Honestly so stupid as to almost not require comment....nah.
Baxter said...
Healthcare is already rationed, and has been, by cost and ability to pay. It will always be rationed in some manner or form.
Really? No kidding, things are rationed based on ability to pay? Wow.
If not, then where is my free Cadillac?
Monday, January 24, 2011
Rick Perry Texas Governor on Stimulus Money
Texas filled nearly 97 percent of its shortfall last year with Federal stimulus dollars, even as its governor has been sharply critical of "bailout" policies, citing the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In the wake of the recession, Texas is one of many states that, contending with diminished revenue, have benefited from Federal support.
After facing a $6.6 billion budget hole, Texas used $6.4 billion of Federal money to help patch it, allowing the state to keep its $9.1 billion emergency fund intact.
But on the same day he asked for the bailout money, governor Rick Perry started a petition called "No Government Bailouts." Indeed, Perry is a consistent critic of government spending, frequently pointing to his own state as proof that budget austerity -- spending cuts coupled with low taxes -- works.
But now, with the stimulus money running out, and with the economy still sluggish, Texas is projected to run a nearly $27 billion deficit over the next two years.
Repeat the lie, repeat the lie, till everyone believes it.
In the wake of the recession, Texas is one of many states that, contending with diminished revenue, have benefited from Federal support.
After facing a $6.6 billion budget hole, Texas used $6.4 billion of Federal money to help patch it, allowing the state to keep its $9.1 billion emergency fund intact.
But on the same day he asked for the bailout money, governor Rick Perry started a petition called "No Government Bailouts." Indeed, Perry is a consistent critic of government spending, frequently pointing to his own state as proof that budget austerity -- spending cuts coupled with low taxes -- works.
But now, with the stimulus money running out, and with the economy still sluggish, Texas is projected to run a nearly $27 billion deficit over the next two years.
Repeat the lie, repeat the lie, till everyone believes it.
Crisis No More
The Success of Obama's Stimulus Program
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/articles/2010/0817_stimulus_success_burtless/0817_stimulus_success_burtless.pdf
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/articles/2010/0817_stimulus_success_burtless/0817_stimulus_success_burtless.pdf
About Those Death Panels . . .
The very real threat of government health care rationing.
When Sarah Palin warned that Obamacare could lead to medical rationing and “death panels,” supporters were outraged. Alarmism! they roared. A lie! Right-wing propaganda! Alas for supporters of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Palin’s provocative sound bite was at least partly grounded in reality—which is why the term entered the political lexicon.
Now, however, some are seeking to wield the term against conservatives. Case in point: The Arizona legislature recently cut its Medicaid budget because the state is in dire financial straits—a move approved by the Obama administration. When the cuts led to canceling Medicaid coverage for organ transplant surgeries, and a potential organ recipient died, death panel claims suddenly became all the fashion. For example, CBS’s HealthWatch opined:
There is a certain irony here. During last year’s federal battle over President Obama’s health care legislation, some Republicans claimed his program promoted “death panels” which they seemed to suggest would involve government bureaucrats deciding who lives and who dies. The health care bill did include language which paid doctors to offer end-of-life counseling. That was eventually removed. Facing a tough budget situation, however, Arizona has instituted what critics say is much closer to these so-called “death panels” than anything that ever appeared in the federal government’s health care legislation.
When Sarah Palin warned that Obamacare could lead to medical rationing and “death panels,” supporters were outraged. Alarmism! they roared. A lie! Right-wing propaganda! Alas for supporters of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Palin’s provocative sound bite was at least partly grounded in reality—which is why the term entered the political lexicon.
Now, however, some are seeking to wield the term against conservatives. Case in point: The Arizona legislature recently cut its Medicaid budget because the state is in dire financial straits—a move approved by the Obama administration. When the cuts led to canceling Medicaid coverage for organ transplant surgeries, and a potential organ recipient died, death panel claims suddenly became all the fashion. For example, CBS’s HealthWatch opined:
There is a certain irony here. During last year’s federal battle over President Obama’s health care legislation, some Republicans claimed his program promoted “death panels” which they seemed to suggest would involve government bureaucrats deciding who lives and who dies. The health care bill did include language which paid doctors to offer end-of-life counseling. That was eventually removed. Facing a tough budget situation, however, Arizona has instituted what critics say is much closer to these so-called “death panels” than anything that ever appeared in the federal government’s health care legislation.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Ahem. Specific Spending Cuts?
It has been nearly three months since the election that brought control back to the GOP in the House of Representatives. Out of power, the Republicans spent much of the past two years loudly advocating massive spending cuts and a balanced budget. Once back in power, their first act was to "jam a bill down throats of America" and repeal the Healthcare Act, thus raising the deficit $280B+. They did this despite the fact that three out of four Americans oppose full repeal of "Obamacare". Finally, they have yet to specify any specific spending cuts. What are they waiting for?
Geez, you are thinking, this seems awfully screwed up. Well, that is because it is. But why would you be surprised? These are the same people that cut taxes twice as we headed into two wars and engaged in a general "War on Terror". These are the folks that massively added to Medicare entitlement costs (Prescription Drug Plan) without providing a penny in revenue to pay for it. Our current national debt is a direct product of Republican policies over the past thirty years. And now they have the temerity to decry deficits and debt!?
Don't listen to what they say. Watch what they do. Then vote Democratic.
Geez, you are thinking, this seems awfully screwed up. Well, that is because it is. But why would you be surprised? These are the same people that cut taxes twice as we headed into two wars and engaged in a general "War on Terror". These are the folks that massively added to Medicare entitlement costs (Prescription Drug Plan) without providing a penny in revenue to pay for it. Our current national debt is a direct product of Republican policies over the past thirty years. And now they have the temerity to decry deficits and debt!?
Don't listen to what they say. Watch what they do. Then vote Democratic.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Pat Toomey is a Deficit Fraud (Much Like His Party)
By Pat Garofalo
Deficit Fraud Toomey Says Spending Cuts Are His Priority While Embracing Budget-Busting Policies
When he’s not reminiscing about having successfully deregulated credit default swaps, Pennsylvania’s Republican senate nominee Pat Toomey likes to scaremonger about government spending. In fact, he told the Harrisburg Patriot-News’ editorial board that one of his “top three priorities” is cutting government spending.
“I hear a lot of people who are fearful about the future of our country,” Toomey said. “They are very worried about the size of the deficit and worried their kids are ultimately not going to be able to attain the standard of living they’ve enjoyed because of the debt we are imposing on them.”
But if Toomey wants to decrease the deficit, he sure has a funny way of showing it. The Patriot News reported that Toomey’s legislative goals are “repeal the Obama administration’s health care reform law, impose no huge tax increases, oppose cap-and-trade energy legislation and make permanent the Bush-era tax cuts and extend them to top American earners.” None of these steps do anything to reduce the deficit, and two of them make it considerably worse:
– Repeal the Affordable Care Act: According to the Congressional Budget Office, repealing health care reform would add $143 billion to the deficit.
– Permanently extend the Bush tax cuts: The entire tax cut package costs more than $3 trillion. Extending just the cuts for the wealthiest two percent of households — which President Obama wants to see expire — costs $830 billion.
– Oppose cap-and-trade: According to the CBO, Sen. John Kerry’s (D-MA) cap-and-trade plan would reduce the deficit by $19 billion over the next ten years and not increase the deficit at all for the next forty years.
If Toomey is against “huge tax increases,” is he endorsing little ones? In any case, no serious analyst believes that the budget can be balanced on the spending side alone (as doing so would require draconian cuts to highly popular and vital programs). As former Reagan economic official Bruce Bartlett wrote, “the idea that we can or even should embark on serious deficit reduction with no tax increase whatsoever is grossly immature and unworthy of consideration.”
So Toomey, after paying the necessary lip service to cutting spending, embraced a legislative agenda that would cause the deficit to explode, and explicitly ruled out raising any revenue to offset his humongous expenditures. He’s either clueless about the effect of his proposals or he’s simply a deficit peacock who is more interested in ginning up anxieties about the deficit than in actually taking the necessary steps to bring it down.
Deficit Fraud Toomey Says Spending Cuts Are His Priority While Embracing Budget-Busting Policies
When he’s not reminiscing about having successfully deregulated credit default swaps, Pennsylvania’s Republican senate nominee Pat Toomey likes to scaremonger about government spending. In fact, he told the Harrisburg Patriot-News’ editorial board that one of his “top three priorities” is cutting government spending.
“I hear a lot of people who are fearful about the future of our country,” Toomey said. “They are very worried about the size of the deficit and worried their kids are ultimately not going to be able to attain the standard of living they’ve enjoyed because of the debt we are imposing on them.”
But if Toomey wants to decrease the deficit, he sure has a funny way of showing it. The Patriot News reported that Toomey’s legislative goals are “repeal the Obama administration’s health care reform law, impose no huge tax increases, oppose cap-and-trade energy legislation and make permanent the Bush-era tax cuts and extend them to top American earners.” None of these steps do anything to reduce the deficit, and two of them make it considerably worse:
– Repeal the Affordable Care Act: According to the Congressional Budget Office, repealing health care reform would add $143 billion to the deficit.
– Permanently extend the Bush tax cuts: The entire tax cut package costs more than $3 trillion. Extending just the cuts for the wealthiest two percent of households — which President Obama wants to see expire — costs $830 billion.
– Oppose cap-and-trade: According to the CBO, Sen. John Kerry’s (D-MA) cap-and-trade plan would reduce the deficit by $19 billion over the next ten years and not increase the deficit at all for the next forty years.
If Toomey is against “huge tax increases,” is he endorsing little ones? In any case, no serious analyst believes that the budget can be balanced on the spending side alone (as doing so would require draconian cuts to highly popular and vital programs). As former Reagan economic official Bruce Bartlett wrote, “the idea that we can or even should embark on serious deficit reduction with no tax increase whatsoever is grossly immature and unworthy of consideration.”
So Toomey, after paying the necessary lip service to cutting spending, embraced a legislative agenda that would cause the deficit to explode, and explicitly ruled out raising any revenue to offset his humongous expenditures. He’s either clueless about the effect of his proposals or he’s simply a deficit peacock who is more interested in ginning up anxieties about the deficit than in actually taking the necessary steps to bring it down.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Americans Oppose Healthcare Repeal
The latest polling indicates that America does NOT want to repeal "Obamacare" by a three to one margin. Only 26% support full repeal while 43% favor reform that expands the scope of change to our healthcare system. This gives us a front row seat to see hypocrisy in action. The Republicans - when in the deep minority - complained that Democrats were passing healthcare reform against the will of the people. Now that they have the majority, they are rushing to repeal the bill in apparent contradiction of America's wishes. Worse - they would add $280B to the deficit according to the bipartisan CBO.
Not exactly an auspicious beginning...
Read the poll by cutting and pasting the below to your browser:
http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/pdf/AP-GfK%20Poll%20011411.pdf
Not exactly an auspicious beginning...
Read the poll by cutting and pasting the below to your browser:
http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/pdf/AP-GfK%20Poll%20011411.pdf
Just to be clear, she did not ask to be involved, she was drawn in.
She is not the President. She is a private, politically active citizen. She does speak with greater clarity than the President and with much greater courage. She has a job and I'm sure makes a very good living as a commentator.
What you little boys have against her is beyond me. And before you open your pie holes (figuratively), remember she was accused (even by our friend Eric) within hours of the event of being responsible for the heinous act.
PALIN: I read my name in the reports, and then I read Rush Limbaugh and then soon your name, Sean, and Mark Levin and soon Tea Party Patriots and soon the entire state of Arizona was being falsely accused of somehow being accessories to this horrendous, horrendous crime. That is why I was puzzled the first as to why -- before facts were even gathered, why -- it would be that the mainstream media would start accusing and using such a tragedy for what appeared to be, right off the bat, some political gain.
? "Well, what can you tell us about this map, crosshair map?"
PALIN: For many, many years maps in political races have been used to target certain districts that people would feel that they can get into those districts and find someone whom they believe would represent the constituents' will better than an incumbent. That's not original. In fact, Democrats have been using it for years. In fact, Bob Beckel I believe he had bragged on your show, Sean, that he was the one who invented these crosshairs or these targets. (Eric, this kind of puts your, let's call it "premature" cross hair post into context, the context being false outrage for the purpose of political gains resulting in a...Blood Libel!)
? Does this impact your political future?
PALIN: They're not going to shut me up. They're not gonna shut up Tea Party Patriots or those who, as I say, respectfully and patriotically petition their government for change. They can't make us sit down and shut up, and if they ever were to succeed in doing that then our republic will be destroyed.
? "Let me ask you about 'blood libel.' Some of your critics are saying that you didn't know the historical significance; others criticized you for the phrase. I want you to address the timing and that phrase. What is it?"
PALIN: "Blood libel" obviously means being falsely accused of having blood on your hands. In this case that's exactly what was going on and, yes, the historical knowledge that people have of the term blood libel, it goes back to the Jews who were falsely accused back in medieval European times of using the blood of children and you know, the criticism of even the timing of this statement is being used as another diversion.
RUSH: "You ever have moments of doubt, feeling that you would like the comfort of not having to deal with this all the time?"
PALIN: Other people are facing much greater hardships and making greater sacrifices than I am in just engaging in debate and I'm thankful for the opportunity that I have to speak for many, and I will continue to do so. I feel very blessed to be in the position that I am and I'll take the darts and the arrows because I know others have my back, and I have their back.
What you little boys have against her is beyond me. And before you open your pie holes (figuratively), remember she was accused (even by our friend Eric) within hours of the event of being responsible for the heinous act.
PALIN: I read my name in the reports, and then I read Rush Limbaugh and then soon your name, Sean, and Mark Levin and soon Tea Party Patriots and soon the entire state of Arizona was being falsely accused of somehow being accessories to this horrendous, horrendous crime. That is why I was puzzled the first as to why -- before facts were even gathered, why -- it would be that the mainstream media would start accusing and using such a tragedy for what appeared to be, right off the bat, some political gain.
? "Well, what can you tell us about this map, crosshair map?"
PALIN: For many, many years maps in political races have been used to target certain districts that people would feel that they can get into those districts and find someone whom they believe would represent the constituents' will better than an incumbent. That's not original. In fact, Democrats have been using it for years. In fact, Bob Beckel I believe he had bragged on your show, Sean, that he was the one who invented these crosshairs or these targets. (Eric, this kind of puts your, let's call it "premature" cross hair post into context, the context being false outrage for the purpose of political gains resulting in a...Blood Libel!)
? Does this impact your political future?
PALIN: They're not going to shut me up. They're not gonna shut up Tea Party Patriots or those who, as I say, respectfully and patriotically petition their government for change. They can't make us sit down and shut up, and if they ever were to succeed in doing that then our republic will be destroyed.
? "Let me ask you about 'blood libel.' Some of your critics are saying that you didn't know the historical significance; others criticized you for the phrase. I want you to address the timing and that phrase. What is it?"
PALIN: "Blood libel" obviously means being falsely accused of having blood on your hands. In this case that's exactly what was going on and, yes, the historical knowledge that people have of the term blood libel, it goes back to the Jews who were falsely accused back in medieval European times of using the blood of children and you know, the criticism of even the timing of this statement is being used as another diversion.
RUSH: "You ever have moments of doubt, feeling that you would like the comfort of not having to deal with this all the time?"
PALIN: Other people are facing much greater hardships and making greater sacrifices than I am in just engaging in debate and I'm thankful for the opportunity that I have to speak for many, and I will continue to do so. I feel very blessed to be in the position that I am and I'll take the darts and the arrows because I know others have my back, and I have their back.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)