamacare being rammed down our throats don't you think?

Our unilateral uncompetitive energy policy under Barry

As our chief global competitors continue to expand their access to job-creating, economy-strengthening energy resources, the U.S. Senate Environment Committee held another hearing today focused on subsidizing inefficient, intermittent, and expensive energy sources, while discouraging access to affordable and reliable ones.
Following the hearing, Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, issued this statement:
"Another week, and another missed opportunity by Congress to address our nation's growing energy crisis. Russia is brokering a deal with communist Cuba to drill just miles from the Florida Keys. The Chinese are voicing interest in partnering with Canada to expand energy production. And Brazil is moving at breakneck speed to develop their oil and gas reserves offshore. But in Washington, our leaders sit idly by, debating misguided policies that will increase the cost of energy, cripple our economy, and make us less competitive.
"Energy rationing and taxpayer-subsidized 'green jobs' have been experimented with on the local, state, and national level. And universally, they have delivered higher energy costs, and less economic growth. Spain's experience has led to an unemployment rate approaching 20 percent in its country. Denmark, often touted as the world leader in wind energy, gives away electricity at a loss. And in the Lone Star state, Austin residents pay almost three times more for their 'green' energy. As our chief global competitors continue to expand their access to job-creating, economy-strengthening energy resources, the U.S. Senate Environment Committee held another hearing today focused on subsidizing inefficient, intermittent, and expensive energy sources, while discouraging access to affordable and reliable ones.
"Our national energy strategy is upside down. Instead of advancing meaningful, supply-oriented policies that keep energy affordable for all Americans - like the ones China, Russia and Cuba are advancing - our leaders are hard at work restricting access to our vast domestic supplies, taxing our affordable carbon based energy sources, and showering the "green" energy brokers on Wall Street with subsidies (tax dollars) and mandates. Increased domestic energy production creates good-paying jobs here at home. Washington must focus on creating these good jobs, not exporting them offshore."
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/
Well stated!

Here comes real facism courtesy of Barry's administration

Well Rich and Terry you must be very proud of your boys who are now employing Brown Shirts like Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin in order to intimidate and beat up anti Obamacare protestors.

I can't ever remember any Republican administration that actually used one of their special interest groups to go out and intimidate and rough up those who disagree with one of their proposals. The modern Democratic party has shown their true colors by first encouraging Americans to rat out others like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Now they are employing union goons to intimidate and actually beat up people who disagree with Obamacare.

Here is a quote from what the administration is telling Democratic Congressmen. “If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard,” Messina said, according to an official who attended the meeting. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25891.html

During the campaign, Barry used Jim Malone's lecture to Elliot Ness in the movie "The Untouchables": "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," Barry said at a fundraiser in Philadelphia. Now we have the friends of Barry, union thugs, appear at townhall meetings in both St. Louis and Tampa, FL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTXBOgPCh9w

Note the SEIU shirts.

A lot of American people are right to be angry that the Democrats are scheming to destroy the world's best health care system and replace it with the sort of government medicine that has been a miserable failure everywhere it has been tried.
What's more, the Democrats tried to jam this revolutionary measure down the voters' throats before Americans knew what hit them. If the Democrats had been able to follow their intended timetable, the bill would already be law, passed by both the House and the Senate and signed by President Barry. Only growing public concern stalled the measure's progress and created this opportunity for opposition to government medicine to be mobilized. So the protesters' sense of urgency is appropriate. What is not appropriate is the Democrats response to the protests. Can you imagine how the left wing media would have portrayed right wing zealots attacking Iraq War protestors chanting "Bush Lied, People Died".

Here is another example of Democrats forcefully pushing protestors out of another townhall meeting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5IInBP9D_s#movie_player
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqjTJkphPao&feature=related
This woman asked why people were not allowed in. Carol was allowed to ask a question, but the congresswoman had already snuck out the back door without being asked any questions. The brain dead woman who trys to answer the question is obviously lying. Pay attention to the time mentioned in the question and the time that the woman answering state. Carol states 3:30 and the Black woman states 6. Judging by the respons of those still in the meeting she is blowing smoke.

Reminds me of the Vietnam era. Except now it is the greatest generation who fought in WWII and Korea doing the protesting.

One more for the road from a british politician. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI6uyhRcZLY&feature=PlayList&p=E226133019A9CA8C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=15

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Our great White House Press Secretary at work

In his press briefing today, Robert Gibbs fielded some questions about the administration's effort to slander the plurality of Americans who don't like the Democrats' health care plan. Here, Jake Tapper asks Gibbs about his claim that the video that shows Barack Obama advocating "single payer" medicine is "misinformation":
QUESTION: Is it misinformation that in 2003 President Obama, then a state senator, supported a single-payer health care system?
GIBBS: I think, again, if you look at the statements that have been put up on other Internet sites that splice a bunch of stuff together, and I think if you look at the answers that state senator, U.S. senator, and President Barack Obama has given on that, I think -- we hope to provide people with a full and accurate picture, not something that -- only the words that opponents might want to see.

Sounds like Rich answering a straight forward question.

It's telling, though, that Gibbs viciously slanders those who oppose Obama's policies, and then can't string a coherent sentence together when asked to back up his claims.

Later in the press briefing, Gibbs was asked about the administration's "fishy" email program. Once again, no answers were forthcoming:
QUESTION: Do you know how many e-mails have been sent to the flag@whitehouse.gov address?
And, secondly, isn't the White House required by law to save all correspondence it receives? So will it be informing individuals whose e-mails have been forwarded that they might want to have a chance to correct the historical record about the alleged fishiness of their e- mails?

GIBBS: I, for the life of me, didn't understand your question.(CROSSTALK)GIBBS: Obviously, the National Archives documents correspondence with the White House.
QUESTION: So the people whose e-mails have been forwarded, they won't be informed that their e-mails are being forwarded to the government?
GIBBS: I -- maybe I'm missing something. I'm sure you're hatching some nefarious plot, but I, for the life of me, can't understand it.

How did this idiot get this job? He must have pictures of Barry.

This administration is now sinking into the muck that the Communists and Facists used asking citizens to rat out others who send e-mails that they believe are "fishy" towards Obamacare.

The Emperors clothes are plainly starting to come into view for all to see. Watch the Independent voters bemoan the fact that they were gullible enough to believe that "Change" would be for their good and not just for Democratic radical left wing special interest groups.

An e-mail from the Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee

The email was titled "5 facts about the anti-reform mobs."

1. These disruptions are being funded and organized by out-of-district special-interest groups and insurance companies who fear that health insurance reform could help Americans, but hurt their bottom line. A group run by the same folks who made the "Swiftboat" ads against John Kerry is compiling a list of congressional events in August to disrupt. An insurance company coalition has stationed employees in 30 states to track where local lawmakers hold town-hall meetings.
2. People are scared because they are being fed frightening lies. These crowds are being riled up by anti-reform lies being spread by industry front groups that invent smears to tarnish the President's plan and scare voters. But as the President has repeatedly said, health insurance reform will create more health care choices for the American people, not reduce them. If you like your insurance or your doctor, you can keep them, and there is no "government takeover" in any part of any plan supported by the President or Congress.
3. Their actions are getting more extreme. Texas protesters brought signs displaying a tombstone for Rep. Lloyd Doggett and using the "SS" symbol to compare President Obama's policies to Nazism. Maryland Rep. Frank Kratovil was hanged in effigy outside his district office. Rep. Tim Bishop of New York had to be escorted to his car by police after an angry few disrupted his town hall meeting -- and more examples like this come in every day. And they have gone beyond just trying to derail the President's health insurance reform plans, they are trying to "break" the President himself and ruin his Presidency.
4. Their goal is to disrupt and shut down legitimate conversation. Protesters have routinely shouted down representatives trying to engage in constructive dialogue with voters, and done everything they can to intimidate and silence regular people who just want more information. One attack group has even published a manual instructing protesters to "stand up and shout" and try to "rattle" lawmakers to prevent them from talking peacefully with their constituents.
5. Republican leadership is irresponsibly cheering on the thuggish crowds. Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner issued a statement applauding and promoting a video of the disruptions and looking forward to "a long, hot August for Democrats in Congress."

The first line in number 1 is defintely not a fact. So the e-mail starts out with a big lie.

It appears that most Amercians do not believe that Obama and the Democrats are trying create more health care choices for the American people, not reduce them. There is no question that Obama and many other liberal Democrats have stated that they want "a single payer system". All the lies being spread by the Democratic machine that Barry never said that or he was taken out of context are out right lies.

The Democrats need to learn that once and for all that repeating a lie over and over won't always snow a majority of voters. It has worked for them in the past but this time it will fail because too many Americans now know the true facts not the lies bandied about by an administration that tried to railroad this pig down our throat before the August recess. Why the rush if the plan is so good for the country? Do Democrats believe that most Americans are not smart enough to actually be told the truth?

If the Democratic party pushes this one down America's throat like they are starting to threaten I can guarantee you that the mid term elections of 2010 are going to be very bloody for anyone who votes for this and is in an at risk district.

More evidence of the left wing bias in the media

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5746RP20090806?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Was this story on the front page of your newspaper this morning? Tell me how far you have to read down before you see what party he belonged to.

The remarkable thing is that the Democratic Party re-nominated him as its standard-bearer after he was caught by FBI agents with $90,000 in cash in his freezer.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33032

An excellent article which points out the utter lunacy of the base of the Democratic party. Enjoy because it does put a lot of things into the proper context.

They can dish it out but they can't take it

No Harry Reid is out there denouncing the people who are coming out to town hall meetings and vigorously debating and being critical of Obamacare. He is calling it undemocratic.

First of all if you have watched any of these a large number of the people are older. These are people who have probably never been politically active in their lives. All these accusations from this administration through the worst press secretary ever, to all of the complaining Democratic operatives are so full of lies and misinformation that it is sickening.

Where were all of these people when far more radical left wing operatives sponsored by left wing special interest groups like for instance Cindy Sheehan and others like her were aggressively protesting US policy in Iraq? The constant anti Bush protests and the like were encouraged by the Democratic party.

Now you have a real grass roots movement of concerned citizens who believe that their health care, which they highly value, will be taken from them and their trusted medical professionals and turned over to a central planning committee like any socialist system. We are talking about peoples health and well being now. No wonder they are so fired up. Why don't you liberal idiots get it? Demonizing these good people and the insurance companies that are barely turning a profit is so ridiculous.

If there is anybody being undemocratic in this process it is the liberal wing of the Democratic party who believe they should control every facet of our lives. Where do these elitists get off thinking they are so superior to everyone else that they should be controlling health care decisions for us? Trying to silence these good people with scare tactics like the White House gathering private information about everyone who is protesting to out right intimidation tactics and lying through their useful idiots in the media is shameful.

I hope Rich and Terry are proud of the gutter that their party is wallowing in right now.

Here it is, in all its glory

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/


There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov

Give me a Break

Hey all you left wing loonies...can you guys really agree with Boxter and others that the outrage at these town hall meetings are arranged by the GOP and people are paid to show up...and the Boxters of the world are the ones you support...YIKES you people are dangerous if you agree with them rather than thinking there is a serious problem going on with what this Admn wants to push through.

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Cash 4 Clunkers Update

From the front page of today's WSJ:

Headline: Economists Upgrade Second-Half GDP Forecasts

"Economists are predicting a brighter second half of the year as the cash-for-clunkers program boosts spending and U.S. manufacturers ramp up their production." It went on to quote Mark Zandi, prominent (GOP) economist, "When you combine leaner inventories with more sales, that's the fundamental reason for being more optimistic about at least the second half of this year," said Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Economy.com. The firm revised its third-quarter forecast to 1.6% from 1.1%, and its fourth-quarter outlook to 2.1% from 0.2%."

I agree - it is always petty when someone takes credit for another's idea. Remind me, Mark, is C4C a Bush program or an Obama program?

"O" in his own words

http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan-will-eliminate-private-insurance/



“You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." Adrian Rogers, 1931

God Bless Bill Clinton!

Monday, August 3, 2009

Still Waiting...

Still waiting for Jim to explain why "He who pays the Piper Names the Tune" is an immoral concept. Meanwhile, Jim, next time you go to dinner, let the waiter select the tables entree's and wine. You just need to pay the tab. Any other approach would be immoral, no?