By now i'm sure that you have heard about the stories surrounding Tiger Woods.
Now i'm not sure what all happened or what to think. But i will say, i think it is very likely that he is having an affair, and and that he needs to stop acting like a celebrity.
That's all I'm gonna say. One more time for the record, Culver's Conservative says: He is having an affair. How is it he crashed, yet the air bag didn't go off.
His wife heard the crash, and came running at him to help, with a golf club?
30 November 2009
Movie Review: New Moon
I went to see 'New Moon' this past weekend.
Here is my review:
Stars: 3 1/2
This was an epic and intensifying tale of love, romance, death, and suspense. It is box office best seller and has grossed millions so far. Now granted I am a guy so right there, i'm gonna have a slight ignorance to the film.
I saw the first Twilight, which i thought was very good, very well made. This one however, was good, but not exactly what i thought it would be. Now by no means does that mean it was bad. Quite the opposite.
I sat in the back row, which is where you want to be. The opening, i thought was rather confusing, and if you haven't seen the first one, you miss a lot. Whereas the Harry Potter Series, if you have missed other movies, it is still relatively easy to follow and pick up. This was not so easy. If you plan on seeing New Moon but have not seen Twilight, watch it before you go.
Now for girls, it was better due to the fact that well, there were more shirtless guys if this movie. For guys though, it isn't the easiest to sit through. Mostly it is very suspenseful and has several very good twists. Some parts i thought i had all figured out, and then something entirely different happened. Other parts you had no clue what was going to happen. My heart was racing as Bella raced to Rome in a very nice Prosche to see Edward.
This movie: New Moon was one of the best movies of the fall, and definitely worth the hype. It is a thriller, and a suspenseful work of art. Although it is hard to follow if you haven't seen twilight and some parts are unclear. It is clearly aimed more at the female gender however i did enjoy it. And it is also a little cheasy at time. But aside from that it a great drama and well worth the watch.
Here is my review:
Stars: 3 1/2
This was an epic and intensifying tale of love, romance, death, and suspense. It is box office best seller and has grossed millions so far. Now granted I am a guy so right there, i'm gonna have a slight ignorance to the film.
I saw the first Twilight, which i thought was very good, very well made. This one however, was good, but not exactly what i thought it would be. Now by no means does that mean it was bad. Quite the opposite.
I sat in the back row, which is where you want to be. The opening, i thought was rather confusing, and if you haven't seen the first one, you miss a lot. Whereas the Harry Potter Series, if you have missed other movies, it is still relatively easy to follow and pick up. This was not so easy. If you plan on seeing New Moon but have not seen Twilight, watch it before you go.
Now for girls, it was better due to the fact that well, there were more shirtless guys if this movie. For guys though, it isn't the easiest to sit through. Mostly it is very suspenseful and has several very good twists. Some parts i thought i had all figured out, and then something entirely different happened. Other parts you had no clue what was going to happen. My heart was racing as Bella raced to Rome in a very nice Prosche to see Edward.
This movie: New Moon was one of the best movies of the fall, and definitely worth the hype. It is a thriller, and a suspenseful work of art. Although it is hard to follow if you haven't seen twilight and some parts are unclear. It is clearly aimed more at the female gender however i did enjoy it. And it is also a little cheasy at time. But aside from that it a great drama and well worth the watch.
The Nanny State Return!
CNS News has reported yesterday, that the new house bill proposed by speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi, would indeed regulate insurance companies. Ok, i don't agree with a good 80% of the bill, but i guess it sounds logical. However, besides insurance companies, this bill would also begin a regulation, of, VENDING MACHINES!!!
The bill says that it will require vending machine crews to get create new machines that will tell people nutrition facts. Because on the bag isn't good enough. Especially when people know that their buying Hostess cup cakes, since that isn't already common knowledge that those, maybe aren't the best for you.
Section 2572 of the bill (H.R. 3962) says, “In the case of an article of food sold from a vending machine that – (I) does not permit a prospective purchaser to examine the Nutritional Facts Panel before purchasing the article or does not otherwise provide visible nutrition information at the point of purchase; and (II) is operated by a person who is engaged in the business of owning or operating 20 or more vending machines, “the vending machine operator shall provide a sign in close proximity to each article of food or the selection button that includes a clear and conspicuous statement disclosing the number of calories contained in the article.” (See page 1,515 of H.R. 3962 Section 2572 (H) (viii).
National Automatic Merchandising Association, vending lobby group released a report saying that the changes and new regulations on vending machines, would cost the vending machine industry, a 56.4 million dollar start up cost.
The bill says that it will require vending machine crews to get create new machines that will tell people nutrition facts. Because on the bag isn't good enough. Especially when people know that their buying Hostess cup cakes, since that isn't already common knowledge that those, maybe aren't the best for you.
Section 2572 of the bill (H.R. 3962) says, “In the case of an article of food sold from a vending machine that – (I) does not permit a prospective purchaser to examine the Nutritional Facts Panel before purchasing the article or does not otherwise provide visible nutrition information at the point of purchase; and (II) is operated by a person who is engaged in the business of owning or operating 20 or more vending machines, “the vending machine operator shall provide a sign in close proximity to each article of food or the selection button that includes a clear and conspicuous statement disclosing the number of calories contained in the article.” (See page 1,515 of H.R. 3962 Section 2572 (H) (viii).
National Automatic Merchandising Association, vending lobby group released a report saying that the changes and new regulations on vending machines, would cost the vending machine industry, a 56.4 million dollar start up cost.
On The Drive By, Radio Station
It’s one of my favorite songs (still which is amazing because most of the people who “loved” it at first don’t anymore), it’s a best seller, it has been on iTunes top 10 since it came out, it’s ‘Party in the USA’ by Miley Cyrus.
Now this was a great song, about American and a normal down to earth life which should be seen as one big ‘party.’ However while some fans really enjoyed the song and actually got into it, the record company thought it was a good chance to make some cash. So they called up their good friend, the radio station, and got them to play the hell out of it. Soon it was the biggest song of the month and everyone liked it. Yes it was a party on the air-waves and teens everywhere wanted it played.
That was until the radio stations took out their guns and drove by and shot up the song. Now, just a mere three months after its release people are already starting to drop it. And why? It’s a great song. For the same reason all modern music trackers go down in flames, it gets old. And because it is “old” and “overplayed” the “fans” don’t want it anymore, and then later the next single will come out, but until then, they will be forced to listen to what was once, their “favorite” song.
Who even remembers ‘Show Stopper’ anymore? Want to know why? Oh because it’s three years old and apparently because they haven’t come out with anything big since, and that’s too old and boring (after three years) no one likes it.
Now let me inform you, that the band ‘Judas Priest’ went on their last tour about two years ago. And the first time they went on tour was in the 80s. And, they were awesome. No they didn’t come out with anything new or fancy to sell a plastic disc, they were in it, for the music. Not for the profit and “fans”. Twisted Sister went on their last and final tour a few years ago. In an interview with Dee Snider he said;
“we’re not going on, with the intent of landing a new record, we play the old stuff, dress up like the old days and give em an old school show, ‘cause that’s what they want. All the fans they want to see it one more time, and all the news fans, they want see what it was like from what they heard it was like.”
That is the attitude we need. Making music for the fans and playing with passion, not coming out with a pointless single about America that’s going to end up standing before the record company’s ‘death panel’ and eventually get assassinated by the radio stations and dropped by the “fans.” It’s stupid, because the radio stations have already killed ‘Party in the USA.’ It’s dead. It didn’t take much. All it took was a few weeks of publicity, the right stations to play it and the right “fans” to get sucked in. And in the end, the stations and record companied made millions off that hit. If I play it in the hall way at school, I already know the reaction. “Wow max you still like that song.” “It’s getting old.” Really, after three months, then the fact that I still listen to Kiss’s ‘Rock n’ Roll All Night’ whooo don’t even go there.
Overplaying a song, is the worst thing for the song. If you want to make it last and meaningful then you don’t let the radios over play it. But for most, it’s too late. The radio stations everywhere killed Party in the USA.
I figured it would only be a matter of time, before people got bored of it. And that was the intent. To make a good song bad, all so they could make some money and move on to the next song to make money off of by overplaying it, and publicizing it.
This is the drive by radio station. I refer to it as that because like in this situation, it is like a drive by shooting. They roll up to the concert, or song or whatever, and do an all out assault on that album or song. Only their studio or station are the guns. Then they “kill” the song and no one listens to it anymore, (pocket some money in the process) and move on down the street to the next album. Taylor Swift is big because the record companies and radio stations knew they could make some money off her. Just wait and see in two years, if people like Taylor Swift as much.
Now this was a great song, about American and a normal down to earth life which should be seen as one big ‘party.’ However while some fans really enjoyed the song and actually got into it, the record company thought it was a good chance to make some cash. So they called up their good friend, the radio station, and got them to play the hell out of it. Soon it was the biggest song of the month and everyone liked it. Yes it was a party on the air-waves and teens everywhere wanted it played.
That was until the radio stations took out their guns and drove by and shot up the song. Now, just a mere three months after its release people are already starting to drop it. And why? It’s a great song. For the same reason all modern music trackers go down in flames, it gets old. And because it is “old” and “overplayed” the “fans” don’t want it anymore, and then later the next single will come out, but until then, they will be forced to listen to what was once, their “favorite” song.
Who even remembers ‘Show Stopper’ anymore? Want to know why? Oh because it’s three years old and apparently because they haven’t come out with anything big since, and that’s too old and boring (after three years) no one likes it.
Now let me inform you, that the band ‘Judas Priest’ went on their last tour about two years ago. And the first time they went on tour was in the 80s. And, they were awesome. No they didn’t come out with anything new or fancy to sell a plastic disc, they were in it, for the music. Not for the profit and “fans”. Twisted Sister went on their last and final tour a few years ago. In an interview with Dee Snider he said;
“we’re not going on, with the intent of landing a new record, we play the old stuff, dress up like the old days and give em an old school show, ‘cause that’s what they want. All the fans they want to see it one more time, and all the news fans, they want see what it was like from what they heard it was like.”
That is the attitude we need. Making music for the fans and playing with passion, not coming out with a pointless single about America that’s going to end up standing before the record company’s ‘death panel’ and eventually get assassinated by the radio stations and dropped by the “fans.” It’s stupid, because the radio stations have already killed ‘Party in the USA.’ It’s dead. It didn’t take much. All it took was a few weeks of publicity, the right stations to play it and the right “fans” to get sucked in. And in the end, the stations and record companied made millions off that hit. If I play it in the hall way at school, I already know the reaction. “Wow max you still like that song.” “It’s getting old.” Really, after three months, then the fact that I still listen to Kiss’s ‘Rock n’ Roll All Night’ whooo don’t even go there.
Overplaying a song, is the worst thing for the song. If you want to make it last and meaningful then you don’t let the radios over play it. But for most, it’s too late. The radio stations everywhere killed Party in the USA.
I figured it would only be a matter of time, before people got bored of it. And that was the intent. To make a good song bad, all so they could make some money and move on to the next song to make money off of by overplaying it, and publicizing it.
This is the drive by radio station. I refer to it as that because like in this situation, it is like a drive by shooting. They roll up to the concert, or song or whatever, and do an all out assault on that album or song. Only their studio or station are the guns. Then they “kill” the song and no one listens to it anymore, (pocket some money in the process) and move on down the street to the next album. Taylor Swift is big because the record companies and radio stations knew they could make some money off her. Just wait and see in two years, if people like Taylor Swift as much.
28 November 2009
The Poor Get Richer
The Census Bureau came out with the data on what households have what by percentage. The result/conclusion, the poor have gotten more over the ages. The numbers speak for them self. This claim that the poor are getting poorer, well...
% Households with: Poor 1984 Poor 1994 Poor 2003 Poor 2005 All 1971 All 2005
Washing machine 58.2 71.7 67.0 68.7 71.3 84.0
Clothes dryer 35.6 50.2 58.5 61.2 44.5 81.2
Dishwasher 13.6 19.6 33.9 36.7 18.8 64.0
Refrigerator 95.8 97.9 98.2 98.5 83.3 99.3
Freezer 29.2 28.6 25.4 25.1 32.2 36.6
Stove 95.2 97.7 97.1 97.0 87.0 98.8
Microwave 12.5 60.0 88.7 91.2 1.0 96.4
Color TV 70.3 92.5 96.8 97.4 43.3 98.9
VCR 3.4 59.7 75.4 83.6 0.0 92.2
Personal computer 2.9 7.4 36.0 42.4 0.0 67.1
Telephone 71.0 76.7 87.3 79.8 93.0 90.6
Air conditioner 42.5 49.6 77.7 78.8 31.8 85.7
One or more cars 64.1 71.8 72.8 (2001) 79.5
% Households with: Poor 1984 Poor 1994 Poor 2003 Poor 2005 All 1971 All 2005
Washing machine 58.2 71.7 67.0 68.7 71.3 84.0
Clothes dryer 35.6 50.2 58.5 61.2 44.5 81.2
Dishwasher 13.6 19.6 33.9 36.7 18.8 64.0
Refrigerator 95.8 97.9 98.2 98.5 83.3 99.3
Freezer 29.2 28.6 25.4 25.1 32.2 36.6
Stove 95.2 97.7 97.1 97.0 87.0 98.8
Microwave 12.5 60.0 88.7 91.2 1.0 96.4
Color TV 70.3 92.5 96.8 97.4 43.3 98.9
VCR 3.4 59.7 75.4 83.6 0.0 92.2
Personal computer 2.9 7.4 36.0 42.4 0.0 67.1
Telephone 71.0 76.7 87.3 79.8 93.0 90.6
Air conditioner 42.5 49.6 77.7 78.8 31.8 85.7
One or more cars 64.1 71.8 72.8 (2001) 79.5
26 November 2009
Taxing Victory
Politicians want very much to succeed in Afghanistan. They really hope we win. Or more so they hope they can create a situation in which they can raise taxes on us.
They are now tossing around the idea of a "war tax". Hmmm this, congressman Obey said, will be essential to win the war and to help the budget.
This tax would also go directly to those who make $200,000 a year and more. Translation: We need this tax so we can further tax the rich. We jump at any chance to do that.
Now remember back on the campaign when our lord and savior Barack Obama, promised he would not raise taxes on those making $250k or less?
Check ? another broken campaign promise, if this goes through.
They are now tossing around the idea of a "war tax". Hmmm this, congressman Obey said, will be essential to win the war and to help the budget.
This tax would also go directly to those who make $200,000 a year and more. Translation: We need this tax so we can further tax the rich. We jump at any chance to do that.
Now remember back on the campaign when our lord and savior Barack Obama, promised he would not raise taxes on those making $250k or less?
Check ? another broken campaign promise, if this goes through.
AARP Backing Away From Public Option
A report from the AARP advocacy group saying that the government run public option, was not a priority for them.
This big news, after all the statists bragged about having the AARP support for their government overhaul.
?It?s not a priority for us,? said David Certner, Legislative Policy Director of AARP, in an interview with Raw Story. ?We?re more concerned about prohibitions due to pre-existing conditions and cost spikes of up to 10 times for 60-64-year-old seniors.?
The group then went on to talk about the fact that their members are already on a government plan. It's called medicare. However it did not address the 500 B cuts to medicare.
So is the AARP slowly backing away from the public option?
This big news, after all the statists bragged about having the AARP support for their government overhaul.
?It?s not a priority for us,? said David Certner, Legislative Policy Director of AARP, in an interview with Raw Story. ?We?re more concerned about prohibitions due to pre-existing conditions and cost spikes of up to 10 times for 60-64-year-old seniors.?
The group then went on to talk about the fact that their members are already on a government plan. It's called medicare. However it did not address the 500 B cuts to medicare.
So is the AARP slowly backing away from the public option?
24 November 2009
Um, Tell Us Again Who Is a Propaganda Arm of a Political Party...
One of the most out spoken about the 'right wing bias' on Fox News is A-Mess NBC's Keith Olbermann, who always has a reason to trash Fox and call them out for being bias and a 'propaganda arm for the republican party.
But looking back throughout last months guests that he had on the show:
So...exactly who again, is the propaganda arm of a political party? Fox, every night on 'Hannity' during the Great American Panel there is always liberal. Last month including guests like Bob Beckle, Doug Shone, and an interview guest last month, Michael Moore.
Talk about a flaming left wing bias on msLSD. This is OutMSNBCed
But looking back throughout last months guests that he had on the show:
So...exactly who again, is the propaganda arm of a political party? Fox, every night on 'Hannity' during the Great American Panel there is always liberal. Last month including guests like Bob Beckle, Doug Shone, and an interview guest last month, Michael Moore.
Talk about a flaming left wing bias on msLSD. This is OutMSNBCed
Celebrity Watch: Angelina Jolie thinks Obama’s a socialist
The new issue of the US weekly has just reported that actress Angelina Jolie said that Obama is a "socialist in disguise."
The source also said that “She’s into education and rehabilitation and thinks Obama is all about welfare and handouts."
She also apparently said that he is all "smoke and mirrors."
Ouch. Even Hollywood is dropping on Obama.
The source also said that “She’s into education and rehabilitation and thinks Obama is all about welfare and handouts."
She also apparently said that he is all "smoke and mirrors."
Ouch. Even Hollywood is dropping on Obama.
Economy Not Growing As Fast As You Thought
The AP reports:
The economy grew at a 2.8 percent pace last quarter, as the recovery got off to a slower start than first thought.
The Commerce Department’s new reading on gross domestic product wasn’t as energetic as the 3.5 percent growth rate for the July-September period estimated just a month ago.
The main factors behind the downgrade: consumers didn’t spend as much, commercial construction was weaker and the nation’s trade deficit was more of a drag on growth. Businesses also trimmed more of their stockpiles, another restraining factor.
The new reading on GDP, which measures the value of all goods and services produced in the United States — from machinery to manicures — was a tad weaker than the 2.9 percent growth rate economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters had expected.
--------------
The economy grew at a 2.8 percent pace last quarter, as the recovery got off to a slower start than first thought.
The Commerce Department’s new reading on gross domestic product wasn’t as energetic as the 3.5 percent growth rate for the July-September period estimated just a month ago.
The main factors behind the downgrade: consumers didn’t spend as much, commercial construction was weaker and the nation’s trade deficit was more of a drag on growth. Businesses also trimmed more of their stockpiles, another restraining factor.
The new reading on GDP, which measures the value of all goods and services produced in the United States — from machinery to manicures — was a tad weaker than the 2.9 percent growth rate economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters had expected.
--------------
23 November 2009
The Final Nail in The Coffin of Climate Change
Here is more content from the emails sent out that exposed global warming, as the UK Telegraph reports:
"Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."
------
Proof that the earth is cooling:
"From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low."
--------
"Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…."
-------
"And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
-------
There you have it. One of the top research wing that join the EPA and IPCC reveals climate scam. Hopefully, if we push this far enough and loud enough, it can be, global warming's Waterloo.
"Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."
------
Proof that the earth is cooling:
"From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low."
--------
"Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…."
-------
"And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
-------
There you have it. One of the top research wing that join the EPA and IPCC reveals climate scam. Hopefully, if we push this far enough and loud enough, it can be, global warming's Waterloo.
Why The New York Times is a Lousy News Paper
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/stephaniegutmann/100017634/why-the-new-york-times-is-a-lousy-newspaper-its-not-because-its-liberal/
An article from the daily telegraph in the UK on the New York Slimes
An article from the daily telegraph in the UK on the New York Slimes
Global Warming Scam
Recently 1,000 emails went out containing more than 3,000 document from the climate change research unit in the UK.
They were very revealing on climate change, and exposed some truths that most global warming left wing fear mongers and other activists probably didn't want you to here.
Here are just a few of thousands of things that came out from these emails:
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Hmmm very interesting. What's also interesting is the fact that the EPA suppressed a video from an employee, a lawyer who said cap n' trade wouldn't work. Why censor it? What's there to hide?
Also in those email were some codes, one of which said:
"function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$
datathresh=datathresh
;
; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES
; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
;
pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures."
They were very revealing on climate change, and exposed some truths that most global warming left wing fear mongers and other activists probably didn't want you to here.
Here are just a few of thousands of things that came out from these emails:
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Hmmm very interesting. What's also interesting is the fact that the EPA suppressed a video from an employee, a lawyer who said cap n' trade wouldn't work. Why censor it? What's there to hide?
Also in those email were some codes, one of which said:
"function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$
datathresh=datathresh
;
; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES
; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
;
pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures."
Who Really Wants Health Reform Anyway?
Almost no one. A new Rasmussen poll shows that now only 38% of people want the proposed health reform, while 56% oppose it.
This being the case, the government is forcing the strong arm of tyranny down our throats yet again.
I would say, like the constitution says, when the government becomes to corrupt, abolish it, and fix it.
Yes i think 2010 will be very awakening.
This being the case, the government is forcing the strong arm of tyranny down our throats yet again.
I would say, like the constitution says, when the government becomes to corrupt, abolish it, and fix it.
Yes i think 2010 will be very awakening.
Stimulus Killing New Jobs
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/23/ap-porkulus-killing-new-jobs/
Here is a post from 'Hotair' on the effects that the self proclaimed stimulus is having on business, unemployment and wages.
Here is a post from 'Hotair' on the effects that the self proclaimed stimulus is having on business, unemployment and wages.
21 November 2009
ACORN in NY-23
The other day Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, further denounced his concession to democrat Bill Owens by claiming that ACORN messed with the election.
Now as they continue to count votes, in NY-23 and the election being challenged, we will see if ACORN did in fact play a role.
Hoffman said the other day:
"I'm sure you are as dismayed as I am to learn of the mischief that took place in Oswego and neighboring counties. We know this would not be the first time for the ACORN faithful to tamper with democracy."
Now as they continue to count votes, in NY-23 and the election being challenged, we will see if ACORN did in fact play a role.
Hoffman said the other day:
"I'm sure you are as dismayed as I am to learn of the mischief that took place in Oswego and neighboring counties. We know this would not be the first time for the ACORN faithful to tamper with democracy."
On New Moon
the last few days there has been an outburst of fans for the new movie, New Moon. The sequel to the movie Twilight.
Now when Robert Pattison wasn't telling fans to strip he was enjoying his movie which last night (friday night) it's opening day grossed as sources say some where around 70 million dollars in sales. This breaks the record for single day revenue which was previously held by 'The Dark Knight' in 2008 with 67.2 million.
All throughout yesterday all i heard was "new moon!" "oh i want to see new moon." "hey you guys want to see new moon?" "oh my god i'm going to see new moon!"
So now with all this hype, damn, i think i just might have to sink to the twilight drones level, and see New Moon.
Now when Robert Pattison wasn't telling fans to strip he was enjoying his movie which last night (friday night) it's opening day grossed as sources say some where around 70 million dollars in sales. This breaks the record for single day revenue which was previously held by 'The Dark Knight' in 2008 with 67.2 million.
All throughout yesterday all i heard was "new moon!" "oh i want to see new moon." "hey you guys want to see new moon?" "oh my god i'm going to see new moon!"
So now with all this hype, damn, i think i just might have to sink to the twilight drones level, and see New Moon.
Entertainment: Cyrus's Bus Driver, dead
Douglas, 53, an Austin, Texas, native, was driving one of four buses traveling to Greensboro, N.C., where Cyrus is scheduled to perform on Sunday. Douglas's bus overturned on the interstate outside of Richmond, Va., on Friday, and he died at the scene while the nine passengers on the bus were able to exit through the front windshield.
The cause of the crash remains under investigation at this time.
Cyrus was not traveling with the group at the time of the accident. The singer instead had hopped a plane to Nashville so she could spend some down time at home before her next concert.
RIP
Fortunately for fans, family, and girls everywhere (and even some guys), Miley was in Nashville so she could spend time with her family before her next concert.
However Douglas, will be sorely missed, by the Cyrus family.
Now just watch if this get any media coverage at, all, they will probably say, that the crash was caused by a 'right-winger.'
The cause of the crash remains under investigation at this time.
Cyrus was not traveling with the group at the time of the accident. The singer instead had hopped a plane to Nashville so she could spend some down time at home before her next concert.
RIP
Fortunately for fans, family, and girls everywhere (and even some guys), Miley was in Nashville so she could spend time with her family before her next concert.
However Douglas, will be sorely missed, by the Cyrus family.
Now just watch if this get any media coverage at, all, they will probably say, that the crash was caused by a 'right-winger.'
So Much For Stupak
And after an f-ed up stupak amendment which was used to get votes, not to ban abortion from public funding, it is no surprise that the senate bill does indeed, have public funded abortions.
The final bill, will have public funded abortions. I'm sure of it. The stupak amendment was just to get it to pass. Any one with common sense knew it wasn't gonna matter.
The language in the senate bill says: “The Secretary shall assure that with respect to qualified health plans offered in any Exchange established pursuant to this title—(I) there is at least one such plan that provides coverage of services described in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B); and (II) there is at least one such plan that does not provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i).”
The clause “(i)” of “subparagraph (B)” referred to in this passage defines those types of abortions currently banned from receiving federal funding under the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment bans federal funding for all abortions except those done in cases of rape, incest and a threat to the life of the mother. So, the language of Sen. Reid’s health care bill mandates that at least one health insurance plan available to people buying health insurance with federal subsidies cover those abortions that are currently prohibited from receiving federal funding under the Hyde Amendment.
The final bill, will have public funded abortions. I'm sure of it. The stupak amendment was just to get it to pass. Any one with common sense knew it wasn't gonna matter.
The language in the senate bill says: “The Secretary shall assure that with respect to qualified health plans offered in any Exchange established pursuant to this title—(I) there is at least one such plan that provides coverage of services described in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B); and (II) there is at least one such plan that does not provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i).”
The clause “(i)” of “subparagraph (B)” referred to in this passage defines those types of abortions currently banned from receiving federal funding under the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment bans federal funding for all abortions except those done in cases of rape, incest and a threat to the life of the mother. So, the language of Sen. Reid’s health care bill mandates that at least one health insurance plan available to people buying health insurance with federal subsidies cover those abortions that are currently prohibited from receiving federal funding under the Hyde Amendment.
20 November 2009
Universal Nightmare: The Senate Bill Tax Hikes
The following is a complete list of new tax hikes from the senate health care bill:
Employer Mandate Tax (Page 348/Sec. 1513/$28 bil): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $750 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees.
If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).
Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Page 1979/Sec. 9001/$149.1 bil): Starting in 2013, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($8500 single/$23,000 family). Higher threshold ($9850 single/$26,000 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed.
From 2013-2015, the 17 highest-cost states are 120% of this level.
Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Page 1996/Sec. 9002/Min$): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.
Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 1997/Sec. 9003/$5 bil): No longer allowable to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)
HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Page 1998/Sec. 9004/$1.3 bil): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
FSA Cap (Page 1999/Sec. 9005/$14.6 bil): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited).
Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 1999/Sec. 9006/$17.1 bil): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers
Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (page 2001/Sec. 9007/Min$): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS.
Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Page 2010/Sec. 9008/ $22.2 bil): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.
Tax of Medical Device Manufacturers (Page 2020/Sec. 9009/$19.3 bil): $2 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to shares of sales made that year. Exempts items retailing for <$100.
Tax on Health Insurers (Page 2026/Sec. 9010/$60.4 bil): $6.7 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year.
Eliminate tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Page 2034/Sec. 9012/$5.4 bil)
Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Page 2034/Sec. 9013/$15.2 bil) : Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only
$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Page 2035/Sec. 9014/$0.6 bil)
Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Page 2040/Sec. 9015/$53.8 bil): Current law and changes:
Wages (Employer/Employee) Self-Employment Net Income
Current Law and New Rate on First $200,000 ($250,000 MFJ) 1.45%/1.45% 2.9%
New Rate on Amount Which Exceeds $200,000 ($250,000 MFJ) 1.45%/1.95% 3.4%
The 0.5% new rate addition is not deductible for the self-employment tax adjustment.
Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Page 2044/Sec. 9016/$0.4 bil): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services
Tax on Cosmetic Medical Procedures (Page 2045/Sec. 9017/$5.8 bil): New 5% excise tax on elective cosmetic surgery to be paid by the surgery patient.
Employer Mandate Tax (Page 348/Sec. 1513/$28 bil): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $750 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees.
If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).
Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Page 1979/Sec. 9001/$149.1 bil): Starting in 2013, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($8500 single/$23,000 family). Higher threshold ($9850 single/$26,000 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed.
From 2013-2015, the 17 highest-cost states are 120% of this level.
Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Page 1996/Sec. 9002/Min$): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.
Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 1997/Sec. 9003/$5 bil): No longer allowable to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)
HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Page 1998/Sec. 9004/$1.3 bil): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
FSA Cap (Page 1999/Sec. 9005/$14.6 bil): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited).
Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 1999/Sec. 9006/$17.1 bil): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers
Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (page 2001/Sec. 9007/Min$): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS.
Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Page 2010/Sec. 9008/ $22.2 bil): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.
Tax of Medical Device Manufacturers (Page 2020/Sec. 9009/$19.3 bil): $2 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to shares of sales made that year. Exempts items retailing for <$100.
Tax on Health Insurers (Page 2026/Sec. 9010/$60.4 bil): $6.7 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year.
Eliminate tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Page 2034/Sec. 9012/$5.4 bil)
Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Page 2034/Sec. 9013/$15.2 bil) : Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only
$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Page 2035/Sec. 9014/$0.6 bil)
Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Page 2040/Sec. 9015/$53.8 bil): Current law and changes:
Wages (Employer/Employee) Self-Employment Net Income
Current Law and New Rate on First $200,000 ($250,000 MFJ) 1.45%/1.45% 2.9%
New Rate on Amount Which Exceeds $200,000 ($250,000 MFJ) 1.45%/1.95% 3.4%
The 0.5% new rate addition is not deductible for the self-employment tax adjustment.
Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Page 2044/Sec. 9016/$0.4 bil): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services
Tax on Cosmetic Medical Procedures (Page 2045/Sec. 9017/$5.8 bil): New 5% excise tax on elective cosmetic surgery to be paid by the surgery patient.
Media Matters: Al Gore Photoshops Book Cover
The cover of Nobel Laureate Al Gore's new book "Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis" was intentionally doctored to exaggerate the appearance of hurricanes in the northern hemisphere as well as reduce the amount of ice present in the Arctic.
Maybe even more ominously, Florida was so diminished it's almost totally gone.
As reported by Florida State University hurricane expert Ryan Maue at the website Watts Up With That, the truth was apparently inconvenient for the Global Warmingist-in-Chief (h/t NBer Blonde):
The cover opens and closes half and half - so you only see one hurricane...as in the press release photo or the one on Amazon.
But this is the real picture sequence from the book which I looked at Borders today and took cell-phone pictures, original (before the retouching by some "artist") Note all of the Arctic ice and the size of the Florida Peninsula...
Now that is the book cover, with a massive hurricane, melted ice and diminished Florida. Now this suppose to be today (meaning what it really is like)
However, this was photoshoped. This is the real image:
Even more proof, is that when i opened up the book cover photo, it sent me straight to (or opened up in) photoshop. When i opened the other it was just in iPhoto.
Media does matter.
Maybe even more ominously, Florida was so diminished it's almost totally gone.
As reported by Florida State University hurricane expert Ryan Maue at the website Watts Up With That, the truth was apparently inconvenient for the Global Warmingist-in-Chief (h/t NBer Blonde):
The cover opens and closes half and half - so you only see one hurricane...as in the press release photo or the one on Amazon.
But this is the real picture sequence from the book which I looked at Borders today and took cell-phone pictures, original (before the retouching by some "artist") Note all of the Arctic ice and the size of the Florida Peninsula...
Now that is the book cover, with a massive hurricane, melted ice and diminished Florida. Now this suppose to be today (meaning what it really is like)
However, this was photoshoped. This is the real image:
Even more proof, is that when i opened up the book cover photo, it sent me straight to (or opened up in) photoshop. When i opened the other it was just in iPhoto.
Media does matter.
Media Bias
When talking about the TEA parties, Chris Mathews, who is famous for getting thrills up his leg when Obama talks, stated, "This is a largely white -- almost no minorities in this crowd, I think there is a tribal aspect to this thing, in other words, white vs. other people."
Now here is a link to some pictures of the CODE PINK left wing march on D.C. :http://www.flickr.com/photos/codepinkalert/sets/72157600007564513/
Now i don't see one person of color in this protest, tea party equivalent.
Clearly there is a "tribal aspect" there as well (on the left) but heaven forbid the media report fairly on that.
Now here is a link to some pictures of the CODE PINK left wing march on D.C. :http://www.flickr.com/photos/codepinkalert/sets/72157600007564513/
Now i don't see one person of color in this protest, tea party equivalent.
Clearly there is a "tribal aspect" there as well (on the left) but heaven forbid the media report fairly on that.
Rep. Obey's "So What"
When answering questions about the failed stimulus that he wrote, that lead to 10.2% unemployment, record high deficits, and soaring debt, congressman David Obey's responded with, "So what."
What responsibility. Especially since i thought politicians were gonna be accountable under Obama.
Here is the conversation:
SEABROOK (voice-over): Instead of Congress, hundreds and hundreds of public servants all over the country will decide how to spend the economic stimulus money . . . But when you pull earmarks out of the bill, you also change the balance of power in the government. If members of Congress aren’t writing into the bill how the money is to be spent, then someone else is making those decisions . . . When this bill passes, a Niagara Falls of money will flow out of Washington and into the accounts of state highway commissioners, governors and legislatures, local school boards, county executives, even mayors . . .
OBEY: We simply made a decision, which took about three seconds, not to have earmarks in the bill.
SEABROOK (voice-over): This is David Obey, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. He helped write this bill, and he does not like being asked about earmarks.
OBEY: And with all due respect, that’s the least important question facing us on putting together this package.
SEABROOK: Does that mean, though, that Congress will have less control and less, in fact, ability to say, “You spend it in the way we wanted you to spend it”—
OBEY: Of course it does. Of course it does. So what? This is an emergency. And so, with all due respect, we have got to simply find a way to get this done as fast as possible, and as well as possible, and that’s what we’re doing.
SEABROOK: Aren’t there a thousand ways that this money could be spent badly, though?
OBEY: There are a thousand ways it could be spent badly. There are a thousand ways it could be spent well. So what’s new?
SEABROOK: What’s new is that you’re not telling them how to spend it as much as you usually do.
OBEY: SO WHAT.
SEABROOK: Won’t you be responsible when it’s spent badly, then?
OBEY: No, the person who spends the money badly will be responsible. We are simply trying to build as many protections in as possible. We’ve got more oversight built into this package than any package in the history of man. If money is spent badly, we want to know about it, so we can hold accountable the people who made that choice. And guess what? Regardless of what we do, there will be some stupid decisions made.
What responsibility. Especially since i thought politicians were gonna be accountable under Obama.
Here is the conversation:
SEABROOK (voice-over): Instead of Congress, hundreds and hundreds of public servants all over the country will decide how to spend the economic stimulus money . . . But when you pull earmarks out of the bill, you also change the balance of power in the government. If members of Congress aren’t writing into the bill how the money is to be spent, then someone else is making those decisions . . . When this bill passes, a Niagara Falls of money will flow out of Washington and into the accounts of state highway commissioners, governors and legislatures, local school boards, county executives, even mayors . . .
OBEY: We simply made a decision, which took about three seconds, not to have earmarks in the bill.
SEABROOK (voice-over): This is David Obey, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. He helped write this bill, and he does not like being asked about earmarks.
OBEY: And with all due respect, that’s the least important question facing us on putting together this package.
SEABROOK: Does that mean, though, that Congress will have less control and less, in fact, ability to say, “You spend it in the way we wanted you to spend it”—
OBEY: Of course it does. Of course it does. So what? This is an emergency. And so, with all due respect, we have got to simply find a way to get this done as fast as possible, and as well as possible, and that’s what we’re doing.
SEABROOK: Aren’t there a thousand ways that this money could be spent badly, though?
OBEY: There are a thousand ways it could be spent badly. There are a thousand ways it could be spent well. So what’s new?
SEABROOK: What’s new is that you’re not telling them how to spend it as much as you usually do.
OBEY: SO WHAT.
SEABROOK: Won’t you be responsible when it’s spent badly, then?
OBEY: No, the person who spends the money badly will be responsible. We are simply trying to build as many protections in as possible. We’ve got more oversight built into this package than any package in the history of man. If money is spent badly, we want to know about it, so we can hold accountable the people who made that choice. And guess what? Regardless of what we do, there will be some stupid decisions made.
Great Moments In Socialized Medicine
The British Death Panel:
Investors.com reports that in the UK, babies born under 22 weeks are not to be cared for, and therefore, are left to die, to save costs, and ration the care to allow care to other patients.
The mother, Sarah Capewell, reportedly begged doctors to save the baby, who was born 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy.
The NHS said that her case was considered a "miscarriage" and not an early birth.
Thing like this happen all the time in Britain and are set in place by the "Government Rationing Body" which pretty much serves, as a 'death panel.'
read more on the story about the early birth here: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=505757
Investors.com reports that in the UK, babies born under 22 weeks are not to be cared for, and therefore, are left to die, to save costs, and ration the care to allow care to other patients.
The mother, Sarah Capewell, reportedly begged doctors to save the baby, who was born 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy.
The NHS said that her case was considered a "miscarriage" and not an early birth.
Thing like this happen all the time in Britain and are set in place by the "Government Rationing Body" which pretty much serves, as a 'death panel.'
read more on the story about the early birth here: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=505757
18 November 2009
Drive By Shooting: Kills thousands of Minds-Shooter: Keith Olbermann
News Buster reports:
On June 1 of this year, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann devoted most of his hour of Countdown to his withering outrage at the shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller in Kansas (and how it was caused by Fox News).
The tone was dramatically different than his tone on November 5, the night of the Islamic terrorist shooting rampage at Fort Hood in Texas. Here’s Olbermann’s very dry opening: "Nightmare at Fort Hood: How could a soldier kill at least 12 other soldiers and wounded at least 31 more? And why?"
Here are words that Olbermann did not use on that first night last week: jihad, fundamentalist, crusaders, extremists, terrorism, zealot, Taliban, Hamas, al-Qaeda. All of these, however, were used in the first seconds of the Tiller show in June. That began this way:
Domestic terrorism: Dr. George Tiller -- women’s health physician, performer of legal abortions -- is assassinated in his church. And in the very same sentence, anti-choice zealots wash their hands of his murder and say he had it coming.
---------------
On June 1 of this year, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann devoted most of his hour of Countdown to his withering outrage at the shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller in Kansas (and how it was caused by Fox News).
The tone was dramatically different than his tone on November 5, the night of the Islamic terrorist shooting rampage at Fort Hood in Texas. Here’s Olbermann’s very dry opening: "Nightmare at Fort Hood: How could a soldier kill at least 12 other soldiers and wounded at least 31 more? And why?"
Here are words that Olbermann did not use on that first night last week: jihad, fundamentalist, crusaders, extremists, terrorism, zealot, Taliban, Hamas, al-Qaeda. All of these, however, were used in the first seconds of the Tiller show in June. That began this way:
Domestic terrorism: Dr. George Tiller -- women’s health physician, performer of legal abortions -- is assassinated in his church. And in the very same sentence, anti-choice zealots wash their hands of his murder and say he had it coming.
---------------
The Drive By Media Does it Again
From Newsbusters:
On Monday's Countdown show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann, presumably picking up on a posting by the far left ThinkProgress.org -- one of his regular sources of information to attack conservatives -- made the arguably inaccurate claim that FNC political analyst Bill Kristol had on the Thursday, November 12, Special Report with Bret Baier on FNC, called for Fort Hood gunman Nidal Hasan to be convicted and executed without trial. After calling the FNC analyst's words "anti-American," and quoting a portion of Kristol's words, Olbermann lectured:
But seriously, the men and women that this man killed – however you define him – those men and women of the U.S. military, Mr. Kristol, were fighting for the right to trial, due process, justice. Thanks for spitting on the dead of Fort Hood, William Kristol, today’s “Worst Person in the World.”
--------------------
Now after doing some research and looking at the clip, the accusation of Kristol's words, are incorrect. He never said that.
This is the media for you. This is the left wing, drive by media. They arive at a story, in a car, they pull out their DNC propaganda, they're left wing spin, or their 'liberal guns' and do an all out assault on the news story, and convert it into a left wing slanted opinion. Then once they have done their damage, they drive away.
On Monday's Countdown show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann, presumably picking up on a posting by the far left ThinkProgress.org -- one of his regular sources of information to attack conservatives -- made the arguably inaccurate claim that FNC political analyst Bill Kristol had on the Thursday, November 12, Special Report with Bret Baier on FNC, called for Fort Hood gunman Nidal Hasan to be convicted and executed without trial. After calling the FNC analyst's words "anti-American," and quoting a portion of Kristol's words, Olbermann lectured:
But seriously, the men and women that this man killed – however you define him – those men and women of the U.S. military, Mr. Kristol, were fighting for the right to trial, due process, justice. Thanks for spitting on the dead of Fort Hood, William Kristol, today’s “Worst Person in the World.”
--------------------
Now after doing some research and looking at the clip, the accusation of Kristol's words, are incorrect. He never said that.
This is the media for you. This is the left wing, drive by media. They arive at a story, in a car, they pull out their DNC propaganda, they're left wing spin, or their 'liberal guns' and do an all out assault on the news story, and convert it into a left wing slanted opinion. Then once they have done their damage, they drive away.
Robert Pattison Is A Pervert
Many stories have revolved around the Twilight actor. Mostly these tales have been fantasies about him from teenage girls.
Now i have always said, sooner or later, hollywood will get the best of him, he'll show his true profession (the personality of being an actor) and he will slip.
Today People.com (People Magazine) reports that:
Robert Pattinson didn't realize the power of his own words – until a fan starting stripping after he made an off-hand suggestion.
It happened "after a period of signing 500 signatures," the New Moon heartthrob tells Ellen DeGeneres on her show airing Friday.
"You kind of get 10 seconds with each person and you never really say anything and I kind of got bored of saying, 'Hey, how are you doing?'" Pattinson tells the talk show host. "[A fan] said in her 10 seconds, 'What can I do to get your attention?' I was like um, just take your clothes off."
The fan's reaction? "She stood there and frantically started taking her clothes off and got dragged out of the room by security," says Pattinson. "I never felt more terrible."
--------------------------
Now i have always said, sooner or later, hollywood will get the best of him, he'll show his true profession (the personality of being an actor) and he will slip.
Today People.com (People Magazine) reports that:
Robert Pattinson didn't realize the power of his own words – until a fan starting stripping after he made an off-hand suggestion.
It happened "after a period of signing 500 signatures," the New Moon heartthrob tells Ellen DeGeneres on her show airing Friday.
"You kind of get 10 seconds with each person and you never really say anything and I kind of got bored of saying, 'Hey, how are you doing?'" Pattinson tells the talk show host. "[A fan] said in her 10 seconds, 'What can I do to get your attention?' I was like um, just take your clothes off."
The fan's reaction? "She stood there and frantically started taking her clothes off and got dragged out of the room by security," says Pattinson. "I never felt more terrible."
--------------------------
17 November 2009
Arizona's 15th District
On recovery.gov, it is reported that 30 jobs have been created in the 15th district of Arizona.
Great right? Oh wait, there is just one problem. There is no 15th district in Arizona.
Arizona only has eight congressional districts. So why then does recovery.gov say that there is $34 million spent in Arizona's 86th district?
Check out Connecticut's 42nd district where 25 jobs have been created. Not surprisingly, there is no 42 congressional district.
The Washington Examiner says that there are over 60,000 jobs created in districts that don't exist.
Great right? Oh wait, there is just one problem. There is no 15th district in Arizona.
Arizona only has eight congressional districts. So why then does recovery.gov say that there is $34 million spent in Arizona's 86th district?
Check out Connecticut's 42nd district where 25 jobs have been created. Not surprisingly, there is no 42 congressional district.
The Washington Examiner says that there are over 60,000 jobs created in districts that don't exist.
Fox News Is Fair And Balanced
Leftists including those in the White House who presumptively and obsessively attack Fox News will not be pleased with this.
Using a methodology that would be difficult to refute, Lichter's work relating to campaign 2008 is in sync with what CMPA found in late 2007 (noted at the time at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog) during the opening stages of the presidential campaign.
Here are key paragraphs from Lichter's commentary (bolds are mine):
Fox News has become embroiled in a nasty controversy over its ill treatment of President Obama. But are the charges true?
What if I told you that Fox gave Obama his worst press and John McCain his best press of any network during last year's presidential election? If you work for the White House, you'd probably take this as proof that Fox is just a mouthpiece for the opposition. Now what if I told you that Fox had the most balanced coverage of any network during the same campaign? If you work for Fox, you'd probably say we told you so.
But what if I told you that both scenarios are true?
While it seems unlikely, that conclusion is precisely the case, based on an ongoing study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). That both these seemingly contradictory scenarios are true tells us something important not only about the war between Fox and the White House, but about the changing nature of television news in America.
.... The CMPA study compares ABC, CBS and NBC evening news shows and the first half hour of Fox News Channel's Special Report, which most closely resembles its broadcast news counterparts.
.... So how could Fox have both the most balanced and the most anti-Obama coverage? Simple. It's because the other networks were all so pro-Obama. CMPA analyzed every soundbite by reporters and nonpartisan sources (excluding representative of the political parties) that evaluated the candidates and their policies. On the three broadcast networks combined, evaluations of Obama were 68% positive and 32% negative, compared to the only 36% positive and 64% negative evaluations of his GOP opponent John McCain.
In fact, Obama received the most favorable coverage CMPA has ever recorded for any presidential candidate since we began tracking election news coverage in 1988. The totals were very similar--within a few percentage points--at all three networks. (These figures exclude comments on the candidates' prospects in the campaign horse race, which obviously favored Obama.)
Meanwhile, Fox's Special Report was dramatically tougher on Obama, with only 36% favorable vs. 64% unfavorable evaluations during the same time period. But McCain didn't fare much better, garnering only 40% favorable comments vs. 60% negative ones. So the broadcast networks gave good marks to one candidate and bad marks to another, while Fox was tough on both--and most balanced overall.
Other points Lichter makes:
* The historical pattern during a president's first year in office is that the establishment press tends to go negative. Lichter interestingly asserts that all networks have done so this year, with the Big 3 nets tallying 35% favorables for Obama vs. 27% for Fox on Special Report. Lichter's take is that "Fox's coverage has gone from being the worst of all to merely the worst among equals."
* The White House claim that Fox "really isn't a news organization" is risible, given that in Special Report the channel at least runs "nightly news modeled on the broadcast networks." MSNBC and CNN don't even try.
* Longtime NewsBusters and BizzyBlog readers will probably have a hard time with the final sentence of this assertion -- "Obama differs from his predecessors mainly in the false hopes generated by sometimes fawning campaign coverage from jaded journalists who temporarily let themselves get carried away by his eloquence and the historic nature of his candidacy. When politics returned to normal, their coverage returned to form." I definitely disagree, especially if you include the Big 3's morning shows, which attempt to position themselves as every bit as objective as their evening news counterparts. But if anything, they're worse. Perhaps a gravitation back to the norm has begun more recently, as the continued decay in the economy as people are experiencing it and the awful results of the administration's attempts to do something about become ever more obvious.
Leftists who will predictably howl that CMPA is conservatively biased (because SourceWatch says so, as if that proves anything beyond paranoia) are going to have to explain what is wrong with CMPA's scorekeeping methodology, which appears to be relatively immune from partisan slant, even if one had that as an objective. In any event, the footage is out there, and they are free to try to replicate and poke holes in what CMPA did any time. I bet they won't; whining is so much easier.
Using a methodology that would be difficult to refute, Lichter's work relating to campaign 2008 is in sync with what CMPA found in late 2007 (noted at the time at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog) during the opening stages of the presidential campaign.
Here are key paragraphs from Lichter's commentary (bolds are mine):
Fox News has become embroiled in a nasty controversy over its ill treatment of President Obama. But are the charges true?
What if I told you that Fox gave Obama his worst press and John McCain his best press of any network during last year's presidential election? If you work for the White House, you'd probably take this as proof that Fox is just a mouthpiece for the opposition. Now what if I told you that Fox had the most balanced coverage of any network during the same campaign? If you work for Fox, you'd probably say we told you so.
But what if I told you that both scenarios are true?
While it seems unlikely, that conclusion is precisely the case, based on an ongoing study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). That both these seemingly contradictory scenarios are true tells us something important not only about the war between Fox and the White House, but about the changing nature of television news in America.
.... The CMPA study compares ABC, CBS and NBC evening news shows and the first half hour of Fox News Channel's Special Report, which most closely resembles its broadcast news counterparts.
.... So how could Fox have both the most balanced and the most anti-Obama coverage? Simple. It's because the other networks were all so pro-Obama. CMPA analyzed every soundbite by reporters and nonpartisan sources (excluding representative of the political parties) that evaluated the candidates and their policies. On the three broadcast networks combined, evaluations of Obama were 68% positive and 32% negative, compared to the only 36% positive and 64% negative evaluations of his GOP opponent John McCain.
In fact, Obama received the most favorable coverage CMPA has ever recorded for any presidential candidate since we began tracking election news coverage in 1988. The totals were very similar--within a few percentage points--at all three networks. (These figures exclude comments on the candidates' prospects in the campaign horse race, which obviously favored Obama.)
Meanwhile, Fox's Special Report was dramatically tougher on Obama, with only 36% favorable vs. 64% unfavorable evaluations during the same time period. But McCain didn't fare much better, garnering only 40% favorable comments vs. 60% negative ones. So the broadcast networks gave good marks to one candidate and bad marks to another, while Fox was tough on both--and most balanced overall.
Other points Lichter makes:
* The historical pattern during a president's first year in office is that the establishment press tends to go negative. Lichter interestingly asserts that all networks have done so this year, with the Big 3 nets tallying 35% favorables for Obama vs. 27% for Fox on Special Report. Lichter's take is that "Fox's coverage has gone from being the worst of all to merely the worst among equals."
* The White House claim that Fox "really isn't a news organization" is risible, given that in Special Report the channel at least runs "nightly news modeled on the broadcast networks." MSNBC and CNN don't even try.
* Longtime NewsBusters and BizzyBlog readers will probably have a hard time with the final sentence of this assertion -- "Obama differs from his predecessors mainly in the false hopes generated by sometimes fawning campaign coverage from jaded journalists who temporarily let themselves get carried away by his eloquence and the historic nature of his candidacy. When politics returned to normal, their coverage returned to form." I definitely disagree, especially if you include the Big 3's morning shows, which attempt to position themselves as every bit as objective as their evening news counterparts. But if anything, they're worse. Perhaps a gravitation back to the norm has begun more recently, as the continued decay in the economy as people are experiencing it and the awful results of the administration's attempts to do something about become ever more obvious.
Leftists who will predictably howl that CMPA is conservatively biased (because SourceWatch says so, as if that proves anything beyond paranoia) are going to have to explain what is wrong with CMPA's scorekeeping methodology, which appears to be relatively immune from partisan slant, even if one had that as an objective. In any event, the footage is out there, and they are free to try to replicate and poke holes in what CMPA did any time. I bet they won't; whining is so much easier.
16 November 2009
Pelosicare Will Raise Costs
A summary of the analysis brought forth by the House Republican Ways and Means Committee shows that:
* Costs Increase: “In aggregate, we estimate that for calendar years 2010 through 2019 [national health expenditures] would increase by $289 billion.” [Page 12]
* Savings Provisions are Ineffective: “Most of the provisions of H.R. 3962 that were designed, in part, to reduce the rate of growth in health care costs would have a relatively small savings impact.” [Page 3]
* Seniors’ Care will be Jeopardized: The Democrats' bill would cut Medicare by more than one-half trillion dollars ($571 billion), resulting in doctors and other health providers finding “it difficult to remain profitable and might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries).” [Page 8]
* Employees May Lose the Coverage They Have: “[S]ome smaller employers would be inclined to terminate their existing coverage, and companies with low average salaries might find it to their—and their employees’—advantage to end their plans” [Page 7]
* There Will Be a Massive Entitlement Expansion: Under the House Democrats' bill, “about three-fifths” or 60 percent of the uninsured who gain coverage would do so by being dumped into Medicaid. [Page 6]
* The Bill Will Lead to a Shortage of Doctors and Hospitals: In stating that “consideration should be given to the potential consequences of a significant increase in demand for health care meeting a relatively fixed supply of health care providers and services,” CMS warns that those in need of care may face long wait lines if the House Democrat bill was enacted. [Page 15]
Now, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is proposing to bring the cost-raising, Medicare cutting, trillion dollar spending, 1,990 Pelosi Bill before a vote in the Senate. Let's just hope that Senate Democrats have enough common sense to say no to a bill that does the exact opposite of what it promises by raising the cost of health care for American families.
* Costs Increase: “In aggregate, we estimate that for calendar years 2010 through 2019 [national health expenditures] would increase by $289 billion.” [Page 12]
* Savings Provisions are Ineffective: “Most of the provisions of H.R. 3962 that were designed, in part, to reduce the rate of growth in health care costs would have a relatively small savings impact.” [Page 3]
* Seniors’ Care will be Jeopardized: The Democrats' bill would cut Medicare by more than one-half trillion dollars ($571 billion), resulting in doctors and other health providers finding “it difficult to remain profitable and might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries).” [Page 8]
* Employees May Lose the Coverage They Have: “[S]ome smaller employers would be inclined to terminate their existing coverage, and companies with low average salaries might find it to their—and their employees’—advantage to end their plans” [Page 7]
* There Will Be a Massive Entitlement Expansion: Under the House Democrats' bill, “about three-fifths” or 60 percent of the uninsured who gain coverage would do so by being dumped into Medicaid. [Page 6]
* The Bill Will Lead to a Shortage of Doctors and Hospitals: In stating that “consideration should be given to the potential consequences of a significant increase in demand for health care meeting a relatively fixed supply of health care providers and services,” CMS warns that those in need of care may face long wait lines if the House Democrat bill was enacted. [Page 15]
Now, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is proposing to bring the cost-raising, Medicare cutting, trillion dollar spending, 1,990 Pelosi Bill before a vote in the Senate. Let's just hope that Senate Democrats have enough common sense to say no to a bill that does the exact opposite of what it promises by raising the cost of health care for American families.
GM Spends Tons of Money....Overseas
Remember back when we HAD to bail out GM and Chrysler? And how it was promised to get them functioning again and create jobs?
Well guess what, ABC news reports that GM will soon cut thousands of US jobs, and invest around 50 billion dollars in tax payer aid, overseas.
And this is not just in Europe, GM China has gotten 123 million, and the company in Mexico put 400 million into a new plant.
Well so what, i mean as long as they re making money right? They're at least taking in a profit, which was a goal of the bailout.
WRONG! GM company says that it has lost 1.2 billion from the time it filed for bankruptcy through early October.
Well guess what, ABC news reports that GM will soon cut thousands of US jobs, and invest around 50 billion dollars in tax payer aid, overseas.
And this is not just in Europe, GM China has gotten 123 million, and the company in Mexico put 400 million into a new plant.
Well so what, i mean as long as they re making money right? They're at least taking in a profit, which was a goal of the bailout.
WRONG! GM company says that it has lost 1.2 billion from the time it filed for bankruptcy through early October.
Terrorist Trial
The dumbest idea ever. They are warriors and foreign enemies. KSM was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. And now you bring him back to new york? to be given what a "fair" trial.
People will say, oh he deserves to be treated like a citizen, people like Ayers get trials. Yeah here is the difference, Ayers is a US citizen. The trade center bombers were tried because they were caught in the states. KSM and others were captured on foreign soil. Not in the US. Nor are they US citizens, so why should they be given trials in New York.
If they get let off, the orchestrators of 9/11, if they get off, it would be the democrats Waterloo.
This is a terrible idea. Keep terrorists in GITMO.
How does this look to the other terrorists still out on the battle field. Obama is weakening our defense as we speak. Breaking News: USA Soft On Terrorists. Next thing ya know, another attack on the US. And then, the democrats are finished.
People will say, oh he deserves to be treated like a citizen, people like Ayers get trials. Yeah here is the difference, Ayers is a US citizen. The trade center bombers were tried because they were caught in the states. KSM and others were captured on foreign soil. Not in the US. Nor are they US citizens, so why should they be given trials in New York.
If they get let off, the orchestrators of 9/11, if they get off, it would be the democrats Waterloo.
This is a terrible idea. Keep terrorists in GITMO.
How does this look to the other terrorists still out on the battle field. Obama is weakening our defense as we speak. Breaking News: USA Soft On Terrorists. Next thing ya know, another attack on the US. And then, the democrats are finished.
Health Reform's Hidden Land Mine
Here is an article from Politico.com about the public option in health reform:
After all the controversy over the public option, people might think that everyone can sign up right away if Congress passes health reform.
Or that insurance premiums will go down.
Or that they’ll be able to shop around for insurance if they don’t like what their company offers.
Think again.
When it comes to the public option, for instance, only about 1 in 10 Americans will be eligible, mainly people who don’t get insurance through work. Only about 6 million are expected to enroll. The plan doesn’t even start until 2013.
And most people who get insurance on the job would have to stick with it. No shopping in the new “insurance exchanges” for them.
After all the controversy over the public option, people might think that everyone can sign up right away if Congress passes health reform.
Or that insurance premiums will go down.
Or that they’ll be able to shop around for insurance if they don’t like what their company offers.
Think again.
When it comes to the public option, for instance, only about 1 in 10 Americans will be eligible, mainly people who don’t get insurance through work. Only about 6 million are expected to enroll. The plan doesn’t even start until 2013.
And most people who get insurance on the job would have to stick with it. No shopping in the new “insurance exchanges” for them.
CNNer Admits CNN is Liberaly Biassed
In discussing the retirement of Lou Dobbs, a 17 year veteran of CNN, Chris Plante claimed that he left due to CNN's left wing bias.
He said that Dobbs left because "his opinions are out of lockstep with the rest of the mainstream news media."
The former CNN corespondent said that Dobbs being the 'last conservative voice' no longer fit in.
"They had Glenn Beck, he's gone. They had [Dobbs], now he's gone," claimed Plante.
As he was talking about this with Howard Kurtz he asked Plate "are you suggesting that those hosts lean to the left?"
Plate replied by saying, "Yes i am."
He said that Dobbs left because "his opinions are out of lockstep with the rest of the mainstream news media."
The former CNN corespondent said that Dobbs being the 'last conservative voice' no longer fit in.
"They had Glenn Beck, he's gone. They had [Dobbs], now he's gone," claimed Plante.
As he was talking about this with Howard Kurtz he asked Plate "are you suggesting that those hosts lean to the left?"
Plate replied by saying, "Yes i am."
15 November 2009
On Government Mandate of Insurance
In a recent debate between two people that i observed (names withheld) on health care, one started talking a little on the individual mandate, that every American have to buy health insurance. He said it was unconstitutional.
However, one pointed out that the government already forces you to buy auto insurance.
"you can argue that nowhere in the constitution ... Read moredoes is say that the government can mandate that you buy health-insurance. It's not really an effective or legitimate argument either way. But I would point out that we do mandate auto-insurance in many States."
Now this argument has been throw around by a lot of people, including politicians. However the argument was put out with this response:
"The comparison to auto insurance doesn't fly either, because my auto insurance does not cover my regular tune ups and oil changes. It does not cover my car washes. It does not cover having a new sunroof put in my car. My car insurance insures me against the possibility of catastrophic loss. It is actually insurance - we pool risk in the case of ... Read morecatasrophic loss. We each pay the price we want for the car we want to drive - I don't have to underwrite anyone's BMW purchase. We can select different price points and different baskets of goods and services in those vehicles. We recognize our routine maintenance costs as predictable and budget able items for which we do not need to pool risk."
However, one pointed out that the government already forces you to buy auto insurance.
"you can argue that nowhere in the constitution ... Read moredoes is say that the government can mandate that you buy health-insurance. It's not really an effective or legitimate argument either way. But I would point out that we do mandate auto-insurance in many States."
Now this argument has been throw around by a lot of people, including politicians. However the argument was put out with this response:
"The comparison to auto insurance doesn't fly either, because my auto insurance does not cover my regular tune ups and oil changes. It does not cover my car washes. It does not cover having a new sunroof put in my car. My car insurance insures me against the possibility of catastrophic loss. It is actually insurance - we pool risk in the case of ... Read morecatasrophic loss. We each pay the price we want for the car we want to drive - I don't have to underwrite anyone's BMW purchase. We can select different price points and different baskets of goods and services in those vehicles. We recognize our routine maintenance costs as predictable and budget able items for which we do not need to pool risk."
Black Conservatives?
Ha! yeah right. Are you kidding?
No i'm not kidding, they actually exist. The media said they didn't but believe it or not there is such thing.
Glenn Beck on Friday, based his whole show off of black conservatives, who filled in the live audience, while he took their opinions and his guest, who were also black conservatives.
People who were too smart to fall for the leftist lies. Why do they vote democrat? because they offer them better deal. Free checks, free health care etc. But the Author of 'Big Black Lie' says differently, and suggests that through education, the democrats have kept the black community down.
To see the episode see this link: http://video.foxnews.com/?category_id=f909db77f0ad31bbfd35cb7e6a04f50204809c04
No i'm not kidding, they actually exist. The media said they didn't but believe it or not there is such thing.
Glenn Beck on Friday, based his whole show off of black conservatives, who filled in the live audience, while he took their opinions and his guest, who were also black conservatives.
People who were too smart to fall for the leftist lies. Why do they vote democrat? because they offer them better deal. Free checks, free health care etc. But the Author of 'Big Black Lie' says differently, and suggests that through education, the democrats have kept the black community down.
To see the episode see this link: http://video.foxnews.com/?category_id=f909db77f0ad31bbfd35cb7e6a04f50204809c04
A Perfect Example of the Nanny-State
The AP reported today that drivers in Holland (Netherlands), will now "pay tax on road time, not on car" The AP also reported that this tax, will be raised until 2018 and can be adjusted if it fails to control traffic.
It is suppose to reduce traffic, and carbon emissions. The road tax, and car purchase taxes are repealed and instead this tax is put in their place.
Breakdown:
The Holland government want's to reduce carbon emissions to fight global "warming" (although China, recently had it's largest snow storm ever) but they don't want to come across as the police state force you to do it kind of government.
So they simply tax mileage tax, to nudge you in the right direction. Ya know, it's for your own good not to drive as much, so, we're just here to protect you. Look out for ya, trust me driving a lot is bad.
-The Nanny-state
It is suppose to reduce traffic, and carbon emissions. The road tax, and car purchase taxes are repealed and instead this tax is put in their place.
Breakdown:
The Holland government want's to reduce carbon emissions to fight global "warming" (although China, recently had it's largest snow storm ever) but they don't want to come across as the police state force you to do it kind of government.
So they simply tax mileage tax, to nudge you in the right direction. Ya know, it's for your own good not to drive as much, so, we're just here to protect you. Look out for ya, trust me driving a lot is bad.
-The Nanny-state
Great Moments In Socialized Medicine
As the senate prepares to do their part of the health reform bill, opponents of the public option are getting bigger and louder. They claim it will create rationed care or 'death panels' and a Canadian type system. Now all proponents of the 'reform' deny such allegations.
In fact they like to point to places like Canada to show how well that system if working. But they probably haven't read the National Post in Canada, and how it reported recently that:
Ontario's decision to cut off funding for colorectal cancer patients taking a life-prolonging drug, in order to save $9-million a year
Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2066531#ixzz0Wxca0iUL
The New Financial Post Stock Market Challenge starts in October. You could WIN your share of $60,000 in prizing. Register NOW
Essentially the Ontario government of the province decided that nine extra months of life, wasn't worth the money. This is also essentially the decision that a "death panel" would make.
In fact they like to point to places like Canada to show how well that system if working. But they probably haven't read the National Post in Canada, and how it reported recently that:
Ontario's decision to cut off funding for colorectal cancer patients taking a life-prolonging drug, in order to save $9-million a year
Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2066531#ixzz0Wxca0iUL
The New Financial Post Stock Market Challenge starts in October. You could WIN your share of $60,000 in prizing. Register NOW
Essentially the Ontario government of the province decided that nine extra months of life, wasn't worth the money. This is also essentially the decision that a "death panel" would make.
Great Moments In Socialized Medicine
While Congress is jumping to pass their government overhaul of the health care system, perhaps we should take a look, at a country, that already knows all too well about government run health care.
Recently the London Times Reported: Thousands of people are being forced to wait six months or more for hospital treatment or tests because of problems with the £12.7 billion project to upgrade NHS computer systems, The Times has learnt. More than 14,000 patients at a major London trust have already had to endure waiting times that exceed government guidelines. The trust was one of the first to install electronic patient records. Similar systems are being rolled out across England. The Department of Health says that nobody should wait more than 18 weeks to receive hospital treatment from the time they are referred by a GP, unless they choose to wait longer. But Barts and the London NHS Trust, which introduced the system in April last year, has a backlog of 22,000 electronic patient records on its 18-week waiting list.
Now as i have blogged before, these long wait times similar to the ones described above, will soon be coming here, if such a bill like the house bill is passed. The bill contains, high risk pools, but the catch is, in order to join one you have to be uninsured for 6 months. So in other words, if you need care and wish to join a high risk pool, you will have to wait six months.
Recently the London Times Reported: Thousands of people are being forced to wait six months or more for hospital treatment or tests because of problems with the £12.7 billion project to upgrade NHS computer systems, The Times has learnt. More than 14,000 patients at a major London trust have already had to endure waiting times that exceed government guidelines. The trust was one of the first to install electronic patient records. Similar systems are being rolled out across England. The Department of Health says that nobody should wait more than 18 weeks to receive hospital treatment from the time they are referred by a GP, unless they choose to wait longer. But Barts and the London NHS Trust, which introduced the system in April last year, has a backlog of 22,000 electronic patient records on its 18-week waiting list.
Now as i have blogged before, these long wait times similar to the ones described above, will soon be coming here, if such a bill like the house bill is passed. The bill contains, high risk pools, but the catch is, in order to join one you have to be uninsured for 6 months. So in other words, if you need care and wish to join a high risk pool, you will have to wait six months.
13 November 2009
Housing Crisis Hits Hollywood
Actor Nicholas Cage's next film may be in New Orleans, but he may no longer claim to be a citizen of New Orleans.
On Thursday Cage's two french quarter homes (2) went for 4.5 million.
Cage has been selling his properties in Los Angeles, Vegas, and Rhode Island to pay off 6 million tax lien.
The housing crisis has landed, and it has hit one of Hollywood's own. Nicholas Cage. Perhaps the banks, would be willing to maybe get you your house back, in exchange for some of that treasure.
On Thursday Cage's two french quarter homes (2) went for 4.5 million.
Cage has been selling his properties in Los Angeles, Vegas, and Rhode Island to pay off 6 million tax lien.
The housing crisis has landed, and it has hit one of Hollywood's own. Nicholas Cage. Perhaps the banks, would be willing to maybe get you your house back, in exchange for some of that treasure.
12 November 2009
ACORN Sues over Funding Cuts
Updated November 12, 2009
ACORN Sues Over 'Unconstitutional' Funding Cuts By Congress
by Joseph Abrams
, FOXNews.com
In an attempt to regain the millions in funding it lost in the wake of a hidden-camera scandal, ACORN is suing the federal government over congressional legislation that cut off funding to the community organizing group.
Representatives for ACORN sued the federal government Thursday morning in an attempt to regain the millions of dollars in funding the community organizing group lost after filmmakers videotaped its workers offering advice on how to commit tax fraud and various other felonies.
The suit charges Congress with violating the Constitution when it passed legislation in September that specifically targeted ACORN to lose federal housing, education and transportation funds.
That qualifies the legislation as bills of attainder, according to the Center for Constitutional Rights, which filed the suit on behalf of ACORN. A bill of attainder punishes a person or group without the benefit of a trial, and is illegal under Article 1 of the Constitution.
.........................................
Now has ACORN considered that maybe their funds were illegal? Or that maybe that the big government they support can do what ever they want, right? Here's what's worth suing over, an illegal voter fraud that helped elect officials.
ACORN Sues Over 'Unconstitutional' Funding Cuts By Congress
by Joseph Abrams
, FOXNews.com
In an attempt to regain the millions in funding it lost in the wake of a hidden-camera scandal, ACORN is suing the federal government over congressional legislation that cut off funding to the community organizing group.
Representatives for ACORN sued the federal government Thursday morning in an attempt to regain the millions of dollars in funding the community organizing group lost after filmmakers videotaped its workers offering advice on how to commit tax fraud and various other felonies.
The suit charges Congress with violating the Constitution when it passed legislation in September that specifically targeted ACORN to lose federal housing, education and transportation funds.
That qualifies the legislation as bills of attainder, according to the Center for Constitutional Rights, which filed the suit on behalf of ACORN. A bill of attainder punishes a person or group without the benefit of a trial, and is illegal under Article 1 of the Constitution.
.........................................
Now has ACORN considered that maybe their funds were illegal? Or that maybe that the big government they support can do what ever they want, right? Here's what's worth suing over, an illegal voter fraud that helped elect officials.
NY-23 Not Over Yet
They are still counting votes in NY-23. It turns out Hoffman might have prematurely conceded.
Washington — Conservative Doug Hoffman conceded the race in the 23rd Congressional District last week after receiving two pieces of grim news for his campaign: He was down 5,335 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted on election night, and he had barely won his stronghold in Oswego County.As it turns out, neither was true.
The fact that this guy conceded so fast, and as it turns out possibly incorrectly, might be grounds to concluded that he has no business being in that job to begin with.
This line from the stroy was a real jaw dropper though:
…Owens still led by about 3,000 votes, and that the special election was not contested — two factors that legally allowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to swear in Owens on Friday.
The Democrats must be over that whole Florida thing, because if memory serves, Al Gore conceded in 2000.
Washington — Conservative Doug Hoffman conceded the race in the 23rd Congressional District last week after receiving two pieces of grim news for his campaign: He was down 5,335 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted on election night, and he had barely won his stronghold in Oswego County.As it turns out, neither was true.
The fact that this guy conceded so fast, and as it turns out possibly incorrectly, might be grounds to concluded that he has no business being in that job to begin with.
This line from the stroy was a real jaw dropper though:
…Owens still led by about 3,000 votes, and that the special election was not contested — two factors that legally allowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to swear in Owens on Friday.
The Democrats must be over that whole Florida thing, because if memory serves, Al Gore conceded in 2000.
The 69% Capital Gains Tax Increase
American's For Tax Reform (ATR) has estimated that if they House health care bill is passed, it would raise the capital gains tax by about 69%.
The current capital gains tax rates are 15%. Next year, the Bush tax cuts will expire and the capital gains tax will go back up to 20% and then RAISED (hmmm raising tax on people earning less then 250k per year, who'd have thought) to 25.4%. That is a 69% increase.
Now this sounds good to raise this kind of a tax to create income, but how did this work out in the 80s?
The 1986 experience was not a happy one. Tax revenues from capital gains surged before the increase took effect in 1987, as investors moved to cash in at the lower rate. Revenues then plummeted. Total realized capital gains didn’t again reach their 1985 level of $172 billion until 1996. By 1992, the federal government was barely getting more in revenue ($29 billion) at the 28% rate than it did in 1985 ($26.5 billion) at the 20% rate.
Rate reductions, as in 2003 when Republicans cut the rate to 15% from 20%, have typically had the opposite effect. Treasury receipts from capital gains climbed to an estimated $117.8 billion in 2006 from $49 billion in 2002.
The current capital gains tax rates are 15%. Next year, the Bush tax cuts will expire and the capital gains tax will go back up to 20% and then RAISED (hmmm raising tax on people earning less then 250k per year, who'd have thought) to 25.4%. That is a 69% increase.
Now this sounds good to raise this kind of a tax to create income, but how did this work out in the 80s?
The 1986 experience was not a happy one. Tax revenues from capital gains surged before the increase took effect in 1987, as investors moved to cash in at the lower rate. Revenues then plummeted. Total realized capital gains didn’t again reach their 1985 level of $172 billion until 1996. By 1992, the federal government was barely getting more in revenue ($29 billion) at the 28% rate than it did in 1985 ($26.5 billion) at the 20% rate.
Rate reductions, as in 2003 when Republicans cut the rate to 15% from 20%, have typically had the opposite effect. Treasury receipts from capital gains climbed to an estimated $117.8 billion in 2006 from $49 billion in 2002.
11 November 2009
On Employer Privided Medicine
Two simple observations are key to explaining both the high level of spending on medical care and the dissatisfaction with that spending. The first is that most payments to physicians or hospitals or other caregivers for medical care are made not by the patient but by a third party—an insurance company or employer or governmental body. The second is that nobody spends somebody else’s money as wisely or as frugally as he spends his own.
No third party is involved when we shop at a supermarket. We pay the supermarket clerk directly: the same for gasoline for our car, clothes for our back, and so on down the line. Why, by contrast, are most medical payments made by third parties? The answer for the United States begins with the fact that medical care expenditures are exempt from the income tax if, and only if, medical care is provided by the employer. If an employee pays directly for medical care, the expenditure comes out of the employee’s after-tax income. If the employer pays for the employee’s medical care, the expenditure is treated as a tax-deductible expense for the employer and is not included as part of the employee’s income subject to income tax. That strong incentive explains why most consumers get their medical care through their employers or their spouses’ or their parents’ employer. In the next place, the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 made the government a third-party payer for persons and medical care covered by those measures.
We have become so accustomed to employer-provided medical care that we regard it as part of the natural order. Yet it is thoroughly illogical. Why single out medical care? Food is more essential to life than medical care. Why not exempt the cost of food from taxes if provided by the employer? Why not return to the much-reviled company store when workers were in effect paid in kind rather than in cash?
The revival of the company store for medicine has less to do with logic than pure chance. It is a wonderful example of how one bad government policy leads to another. During World War II, the government financed much wartime spending by printing money while, at the same time, imposing wage and price controls. The resulting repressed inflation produced shortages of many goods and services, including labor. Firms competing to acquire labor at government-controlled wages started to offer medical care as a fringe benefit. That benefit proved particularly attractive to workers and spread rapidly.
--Milton Freidman
No third party is involved when we shop at a supermarket. We pay the supermarket clerk directly: the same for gasoline for our car, clothes for our back, and so on down the line. Why, by contrast, are most medical payments made by third parties? The answer for the United States begins with the fact that medical care expenditures are exempt from the income tax if, and only if, medical care is provided by the employer. If an employee pays directly for medical care, the expenditure comes out of the employee’s after-tax income. If the employer pays for the employee’s medical care, the expenditure is treated as a tax-deductible expense for the employer and is not included as part of the employee’s income subject to income tax. That strong incentive explains why most consumers get their medical care through their employers or their spouses’ or their parents’ employer. In the next place, the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 made the government a third-party payer for persons and medical care covered by those measures.
We have become so accustomed to employer-provided medical care that we regard it as part of the natural order. Yet it is thoroughly illogical. Why single out medical care? Food is more essential to life than medical care. Why not exempt the cost of food from taxes if provided by the employer? Why not return to the much-reviled company store when workers were in effect paid in kind rather than in cash?
The revival of the company store for medicine has less to do with logic than pure chance. It is a wonderful example of how one bad government policy leads to another. During World War II, the government financed much wartime spending by printing money while, at the same time, imposing wage and price controls. The resulting repressed inflation produced shortages of many goods and services, including labor. Firms competing to acquire labor at government-controlled wages started to offer medical care as a fringe benefit. That benefit proved particularly attractive to workers and spread rapidly.
--Milton Freidman
Pelosi: Obamacare is our Christmas present to America
Really? Apparently for christmas this year, Washington, is giving us, Obamacare!
But with just 39% approval and 45% opposed to it I think it will be a busy boxing day.
But with just 39% approval and 45% opposed to it I think it will be a busy boxing day.
GOP Rising
In a new Gallup poll today on "if the elections were today which party would you vote for?"
The poll showed a dark tale for democrats everywhere as for the first time under the Obama administration the GOP pulled ahead winning the vote 48% to 44%.
I wonder how the media will cover this? if at all.
The poll showed a dark tale for democrats everywhere as for the first time under the Obama administration the GOP pulled ahead winning the vote 48% to 44%.
I wonder how the media will cover this? if at all.
10 November 2009
The Onion: Senate Passes Blame by Vote of 91-8
WASHINGTON—In a rare display of bipartisanship, senators on both sides of the aisle set aside their differences Tuesday and passed off responsibility for the nation's problems by an overwhelming 91-8 margin. "As senators, it's our duty to get any sort of blame out of Congress and onto the president's desk as quickly as possible," said Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who recalled a similar 2005 decision in which the Senate firmly rejected accountability by a vote of 93-6. "Someone has to accept this blame and do the right thing, and both Democrats and Republicans alike understand the importance of fighting tooth and nail to ensure that it's not us." President Obama is widely expected to veto the blame, sending it back down to the House of Representatives.
Entertainment: The Price of MJ's Funeral
Think the house health reform bill is a lot of money for congress, how about the price of now dead pop star Michael 'pervert' Jackson's funeral.
According to court papers obtained by EW (entertainment weekly), the price tag for Michael Jackson’s September funeral totaled $855,730.31. The bulk if the cost — $590,000, to be exact — went to the internment. Mausoleum upkeep required $88,500, while over $170,000 went to private security and lighting. Smaller costs: $3,682 went to a framed photo of Jackson placed next to his casket, $1,975 to wardrobe for his family, and $35,000 to Jackson’s burial wardrobe.
$35,000 on burial clothes?!?!?! Well at least children are safe, now that he's gone.
According to court papers obtained by EW (entertainment weekly), the price tag for Michael Jackson’s September funeral totaled $855,730.31. The bulk if the cost — $590,000, to be exact — went to the internment. Mausoleum upkeep required $88,500, while over $170,000 went to private security and lighting. Smaller costs: $3,682 went to a framed photo of Jackson placed next to his casket, $1,975 to wardrobe for his family, and $35,000 to Jackson’s burial wardrobe.
$35,000 on burial clothes?!?!?! Well at least children are safe, now that he's gone.
Notice: Blog Format Change
As you have probably noticed the page layout for the blog has changed, but that's not all that is new.
starting today, i will be covering not just politics/news, but also entertainment news: celeb news, gossip news, pop culture, current events, and entertainment news stories from the 'Onion'
starting today, i will be covering not just politics/news, but also entertainment news: celeb news, gossip news, pop culture, current events, and entertainment news stories from the 'Onion'
The Truth About Obamacare
From New Yorker writer John Cassidy quoted in today's WSJ:
Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."
Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.
Why are we acting like this is a good thing? This bill if anything will lead not to good care, but rationed care. Right now, if small businesses, who most of the tax penalties will hit, don't provide health insurance, they get taxes. Now, the tax is 8% payroll, which actually if you think about it, weather it's fair or not is besides the point right now, but it is certainly cheaper then providing health care for all of your employees.
So as a result you will see more people lose their coverage, more layoffs and a larger population using the public option. This, along with the system abusers who will pay a fine instead of buying insurance to get the free option, will cause an over crowded public option system, that when there are too many people, no enough revenue, will lead to rationing. Because they won't be able to afford or maintain it.
Have doubts? look at Hawaii's Kikiecare or Tennessee's Tencare.
Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."
Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.
Why are we acting like this is a good thing? This bill if anything will lead not to good care, but rationed care. Right now, if small businesses, who most of the tax penalties will hit, don't provide health insurance, they get taxes. Now, the tax is 8% payroll, which actually if you think about it, weather it's fair or not is besides the point right now, but it is certainly cheaper then providing health care for all of your employees.
So as a result you will see more people lose their coverage, more layoffs and a larger population using the public option. This, along with the system abusers who will pay a fine instead of buying insurance to get the free option, will cause an over crowded public option system, that when there are too many people, no enough revenue, will lead to rationing. Because they won't be able to afford or maintain it.
Have doubts? look at Hawaii's Kikiecare or Tennessee's Tencare.
09 November 2009
10 Facts Every American Should Know About Pelosi's 1990 Page Health "Reoform" Bill
1. RAISES TAXES ON MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill imposes a range of tax increases on families with income below $250,000, breaking a promise made by President Obama. Tax increases on middle class families include: an individual mandate tax of up to 2.5 percent of income for taxpayers earning as little as $9,350; repeal of a tax break on medicine purchased with funds from an HSA (health savings account); limits to tax relief through FSAs (flexible spending accounts); taxes on medical devices that will inevitably be passed on to consumers; and a new tax on all insurance policies.
2. MASSIVE CUTS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR SENIORS. Despite grave warnings from CBO, FactCheck.org, and the independent Lewin Group that cuts to Medicare of the magnitude included in Speaker Pelosi’s bill would have a negative impact on seniors’ benefits and choices, Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill stays the course and cuts Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars.
3. NO PROTECTIONS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill claims to exempt small businesses from the steep eight percent ‘pay or play’ employer mandate. The facts tell a different story. Using Census data compiled by the Small Business Administration, this so-called ‘exemption’ hammers small employers with only, on average, 17 or more employees to new taxes and mandates. The outfits affected employ 70 percent of all small business employees, or 42.3 million workers. Adding to the assault on small businesses, the bill does not index the small business “exemption” amounts, meaning more and more small businesses will be ensnared by this job-killing employer mandate each year.
4. INCREASES THE COST OF HEALTH INSURANCE. Imposing a new $2 billion tax on insurance policies will be passed on to patients in the form of higher premiums. Changes to the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit will, according to estimates by CBO, will raise Medicare Part B premiums by $25 billion and Part D premiums by 20 percent. And imposing an unfunded mandate on the states to pay for the bill’s Medicaid expansion will shift the burden of this expansion on state taxpayers who may experience tax increases to cover the cost.
5. USES GIMMICKS TO HIDE BUDGET-BUSTING COST, PILES UP DEBT ON FUTURE GENERATIONS. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill claims to be deficit neutral, but uses budget gimmickry to hide its massive total cost. Working families across America know they cannot simply decide that a bill they get in the mail doesn’t exist, but that’s exactly what congressional Democrats are doing. In order to meet the President’s ‘target’ spending total of $900 billion, Democrats have simply swept costly provisions under the rug, including the $245 billion ‘doc fix.’
6. IMPOSES JOB-KILLING EMPLOYER MANDATES. Additional taxes on employers and new government mandates that dictate acceptable insurance will place new and crushing burdens on employers. These are burdens that will ultimately fall squarely on the backs of workers in the form of reduced wages, fewer hours or lost employment. CBO agrees that "[e]mployees largely bear the cost of... play-or-pay fees in the form of lower wages." According to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), the nation’s largest small business association, an employer mandate of this magnitude will disproportionately impact small businesses, triggering up to 1.6 million lost jobs. Two-thirds of those jobs would be shed by small businesses.
7. TILTS THE PLAYING FIELD IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT-RUN INSURANCE COMPANY. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill promises not to give the government-run plan advantages over private insurers in the market, but the opposite is true. The bill provides billions in start-up funding for the government-run plan, and while it requires the plan to repay the money over time it does not require the plan to pay interest on this “loan.” This interest-free, taxpayer-subsidized loan is potentially worth millions of dollars and tilts the playing field in favor of the government-run plan.
8. THREATENS CASH-STRAPPED STATES WITH UNFUNDED MANDATES. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill swells the number of Americans on the government rolls by expanding Medicaid eligibility. Medicaid is financed through a federal-state partnership, but the bill dumps nearly ten percent of the mandated expansion included in the bill onto the states. States, already struggling with fiscal constraints, would be left on the hook for billions of dollars due to this unfunded mandate.
9. CREATES A NEW MONSTROSITY IN THE TAX CODE. Starting in 2011, Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill imposes a 5.4 percent tax on adjusted gross income above $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for married couples. Yet, the dollar amounts for which the tax kicks in are not indexed for inflation. We’ve seen this horror film before: the Alternative Minimum Tax, another Frankenstein’s monster of the tax code, also wasn’t indexed for inflation and now affects millions of middle class families with incomes below the Democrat’s surtax.
10. MISSES AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURTAIL JUNK LAWSUITS. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill misses a critical opportunity to rein in junk lawsuits and costly defensive medicine. The bill includes only a voluntary grant program to deal with the medical liability crisis instead of including real reform, which would produce tens of billions of dollars in savings, improve efficiency in our health care system and reduce costs for patients and providers.
2. MASSIVE CUTS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR SENIORS. Despite grave warnings from CBO, FactCheck.org, and the independent Lewin Group that cuts to Medicare of the magnitude included in Speaker Pelosi’s bill would have a negative impact on seniors’ benefits and choices, Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill stays the course and cuts Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars.
3. NO PROTECTIONS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill claims to exempt small businesses from the steep eight percent ‘pay or play’ employer mandate. The facts tell a different story. Using Census data compiled by the Small Business Administration, this so-called ‘exemption’ hammers small employers with only, on average, 17 or more employees to new taxes and mandates. The outfits affected employ 70 percent of all small business employees, or 42.3 million workers. Adding to the assault on small businesses, the bill does not index the small business “exemption” amounts, meaning more and more small businesses will be ensnared by this job-killing employer mandate each year.
4. INCREASES THE COST OF HEALTH INSURANCE. Imposing a new $2 billion tax on insurance policies will be passed on to patients in the form of higher premiums. Changes to the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit will, according to estimates by CBO, will raise Medicare Part B premiums by $25 billion and Part D premiums by 20 percent. And imposing an unfunded mandate on the states to pay for the bill’s Medicaid expansion will shift the burden of this expansion on state taxpayers who may experience tax increases to cover the cost.
5. USES GIMMICKS TO HIDE BUDGET-BUSTING COST, PILES UP DEBT ON FUTURE GENERATIONS. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill claims to be deficit neutral, but uses budget gimmickry to hide its massive total cost. Working families across America know they cannot simply decide that a bill they get in the mail doesn’t exist, but that’s exactly what congressional Democrats are doing. In order to meet the President’s ‘target’ spending total of $900 billion, Democrats have simply swept costly provisions under the rug, including the $245 billion ‘doc fix.’
6. IMPOSES JOB-KILLING EMPLOYER MANDATES. Additional taxes on employers and new government mandates that dictate acceptable insurance will place new and crushing burdens on employers. These are burdens that will ultimately fall squarely on the backs of workers in the form of reduced wages, fewer hours or lost employment. CBO agrees that "[e]mployees largely bear the cost of... play-or-pay fees in the form of lower wages." According to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), the nation’s largest small business association, an employer mandate of this magnitude will disproportionately impact small businesses, triggering up to 1.6 million lost jobs. Two-thirds of those jobs would be shed by small businesses.
7. TILTS THE PLAYING FIELD IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT-RUN INSURANCE COMPANY. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill promises not to give the government-run plan advantages over private insurers in the market, but the opposite is true. The bill provides billions in start-up funding for the government-run plan, and while it requires the plan to repay the money over time it does not require the plan to pay interest on this “loan.” This interest-free, taxpayer-subsidized loan is potentially worth millions of dollars and tilts the playing field in favor of the government-run plan.
8. THREATENS CASH-STRAPPED STATES WITH UNFUNDED MANDATES. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill swells the number of Americans on the government rolls by expanding Medicaid eligibility. Medicaid is financed through a federal-state partnership, but the bill dumps nearly ten percent of the mandated expansion included in the bill onto the states. States, already struggling with fiscal constraints, would be left on the hook for billions of dollars due to this unfunded mandate.
9. CREATES A NEW MONSTROSITY IN THE TAX CODE. Starting in 2011, Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill imposes a 5.4 percent tax on adjusted gross income above $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for married couples. Yet, the dollar amounts for which the tax kicks in are not indexed for inflation. We’ve seen this horror film before: the Alternative Minimum Tax, another Frankenstein’s monster of the tax code, also wasn’t indexed for inflation and now affects millions of middle class families with incomes below the Democrat’s surtax.
10. MISSES AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURTAIL JUNK LAWSUITS. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill misses a critical opportunity to rein in junk lawsuits and costly defensive medicine. The bill includes only a voluntary grant program to deal with the medical liability crisis instead of including real reform, which would produce tens of billions of dollars in savings, improve efficiency in our health care system and reduce costs for patients and providers.
Pelosi Bill New Price Tag~3 trillion
Senator Gregg: Updated CBO Estimate of House Bill Pulls Back the Curtain on Majority’s Intent to Grow Government by $3 Trillion
Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee today commented on the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) more detailed cost estimate of the manager’s amendment to the House health reform bill.
Senator Gregg stated, “The CBO estimate released last night finally sheds light on the smoke and mirrors game the majority has been playing with the cost of their health care reform proposal. Over the first 10 years, this legislation builds in gross new spending of $1.7 trillion – and most of the new spending doesn’t even start until 2014. Once that spending is fully phased in, the House Democratic bill rings up at more than $3 trillion over ten years.
“Additionally, this bill cuts critical Medicare and Medicaid funding by $628 billion, accounts for nearly $1.2 trillion in tax and fee increases and will explode the scope of government by putting the nation’s health care system in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. The $3 trillion price tag defies common sense – we simply cannot add all this new spending to the government rolls and claim to control the deficit.
“If we continue to pile more and more debt on the next generation, they will never be able to get out from under it. The health care system needs reform, but this massive expansion of government, financed by our children and grandchildren, is the wrong way to proceed.”
Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee today commented on the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) more detailed cost estimate of the manager’s amendment to the House health reform bill.
Senator Gregg stated, “The CBO estimate released last night finally sheds light on the smoke and mirrors game the majority has been playing with the cost of their health care reform proposal. Over the first 10 years, this legislation builds in gross new spending of $1.7 trillion – and most of the new spending doesn’t even start until 2014. Once that spending is fully phased in, the House Democratic bill rings up at more than $3 trillion over ten years.
“Additionally, this bill cuts critical Medicare and Medicaid funding by $628 billion, accounts for nearly $1.2 trillion in tax and fee increases and will explode the scope of government by putting the nation’s health care system in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. The $3 trillion price tag defies common sense – we simply cannot add all this new spending to the government rolls and claim to control the deficit.
“If we continue to pile more and more debt on the next generation, they will never be able to get out from under it. The health care system needs reform, but this massive expansion of government, financed by our children and grandchildren, is the wrong way to proceed.”
Public Option Faces Death Panel
The public option now faces the death panel, and they vote to pull the plug on the public option.
The AP reported a headline today: The Public Option is Dead.
The LA Times says:
"House approval of legislation Saturday — even if Democrats can move it no further — was an accomplishment that has eluded presidents for decades. But the close vote and the exertions it took to secure a majority were laden with warning signs as the issue moves to the Senate.
Even though the House is a bastion of liberalism, the healthcare overhaul was a tougher sell than expected and the bill turned out to be more conservative in its price tag, more limited in the scope of its government-run insurance option and tighter in its restrictions on abortion funding than many Democrats had hoped.
Moreover, the narrow victory — 220 to 215 in a chamber where Democrats hold 258 seats — was unsettling for liberals because moderate Democrats have a louder voice in the Senate and Republicans have more stalling power.
What is more, the political climate has become more challenging for progressivism than it was when Obama’s agenda for change was launched in his 2008 presidential campaign and ratified with his resounding election one year ago."
What has changed thus far? A 10.2% unemployment have shoved a wedge in the revolving door of big spending programs under Obama like the stimulus. Obamacare will be no different. The recent election have shown a shift in power from blue to red in key states. And lest we forget the bill narrowly passed the house, in a raging liberal congress. In a far more moderate to conservative senate, well things don't look good.
But Sen. Joe Lieberman wasted no time in saying he can’t support the public insurance plan in the House bill.
If a government plan is part of the deal, “as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote,” said Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent whose vote Democrats need to overcome GOP filibusters.
“The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said.
Democrats did not line up to challenge him. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has yet to schedule floor debate and hinted last week that senators may not be able to finish health care this year.
The senate will mostly likely pass a moderate bill without a public option, like the Baucus bill, and the stupak amendment is repealed, it will get filibustered by Lieberman and a hand full of other red state democrats, and of course GOPers.
Senate majority leader Harry Reid has said that we will most likely not get health care done this year, in which case it will go into 2010, a big election year for blue dogs, and conservative democrats who will need center votes.
Either way, this spells disaster for the public option.
The AP reported a headline today: The Public Option is Dead.
The LA Times says:
"House approval of legislation Saturday — even if Democrats can move it no further — was an accomplishment that has eluded presidents for decades. But the close vote and the exertions it took to secure a majority were laden with warning signs as the issue moves to the Senate.
Even though the House is a bastion of liberalism, the healthcare overhaul was a tougher sell than expected and the bill turned out to be more conservative in its price tag, more limited in the scope of its government-run insurance option and tighter in its restrictions on abortion funding than many Democrats had hoped.
Moreover, the narrow victory — 220 to 215 in a chamber where Democrats hold 258 seats — was unsettling for liberals because moderate Democrats have a louder voice in the Senate and Republicans have more stalling power.
What is more, the political climate has become more challenging for progressivism than it was when Obama’s agenda for change was launched in his 2008 presidential campaign and ratified with his resounding election one year ago."
What has changed thus far? A 10.2% unemployment have shoved a wedge in the revolving door of big spending programs under Obama like the stimulus. Obamacare will be no different. The recent election have shown a shift in power from blue to red in key states. And lest we forget the bill narrowly passed the house, in a raging liberal congress. In a far more moderate to conservative senate, well things don't look good.
But Sen. Joe Lieberman wasted no time in saying he can’t support the public insurance plan in the House bill.
If a government plan is part of the deal, “as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote,” said Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent whose vote Democrats need to overcome GOP filibusters.
“The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said.
Democrats did not line up to challenge him. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has yet to schedule floor debate and hinted last week that senators may not be able to finish health care this year.
The senate will mostly likely pass a moderate bill without a public option, like the Baucus bill, and the stupak amendment is repealed, it will get filibustered by Lieberman and a hand full of other red state democrats, and of course GOPers.
Senate majority leader Harry Reid has said that we will most likely not get health care done this year, in which case it will go into 2010, a big election year for blue dogs, and conservative democrats who will need center votes.
Either way, this spells disaster for the public option.
Congress Play Politics With Health Reform
TAPPER: Here’s a question a lot of Senate Democrats want to know. You said, when you gave your joint address to Congress, that under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions. This amendment passed Saturday night which not only prohibits abortion coverage in the public option, but also prohibits women who receive subsidies from taking out plans that — that provide abortion coverage. Does that meet the promise that you set out or does it over reach, does it go too far?
OBAMA: You know, I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. And we’re not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions. And I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test — that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we’re not restricting women’s insurance choices, because one of the pledges I made in that same speech was to say that if you’re happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, that it’s not going to change. So, you know, this is going to be a complex set of negotiations. I’m confident that we can actually arrive at this place where neither side feels that it’s being betrayed. But it’s going to take some time.
TAPPER: Do you think that amendment is status quo or does it lean a little bit in one direction or the other?
OBAMA: I think that there are strong feelings on both sides. And what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we’re not changing the status quo. And that’s the goal. The goal here is to make sure that people who have health insurance have greater stability and security, people who don’t have health insurance get the ability to buy it affordably and that we’re driving down costs.
--Back to reality. So looking at this, and with all the talk even coming from the left, about the abortion amendment, that would prohibit tax payer funded abortions being part of health reform, being repealed, i mean what do you make of this?
What you have here, is a classic example of politics.
You have, the house, who knows that they can't pass this bill, so they play up to the blue dogs, by offering this amendment to the bill to get their vote. Bribing them, and then once they get their vote, and pass this god awful thing, then, they get rid of it. And tell the senate to not have it, in their bill. So they used this just to get it passed, and then once it is passed throw it out and put public funded abortions back in and say sorry that's politics.
Man some congressman are gonna be regretting this in 2010.
OBAMA: You know, I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. And we’re not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions. And I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test — that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we’re not restricting women’s insurance choices, because one of the pledges I made in that same speech was to say that if you’re happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, that it’s not going to change. So, you know, this is going to be a complex set of negotiations. I’m confident that we can actually arrive at this place where neither side feels that it’s being betrayed. But it’s going to take some time.
TAPPER: Do you think that amendment is status quo or does it lean a little bit in one direction or the other?
OBAMA: I think that there are strong feelings on both sides. And what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we’re not changing the status quo. And that’s the goal. The goal here is to make sure that people who have health insurance have greater stability and security, people who don’t have health insurance get the ability to buy it affordably and that we’re driving down costs.
--Back to reality. So looking at this, and with all the talk even coming from the left, about the abortion amendment, that would prohibit tax payer funded abortions being part of health reform, being repealed, i mean what do you make of this?
What you have here, is a classic example of politics.
You have, the house, who knows that they can't pass this bill, so they play up to the blue dogs, by offering this amendment to the bill to get their vote. Bribing them, and then once they get their vote, and pass this god awful thing, then, they get rid of it. And tell the senate to not have it, in their bill. So they used this just to get it passed, and then once it is passed throw it out and put public funded abortions back in and say sorry that's politics.
Man some congressman are gonna be regretting this in 2010.
08 November 2009
Planned Parenthood Director Turns Pro-Life
This post is late based on when this story first came out, but hey.
It's something to think about. The pro-abortion community organization planned parenthood, director turns pro-life.
Now that's gotta shake things up. Big win for the pro-life movement. Epic fail for the pro-deathers.
It's something to think about. The pro-abortion community organization planned parenthood, director turns pro-life.
Now that's gotta shake things up. Big win for the pro-life movement. Epic fail for the pro-deathers.
Fox the only cable news channel to cover Pelosi speech live
The White House might want to seriously reconsider their claim that Fox News, isn't a real news channel.
Yesterday during the "historic" vote on health reform Fox News was, with the exception of C-Span, the only news station to cover Pelosi's house speech live.
A question that i asked was, where is the rest of the media?
Instead CNN and MSLSD (msnbc) were covering other things that were apparently more important.
CNN had reruns of situation room, while mslsd was showing a crime documentary.
This while Fox was covering the health care vote and speaker Pelosi's speech live as it was happening.
So who's the real news station?
Yesterday during the "historic" vote on health reform Fox News was, with the exception of C-Span, the only news station to cover Pelosi's house speech live.
A question that i asked was, where is the rest of the media?
Instead CNN and MSLSD (msnbc) were covering other things that were apparently more important.
CNN had reruns of situation room, while mslsd was showing a crime documentary.
This while Fox was covering the health care vote and speaker Pelosi's speech live as it was happening.
So who's the real news station?
Real Unemployment: 17.5%
Once you factor the people out of the work force who have stopped looking for a job, the unemployment rate is 17.5% and our work force has shrunk drastically in the last 5 months or so.
When the employment surveys go out, it does not include people who are not looking for work. People look at this economy and say "hell no i'm not looking for a job." they then leave the work force, causing unemployment to go up. Well actually it makes it look better than it actually is.
If you have 10 people unemployed out of 100 then the rate is 10%. But if say 5 people drop out of the work force then the percentage goes down because it is now 10 out of 95 a 9.5% rate. See it looks like unemployment has dropped meaning more jobs, but the work force has just gotten smaller. Which is bad.
When the employment surveys go out, it does not include people who are not looking for work. People look at this economy and say "hell no i'm not looking for a job." they then leave the work force, causing unemployment to go up. Well actually it makes it look better than it actually is.
If you have 10 people unemployed out of 100 then the rate is 10%. But if say 5 people drop out of the work force then the percentage goes down because it is now 10 out of 95 a 9.5% rate. See it looks like unemployment has dropped meaning more jobs, but the work force has just gotten smaller. Which is bad.
The Meltdown: Expanding Ice
The meltdown today is brought to you from the National Snow & Ice Data Center, who claim that based off a report and study, in 1980 arctic ice covered 1.6 million square miles.
Now today they report that arctic ice covers 5 million square miles. That's more than twice what is was almost 30 years ago.
How can anyone make the claim that arctic ice is melting?
Now today they report that arctic ice covers 5 million square miles. That's more than twice what is was almost 30 years ago.
How can anyone make the claim that arctic ice is melting?
07 November 2009
Jobs "Saved or Created"
Here is an illustration to show how those 640,000 jobs were really saved or created:
Let’s say you have a highway construction project in the Salt Lake City area that takes one month. A foreman is hired for the project and he brings on 20 guys he likes to work with to fill out his crew. That is 21 jobs “saved or created”. While that job is being completed, the funding if being secured for another highway construction project. By the time that funding goes through, the first project is done and they decide to just move the whole crew over to the next project. That is another 21 jobs “saved or created”.
If this happens four more times, on paper it looks like 124 jobs have been “saved or created” when in reality 21 people have been fully employed for six months. But if you judge jobs through a “man-weeks”/”job-years” lens, you have 10.5 jobs.
Let’s say you have a highway construction project in the Salt Lake City area that takes one month. A foreman is hired for the project and he brings on 20 guys he likes to work with to fill out his crew. That is 21 jobs “saved or created”. While that job is being completed, the funding if being secured for another highway construction project. By the time that funding goes through, the first project is done and they decide to just move the whole crew over to the next project. That is another 21 jobs “saved or created”.
If this happens four more times, on paper it looks like 124 jobs have been “saved or created” when in reality 21 people have been fully employed for six months. But if you judge jobs through a “man-weeks”/”job-years” lens, you have 10.5 jobs.
Universal Nightmare: Liberal Fascism part 7
In Nazi Germany, the Nazi police would always seem to find an excuse to jail some one. Often laws were put into place to control the masses. If the individual failed to meet that law a fine was imposed. And if that fine was not paid, they were sentenced to jail.
The current health care bill imposes an individual health care mandate that forces people to buy health insurance. If one does not purchase health insurance, then they are fined. The Joint Committee on Taxation wrote a letter to bring forth the police state law that would be forced upon us if this bill is passed.
Here is an excerpt from their letter:
H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]
“Criminal penalties Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or IMPRISONMENT of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or IMPRISONMENT of up to five years.” [page 3]
When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.
“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.
According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.
In Fascist Germany if you didn't abide by the law, you were fined. Fail to pay that fine, you went to jail.
That was Fascism, but don't worry this is liberalism. If you don't buy health insurance, you are fined. Fail to pay they fine, you go to jail.
Oh wait, that actually seems pretty similar to fascism.
The current health care bill imposes an individual health care mandate that forces people to buy health insurance. If one does not purchase health insurance, then they are fined. The Joint Committee on Taxation wrote a letter to bring forth the police state law that would be forced upon us if this bill is passed.
Here is an excerpt from their letter:
H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]
“Criminal penalties Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or IMPRISONMENT of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or IMPRISONMENT of up to five years.” [page 3]
When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.
“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.
According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.
In Fascist Germany if you didn't abide by the law, you were fined. Fail to pay that fine, you went to jail.
That was Fascism, but don't worry this is liberalism. If you don't buy health insurance, you are fined. Fail to pay they fine, you go to jail.
Oh wait, that actually seems pretty similar to fascism.
More on Death Panels
As i posted late last month, the death panel provision is still alive. Some where buried in the 1990 pages of bureaucracy is as AP news reports, "The provision allows Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries deal with the complex and painful decisions families face when a loved one is approaching death."
The AP also reported that although it is not promoted or necessarily encouraged, assisted suicide is an option for patients.
As Former Gov. of Alaska Sarah Palin pointed out this past summer, the house bill at the time included a section that seemed very similar to death panels:
Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program." During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services.
Now 'death panels' are real, despite what people tell you. Go back to the Barbra Wagner story from the state of Oregon, which at the time had government run health care. She got a note from the hospital saying, that the drug she needed would cost $4,000 a month. Due to the cost the state refused to pay it. Now that meant that she would not get the cure she needed. However, the state and hospital did are to give here pills from her doctor that would kill her. Other wise know as, assisted suicide.
The AP also reported that although it is not promoted or necessarily encouraged, assisted suicide is an option for patients.
As Former Gov. of Alaska Sarah Palin pointed out this past summer, the house bill at the time included a section that seemed very similar to death panels:
Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program." During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services.
Now 'death panels' are real, despite what people tell you. Go back to the Barbra Wagner story from the state of Oregon, which at the time had government run health care. She got a note from the hospital saying, that the drug she needed would cost $4,000 a month. Due to the cost the state refused to pay it. Now that meant that she would not get the cure she needed. However, the state and hospital did are to give here pills from her doctor that would kill her. Other wise know as, assisted suicide.
What The Constitution Says About The Individual Mandate
Here is a nice article i found while searching for stuff, on the Individual health insurance mandate. This comes from Politico.com
Individual mandate insurance is unconstitutional: The Senate Finance Committee-passed health care bill includes an “individual mandate” that Americans must buy an insurance policy or pay a fine, an approach that tracks President Barack Obama’s health care proposals. But if enacted into law, this mandate would be glaringly unconstitutional.
That’s because those refusing to get insurance would be subject to a fine, and refusing to pay would be a misdemeanor crime, punishable by another fine or even jail time.
States wield what is called police power: the authority to make laws for the health, safety and morality of their people. The federal government, on the other hand, has limited jurisdiction. If the Constitution does not grant a specific power to the federal government, then the 10th Amendment reserves it to the states or the people.
Plenty of constitutional provisions grant powers to the federal government. For example, most that involve conditions on persons receiving federal money come from the Tax and Spending Clause. Many of the rest come from the Commerce Clause, which empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
But, as other lawyers have correctly noted, there is no constitutional basis for the individual mandate. People who decline coverage are not receiving federal money, so that mandate can’t fall under the spending part of the Tax and Spending Clause.
It also cannot be a tax. The federal government can levy only certain kinds of taxes. Article I of the Constitution authorizes excise and capitation taxes, and the 16th Amendment created the income tax.
It can’t be an excise tax because that’s a surcharge on a purchase, and here people are not buying anything. It can’t be a capitation (or “direct”) tax because that is a tax on every person in a state and must be equal for every person in the state; this would be a levy that some people would pay and others would not. And it can’t be an income tax because that must be based on personal income, not purchase decisions.
All that’s left is the Commerce Clause. And the people who declined to purchase government-mandated insurance would not be engaging in commercial activity, so there’s no interstate commerce. That, in fact, is the government’s problem with them: Those people refuse to take the money or play the game.
It’s true that the Commerce Clause (like some other constitutional provisions) has been construed over the years (since 1942) into something that would give the Founding Fathers fits. It’s been interpreted into a ridiculously broad catchall for federal intrusions into people’s lives.
But it’s not unlimited. The Commerce Clause still constrains federal action, even though in the past seven decades only two laws have been struck down on Commerce Clause grounds, in 1995 and 2000. We don’t see the courts use this provision often because even on its worst day, Congress usually doesn’t go on an insane, socialist spending spree. (Well, until lately.) ~Politico.com
Individual mandate insurance is unconstitutional: The Senate Finance Committee-passed health care bill includes an “individual mandate” that Americans must buy an insurance policy or pay a fine, an approach that tracks President Barack Obama’s health care proposals. But if enacted into law, this mandate would be glaringly unconstitutional.
That’s because those refusing to get insurance would be subject to a fine, and refusing to pay would be a misdemeanor crime, punishable by another fine or even jail time.
States wield what is called police power: the authority to make laws for the health, safety and morality of their people. The federal government, on the other hand, has limited jurisdiction. If the Constitution does not grant a specific power to the federal government, then the 10th Amendment reserves it to the states or the people.
Plenty of constitutional provisions grant powers to the federal government. For example, most that involve conditions on persons receiving federal money come from the Tax and Spending Clause. Many of the rest come from the Commerce Clause, which empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
But, as other lawyers have correctly noted, there is no constitutional basis for the individual mandate. People who decline coverage are not receiving federal money, so that mandate can’t fall under the spending part of the Tax and Spending Clause.
It also cannot be a tax. The federal government can levy only certain kinds of taxes. Article I of the Constitution authorizes excise and capitation taxes, and the 16th Amendment created the income tax.
It can’t be an excise tax because that’s a surcharge on a purchase, and here people are not buying anything. It can’t be a capitation (or “direct”) tax because that is a tax on every person in a state and must be equal for every person in the state; this would be a levy that some people would pay and others would not. And it can’t be an income tax because that must be based on personal income, not purchase decisions.
All that’s left is the Commerce Clause. And the people who declined to purchase government-mandated insurance would not be engaging in commercial activity, so there’s no interstate commerce. That, in fact, is the government’s problem with them: Those people refuse to take the money or play the game.
It’s true that the Commerce Clause (like some other constitutional provisions) has been construed over the years (since 1942) into something that would give the Founding Fathers fits. It’s been interpreted into a ridiculously broad catchall for federal intrusions into people’s lives.
But it’s not unlimited. The Commerce Clause still constrains federal action, even though in the past seven decades only two laws have been struck down on Commerce Clause grounds, in 1995 and 2000. We don’t see the courts use this provision often because even on its worst day, Congress usually doesn’t go on an insane, socialist spending spree. (Well, until lately.) ~Politico.com
Tax Hikes Don't Work
The left has always played the same game, if only taxes were raised, problems would be solved. It would balance the budget, and help the economy.
But if this were true, then why does California, with a huge 10.6% state tax rate have a huge deficit and 12.2% unemployment rate. Meanwhile the lone star state of Texas, has no state income tax, and are enjoying a nice budget surplus, with just a below average unemployment rate of 8.2%.
Rhode Island is nearly bankrupt with their 8th highest state income tax rate of 7.75% and 13% unemployment. This, while South Dakota, has no state income tax and only 4.4% unemployment.
If only taxes were higher.
But if this were true, then why does California, with a huge 10.6% state tax rate have a huge deficit and 12.2% unemployment rate. Meanwhile the lone star state of Texas, has no state income tax, and are enjoying a nice budget surplus, with just a below average unemployment rate of 8.2%.
Rhode Island is nearly bankrupt with their 8th highest state income tax rate of 7.75% and 13% unemployment. This, while South Dakota, has no state income tax and only 4.4% unemployment.
If only taxes were higher.
06 November 2009
Stimulus Tracker: Job Creation
Political Math Blog:
Now, if you look at recovery.gov, you’ll see that the stimulus has “saved or created” 640,000 jobs. I was curious how they got this number, so I downloaded the raw data and started sifting through it. This is what I found:
* Over 6,500 of all the “created or saved” jobs are cost-of-living adjustments (COLA), which is a raise of between 1.8%-3.5%.
* Over 6,000 of the jobs are federal work study jobs, which are part time jobs for needy students. As such, they’re not really “jobs” in the sense that most other federal agencies report job statistics.
* About half of the jobs (over 300,000) fall under the “State Fiscal Stabilization Fund”, which can be described like so: Your state (perhaps it rhymes with Balicornia) can’t afford all the programs it has running, but when the state government tries to raise taxes, people yell and scream and threaten to move. The federal government comes in with stimulus funds and subsidizes the state programs. Consider this a “reach-around” tax in which the state can’t raise taxes its citizens any more, but the federal government can. So the federal government just gives the state the money to keep running programs they can’t afford on their own.
* There are, scattered hither and non, contracts and grants that state in no unclear language that “This project has no jobs created or retained” but lists dozens, if not hundreds, of jobs that have been “saved or created” by the project. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Because there is no guidance in the forms on the proper way to measure “a job”, recipients are left to themselves to figure out what counts as a job. Some of them fill it out by calculating “man-weeks” and assume one “job-year” to be the measurement of a single job. Others fulfill contracts that only require two weeks, but they count every person they hire for every job to be a separate job created.
Now, if you look at recovery.gov, you’ll see that the stimulus has “saved or created” 640,000 jobs. I was curious how they got this number, so I downloaded the raw data and started sifting through it. This is what I found:
* Over 6,500 of all the “created or saved” jobs are cost-of-living adjustments (COLA), which is a raise of between 1.8%-3.5%.
* Over 6,000 of the jobs are federal work study jobs, which are part time jobs for needy students. As such, they’re not really “jobs” in the sense that most other federal agencies report job statistics.
* About half of the jobs (over 300,000) fall under the “State Fiscal Stabilization Fund”, which can be described like so: Your state (perhaps it rhymes with Balicornia) can’t afford all the programs it has running, but when the state government tries to raise taxes, people yell and scream and threaten to move. The federal government comes in with stimulus funds and subsidizes the state programs. Consider this a “reach-around” tax in which the state can’t raise taxes its citizens any more, but the federal government can. So the federal government just gives the state the money to keep running programs they can’t afford on their own.
* There are, scattered hither and non, contracts and grants that state in no unclear language that “This project has no jobs created or retained” but lists dozens, if not hundreds, of jobs that have been “saved or created” by the project. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Because there is no guidance in the forms on the proper way to measure “a job”, recipients are left to themselves to figure out what counts as a job. Some of them fill it out by calculating “man-weeks” and assume one “job-year” to be the measurement of a single job. Others fulfill contracts that only require two weeks, but they count every person they hire for every job to be a separate job created.
Unemployment hits 26 year high!
Remember back last winter, when the democrats told us we HAD to pass the stimulus. And if we didn't unemployment would soar. Also that if we did, then unemployment would not go above 8%
Well bad news for stimulus, the Department of Labor Statistics recently informed us that we shed 190,000 jobs in October, and that unemployment is now at 10.2% a .4% increase from last months 9.8%
Thus far the stimulus has shown to be a failure. It has only created about 40,000 jobs despite what the white house said (see older post: for detail) and has lost us almost 3 million jobs.
10.2% unemployment, highest it's been in 26 years. Ouch.
Well bad news for stimulus, the Department of Labor Statistics recently informed us that we shed 190,000 jobs in October, and that unemployment is now at 10.2% a .4% increase from last months 9.8%
Thus far the stimulus has shown to be a failure. It has only created about 40,000 jobs despite what the white house said (see older post: for detail) and has lost us almost 3 million jobs.
10.2% unemployment, highest it's been in 26 years. Ouch.
05 November 2009
The Largest Denier of Health Care
Recently we've heard a lot about this preexisting conditions stuff. We here that the private sector is denying people all over the country, and that the government, is the answer.
Obama wants a public option to keep insurance companies honest and stop them from denying people coverage. Well what does it say though, when we find out that in the 2008 American Medical Association report shows that medicare denies twice as many patients as private insurers.
The report shows us that between march of 2007 and march of 2008 there were 10,000,000 insurance claims. And it also says that there were 574,591 denied claims.
And who top the charts with the most denied claims? Medicare. A government run health system. What a coincidence. And we're trying to stop insurance companies from denying patients, by getting the government involved?
Of those the AMA followed the results came as: medicare denied (6.85%), more than double the denial rate for private insurers like UHC (2.7%), Coventry (2.9%), Humana (2.9%) and CIGNA (3.4%).
So who exactly is the big bad claims denier? The government. The same government who has no constitutional authority to tell private companies how to operate their system.
Obama wants a public option to keep insurance companies honest and stop them from denying people coverage. Well what does it say though, when we find out that in the 2008 American Medical Association report shows that medicare denies twice as many patients as private insurers.
The report shows us that between march of 2007 and march of 2008 there were 10,000,000 insurance claims. And it also says that there were 574,591 denied claims.
And who top the charts with the most denied claims? Medicare. A government run health system. What a coincidence. And we're trying to stop insurance companies from denying patients, by getting the government involved?
Of those the AMA followed the results came as: medicare denied (6.85%), more than double the denial rate for private insurers like UHC (2.7%), Coventry (2.9%), Humana (2.9%) and CIGNA (3.4%).
So who exactly is the big bad claims denier? The government. The same government who has no constitutional authority to tell private companies how to operate their system.
Obama Losing Independents
Bad news for Obama, the independents that elected him are now dropping from his support group.
A new Mclatchy poll compared Obama approval from independents in august, to now.
The polls look grim. In August his rating amongst inds. was 54%, as of today it stands at 42% a 12 point drop.
Also dropping among independents is support for Obamacare. In august support for it was 53%, now it is 29%. A huge 24% drop!
The tide is turning. Revolution is brewing.
A new Mclatchy poll compared Obama approval from independents in august, to now.
The polls look grim. In August his rating amongst inds. was 54%, as of today it stands at 42% a 12 point drop.
Also dropping among independents is support for Obamacare. In august support for it was 53%, now it is 29%. A huge 24% drop!
The tide is turning. Revolution is brewing.
Inside the Pelosi Bill
Is this a horror movie? AHHHH wake me up when it's over!!!
Page 211—Section 321 establishes a new government-run health plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries, would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage;
Page 225—Section 330 permits—but does not require—Members of Congress to enroll in government-run health care;
Page 255—Section 345 does not include a requirement to verify applicants’ identity, thus encouraging identity fraud for undocumented immigrants and others wishing to receive taxpayer-subsidized health benefits;
Page 297—Section 501 imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health insurance—that tax would apply on individuals with incomes UNDER $250,000 would it not? Thus breaking a central promise of then-Senator Obama’s presidential campaign;
Page 520—Section 1161 cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, potentially jeopardizing millions of seniors’ existing coverage;
Page 211—Section 321 establishes a new government-run health plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries, would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage;
Page 225—Section 330 permits—but does not require—Members of Congress to enroll in government-run health care;
Page 255—Section 345 does not include a requirement to verify applicants’ identity, thus encouraging identity fraud for undocumented immigrants and others wishing to receive taxpayer-subsidized health benefits;
Page 297—Section 501 imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health insurance—that tax would apply on individuals with incomes UNDER $250,000 would it not? Thus breaking a central promise of then-Senator Obama’s presidential campaign;
Page 520—Section 1161 cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, potentially jeopardizing millions of seniors’ existing coverage;
Universal Nightmare: Long Wait Times Under Obamacare
The left has said since this debate began, that it will not be like the UK with long wait times. But under the health care bills in Congress, you could apply for coverage through a new high-risk pool that President Barack Obama promises would immediately start serving patients with pre-existing medical problems.
Wait a second. Read the fine print. You may have to be uninsured for six months to qualify.
President Obama has championed high risk pools in his health care reform in order to cover those without insurance.
The six-month wait is in the health care bill the Senate Finance Committee approved last month. To qualify for the pool, patients must be turned down for coverage because of a pre-existing condition and uninsured for at least six months.
The bill has set aside 5 billion for these pools to run. Although that doesn't seem like enough. 30 states have these risk pools and it costs each state about 1 billion a year to sustain it. 5 billion sure doesn't sound like enough.
Perhaps this could be another bankrupt system. And don't forget the long 6 month wait time.
Wait a second. Read the fine print. You may have to be uninsured for six months to qualify.
President Obama has championed high risk pools in his health care reform in order to cover those without insurance.
The six-month wait is in the health care bill the Senate Finance Committee approved last month. To qualify for the pool, patients must be turned down for coverage because of a pre-existing condition and uninsured for at least six months.
The bill has set aside 5 billion for these pools to run. Although that doesn't seem like enough. 30 states have these risk pools and it costs each state about 1 billion a year to sustain it. 5 billion sure doesn't sound like enough.
Perhaps this could be another bankrupt system. And don't forget the long 6 month wait time.
Universal Nightmare: Lessons From Maine
President Obama and his administration as well as the house have made things clear. They want a public option in their health care reform. Now most Americans sit wondering what this will be like and how it will affect them. However just north of Washington, like an omen is the lighthouse state of Maine, where people there know all too well about the public option.
In 2003 Maine passed "Dirigo-care" the states first attempt at a government run health care option. Dirigocare had three main (haha) elements to it that are shockingly similar to Obamacare.
1) cover the uninsured. "PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, SEPT. 12: My plan will provide more security and stability for those who have health insurance, offer quality, affordable choices to those who currently don't."
2) Paid for by government savings. "OBAMA, SEPT. 9: We've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system."
3) No new taxes. "OBAMA, FEB. 24: You will not see your taxes increased a single dime."
It was a great movement forward for universal access to health care.
"HANNAH PINGREE, D-MAINE, SPEAKER OF THE MAINE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: It was exciting. I mean, it was a step in the right direction. It was a step towards universal health care. The entire idea behind Dirigo was that health care was based on your ability to pay. So we would offer people discounts or vouchers so that they could buy insurance."
Most people liked it and thought it was very impressive.
"MIKE VIOLETTE, PORTLAND, MAINE, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: People actually were into it. It sounded beautiful. I mean, we're going to ensure 140,000 people who have never had insurance or have bad insurance. And we're going to do it in a very cost-effective fashion. What's not to like?"
However, six years later Dirigocare has shown to bee an epic failure. Tarren Bragdon at the Maine Heritage Policy Center says the program failed in practice.
"TARREN BRAGDON, MAINE HERITAGE POLICY CENTER: What happened is we set up this plan that was very, very heavily subsidized, and people flocked to it. And then, because people got something for very little cost, utilization went through the roof. And so premiums just skyrocketed, up 74 percent."
BRAGDON: Dirigo, just like what Congress is trying to do, said, "We will cover you at any time, no matter what, with no pre-existing condition exclusions." And that's what drove up costs.
People cycle on when they're sick, and they cycle off when they're healthy. They get sick again, they cycle back on. And the program is structured in a way that encourages them.
Today Dirigocare covers about 10,000 Mainers, far short of their goal of 128,000.
The plan like Obamacare was suppose to be paid for by savings. But today the system is bankrupt and the state just imposed a 2.4% tax on private insurance to pay for it, after promising it would not increase taxes.
This is just one example of government run health care in the states. And as a result most states have stayed away from the public option. It is bankrupt, it has drastically raised premiums, cheated the private sector, and raised taxes. Based on this, i think Washington may want to think before they pass their health "reform" into law.
Think, a bankrupt system with sky rocketing premiums and costs on a state with 1.3 million people is bad enough, but then to escalate that on a scale with 300 million people, that's suicide.
In 2003 Maine passed "Dirigo-care" the states first attempt at a government run health care option. Dirigocare had three main (haha) elements to it that are shockingly similar to Obamacare.
1) cover the uninsured. "PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, SEPT. 12: My plan will provide more security and stability for those who have health insurance, offer quality, affordable choices to those who currently don't."
2) Paid for by government savings. "OBAMA, SEPT. 9: We've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system."
3) No new taxes. "OBAMA, FEB. 24: You will not see your taxes increased a single dime."
It was a great movement forward for universal access to health care.
"HANNAH PINGREE, D-MAINE, SPEAKER OF THE MAINE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: It was exciting. I mean, it was a step in the right direction. It was a step towards universal health care. The entire idea behind Dirigo was that health care was based on your ability to pay. So we would offer people discounts or vouchers so that they could buy insurance."
Most people liked it and thought it was very impressive.
"MIKE VIOLETTE, PORTLAND, MAINE, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: People actually were into it. It sounded beautiful. I mean, we're going to ensure 140,000 people who have never had insurance or have bad insurance. And we're going to do it in a very cost-effective fashion. What's not to like?"
However, six years later Dirigocare has shown to bee an epic failure. Tarren Bragdon at the Maine Heritage Policy Center says the program failed in practice.
"TARREN BRAGDON, MAINE HERITAGE POLICY CENTER: What happened is we set up this plan that was very, very heavily subsidized, and people flocked to it. And then, because people got something for very little cost, utilization went through the roof. And so premiums just skyrocketed, up 74 percent."
BRAGDON: Dirigo, just like what Congress is trying to do, said, "We will cover you at any time, no matter what, with no pre-existing condition exclusions." And that's what drove up costs.
People cycle on when they're sick, and they cycle off when they're healthy. They get sick again, they cycle back on. And the program is structured in a way that encourages them.
Today Dirigocare covers about 10,000 Mainers, far short of their goal of 128,000.
The plan like Obamacare was suppose to be paid for by savings. But today the system is bankrupt and the state just imposed a 2.4% tax on private insurance to pay for it, after promising it would not increase taxes.
This is just one example of government run health care in the states. And as a result most states have stayed away from the public option. It is bankrupt, it has drastically raised premiums, cheated the private sector, and raised taxes. Based on this, i think Washington may want to think before they pass their health "reform" into law.
Think, a bankrupt system with sky rocketing premiums and costs on a state with 1.3 million people is bad enough, but then to escalate that on a scale with 300 million people, that's suicide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
