DRAFT LARRY KUDLOW FOR NEW YORK
Many New Yorkers agree: it would be difficult to find a federal legislator as bad as US Senator Chuck Schumer. Schumer is personally responsible for much of the bad policy that led to the economic melt down of the United States. He stands firmly in favor of health care reform that is bad for New Yorkers. He supports a tax on banks that is poison for the Empire State. And now, petty bully Schumer is muscling members of his own party, pretending only he may decide who can and cannot run against his hand puppet, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.
Until Scott Brown was elected to the US Senate by the loopy liberals in Massachusetts, nobody thought it was possible to beat Schumer. Now the game has changed.
There is one potential candidate to oppose Schumer, whose campaign coffers already contain more than $30 million. New York Tea Party leaders are talking up the potential candidacy of CNBC commentator and former Reagan advisor Larry Kudlow. A graduate of the University of Rochester, Kudlow also worked for New York's legendary Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. As one of the architects of the Reagan tax-cuts that sparked one of the greatest economic booms in modern times, he is recognized as a leading anti-tax supply side economist. The thoughtful, well-spoken and original analyst is one of the most effective debaters on the Right.
New York deserves a better Senator than Chuck Schumer - far, far better. Help us convince Larry Kudlow to enter the Senate race; please enter your information here to join the Draft Kudlow Committee.
Let's deliver Chuck Schumer his own Scott Brown. Nobody deserves it more.
contact: info@draftkudlow.com
So sign the petition by following this link: http://www.draftkudlow.com/index.php and get Kudlow to run and throw our Schumer.
31 January 2010
Return To Non-Internentionist Foriegn Policy
Thousands of protesters from across Japan marched today in Tokyo to protest against U.S. military presence on Okinawa, while a Cabinet minister said she would fight to get rid of a marine base Washington considers crucial.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1247281/Thousands-protest-Tokyo-U-S-military-presence-Japan.html#ixzz0eDmT4ORH
So now even Japan does not want our military presence. They US has got to stop intervening with other countries, signing treaties, and setting up bases all over the world. We must resort back to the non-interventionist foreign policy. We are not the worlds 9-1-1. It is our military presence in the middle east that triggered 9/11.
So we should now take Japan's advice and get out of there and not intervene in the world.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1247281/Thousands-protest-Tokyo-U-S-military-presence-Japan.html#ixzz0eDmT4ORH
So now even Japan does not want our military presence. They US has got to stop intervening with other countries, signing treaties, and setting up bases all over the world. We must resort back to the non-interventionist foreign policy. We are not the worlds 9-1-1. It is our military presence in the middle east that triggered 9/11.
So we should now take Japan's advice and get out of there and not intervene in the world.
Obama To Take On The BCS
Where does one draw the line fore government invention? Come on, now the government wants to regulate or intervene in college football? Where in the constitution does it give you morons the power to oversee college sports?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration is considering several steps that would review the legality of the controversial Bowl Championship Series, the Justice Department said in a letter Friday to a senator who had asked for an antitrust review.
In the letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch, obtained by The Associated Press, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote that the Justice Department is reviewing Hatch's request and other materials to determine whether to open an investigation into whether the BCS violates antitrust laws.
"Importantly, and in addition, the administration also is exploring other options that might be available to address concerns with the college football postseason," Weich wrote, including asking the Federal Trade Commission to review the legality of the BCS under consumer protection laws.
Several lawmakers and many critics want the BCS to switch to a playoff system, rather than the ratings system it uses to determine the teams that play in the championship game.
"The administration shares your belief that the current lack of a college football national championship playoff with respect to the highest division of college football ... raises important questions affecting millions of fans, colleges and universities, players and other interested parties," Weich wrote.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/ncaa/01/29/obama.bcs.ap/index.html?xid=si_ncaaf#ixzz0eDlJl3gL
Get a free NFL Team Jacket and Tee with SI Subscription
So now the President, or at the very least his administration, facing a 10% unemployment rate, with a crumbling dollar and dropping house sales, you'd think they would have a lot more to do than take on the BCS over college football rules.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration is considering several steps that would review the legality of the controversial Bowl Championship Series, the Justice Department said in a letter Friday to a senator who had asked for an antitrust review.
In the letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch, obtained by The Associated Press, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote that the Justice Department is reviewing Hatch's request and other materials to determine whether to open an investigation into whether the BCS violates antitrust laws.
"Importantly, and in addition, the administration also is exploring other options that might be available to address concerns with the college football postseason," Weich wrote, including asking the Federal Trade Commission to review the legality of the BCS under consumer protection laws.
Several lawmakers and many critics want the BCS to switch to a playoff system, rather than the ratings system it uses to determine the teams that play in the championship game.
"The administration shares your belief that the current lack of a college football national championship playoff with respect to the highest division of college football ... raises important questions affecting millions of fans, colleges and universities, players and other interested parties," Weich wrote.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/ncaa/01/29/obama.bcs.ap/index.html?xid=si_ncaaf#ixzz0eDlJl3gL
Get a free NFL Team Jacket and Tee with SI Subscription
So now the President, or at the very least his administration, facing a 10% unemployment rate, with a crumbling dollar and dropping house sales, you'd think they would have a lot more to do than take on the BCS over college football rules.
NYTs: No Jobs, No Recovery
"The economy grew at an annual rate of 5.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009. But well over half of that growth came from large adjustments to business inventories that are unlikely to be repeated on a similar scale in the months to come. As such, they are evidence that the sick economy is recovering, not that it is healthy.
Another chunk of growth was due to government stimulus spending, which will wane in 2010. Much of the recent upsurge in business purchases of equipment and software was likely due to a rush to take advantage of an investment tax break before it expired in December.
So, what does it take to translate an incipient recovery into a sustained expansion? In a word: jobs. Employment leads to income and to spending. As sales deplete inventories, businesses restock, which creates more jobs and so on in an upward spiral."
read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/opinion/31sun1.html?ref=opinion
Another chunk of growth was due to government stimulus spending, which will wane in 2010. Much of the recent upsurge in business purchases of equipment and software was likely due to a rush to take advantage of an investment tax break before it expired in December.
So, what does it take to translate an incipient recovery into a sustained expansion? In a word: jobs. Employment leads to income and to spending. As sales deplete inventories, businesses restock, which creates more jobs and so on in an upward spiral."
read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/opinion/31sun1.html?ref=opinion
29 January 2010
The Bank Tax Off Target
Just look at this chart from the Heritage Foundation and see how off this bank tax really is. It is punishing those who returned their bailout and exempting those who still owe money to the tax payers.
This tax really is awful and not exactly going after the right people. It was the banks and insurance companies that gave out bonuses yes, but it was the Fed that gave them the money in the first place. And in the AIG case, the Fed authorized the bonuses. So really they can complain about the banks, it's the government that started the mess and the government who owes the tax payers.
This tax really is awful and not exactly going after the right people. It was the banks and insurance companies that gave out bonuses yes, but it was the Fed that gave them the money in the first place. And in the AIG case, the Fed authorized the bonuses. So really they can complain about the banks, it's the government that started the mess and the government who owes the tax payers.
Since The Democrats Took The House
* The national debt has increased by 41.8%: When the Democrats gained control of Congress in January of 2007, the national debt was$8.67 trillion. It currently stands at a staggering $12.3 trillion. That is an increase of $3.63 trillion.
* The deficit has nearly tripled: From FY 1996-2007, a Republican controlled Congress ran a cumulative deficit of $1.2 trillion. From FY 2008-2010, a Democrat controlled Congress will run a $3.2 trillion deficit.
* The deficit was higher in FY 2009 than in every year from FY 1996-FY 2007 combined: The deficit in FY 2009 was $1.42 trillion. The cumulative deficit from FY 1996-FY 2007 was $1.25 trillion. The FY 2010 deficit is projected to be $1.349 trillion.
* The debt limit has been increased five times: Congress is currently considering proposals to increase the debt limit for a sixth time from $8.965 trillion to $14.29 trillion. If enacted the debt limit will have increased by 59.4% since the Democrats gained power.
* Annual deficits have turned into monthly deficits: On average, in FY 2009 and FY 2010, Congress will run monthly deficits that exceed the annual deficits of the past 12 years.
Source: Congressional Budget Office
Thank a lot Democrats.
* The deficit has nearly tripled: From FY 1996-2007, a Republican controlled Congress ran a cumulative deficit of $1.2 trillion. From FY 2008-2010, a Democrat controlled Congress will run a $3.2 trillion deficit.
* The deficit was higher in FY 2009 than in every year from FY 1996-FY 2007 combined: The deficit in FY 2009 was $1.42 trillion. The cumulative deficit from FY 1996-FY 2007 was $1.25 trillion. The FY 2010 deficit is projected to be $1.349 trillion.
* The debt limit has been increased five times: Congress is currently considering proposals to increase the debt limit for a sixth time from $8.965 trillion to $14.29 trillion. If enacted the debt limit will have increased by 59.4% since the Democrats gained power.
* Annual deficits have turned into monthly deficits: On average, in FY 2009 and FY 2010, Congress will run monthly deficits that exceed the annual deficits of the past 12 years.
Source: Congressional Budget Office
Thank a lot Democrats.
Questions For BHO On Taxes
From Redstate.com
As we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans who had become unemployed.
That’s why we … passed 25 different tax cuts.
Let me repeat: we cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95% of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas, and food, and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven’t raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.
“Until the Democrats took back Congress in 2006, the Bush economic expansion saw the lowest unemployment in American history. . . . So why let the Bush tax cuts expire?”
But most of the tax cuts were temporary tax cuts. And a lot of what Barack Obama calls “tax cuts” were actually payments to people who do not pay taxes.
But let’s take him at his word, however hard it may be to do that. If cutting taxes helped get “our economy growing again,” why does he want to let the Bush tax cuts expire?
I know the liberal spin is that they were tax cuts for the rich. But that’s really not true. When you examine the Bush tax cuts, you’ll find they were targeted to jump start the economy out of the Clinton recession of 2000. And they worked.
Obama said last night that “we cannot afford another so-called economic “expansion” like the one from last decade – what some call the “lost decade” – where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion”, but that is another lie. Until the Democrats took back Congress in 2006, the Bush economic expansion saw the lowest unemployment in American history.
It was only after the post-Enron effects of Sarbanes-Oxley regulations, outrageous government spending, and capitulation with the Democrats on key economic issues that the economy went back in the crapper.
The Bush tax cuts worked. Obama recognizes that tax cuts grow the economy. So why let the Bush tax cuts expire when they got us to the lowest unemployment in American history?
As we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans who had become unemployed.
That’s why we … passed 25 different tax cuts.
Let me repeat: we cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95% of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas, and food, and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven’t raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.
“Until the Democrats took back Congress in 2006, the Bush economic expansion saw the lowest unemployment in American history. . . . So why let the Bush tax cuts expire?”
But most of the tax cuts were temporary tax cuts. And a lot of what Barack Obama calls “tax cuts” were actually payments to people who do not pay taxes.
But let’s take him at his word, however hard it may be to do that. If cutting taxes helped get “our economy growing again,” why does he want to let the Bush tax cuts expire?
I know the liberal spin is that they were tax cuts for the rich. But that’s really not true. When you examine the Bush tax cuts, you’ll find they were targeted to jump start the economy out of the Clinton recession of 2000. And they worked.
Obama said last night that “we cannot afford another so-called economic “expansion” like the one from last decade – what some call the “lost decade” – where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion”, but that is another lie. Until the Democrats took back Congress in 2006, the Bush economic expansion saw the lowest unemployment in American history.
It was only after the post-Enron effects of Sarbanes-Oxley regulations, outrageous government spending, and capitulation with the Democrats on key economic issues that the economy went back in the crapper.
The Bush tax cuts worked. Obama recognizes that tax cuts grow the economy. So why let the Bush tax cuts expire when they got us to the lowest unemployment in American history?
You Lie! Part 2
“That’s what I came to Washington to do. That’s why – for the first time in history – my Administration posts our White House visitors online. And that’s why we’ve excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.”
AAHH!!!! AAHH!!! Can you believe he said that? How stupid do you think we are mr. President? That is one of the biggest lie, i heard in the entire speech, which was full of lies.
You don't have lobbyists!!!??? Mr. 'when i need help on immigration, i go to the SEIU!'
Who are these people president Obama?
* Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm [now confirmed].
* Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
* William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.
* William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
* David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
* Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
* Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
* Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
* Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
* Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
* Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
* Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.
No Lobbyists my ass.
AAHH!!!! AAHH!!! Can you believe he said that? How stupid do you think we are mr. President? That is one of the biggest lie, i heard in the entire speech, which was full of lies.
You don't have lobbyists!!!??? Mr. 'when i need help on immigration, i go to the SEIU!'
Who are these people president Obama?
* Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm [now confirmed].
* Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
* William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.
* William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
* David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
* Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
* Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
* Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
* Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
* Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
* Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
* Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.
No Lobbyists my ass.
28 January 2010
Even Daily Kos Knows The Spending Freeze Will Do Nothing
Here is a Daily Kos Tweet:
@marcos: You don’t freeze spending, then spend. And if a program is “wasteful”, you eliminate it rather than freeze.
You see, even DK is calling the president out on this. So when DK is saying your plan is bad, then you really need to rethink it.
@marcos: You don’t freeze spending, then spend. And if a program is “wasteful”, you eliminate it rather than freeze.
You see, even DK is calling the president out on this. So when DK is saying your plan is bad, then you really need to rethink it.
Change? Sounds Like More Of The Same
“So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope – what they deserve – is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories and different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared. A job that pays the bills. A chance to get ahead. Most of all, the ability to give their children a better life.”
–Barack Obama, 2010 SOTU
“We’re not the first to come here with a Government divided and uncertainty in the air. Like many before us, we can work through our differences, and we can achieve big things for the American people. Our citizens don’t much care which side of the aisle we sit on, as long as we’re willing to cross that aisle when there is work to be done. Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans and to help them build a future of hope and opportunity, and this is the business before us tonight.”
–George W. Bush, 2007 SOTU
“In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of goodwill and respect for one another – and I will do my part. Tonight the state of our Union is strong, and together we will make it stronger.”
–George W. Bush, 2006 SOTU
Here is a link where you can see more quotes from Bush's and Obama's SOTUs and see how similar they really are.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/28/bushs-third-term/
–Barack Obama, 2010 SOTU
“We’re not the first to come here with a Government divided and uncertainty in the air. Like many before us, we can work through our differences, and we can achieve big things for the American people. Our citizens don’t much care which side of the aisle we sit on, as long as we’re willing to cross that aisle when there is work to be done. Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans and to help them build a future of hope and opportunity, and this is the business before us tonight.”
–George W. Bush, 2007 SOTU
“In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of goodwill and respect for one another – and I will do my part. Tonight the state of our Union is strong, and together we will make it stronger.”
–George W. Bush, 2006 SOTU
Here is a link where you can see more quotes from Bush's and Obama's SOTUs and see how similar they really are.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/28/bushs-third-term/
Chris Mathews: I Forgot Obama Was Black
Yeah and Fox is racist.
Last night A Mess NBC anchor Chris Mathews said during his analysis after Obama's SOTU address that he "forgot he was black."
Now what exactly does this mean? It means, that Obama sounded smart, intelligent, literate, and more importantly, white. In other words, whites are smart, blacks are dumb. So when Obama sounds smart, you forget he is black think, wow dang he is brilliant. Wow, and oh my gosh, he's black, wow.
This is racism and prejudice at its best, and it came from MSNBC.
Last night A Mess NBC anchor Chris Mathews said during his analysis after Obama's SOTU address that he "forgot he was black."
Now what exactly does this mean? It means, that Obama sounded smart, intelligent, literate, and more importantly, white. In other words, whites are smart, blacks are dumb. So when Obama sounds smart, you forget he is black think, wow dang he is brilliant. Wow, and oh my gosh, he's black, wow.
This is racism and prejudice at its best, and it came from MSNBC.
What I Liked About The SOTU
While i would give the overall speech last night a C, there were however a few things that i did like.
First let me get off what i didn't like.
-Blame Bush Tactics
-Lying about the GOP just voting no and not offering up other ideas on health care reform
-The stimulus was a 'success' it was no such thing
-When he lied about his tax cuts
-When he stated that we should tax the bank fees and get back the money that the government let loose
-When he said "overwhelming scientific evidence of global warming." There is almost no science for it, yet more against it.
-When he called for his college tax credit, which will essentially just be further subsidizing colleges.
-Many more things
Now What i DID LIKE:
-He talked a lot about energy, and specifically mentioned nuclear energy plants, and off-shore drilling
-He did say that he will cut the small business capital gains tax. Great!!!
-He said he would freeze non-discretionary federal spending for three years!! YAY!! (although i have explained this a little bit in previous post and it's not what it says it is but it's better than the spending they're doing now.
-I liked him talking about cutting spending, not fussing over the election but the people.
That's about it.
First let me get off what i didn't like.
-Blame Bush Tactics
-Lying about the GOP just voting no and not offering up other ideas on health care reform
-The stimulus was a 'success' it was no such thing
-When he lied about his tax cuts
-When he stated that we should tax the bank fees and get back the money that the government let loose
-When he said "overwhelming scientific evidence of global warming." There is almost no science for it, yet more against it.
-When he called for his college tax credit, which will essentially just be further subsidizing colleges.
-Many more things
Now What i DID LIKE:
-He talked a lot about energy, and specifically mentioned nuclear energy plants, and off-shore drilling
-He did say that he will cut the small business capital gains tax. Great!!!
-He said he would freeze non-discretionary federal spending for three years!! YAY!! (although i have explained this a little bit in previous post and it's not what it says it is but it's better than the spending they're doing now.
-I liked him talking about cutting spending, not fussing over the election but the people.
That's about it.
State of The Union Fact Check
Obama’s claim:
Let me repeat: we cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas, and food, and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers.
---------
Yet Obama fails to mention that 40% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes. Therefore it is impossible for there to be a cut for 95%. Also his other "cuts" were not really cuts, yet they were simply subsidized credits. People still paid them.
Obama’s claim:
Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. 200,000 work in construction and clean energy. 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, and first responders. And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.
---------
This is simply not the case. According to the Cato Institute we have lost about 3 millions jobs since the so called stimulus was passed. Other sources say 4 million. Calling the stimulus a success, isn't exactly accurate.
Obama’s claim:
The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. That’s right — the Recovery Act, also known as the Stimulus Bill. Economists on the left and the right say that this bill has helped saved jobs and avert disaster.
---------
Now back to reality, the stimulus was suppose to avert a disaster yes, it was made to keep unemployment below 8%. It was suppose to shoot up to 9.6% if it was not passed. Yet today, even with the stimulus, the jobless rate well exceeds both of those figures at 10%.
Obama's claim:
(paraphrase) If the republicans have any ideas as to how we can cut costs and create competition, i am willing to listen. He then went on to say that republicans have just voted 'no' this whole process and not offered up any ideas of their own.
---------
And back on planet earth, the GOP has offered up about 60 alternative bills of their own. Infact Paul Ryan's 'Patients Choice Act' was the first health reform bill offered up last winter. Also the GOP has made thousands of amendments over the summer and fall to house and senate health care bills.
Let me repeat: we cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas, and food, and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers.
---------
Yet Obama fails to mention that 40% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes. Therefore it is impossible for there to be a cut for 95%. Also his other "cuts" were not really cuts, yet they were simply subsidized credits. People still paid them.
Obama’s claim:
Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. 200,000 work in construction and clean energy. 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, and first responders. And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.
---------
This is simply not the case. According to the Cato Institute we have lost about 3 millions jobs since the so called stimulus was passed. Other sources say 4 million. Calling the stimulus a success, isn't exactly accurate.
Obama’s claim:
The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. That’s right — the Recovery Act, also known as the Stimulus Bill. Economists on the left and the right say that this bill has helped saved jobs and avert disaster.
---------
Now back to reality, the stimulus was suppose to avert a disaster yes, it was made to keep unemployment below 8%. It was suppose to shoot up to 9.6% if it was not passed. Yet today, even with the stimulus, the jobless rate well exceeds both of those figures at 10%.
Obama's claim:
(paraphrase) If the republicans have any ideas as to how we can cut costs and create competition, i am willing to listen. He then went on to say that republicans have just voted 'no' this whole process and not offered up any ideas of their own.
---------
And back on planet earth, the GOP has offered up about 60 alternative bills of their own. Infact Paul Ryan's 'Patients Choice Act' was the first health reform bill offered up last winter. Also the GOP has made thousands of amendments over the summer and fall to house and senate health care bills.
Freeze In Spending
So last night president Obama promised us that he will freeze government spending for THREE years. Then he hold us that is would save X billion dollars i believe it was like 500 or something like that. I apologize that i do not have the actual figure over the next TEN years. Wait, we're freezing spending for 3 years, but measuring the savings over 10 years?
First before i go into that, let me just say, while i would support a full freeze in non-discretionary gov't spending according to George Will it will only actually be 1/6th of the budget. So, so much for that. Um the democrats, after all the spending they have done, well John Boehner put it quite well. "this is like announcing that you were going on a diet after winning a pie eating contest."
Now back to the original point. Let's say i spend 100 dollars a day on goods. Now my budget is about 50, but i spend 100 anyway. So everyday i add 50 dollars to my debt. So clearly i have to cut spending. So i decide to freeze spending for three weeks. So at let's take 50 dollars a day saved, by the end of that three week period, i would save $1,050. Now if we do what Obama is doing, let's measure the savings for 10 weeks. So that would give us $3,500 of savings. But i didn't freeze my spending for 10 weeks. I froze it for 3. So all that other money is not actually saved. So i am accounting for $3,500 saved, but when reality, it was only $1,050.
First before i go into that, let me just say, while i would support a full freeze in non-discretionary gov't spending according to George Will it will only actually be 1/6th of the budget. So, so much for that. Um the democrats, after all the spending they have done, well John Boehner put it quite well. "this is like announcing that you were going on a diet after winning a pie eating contest."
Now back to the original point. Let's say i spend 100 dollars a day on goods. Now my budget is about 50, but i spend 100 anyway. So everyday i add 50 dollars to my debt. So clearly i have to cut spending. So i decide to freeze spending for three weeks. So at let's take 50 dollars a day saved, by the end of that three week period, i would save $1,050. Now if we do what Obama is doing, let's measure the savings for 10 weeks. So that would give us $3,500 of savings. But i didn't freeze my spending for 10 weeks. I froze it for 3. So all that other money is not actually saved. So i am accounting for $3,500 saved, but when reality, it was only $1,050.
27 January 2010
Obama is Right, We Do Have A Spending Problem
The Foundry:
Tonight in his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama is expected to propose a “freeze” on government spending. Obama’s spending “freeze” will only last three years, will not start until 2011, will only apply to a $447 billion slice of the federal government’s $3.5 trillion budget, and will not apply to any of the unspent $862 billion stimulus plan, his health care plan or the House of Representatives’ additional $156 billion stimulus plan. Despite all the loopholes, time limits and procrastination, the President should still be commended for beginning to acknowledge reality. And as a new report issued yesterday by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows, the reality is this: the U.S. government has an insatiable spending problem.
The CBO’s summary of the report is bad enough: “Under current law, the federal fiscal outlook beyond this year is daunting … accumulating deficits will push federal debt held by the public to significantly higher levels. At the end of 2009, debt held by the public was $7.5 trillion, or 54% of GDP; by the end of 2020, debt is projected to climb to $15 trillion, or 67% of GDP.” But as bad as those numbers are, our fiscal health is actually worse. The CBO is forced by Congress to make a number of unrealistic assumptions about future revenue and spending changes. But their report makes up for this by including alternative projections that make more realistic assumptions. Heritage fellow Brian Riedl crunched those numbers and found:
* The public debt — $7.5 trillion at the end of 2009 — is projected to triple to $22.1 trillion by 2020.
* Over what would be President Obama’s eight years in office if re-elected, baseline budget deficits are projected to total $9.7 trillion — nearly triple the $3.3 trillion in deficits accumulated by President George W. Bush.
* By 2020, the budget forecasts a $1.9 trillion annual budget deficit, a public debt of 98 percent of GDP and annual net interest spending surpassing $1 trillion.
Our country simply cannot afford to be spending $1 trillion in net interest in 2020. So what is the driving force behind these unsustainable deficits? Unprecedented rises in government spending. More Riedl numbers:
* Since World War II, federal spending has generally remained between 18 and 22 percent of GDP. During the Bush Administration, spending increased from 18.4 to 20.9 percent of GDP.
* Discretionary spending has increased 25 percent in three years — not even counting the $311 billion in discretionary stimulus spending and approximately $150 billion in annual spending on the global war against terrorists.
* In 2009, federal spending reached 24.7 percent of GDP — the highest level in American history outside of World War II. Non-defense spending reached an all-time record of 20.1 percent of GDP.
Comparing our government’s prolific spending habits with the decline in revenues from the recession, Riedl concludes: “Between 2010 and 2020, recession-depleted revenues are projected to gradually rebound to 17.6 percent of GDP (slightly below the 18.3 historical average). Spending is projected expand to 25.9 percent of GDP — well above 20.7 historical average. Compared to those averages, 88 percent of all additional deficits by 2020 come from additional spending (5.2 percent of GDP above average), and only 12 percent comes from low revenues (0.7 percent of GDP below average).”
Tonight in his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama is expected to propose a “freeze” on government spending. Obama’s spending “freeze” will only last three years, will not start until 2011, will only apply to a $447 billion slice of the federal government’s $3.5 trillion budget, and will not apply to any of the unspent $862 billion stimulus plan, his health care plan or the House of Representatives’ additional $156 billion stimulus plan. Despite all the loopholes, time limits and procrastination, the President should still be commended for beginning to acknowledge reality. And as a new report issued yesterday by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows, the reality is this: the U.S. government has an insatiable spending problem.
The CBO’s summary of the report is bad enough: “Under current law, the federal fiscal outlook beyond this year is daunting … accumulating deficits will push federal debt held by the public to significantly higher levels. At the end of 2009, debt held by the public was $7.5 trillion, or 54% of GDP; by the end of 2020, debt is projected to climb to $15 trillion, or 67% of GDP.” But as bad as those numbers are, our fiscal health is actually worse. The CBO is forced by Congress to make a number of unrealistic assumptions about future revenue and spending changes. But their report makes up for this by including alternative projections that make more realistic assumptions. Heritage fellow Brian Riedl crunched those numbers and found:
* The public debt — $7.5 trillion at the end of 2009 — is projected to triple to $22.1 trillion by 2020.
* Over what would be President Obama’s eight years in office if re-elected, baseline budget deficits are projected to total $9.7 trillion — nearly triple the $3.3 trillion in deficits accumulated by President George W. Bush.
* By 2020, the budget forecasts a $1.9 trillion annual budget deficit, a public debt of 98 percent of GDP and annual net interest spending surpassing $1 trillion.
Our country simply cannot afford to be spending $1 trillion in net interest in 2020. So what is the driving force behind these unsustainable deficits? Unprecedented rises in government spending. More Riedl numbers:
* Since World War II, federal spending has generally remained between 18 and 22 percent of GDP. During the Bush Administration, spending increased from 18.4 to 20.9 percent of GDP.
* Discretionary spending has increased 25 percent in three years — not even counting the $311 billion in discretionary stimulus spending and approximately $150 billion in annual spending on the global war against terrorists.
* In 2009, federal spending reached 24.7 percent of GDP — the highest level in American history outside of World War II. Non-defense spending reached an all-time record of 20.1 percent of GDP.
Comparing our government’s prolific spending habits with the decline in revenues from the recession, Riedl concludes: “Between 2010 and 2020, recession-depleted revenues are projected to gradually rebound to 17.6 percent of GDP (slightly below the 18.3 historical average). Spending is projected expand to 25.9 percent of GDP — well above 20.7 historical average. Compared to those averages, 88 percent of all additional deficits by 2020 come from additional spending (5.2 percent of GDP above average), and only 12 percent comes from low revenues (0.7 percent of GDP below average).”
10 Point Libertarian
You know the 10 points of communism, but here are the 10 points of Libertarianism (of which i am and follow), as written by the Cato Institute.
1. Abandon Obamacare
2. Forget Cap and Trade
3. Reject the Card Check Bill
4. Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan
5. Legalize Drugs
6. Scrap the tax code and replace with a flat tax
7. Expand free trade and immigration
8. Stop the bailouts
9. Cut spending
10. Cut spending
BONUS - Cut spending
1. Abandon Obamacare
2. Forget Cap and Trade
3. Reject the Card Check Bill
4. Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan
5. Legalize Drugs
6. Scrap the tax code and replace with a flat tax
7. Expand free trade and immigration
8. Stop the bailouts
9. Cut spending
10. Cut spending
BONUS - Cut spending
GOP Threatens To Go Nuclear On Amendments
The top democrats are now threatening to try to pass Obamacare via reconciliation, which would allow them to pass it with only 51 votes. Recently the GOP has now decided that should the dems go down that road, they would offer up a boat load of amendments.
“If you bring a reconciliation bill to the Senate, it’s a free for all of amendments, There is no way to limit the number of amendments that are voted on. You can’t close debate. Democrats will have to vote on every politically perilous amendment that you can possibly think of.”
The idea would be to force them to vote on thousands and millions of amendments that would delay the process and try to derail the Obamacare.
It would be highly unwise for the democrats to try this strategy.
This possible threat has caused the dems to slam on the breaks for health care reform.
“We’re not on health care now,"
"We're not in a rush."
--Sen. Harry Reid.
“If you bring a reconciliation bill to the Senate, it’s a free for all of amendments, There is no way to limit the number of amendments that are voted on. You can’t close debate. Democrats will have to vote on every politically perilous amendment that you can possibly think of.”
The idea would be to force them to vote on thousands and millions of amendments that would delay the process and try to derail the Obamacare.
It would be highly unwise for the democrats to try this strategy.
This possible threat has caused the dems to slam on the breaks for health care reform.
“We’re not on health care now,"
"We're not in a rush."
--Sen. Harry Reid.
26 January 2010
Federalism In Action
Today in the great state of Virginia, the 'Health care freedom act' was passed.
This bill which was passed in the Virginia House of Delegates and State Senate would nullify the government mandate of health insurance.
SB 417, a bill that protects Virginia residents from being forced to purchase healthcare coverage, PASSED the Senate Committee on Commerce & Labor, 8-7. THIS IS BIG. Senators Colgan and Puckett crossed party lines to vote for this bill. No one in the room expected the bill to pass the committee, and now the bill goes to the Senate!!... These bills could come up for a vote in the Senate as early as Thursday.
This bill which was passed in the Virginia House of Delegates and State Senate would nullify the government mandate of health insurance.
SB 417, a bill that protects Virginia residents from being forced to purchase healthcare coverage, PASSED the Senate Committee on Commerce & Labor, 8-7. THIS IS BIG. Senators Colgan and Puckett crossed party lines to vote for this bill. No one in the room expected the bill to pass the committee, and now the bill goes to the Senate!!... These bills could come up for a vote in the Senate as early as Thursday.
Tea Party Heading Down South
A new Quincy Polls has revealed that Tea Party Candidate, Marco Rubio now leads Republican Charlie Crist 48-44%. Rubio also lead the Democrat Kenderick Meeks 44-35%.
The Tea Party is growing, and about to help elect another conservative to bring about real change for America.
If you are in Florida, i urge you to support Marco Rubio.
The Tea Party is growing, and about to help elect another conservative to bring about real change for America.
If you are in Florida, i urge you to support Marco Rubio.
The Dems New Plan, Split The GOP
“Given the pressure Republican candidates feel from the extreme right in their party, there is a critical — yet time-sensitive — opportunity for Democratic candidates,” the DSCC writes. “We have a finite window when Republicans candidates will feel susceptible to the extremists in their party. Given the urgent nature of this dynamic, we suggest an aggressive effort to get your opponents on the record.”
--DNC
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31991.html#ixzz0dknsdkyk
You know i could care less. In fact that would be my plan to. Here they act like this will destroy us. It will make us stronger. They still don't get that this is not a Republican v. Democrat thing. This is a revolt against corruption in government and a fight to take back our country.
I have long said that we as conservatives or libertarians or whatever need to break away and vote out the moderate sell outs. They are the cancer on our party. The neo-cons, the big spenders, the theo-cons, the big government GOPers. Instead we need real Americans who truly believe in small government and freedom no matter what and will not compromise those ideals for anything, no not even money for their state.
So DNC, yes please split us up. Thank you. Throw out the bums. Get the moderates and the socialists out! Give us our country back.
"The memo urges Democratic candidates to force their opponents to answer a series of questions on health care, taxes and some of the favorite causes of the far right:
“Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen? Do you think the 10th Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum health care coverage standards? Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and should never have been created in the first place? Do you think President Obama is a socialist? Do you think America should return to a gold standard?”
If a Republican candidate says no to any of the questions, the memo says Democrats should “make their primary opponent or conservative activists know it. This will cause them to take heat from their primary opponents and could likely provoke a flip-flop, as it already has several times with Mark Kirk in Illinois.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31991.html#ixzz0dkpBbIKp
Ok so now if that is your plan..then, i don't know. I do not know what to say about this. First of all it will infact help us yet again. If the people aren't going to vote for a moderate republican because of their liberalness, then they sure as hell aren't going to vote for a democrat.
How about we ask democrats, "do you believe in the rights to private property?" "Do you believe the government can make better choices for people then they can for themselves?" "Do you agree with Alexander Hamilton's assessment, that "Here sir, the people govern."?"
Great Plan dems. Really this will help us so much.
--DNC
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31991.html#ixzz0dknsdkyk
You know i could care less. In fact that would be my plan to. Here they act like this will destroy us. It will make us stronger. They still don't get that this is not a Republican v. Democrat thing. This is a revolt against corruption in government and a fight to take back our country.
I have long said that we as conservatives or libertarians or whatever need to break away and vote out the moderate sell outs. They are the cancer on our party. The neo-cons, the big spenders, the theo-cons, the big government GOPers. Instead we need real Americans who truly believe in small government and freedom no matter what and will not compromise those ideals for anything, no not even money for their state.
So DNC, yes please split us up. Thank you. Throw out the bums. Get the moderates and the socialists out! Give us our country back.
"The memo urges Democratic candidates to force their opponents to answer a series of questions on health care, taxes and some of the favorite causes of the far right:
“Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen? Do you think the 10th Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum health care coverage standards? Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and should never have been created in the first place? Do you think President Obama is a socialist? Do you think America should return to a gold standard?”
If a Republican candidate says no to any of the questions, the memo says Democrats should “make their primary opponent or conservative activists know it. This will cause them to take heat from their primary opponents and could likely provoke a flip-flop, as it already has several times with Mark Kirk in Illinois.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31991.html#ixzz0dkpBbIKp
Ok so now if that is your plan..then, i don't know. I do not know what to say about this. First of all it will infact help us yet again. If the people aren't going to vote for a moderate republican because of their liberalness, then they sure as hell aren't going to vote for a democrat.
How about we ask democrats, "do you believe in the rights to private property?" "Do you believe the government can make better choices for people then they can for themselves?" "Do you agree with Alexander Hamilton's assessment, that "Here sir, the people govern."?"
Great Plan dems. Really this will help us so much.
State Of The Union Preview
Tomorrow the President will give his State of the Union address at night. Now i cannot trust the mainstream media to give fair coverage. "When i here him speak, i just get a thrill up my leg."--MSNBC's Chris Mathews.
So it is very important that we understand the point of this address. It has been a year since Obama has taken office, and i do not recognize this country. A year later and i do not see the same America i grew up in.
The progressives and uber left, are slowly destroying our nation and beginning the 'fundamental change' of our country. But they have a problem. What they did not expect was the millions of Americans coming out of their homes to protest their radical agenda. We the people are not standing for this, and are silent no more. We spoke out at the town halls over the summer which i believe the democrats did not expect.
It has been a very unsuccessful first year for Obama, but is that going to stop him from acting like everything is fine? Of course not.
Here is what will happen, first, he will blame Bush. He will try to blame him as much as possible. He will talk about what he inherited and create a distraction from what he has done, which is worse. Then he will talk about the stimulus and economic recovery. He will act as though the stimulus saved the economy and what would have happened had we not passed it.
I know what was suppose to happen. Unemployment would hit 9%. It is 10% with the stimulus.
Tomorrow he will avoid job losses, of which we have had 4 million of this year, and instead lie about the stimulu's few thousand jobs created and say somewhere around 1 million.
Next he will blame republicans on health care. He will try and single out the 'Tea Baggers' as he calls them. He will attack them left and right.
Obama will surely target the blue dogs and try harder to bride them into voting for Obamacare and continue to ignore other ideas other than his, Reids, and Pelosi's.
That seems small, but it will be deadly. This will be like a 1940s Germany speech. He will talk about social justice, blame and target the opposition and indite politics and partisan games into the issues. He will of course use this time to shoot missals at Fox News, the Chamber of Commerce, and Rasmussen Reports.
I am terrified for this speech, but it is important for all of you to hear for your selves, and see the re-enslaving of our nation.
From Maple Wood, in Study Hall, good afternoon America.
So it is very important that we understand the point of this address. It has been a year since Obama has taken office, and i do not recognize this country. A year later and i do not see the same America i grew up in.
The progressives and uber left, are slowly destroying our nation and beginning the 'fundamental change' of our country. But they have a problem. What they did not expect was the millions of Americans coming out of their homes to protest their radical agenda. We the people are not standing for this, and are silent no more. We spoke out at the town halls over the summer which i believe the democrats did not expect.
It has been a very unsuccessful first year for Obama, but is that going to stop him from acting like everything is fine? Of course not.
Here is what will happen, first, he will blame Bush. He will try to blame him as much as possible. He will talk about what he inherited and create a distraction from what he has done, which is worse. Then he will talk about the stimulus and economic recovery. He will act as though the stimulus saved the economy and what would have happened had we not passed it.
I know what was suppose to happen. Unemployment would hit 9%. It is 10% with the stimulus.
Tomorrow he will avoid job losses, of which we have had 4 million of this year, and instead lie about the stimulu's few thousand jobs created and say somewhere around 1 million.
Next he will blame republicans on health care. He will try and single out the 'Tea Baggers' as he calls them. He will attack them left and right.
Obama will surely target the blue dogs and try harder to bride them into voting for Obamacare and continue to ignore other ideas other than his, Reids, and Pelosi's.
That seems small, but it will be deadly. This will be like a 1940s Germany speech. He will talk about social justice, blame and target the opposition and indite politics and partisan games into the issues. He will of course use this time to shoot missals at Fox News, the Chamber of Commerce, and Rasmussen Reports.
I am terrified for this speech, but it is important for all of you to hear for your selves, and see the re-enslaving of our nation.
From Maple Wood, in Study Hall, good afternoon America.
Avatar is About Private Property Rights
“Avatar” is like a space opera of the Kelo case, which went to the Supreme Court in 2005. Peaceful people defend their property against outsiders who want it and who have vastly more power. Jake rallies the Na’vi with the stirring cry “And we will show the Sky People that they cannot take whatever they want! And that this is our land!”
--David Boaz of the LA Times
That last part, about they can't take our land. Standing out against an out of control sky people system. Doesn't that remind you of the Tea Party Movement?
--David Boaz of the LA Times
That last part, about they can't take our land. Standing out against an out of control sky people system. Doesn't that remind you of the Tea Party Movement?
25 January 2010
Obama Uses Teleprompter To Speak to Elementary School
President Barack Obama, accompanied by Education Secretary Arne Duncan, speaks to the media after a discussion with 6th grade students at Graham Road Elementary School in Falls Church, Va., Tuesday,
Now i cannot get the picture uploaded but he used, a teleprompter to give the speech. A TELEPROMPTER, to speak to an ELEMENTARY school.
Here is the link: http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//100119/480/9131bc77c7534185bdbf267bb4ab8497/#photoViewer=/100119/480/9131bc77c7534185bdbf267bb4ab8497
Now i cannot get the picture uploaded but he used, a teleprompter to give the speech. A TELEPROMPTER, to speak to an ELEMENTARY school.
Here is the link: http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//100119/480/9131bc77c7534185bdbf267bb4ab8497/#photoViewer=/100119/480/9131bc77c7534185bdbf267bb4ab8497
Ah The Polls
Behold, the people have spoken!
A CNN poll now says that 70%!, 70% of people are glad the democrats DON'T have 60 votes.
Do NOT have, 60 votes. 70% say they are glad because of this.
Another Poll, this one from Rasmussen, Mike Pence leads Evan Bayh in Indiana by 3 points!
And this last poll i will share with you, is from Gallup, that Obama, is the most polarized president ever. 88% of Democrats approve of Obama's first year, and only 23% of Republicans approve of his first year job. Thus he is the most polarized.
A CNN poll now says that 70%!, 70% of people are glad the democrats DON'T have 60 votes.
Do NOT have, 60 votes. 70% say they are glad because of this.
Another Poll, this one from Rasmussen, Mike Pence leads Evan Bayh in Indiana by 3 points!
And this last poll i will share with you, is from Gallup, that Obama, is the most polarized president ever. 88% of Democrats approve of Obama's first year, and only 23% of Republicans approve of his first year job. Thus he is the most polarized.
Point & Counter Point
Here is another one of my many arguments with a liberal who doesn't know anything.
Lib: ...i think, ya know if you look at where we were, at the end of 2008, and where we are now, at the end of 2009, we are much better off. Obama has done a wonderful job so far.
(at this point i am questioning weather this guy has every read or seen one piece of news in this guys life.)
Me: Really, you think that?
Lib: Oh yeah, i mean he took a bad economy,
Me: Mhmm oh yeah, sure
Lib: Yup, that he inherited an-
Me: Oh yes, let's go with the blame game, mhmm
Lib: , that he inherited and he has done a really good job turning it around i think.
Me: Oh so like inheriting a 7.6% unemployment rate, and now what is, oh yeah, 10%.
Really great job huh?
Lib: Well i think ya know it's been hard, and he has struggled a little turning things around-
Me: Whoa wait a minute, you just said he has done a great job turning it around and now you're telling me he has struggled? Make up your mind.
Lib: Well it's hard but he is doing a great job.
Me: mmm how so?
Lib: Well unemployment is humming along and that's getting better-
Me: Wait, wait, wait, i just told you that unemployment was at 10%, up from the 7.6% he inherited and you're saying that it is getting better?
Lib: Um, i think that-
Me: Exactly, you have no idea how that works do you. You know he hasn't done anything.
We have lost 3.5 million jobs under him, and haven't created 100,000.
Lib: Well let's move on to the budget a minute and see how that's working, uh he-
Me: Oh sure let's change the subject, ok. Go ahead, tell me about the budget.
Lib: Well he inherited a 1 trillion dollar debt that...
Me: (while he is talking) oh yep see there you go again, notice the blame tactics
Lib: ...and he is making the debt smaller, he campaigned on cutting the debt in half.
Me: Oh
Lib: Yeah so by those standards he is doing quite well and i think that he will continue to shrink out debt, and he may even balance the budget.
Me: (Name) listen to me, you know, absolutely nothing about the economy. If you knew anything about it, you would know that we now have a 4 trillion dollar debt. You would know that Obama is spending at a rate, 4 times what Bush ever spent.
We have a 12 trillion dollar deficit, i don't know what it was under Bush but i know for a fact it was not nearly that high. I believe it was around 3 trillion.
So i mean, wha-what are you talking about? He's helping ease the debt? He's made it four times worse!
Lib: I think he will balance the budget an-
Me: Alright, you don't-
Lib: This is all to stimulate the economy and we will see the effects
Me: alright you're not, you don't i think you are widely misinformed. You have no concept of money and no nothing about the debt. He is spending us to death with his massive budget-
Lib: Well what about those spending cuts he made last spring?
Me: Those my friend, were not cuts. Those, *sigh* oh god, those accounted for about half of one percent of the budget.
Lib: Ok so what do you think about the recent election and all the Health Care stuff?
Me: Alright this is very interesting. Um so i give you a topic, you can't answer, you lose, and then you jump ships, "oh what about the debt?" Then i beat you there, and now it's "What about health care?" Do you really want to keep going down this list until i beat everything on it?
Lib: ...i think, ya know if you look at where we were, at the end of 2008, and where we are now, at the end of 2009, we are much better off. Obama has done a wonderful job so far.
(at this point i am questioning weather this guy has every read or seen one piece of news in this guys life.)
Me: Really, you think that?
Lib: Oh yeah, i mean he took a bad economy,
Me: Mhmm oh yeah, sure
Lib: Yup, that he inherited an-
Me: Oh yes, let's go with the blame game, mhmm
Lib: , that he inherited and he has done a really good job turning it around i think.
Me: Oh so like inheriting a 7.6% unemployment rate, and now what is, oh yeah, 10%.
Really great job huh?
Lib: Well i think ya know it's been hard, and he has struggled a little turning things around-
Me: Whoa wait a minute, you just said he has done a great job turning it around and now you're telling me he has struggled? Make up your mind.
Lib: Well it's hard but he is doing a great job.
Me: mmm how so?
Lib: Well unemployment is humming along and that's getting better-
Me: Wait, wait, wait, i just told you that unemployment was at 10%, up from the 7.6% he inherited and you're saying that it is getting better?
Lib: Um, i think that-
Me: Exactly, you have no idea how that works do you. You know he hasn't done anything.
We have lost 3.5 million jobs under him, and haven't created 100,000.
Lib: Well let's move on to the budget a minute and see how that's working, uh he-
Me: Oh sure let's change the subject, ok. Go ahead, tell me about the budget.
Lib: Well he inherited a 1 trillion dollar debt that...
Me: (while he is talking) oh yep see there you go again, notice the blame tactics
Lib: ...and he is making the debt smaller, he campaigned on cutting the debt in half.
Me: Oh
Lib: Yeah so by those standards he is doing quite well and i think that he will continue to shrink out debt, and he may even balance the budget.
Me: (Name) listen to me, you know, absolutely nothing about the economy. If you knew anything about it, you would know that we now have a 4 trillion dollar debt. You would know that Obama is spending at a rate, 4 times what Bush ever spent.
We have a 12 trillion dollar deficit, i don't know what it was under Bush but i know for a fact it was not nearly that high. I believe it was around 3 trillion.
So i mean, wha-what are you talking about? He's helping ease the debt? He's made it four times worse!
Lib: I think he will balance the budget an-
Me: Alright, you don't-
Lib: This is all to stimulate the economy and we will see the effects
Me: alright you're not, you don't i think you are widely misinformed. You have no concept of money and no nothing about the debt. He is spending us to death with his massive budget-
Lib: Well what about those spending cuts he made last spring?
Me: Those my friend, were not cuts. Those, *sigh* oh god, those accounted for about half of one percent of the budget.
Lib: Ok so what do you think about the recent election and all the Health Care stuff?
Me: Alright this is very interesting. Um so i give you a topic, you can't answer, you lose, and then you jump ships, "oh what about the debt?" Then i beat you there, and now it's "What about health care?" Do you really want to keep going down this list until i beat everything on it?
I'm So Glad Obama has Fixed Our Economy
Hurray!! Obama saved the economy!!! Yay!!! Now we can go back to normal lives!!! YAY!!!
As far as bringing back jobs, he took a 7.8% unemployment, and turned it into 10%. Yeah! Good job!!!
Now i am told today by the AP, that home sales in December, were down 17%. The most in 40 years!!!
Yay, great job, way to solve the housing bubble. See what the home buyers tax credit did? Look, it fixed the housing market. Home sales are down almost 20%.
As far as bringing back jobs, he took a 7.8% unemployment, and turned it into 10%. Yeah! Good job!!!
Now i am told today by the AP, that home sales in December, were down 17%. The most in 40 years!!!
Yay, great job, way to solve the housing bubble. See what the home buyers tax credit did? Look, it fixed the housing market. Home sales are down almost 20%.
Oh I Know I Did Not Read That
Ok, so i was simply flipping through headlines, and checking out some news, when i find an interesting story. The title: "Government to pay for 16 years old's sex change." Now this is in Britain. You know, the place where people pull out their own teeth because they can't get to a dentist. They place where 5,000 people die a year because they don't have enough care beds. Ya, that Britain.
So the Government there, won't pay for drugs to help women with breast cancer, but they will however pay, for a 16 YEAR OLD's sex change.
Are you..? i mean... i'm speechless. I have no idea what to say. Are you telling me, that the government, the NHS, the ideal health care model, pays for sex changes of minors, but not for cancer treatment?
AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!! What is this world coming to? Every day i see a headline like this and i just want to strangle some one. They get worse everyday.
Remember back in late December, ya Napalitano wanted the full body scanners, to look at people's part? Yeah, it's things like that.
So the Government there, won't pay for drugs to help women with breast cancer, but they will however pay, for a 16 YEAR OLD's sex change.
Are you..? i mean... i'm speechless. I have no idea what to say. Are you telling me, that the government, the NHS, the ideal health care model, pays for sex changes of minors, but not for cancer treatment?
AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!! What is this world coming to? Every day i see a headline like this and i just want to strangle some one. They get worse everyday.
Remember back in late December, ya Napalitano wanted the full body scanners, to look at people's part? Yeah, it's things like that.
Again With The RINOS
The GOP has a lot to deal with as a means of unifying their party. The election is Mass. has been slightly over hyped. While it is true that now we have unraveled health care reform for the time being, Scott Brown is far from conservative and is simply another GOP RINO.
But none the less you would think with the Tea Party movement and the elections that took place in November, the GOP would be placing more conservative-libertarians in right?
Well apparently not. In the Illinois US senate race, the top GOP candidate is a guy named Mark Kirk. He is nothing like a conservative. He is a RINO. He has voted for the stimulus in congress, he has voted for cap-and-trade, and he is a drug war goon.
This is the best the GOP has to offer? Another big spending, taxing, liberal voting Republican?
C'mon. The GOP need strong candidates like Marco Rubio, or Rand Paul, not fake sellouts like this Kirk guy.
It's no wonder i find myself screaming at the Republicans almost as much, if not more than i do the Democrats.
But keep in mind, he is running for the ILLINOIS senate, and is from CHICAGO. So i guess on the other hand, this kind of strange, moderate corruption stuff, you could say, is just business as usual in the windy city.
But none the less you would think with the Tea Party movement and the elections that took place in November, the GOP would be placing more conservative-libertarians in right?
Well apparently not. In the Illinois US senate race, the top GOP candidate is a guy named Mark Kirk. He is nothing like a conservative. He is a RINO. He has voted for the stimulus in congress, he has voted for cap-and-trade, and he is a drug war goon.
This is the best the GOP has to offer? Another big spending, taxing, liberal voting Republican?
C'mon. The GOP need strong candidates like Marco Rubio, or Rand Paul, not fake sellouts like this Kirk guy.
It's no wonder i find myself screaming at the Republicans almost as much, if not more than i do the Democrats.
But keep in mind, he is running for the ILLINOIS senate, and is from CHICAGO. So i guess on the other hand, this kind of strange, moderate corruption stuff, you could say, is just business as usual in the windy city.
24 January 2010
We Are Now, A Government With A Nation, Not The Other Way Around
Well the polls are in, 61% of those polled in the recent Rasmussen survey oppose the current health care legislation in congress, and only 30% support it. Those number are at all time high, and low.
Yet despite this, the revolt against government health care, in the Mass election on Tuesday night, the Tea Parties, and other polls that also have health care down, the White House is still trying and determined to ram this massive take over through.
I think it is safe to say that the government is no longer concerned with what the mast majority of people want, but with fulfilling their own agenda. A poll could come out that says 96% oppose the current health care bill, from PPP or RCP, or Gallup NBC where ever, and all they would do is say 'well it must just be some right wing poll' and move on continuing with their radical plans to overthrow the private health system.
Remember in Germany way back when you know who was the dictator? Yeah, well as much as i hate to compare the two, and by no means is this like or am i saying it is the holocaust, but the tactics used to silence people, the similarities are undeniable.
The government, doesn't care what you think. You can say what you want, they won't listen. If you are the AMA, or the CBO or Mayo, or any big time hospital or medical organization, you can say anything. You can be strongly opposed, and give insightful tips and information, but they won't listen. The Mayo Clinic could talk about problems in the bill but no one would listen. In fact they would probably add you to their hit list along with Fox News, Glenn Beck, and The Chamber of Commerce.
This government no longer cares about its people. We have come to the point where we are no longer a nation with a government, but a government with a nation.
Yet despite this, the revolt against government health care, in the Mass election on Tuesday night, the Tea Parties, and other polls that also have health care down, the White House is still trying and determined to ram this massive take over through.
I think it is safe to say that the government is no longer concerned with what the mast majority of people want, but with fulfilling their own agenda. A poll could come out that says 96% oppose the current health care bill, from PPP or RCP, or Gallup NBC where ever, and all they would do is say 'well it must just be some right wing poll' and move on continuing with their radical plans to overthrow the private health system.
Remember in Germany way back when you know who was the dictator? Yeah, well as much as i hate to compare the two, and by no means is this like or am i saying it is the holocaust, but the tactics used to silence people, the similarities are undeniable.
The government, doesn't care what you think. You can say what you want, they won't listen. If you are the AMA, or the CBO or Mayo, or any big time hospital or medical organization, you can say anything. You can be strongly opposed, and give insightful tips and information, but they won't listen. The Mayo Clinic could talk about problems in the bill but no one would listen. In fact they would probably add you to their hit list along with Fox News, Glenn Beck, and The Chamber of Commerce.
This government no longer cares about its people. We have come to the point where we are no longer a nation with a government, but a government with a nation.
Climate Gate Part 2
Andrew Revkin of the New York Times has more (bold added):
“The sections on the risks of extinction from warming in the report and the panel’s summaries are, at the very least, confusing.
In the Summary for Policy Makers of the report on climate impacts, there are different summations of extinction risk within a few pages. On page 6, the summary states: Approximately 20 to 30 percent of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C. * N [4.4, T4.1]
In a chart on page 16, at a point marking a 2°C warming from the global average temperature through the 1980s and 1990s, a label reads: Up to 30 percent of species at increasing risk of extinction.
In the Summary for Policy Makers of the final Synthesis Report drawing on the entire 2007 assessment, the extinction risk is summarized in yet another way (the italics are from the report): There is medium confidence that approximately 20 to 30 percent of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C (relative to 1980 to 1999).
I asked a half dozen I.P.C.C. scientists about this during a side session at the Copenhagen climate talks and, in particular, asked them to decipher for me the meaning of the nested qualifiers in that final statement. Among other things, how much would extinction risk rise? Basically, they acknowledged there was inconsistency and flawed writing.”
“The sections on the risks of extinction from warming in the report and the panel’s summaries are, at the very least, confusing.
In the Summary for Policy Makers of the report on climate impacts, there are different summations of extinction risk within a few pages. On page 6, the summary states: Approximately 20 to 30 percent of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C. * N [4.4, T4.1]
In a chart on page 16, at a point marking a 2°C warming from the global average temperature through the 1980s and 1990s, a label reads: Up to 30 percent of species at increasing risk of extinction.
In the Summary for Policy Makers of the final Synthesis Report drawing on the entire 2007 assessment, the extinction risk is summarized in yet another way (the italics are from the report): There is medium confidence that approximately 20 to 30 percent of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C (relative to 1980 to 1999).
I asked a half dozen I.P.C.C. scientists about this during a side session at the Copenhagen climate talks and, in particular, asked them to decipher for me the meaning of the nested qualifiers in that final statement. Among other things, how much would extinction risk rise? Basically, they acknowledged there was inconsistency and flawed writing.”
A Great Victory for Freedom of Speech
On Friday, the supreme court approved corporate companies running ads and giving finances to political campaigns.
This means that Amway Global, or Coke, or what ever, can now endorse a candidate, and give money to a campaign.
If this was rejected it would be a huge blow to freedom of speech. So now this will not only allow free speech, but competition. And further start the competing of corporate business in the political field.
'The Pepsi Candidate' vs. The 'Coke Candidate.' Great for profits and competition.
But this also means, ooh, even ABC and Fox can be bias in their support. This must just have MSNBC just all up in a tizzy. Previously, since they are owned by GE and GE takes federal funds, and the Owner of GE is a white house appointed staff member, MSNBC is essentially a public company. -Wait, wait, stop, stop ,stop. MSNBC, owned by GE, GE takes FEDERAL FUNDS. MSNBC, paychecks and funds paid for by the same finance support as GE. Is MSNBC, *gasp* state controlled media? In other words, propaganda?
Back to reality, MSNBC previously busted other media outlets, usually Fox (some one is jealous) for their coverage. This was mostly because they had a huge monopoly on sided coverage. Now that monopoly is gone, and everything is fair game.
The way it should be. Freedom of speech is victorious!!!
Point for the Constitution! Take that Progressives!
This means that Amway Global, or Coke, or what ever, can now endorse a candidate, and give money to a campaign.
If this was rejected it would be a huge blow to freedom of speech. So now this will not only allow free speech, but competition. And further start the competing of corporate business in the political field.
'The Pepsi Candidate' vs. The 'Coke Candidate.' Great for profits and competition.
But this also means, ooh, even ABC and Fox can be bias in their support. This must just have MSNBC just all up in a tizzy. Previously, since they are owned by GE and GE takes federal funds, and the Owner of GE is a white house appointed staff member, MSNBC is essentially a public company. -Wait, wait, stop, stop ,stop. MSNBC, owned by GE, GE takes FEDERAL FUNDS. MSNBC, paychecks and funds paid for by the same finance support as GE. Is MSNBC, *gasp* state controlled media? In other words, propaganda?
Back to reality, MSNBC previously busted other media outlets, usually Fox (some one is jealous) for their coverage. This was mostly because they had a huge monopoly on sided coverage. Now that monopoly is gone, and everything is fair game.
The way it should be. Freedom of speech is victorious!!!
Point for the Constitution! Take that Progressives!
22 January 2010
The Downword Spiral Of Obamacare
"Maybe we do need to take this time — look, it didn't work, this process — and say ‘Look, I want all of us to take a month,’”
“It isn't as if you'll have nothing to do around here. There's a lot of other issues that could fill up the time of the Congress while we sat down and see if there wasn't some way to resolve these differences and come up with a health care bill."
“It's going to take that kind of leadership maybe to invite all of us … (to) take a breather for a month, six weeks and quietly go back and say, ‘Look, the door's open again it has been open. Do you got some ideas on how we can get this right?'"
Those quotes today were brought to you from our liberal friends, Senator Chris Dodd, a democrat.
This is just a few of the many surrender notices from democrats on health reform since Tuesday nights election in Massachusetts.
Yesterday i told you about democrat Evan Bahy backing off from Obamacare. You saw Nancy Pelosi back off, and you saw Jim Webb, and other congressman and senators back off.
This is a massive blow to their radical progressive agenda. They know it, they see the writing on the wall. Blue dogs are running away from this bill, the house is rejecting the senate bill everyday, and the senate is slowly seeing that they need a break from this.
This, is not just a step back on health "reform." It is a demise and downward spiral of health "reform."
And who began this? Oh just a few angry racist old people from Massachusetts. Some call them extremists, some call them 'tea-baggers.' But i refer to them as, the American People. Yet no matter the name, the tea party movement, that is suppose to be an 'astro-turf' racist joke full of old cooks, has successfully altered an outcome in a senatorial election. The Tea Party Movement shoved a massive wrench in the revolving door of Obamacare that now has democrats pushing to get out.
Can you here us now Washington D.C.?
“It isn't as if you'll have nothing to do around here. There's a lot of other issues that could fill up the time of the Congress while we sat down and see if there wasn't some way to resolve these differences and come up with a health care bill."
“It's going to take that kind of leadership maybe to invite all of us … (to) take a breather for a month, six weeks and quietly go back and say, ‘Look, the door's open again it has been open. Do you got some ideas on how we can get this right?'"
Those quotes today were brought to you from our liberal friends, Senator Chris Dodd, a democrat.
This is just a few of the many surrender notices from democrats on health reform since Tuesday nights election in Massachusetts.
Yesterday i told you about democrat Evan Bahy backing off from Obamacare. You saw Nancy Pelosi back off, and you saw Jim Webb, and other congressman and senators back off.
This is a massive blow to their radical progressive agenda. They know it, they see the writing on the wall. Blue dogs are running away from this bill, the house is rejecting the senate bill everyday, and the senate is slowly seeing that they need a break from this.
This, is not just a step back on health "reform." It is a demise and downward spiral of health "reform."
And who began this? Oh just a few angry racist old people from Massachusetts. Some call them extremists, some call them 'tea-baggers.' But i refer to them as, the American People. Yet no matter the name, the tea party movement, that is suppose to be an 'astro-turf' racist joke full of old cooks, has successfully altered an outcome in a senatorial election. The Tea Party Movement shoved a massive wrench in the revolving door of Obamacare that now has democrats pushing to get out.
Can you here us now Washington D.C.?
Blog Notice
Will Not be blogging tomorrow due to absence. I will be back up for twice the news on Sunday afternoon.
Could The GOP Take Back The White House In 2012?
Public Policy Polling, PPP, has taken a survey of voters and matched up President Obama against possible opponents and asking who they would vote for. The results have to have some democrats worried as He is barely leading in all of them, with the exception of one in which he is actually trailing.
PPP:
Obama-44% Huckabee-45% Und-11%
Obama-49% Palin 41% Und-9%
Obama-44% Romney 42% Und-15%
PPP:
Obama-44% Huckabee-45% Und-11%
Obama-49% Palin 41% Und-9%
Obama-44% Romney 42% Und-15%
More Grim Polls For Obama
In their latest poll Gallup reports that 55% want congress to stop pursuing health reform, while just 39% want them to continues on it.
Of those polled 57% said they were unhappy or disappointed with Obama's first year.
In other polls, 'Public Policy Polling' gives Obama negative polling for the first time under his administration. His number in the PPP poll are, 46 approve, while 47% disapprove.
Yesterday Rasmussen Reports had his approval numbers way down with 47% approval and 52% disapproval.
Of those polled 57% said they were unhappy or disappointed with Obama's first year.
In other polls, 'Public Policy Polling' gives Obama negative polling for the first time under his administration. His number in the PPP poll are, 46 approve, while 47% disapprove.
Yesterday Rasmussen Reports had his approval numbers way down with 47% approval and 52% disapproval.
21 January 2010
Dems Last Hope: Reconciliation
The democrats long dream of socialized medicine ran into a brick wall on Tuesday night as Republican Scott Brown won in Massachusetts. But the dems are not about to let that crush their dreams.
Their last hope, is reconciliation. This means they will only need 51 votes to pass. But with the Mass election, many blue dogs are running to the hills and separating themselves from this bill as fast as possible.
I think they may at this point not even have 51 votes. And they would also have to come out with 2 new bills. Once again both bills will be severely different as blue dogs and GOPers will overcome the progressives.
Reconciliation is their last hope, and even that may fail.
Their last hope, is reconciliation. This means they will only need 51 votes to pass. But with the Mass election, many blue dogs are running to the hills and separating themselves from this bill as fast as possible.
I think they may at this point not even have 51 votes. And they would also have to come out with 2 new bills. Once again both bills will be severely different as blue dogs and GOPers will overcome the progressives.
Reconciliation is their last hope, and even that may fail.
Obamacare In Exile
So first it was Stephen Lynch who said that the votes weren't there and the senate bill was become unpopular. Then it was Jim Webb who said that we should suspend the vote on health care.
Now today Even Bahy comes out and says basically that the democrats need to wake up and realize that yes the Mass election DOES mean something, and that if they can't wake up from this then there is no waking up.
Now today also, and this one blew my mind. Nancy Pelosi, who has said 'oh yeah we got the votes. Uh oh we're just gonna ram this thing through' Well now, she is even backing off-can you believe this? Nancy Pelosi. Pelsoi, is now calming down and saying that "In its present form without any changes I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," she goes on to say, "I don't see the votes for it at this time."
She also said, and this is the biggest surprise of them all, she said, "We're not in a big rush, pause, reflect."
This is Nancy Pelosi who has well just been the biggest pusher of this bill, the closed door going, vote late at night, 'we're gonna pass something' 'ram it through' person throughout this whole process. When she comes out and says we need to pause and reflect, and that we're in no big rush... Oh my God we have seen a game changer.
Obamacare is now in exile and on the decline. I believe we have, for the moment, put one of the final nails in the coffin on health "reform."
Now today Even Bahy comes out and says basically that the democrats need to wake up and realize that yes the Mass election DOES mean something, and that if they can't wake up from this then there is no waking up.
Now today also, and this one blew my mind. Nancy Pelosi, who has said 'oh yeah we got the votes. Uh oh we're just gonna ram this thing through' Well now, she is even backing off-can you believe this? Nancy Pelosi. Pelsoi, is now calming down and saying that "In its present form without any changes I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," she goes on to say, "I don't see the votes for it at this time."
She also said, and this is the biggest surprise of them all, she said, "We're not in a big rush, pause, reflect."
This is Nancy Pelosi who has well just been the biggest pusher of this bill, the closed door going, vote late at night, 'we're gonna pass something' 'ram it through' person throughout this whole process. When she comes out and says we need to pause and reflect, and that we're in no big rush... Oh my God we have seen a game changer.
Obamacare is now in exile and on the decline. I believe we have, for the moment, put one of the final nails in the coffin on health "reform."
Governor Race 2010
Here is the website of a candidate for the governor of Minnesota. He is culver's endorsed.
http://panthers.moundsparkacademy.org/~mvandyke13/Max_Van_Dyke_For_Governor/Max_Van_Dyke_For_Governor.html
Help Elect Van Dyke in Minnesota!!
http://panthers.moundsparkacademy.org/~mvandyke13/Max_Van_Dyke_For_Governor/Max_Van_Dyke_For_Governor.html
Help Elect Van Dyke in Minnesota!!
20 January 2010
Great New Radio Theme
Below is the glenn beck program's new intro for the radio show. This is impossible to find anywhere else. It is very hard and seems to be unavailable.
The song i believe is Uprising by Muse with different lyrics.
Here it is:
The song i believe is Uprising by Muse with different lyrics.
Here it is:
Abandon Ship
Key house democrats are already talking about turning on Obamacare.
“If it comes down to that Senate bill or nothing, I think we are going to end with nothing because I don’t hear a lot of support on our side for that bill,” said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.)
Sen. Jim Webb said this on his Twitter last night, “[I]t would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.”
“If it comes down to that Senate bill or nothing, I think we are going to end with nothing because I don’t hear a lot of support on our side for that bill,” said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.)
Sen. Jim Webb said this on his Twitter last night, “[I]t would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.”
19 January 2010
Another Blue State Turns Red Brown WINS!!!
The AP has just declared about 15 minutes ago that GOP candidate Scott Brown the winner 52% to 47%.
Now this is a HUGE turn around. No matter what the lib bloggers and "news" hosts tell ya. Any time a state like Massachusetts which has been Democrat for decades, goes Republican...well, enough said.
The Tea Party movement has really grown in the past few months alone. Since the 9/12 project in D.C. where 2 million came to protest big government. Virginia, and New Jersey went strongly for two Republican governors this past November. Now those are both two blue states which Obama carried strongly. Now Massachusetts goes red.
The state with the health reform experiment has sent a message to Washington tonight. And that message is, keep the change.
This is a revolt against Obama's policies and clearly show how the people feel.
Granted Brown is no conservative, but he is certainly not a obamacare supporter and will not have this government take over.
Who would have thought that Ted Kennedy's seat would go to a Republican? The people have spoken, and Washington cannot ignore them any longer.
I agree with ya Ed, this is the demise and end of change. And if this is hard for the libs, this fall is just gonna be that much worse.
The people have sent a clear message to D.C. tonight, they don't want this health care, they want small government, no excessive taxes and big spending. This is a big slam in the face for congress.
Tonight, we have witnessed democracy. In the 1700s we created a revolution with guns and death. Today we have a different method. Election.
America's chickens have come home, to roost.
Now this is a HUGE turn around. No matter what the lib bloggers and "news" hosts tell ya. Any time a state like Massachusetts which has been Democrat for decades, goes Republican...well, enough said.
The Tea Party movement has really grown in the past few months alone. Since the 9/12 project in D.C. where 2 million came to protest big government. Virginia, and New Jersey went strongly for two Republican governors this past November. Now those are both two blue states which Obama carried strongly. Now Massachusetts goes red.
The state with the health reform experiment has sent a message to Washington tonight. And that message is, keep the change.
This is a revolt against Obama's policies and clearly show how the people feel.
Granted Brown is no conservative, but he is certainly not a obamacare supporter and will not have this government take over.
Who would have thought that Ted Kennedy's seat would go to a Republican? The people have spoken, and Washington cannot ignore them any longer.
I agree with ya Ed, this is the demise and end of change. And if this is hard for the libs, this fall is just gonna be that much worse.
The people have sent a clear message to D.C. tonight, they don't want this health care, they want small government, no excessive taxes and big spending. This is a big slam in the face for congress.
Tonight, we have witnessed democracy. In the 1700s we created a revolution with guns and death. Today we have a different method. Election.
America's chickens have come home, to roost.
HAHA the Media Bias Continues
Just hours before tonights vote counting, CBS political analyst John Dickerson said that if brown wins, "it's just going to get a lot uglier in Washington."
Now this is suppose to be a non-bias neutral balanced analyst. Not a left wing opinion on how bad Brown is.
But of course to the left that is new. Yet they'll say oh well Fox is only having Brown people on. The difference is, that is a primary source. You are just inditing your own left wing opinion on NATIONAL CBS NEWS!!!! Left Wing Bias, on CBS NEWS!!!! CBS, the neutral channel. Or at least it was.
Now this is suppose to be a non-bias neutral balanced analyst. Not a left wing opinion on how bad Brown is.
But of course to the left that is new. Yet they'll say oh well Fox is only having Brown people on. The difference is, that is a primary source. You are just inditing your own left wing opinion on NATIONAL CBS NEWS!!!! Left Wing Bias, on CBS NEWS!!!! CBS, the neutral channel. Or at least it was.
Liberals Desperate Attack
Take this from Keith Oralmann tonight:
KEITH OLBERMANN: One last aspect, and this is not necessarily pretty. 1964, 1965 the greatest years of civil-rights change in this country since Emancipation and in the 1966 midterms the Republicans took 47 seats from the House from the Democrats, and most of those elections had clear racial undertones, man had overtones.
You see this is what happens when you lose. You get desperate. So you come out with something like this.
Need i remind 'bath-tub boy' that is was JFK who voted against the 58 civil rights act? Along with Al Gore Sr. Are you aware that it was MLK who voted for both Eisenhower and Nixon. Did you know that MLK after JFK was president lead a protest of his policies and outside of the DNC HC?
Ya. So really that was also a rebellion against the racist democrats. Lead as i just explained, by MLKJ.
This moment brought to you by desperate liberals who can't accept defeat.
KEITH OLBERMANN: One last aspect, and this is not necessarily pretty. 1964, 1965 the greatest years of civil-rights change in this country since Emancipation and in the 1966 midterms the Republicans took 47 seats from the House from the Democrats, and most of those elections had clear racial undertones, man had overtones.
You see this is what happens when you lose. You get desperate. So you come out with something like this.
Need i remind 'bath-tub boy' that is was JFK who voted against the 58 civil rights act? Along with Al Gore Sr. Are you aware that it was MLK who voted for both Eisenhower and Nixon. Did you know that MLK after JFK was president lead a protest of his policies and outside of the DNC HC?
Ya. So really that was also a rebellion against the racist democrats. Lead as i just explained, by MLKJ.
This moment brought to you by desperate liberals who can't accept defeat.
Massachusetts Live Blog
As of 8:19 with 36 percints in Brown leads Coakley 55% to 45%!!!
8:21 Brown leads Concrod, MA 58-45
8:22 with 4% of the vote in, Brown's lead is 52-47!!! It's getting closer...I don't think i can take the suspense.
8:26 Brown is dominating Frammingham 57%-42%!!!
'The Caucus' reports: "Democrats were studying turnout models and disappointed by what appeared to be lower-than-expected turnout in minority precincts, which typically trend Democratic."
8:40 NO!!! no no no no no. Coakley up in Boston (not surprising though) 51%-48%
8:45 With 21% in, it is a 53%-46% Brown lead.
8:51 Brown leads Dracut, MA 70%-30%!!!!
9:00 Brown up 52% to 48% with 40% in
9:03 Brown up 53% to 46% with around 60% in!!!
9:18 Coakley asks Brown to concede the senate race. --Boston Globe. ooh someone's nervous.
9:22 AP calls Brown winner!!!! Brown 53% Coakley 46%!!!!
Another blue state gone red!!!!
8:21 Brown leads Concrod, MA 58-45
8:22 with 4% of the vote in, Brown's lead is 52-47!!! It's getting closer...I don't think i can take the suspense.
8:26 Brown is dominating Frammingham 57%-42%!!!
'The Caucus' reports: "Democrats were studying turnout models and disappointed by what appeared to be lower-than-expected turnout in minority precincts, which typically trend Democratic."
8:40 NO!!! no no no no no. Coakley up in Boston (not surprising though) 51%-48%
8:45 With 21% in, it is a 53%-46% Brown lead.
8:51 Brown leads Dracut, MA 70%-30%!!!!
9:00 Brown up 52% to 48% with 40% in
9:03 Brown up 53% to 46% with around 60% in!!!
9:18 Coakley asks Brown to concede the senate race. --Boston Globe. ooh someone's nervous.
9:22 AP calls Brown winner!!!! Brown 53% Coakley 46%!!!!
Another blue state gone red!!!!
So This Is Change?
Hmmm just not what i thought it would be. New taxes? Yup. Get to keep your coverage? Nope. Cut costs? Nope. Cover all uninsured? Not so much. Cuts to medicare? You bet. Add to deficit. Naturally. Well it's change all right... but i sure don't believe in it.
The Polls Just Aren't Lookin' Good For The Dems
Of all the polls to show this kind of information, NBC, has just released new polls. Of those polled, only 34% think we as a country are on the right track. NBC. 54% of those polled said we are on the wrong track.
So much for the American people being on board with Obama and Congress.
Another NBC poll showed that only 33% said the health reform was a good idea.
Yet the ugliest of them all, would be that only 21% approve of the job of the supermajority democrat controlled congress.
So much for the American people being on board with Obama and Congress.
Another NBC poll showed that only 33% said the health reform was a good idea.
Yet the ugliest of them all, would be that only 21% approve of the job of the supermajority democrat controlled congress.
18 January 2010
Really Again, Blame Bush?
Today left winger Paul Kruggman writes: "The Obama administration’s troubles are the result not of excessive ambition, but of policy and political misjudgments,"
He goes on to say this: "[] But he didn’t. Maybe he still dreams of bridging the partisan divide; maybe he fears the ire of pundits who consider blaming your predecessor for current problems uncouth — if you’re a Democrat. (It’s O.K. if you’re a Republican.) Whatever the reason, Mr. Obama has allowed the public to forget, with remarkable speed, that the economy’s troubles didn’t start on his watch."
Really? So Bush caused this 10% unemployment? So It was Bush's fault that we lost 85,000 jobs last month. Bush did that? Bush's policies the past year caused to spike in unemployment, the increase in foreclosures and the massive debt and deficit?
No let me tell you what Obama inherited, 7.6% unemployment. The stimulus wasn't enough Kruggman said in his article. He said it wasn't enough. Well i for one think it was more than enough. The stimulus that lead to the termination of 3 million jobs, the creation of around 100,000 jobs (the number is in huge dispute yet the WH claims 2 million, still less than the 3 million lost.) The stimulus that added 1 trillion. TRILLION to our deficit? This is all Bush's fault.
Obama came in with 7.6% unemployed. He was suppose to fix that, the stimulus was. Now the stimulus has run its course and we have 10%.
But this is all Bush's fault. You see really It was Bush who passed the stimulus. Bush is still secretly in office. Just ask Paul Kruggman, he'll tell ya, it's all Bush's fault. So i guess then, yeah he is still in office. - Oh wait! That's right he's not in office. The man is not president anymore. So stop blaming and take some damn responsibility!
He goes on to say this: "[] But he didn’t. Maybe he still dreams of bridging the partisan divide; maybe he fears the ire of pundits who consider blaming your predecessor for current problems uncouth — if you’re a Democrat. (It’s O.K. if you’re a Republican.) Whatever the reason, Mr. Obama has allowed the public to forget, with remarkable speed, that the economy’s troubles didn’t start on his watch."
Really? So Bush caused this 10% unemployment? So It was Bush's fault that we lost 85,000 jobs last month. Bush did that? Bush's policies the past year caused to spike in unemployment, the increase in foreclosures and the massive debt and deficit?
No let me tell you what Obama inherited, 7.6% unemployment. The stimulus wasn't enough Kruggman said in his article. He said it wasn't enough. Well i for one think it was more than enough. The stimulus that lead to the termination of 3 million jobs, the creation of around 100,000 jobs (the number is in huge dispute yet the WH claims 2 million, still less than the 3 million lost.) The stimulus that added 1 trillion. TRILLION to our deficit? This is all Bush's fault.
Obama came in with 7.6% unemployed. He was suppose to fix that, the stimulus was. Now the stimulus has run its course and we have 10%.
But this is all Bush's fault. You see really It was Bush who passed the stimulus. Bush is still secretly in office. Just ask Paul Kruggman, he'll tell ya, it's all Bush's fault. So i guess then, yeah he is still in office. - Oh wait! That's right he's not in office. The man is not president anymore. So stop blaming and take some damn responsibility!
Radicals In The White House
Even as a joke i do not find Rahm Emanuels comments today on the 1st amendment funny at all.
"When you think about the First Amendment...you think it's highly overrated."
--Rham
Now, the white house has attacked free speech before in various styles. There was the war on Fox News, which really helped their already commanding ratings. And there was the war on Rush Limbaugh which also resulted in his soaring ratings.
Yet now the white house went after the first amendment itself. Not just people or organizations who exercise free speech, but free speech itself.
Now the irony is, in such a world that progressives like Rahm would like to live in, free speechless, he would not be able to say that. Or anything like that, anything that would shoot down the government.
So that's white house chief of staff. Here is the FCC 'chief diversity officer' who said "It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.
"[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."
And you also have Robert McChesney of Free Press on the media reform that they want that the white house is advocating for, which would let the government, not private companies be in charge of the American Internet Service, saying "(T)he ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."
So while Obama claimed to be a moderate, these are the kinds of people he is associating himself with. These radicals that their only goal, is to eliminate free speech.
Now the question is, who do we listen to? Do we listen to the FCC comish? or do we listen to oh say, George Washington. I think he has maybe a little credibility don't you.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away, dumb and silent we may be led like sheep, to the slaughter."
--George Washington
I don't know about you, but if the government takes away the first amendment, then the second may come in handy.
"When you think about the First Amendment...you think it's highly overrated."
--Rham
Now, the white house has attacked free speech before in various styles. There was the war on Fox News, which really helped their already commanding ratings. And there was the war on Rush Limbaugh which also resulted in his soaring ratings.
Yet now the white house went after the first amendment itself. Not just people or organizations who exercise free speech, but free speech itself.
Now the irony is, in such a world that progressives like Rahm would like to live in, free speechless, he would not be able to say that. Or anything like that, anything that would shoot down the government.
So that's white house chief of staff. Here is the FCC 'chief diversity officer' who said "It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.
"[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."
And you also have Robert McChesney of Free Press on the media reform that they want that the white house is advocating for, which would let the government, not private companies be in charge of the American Internet Service, saying "(T)he ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."
So while Obama claimed to be a moderate, these are the kinds of people he is associating himself with. These radicals that their only goal, is to eliminate free speech.
Now the question is, who do we listen to? Do we listen to the FCC comish? or do we listen to oh say, George Washington. I think he has maybe a little credibility don't you.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away, dumb and silent we may be led like sheep, to the slaughter."
--George Washington
I don't know about you, but if the government takes away the first amendment, then the second may come in handy.
Wishful Thinking in Massachusetts
here is a list of polls on the MA senate race:
Monday, January 18
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Massachusetts Senate - Special Election Politico/InAdv Brown 52, Coakley 43 Brown +9
Massachusetts Senate - Special Election PJM/CrossTarget (R) Brown 52, Coakley 42 Brown +10
Massachusetts Senate - Special Election PPP (D) Brown 51, Coakley 46 Brown +5
Massachusetts Senate - Special Election ARG Brown 52, Coakley 45 Brown +7
Massachusetts Senate - Special Election DAILY KOS/R2000 Brown 48, Coakley 48 Tie
That's DK for ya.
Monday, January 18
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Massachusetts Senate - Special Election Politico/InAdv Brown 52, Coakley 43 Brown +9
Massachusetts Senate - Special Election PJM/CrossTarget (R) Brown 52, Coakley 42 Brown +10
Massachusetts Senate - Special Election PPP (D) Brown 51, Coakley 46 Brown +5
Massachusetts Senate - Special Election ARG Brown 52, Coakley 45 Brown +7
Massachusetts Senate - Special Election DAILY KOS/R2000 Brown 48, Coakley 48 Tie
That's DK for ya.
The Revolt Against Big Government
A recent ABC poll shows an overwhelming support for limited government.
Of those polled 58% said they favored a "smaller government with fewer services" while only 38% said they favored a "big government with more services."
What does that say about obamacare? Which is really if passed one of the biggest services government will have.
Support for that is also way down hovering around 36%.
Of those polled 58% said they favored a "smaller government with fewer services" while only 38% said they favored a "big government with more services."
What does that say about obamacare? Which is really if passed one of the biggest services government will have.
Support for that is also way down hovering around 36%.
Brown Up Big In The Polls
Pollster.com
So what might you believe about these data? You could refuse to cherry pick the polls. That has long been our view here at Pollster.com. Our job is to summarize the trends as best we can, without partisan favor. If you do that, we get a 8.8 point Brown lead.
Perhaps you only trust non-partisan polls. Then the Brown lead is 6.8 points.
Maybe you are a Dem, who doesn’t trust the Republican pollsters. Then Brown leads by 6.5 points.
Or you are a Dem who doesn’t trust the non-partisan pollsters either and who does believe in the leaks from the Coakley campaign. Then Brown’s lead is 3.8 points. (This is the only estimate that includes the leaks.)
Or you are a Rep who trusts GOP and nonpartisan polls only. Then Brown leads by 11.3. (There aren’t enough Rep polls to run a Rep only estimate to parallel the Dem only, but I’d think an 11 point lead would be satisfying enough for Reps.)
There may be other ways to cut these data (IVR vs conventional phone, pollsters you’ve heard of vs ones you haven’t) but it seems quite unlikely that any but the most selective reading of these data can find that the race remains a dead heat. Brown has a lead, as of Sunday night.
So what might you believe about these data? You could refuse to cherry pick the polls. That has long been our view here at Pollster.com. Our job is to summarize the trends as best we can, without partisan favor. If you do that, we get a 8.8 point Brown lead.
Perhaps you only trust non-partisan polls. Then the Brown lead is 6.8 points.
Maybe you are a Dem, who doesn’t trust the Republican pollsters. Then Brown leads by 6.5 points.
Or you are a Dem who doesn’t trust the non-partisan pollsters either and who does believe in the leaks from the Coakley campaign. Then Brown’s lead is 3.8 points. (This is the only estimate that includes the leaks.)
Or you are a Rep who trusts GOP and nonpartisan polls only. Then Brown leads by 11.3. (There aren’t enough Rep polls to run a Rep only estimate to parallel the Dem only, but I’d think an 11 point lead would be satisfying enough for Reps.)
There may be other ways to cut these data (IVR vs conventional phone, pollsters you’ve heard of vs ones you haven’t) but it seems quite unlikely that any but the most selective reading of these data can find that the race remains a dead heat. Brown has a lead, as of Sunday night.
17 January 2010
Culvers Endorsement
My previous endorsement in the Massachusetts election was Joe Kennedy, a Tea Party approved, Libertarian who i believe to be one of the great candidates out their and strongly agree with him. He is right that the GOP will still spend and expand the gov't.
Despite not especially liking either Brown or Coakley and liking Kennedy, i know he will not win. So i have to go with the next best choice.
So without further ado, Culvers Endorses Scott Brown.
Despite not especially liking either Brown or Coakley and liking Kennedy, i know he will not win. So i have to go with the next best choice.
So without further ado, Culvers Endorses Scott Brown.
Crist V. Rubio In Florida
I thought i was gonna come on here and endorse someone. Then i visited their websites and researched both candidates. I looked at their 'issues' section. I can't tell the difference.
Frankly either one would be a good strong senator and representative of freedom and the conservative movement. Yet the one thing that stuck out was the track records. While Crist has beem a huge tax cutter and vetoer of pork bills in Florida, he did support the sociali- uh, stimulus bill in last February and has shown support for things such as Cap-and-Trade, and he has until lately been opposed to off-shore drilling.
So who does Culvers endorse? The current Gov. Crist, a conservative, or a the Tea Party candidate Rubio? Truth is, either one. The decision then comes to social issues. Crist is anti-gay marriage, as is Rubio. Crist and Rubio are both pro-life, and Rubio supports the death penalty. I believe Crist also does.
So then, what is it exactly that has people so anti crist? I don't get it. They are both strong, effective conservatives who have both said they would strongly support the other should they other get the nomination.
So really, i come out here to still delay an endorsement. But do not split down on them. Otherwise the Dem will surely win.
Frankly either one would be a good strong senator and representative of freedom and the conservative movement. Yet the one thing that stuck out was the track records. While Crist has beem a huge tax cutter and vetoer of pork bills in Florida, he did support the sociali- uh, stimulus bill in last February and has shown support for things such as Cap-and-Trade, and he has until lately been opposed to off-shore drilling.
So who does Culvers endorse? The current Gov. Crist, a conservative, or a the Tea Party candidate Rubio? Truth is, either one. The decision then comes to social issues. Crist is anti-gay marriage, as is Rubio. Crist and Rubio are both pro-life, and Rubio supports the death penalty. I believe Crist also does.
So then, what is it exactly that has people so anti crist? I don't get it. They are both strong, effective conservatives who have both said they would strongly support the other should they other get the nomination.
So really, i come out here to still delay an endorsement. But do not split down on them. Otherwise the Dem will surely win.
Liberal Fascism Part 8 (Propaganda)
Take a look at these kinds of posters that were put up, in Germany during the Hitler years. Not even the holocaust, forget that for a second. Just the radically progressive agenda, free health care, social security, big spending, all the things congress is pushing for now.
And the propaganda. They had art posters put up by the government. We have the NEA getting money from the government to produce art for the health reform.
In the nazi socialist revolution these 'posters' were put up all over the place.
Now does that look anything like this picture that was put out by the NEA with grant money from the government?
Or lastly, how about this, from the Bush administration, about the war on terror. If you don't support the Patriot act, well, you must then be, un-american.
And the propaganda. They had art posters put up by the government. We have the NEA getting money from the government to produce art for the health reform.
In the nazi socialist revolution these 'posters' were put up all over the place.
Now does that look anything like this picture that was put out by the NEA with grant money from the government?
Or lastly, how about this, from the Bush administration, about the war on terror. If you don't support the Patriot act, well, you must then be, un-american.
MSNBC Is Full Of Left Wing Cheaters
Yesterday our good liberal friend Ed Schultz informed us that he would cheat the election, to keep the GOP out of Kennedy's seat.
I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts, I'd try to vote ten times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right, I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are.
Ah the liberal media, never fails to amuse me. I'm sure our friends at GE and NBC are glad to know their employees like to cheat.
I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts, I'd try to vote ten times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right, I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are.
Ah the liberal media, never fails to amuse me. I'm sure our friends at GE and NBC are glad to know their employees like to cheat.
16 January 2010
The End of Change As We Know It
Here is a clip from A-Mess NBC's 'Ed Show.' Liberals are panicking like crazy at the thought of GOPer Scott Brown winning Ted Kennedy's senate seat.
Health Reform's Last Hurtle
The U.S. Constitution. Democrats are jumping for joy as it seems that health reform will sail onward to victory very soon. Yet despite the vote, one hurtle is left for the bill to overcome. When the Supreme Court looks at this bill they will determine weather or not a health insurance mandate is constitutional or not.
Now there are currently 4 judicial activists on the court, who will possibly use the 'commerce clauss' which is really just for congress to allow free trade between states. That would be like, oh, allowing insurance to be bought and sold cross state lines.
Yet there are still five constitutional judges who will possibly strike this down.
Thus the constitution is this bills final hurtle to over come.
Now there are currently 4 judicial activists on the court, who will possibly use the 'commerce clauss' which is really just for congress to allow free trade between states. That would be like, oh, allowing insurance to be bought and sold cross state lines.
Yet there are still five constitutional judges who will possibly strike this down.
Thus the constitution is this bills final hurtle to over come.
15 January 2010
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) @ Hillsdale
Rep. Paul Ryan made these remarks at Hillsdale College:
Washington DC is no place to run health care services for the nation. Thus the Framers left public health decentralized. But if there were any doubt, the history of Medicare and Medicaid is the proof. Real cost control has become a national nightmare. Fraud has proliferated despite every effort to stop it. Program costs are always underestimated. In 1966 the cost of Medicare to the taxpayers was about $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost taxpayers only about $12 billion by 1990 (adjusted for inflation). The actual cost? Nearly nine times as high - $107 billion. By 2006 Medicare reached $401 billion while Medicaid added another $309 billion for a total of $710 billion.
The health care programs Democratic leaders are pushing are outrageously expensive and fiscally irresponsible. The federal Health Care takeover will subsume about one-sixth of our national economy. Combined with current federal, state, and local spending, government will control about 50 percent of total national production. At this point the goal of centralized administration will be in sight, with less than half of our once free economy to be brought under government control.
There are essentially three models for health care delivery available to us. First, today's broken model in which bureaucratized insurance companies monopolize the field in each state - this is the "business-government partnership" model, the "crony capitalism" that corrupts our economy. Second, the Progressives' model where centrally administered government takes over the field and government bureaucrats decide which services you are allowed to have. Third, the only true American model in my view, a free market in which health care services compete, and individuals - the consumer-patients and their doctors - are in control.
Read the Rest here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/15/healthcare_and_progressivism_99904.html
Washington DC is no place to run health care services for the nation. Thus the Framers left public health decentralized. But if there were any doubt, the history of Medicare and Medicaid is the proof. Real cost control has become a national nightmare. Fraud has proliferated despite every effort to stop it. Program costs are always underestimated. In 1966 the cost of Medicare to the taxpayers was about $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost taxpayers only about $12 billion by 1990 (adjusted for inflation). The actual cost? Nearly nine times as high - $107 billion. By 2006 Medicare reached $401 billion while Medicaid added another $309 billion for a total of $710 billion.
The health care programs Democratic leaders are pushing are outrageously expensive and fiscally irresponsible. The federal Health Care takeover will subsume about one-sixth of our national economy. Combined with current federal, state, and local spending, government will control about 50 percent of total national production. At this point the goal of centralized administration will be in sight, with less than half of our once free economy to be brought under government control.
There are essentially three models for health care delivery available to us. First, today's broken model in which bureaucratized insurance companies monopolize the field in each state - this is the "business-government partnership" model, the "crony capitalism" that corrupts our economy. Second, the Progressives' model where centrally administered government takes over the field and government bureaucrats decide which services you are allowed to have. Third, the only true American model in my view, a free market in which health care services compete, and individuals - the consumer-patients and their doctors - are in control.
Read the Rest here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/15/healthcare_and_progressivism_99904.html
Brown Up By 4 In U Poll
The Suffolok University poll currently has GOPer Scott Brown ahead of Coakley by 4 points.
Brown: 50%
Coakley: 46%
Brown: 50%
Coakley: 46%
Call Targets
Call like crazy. Call your congressmen and senators and tell them to vote NO on obamacare.
Among these, John Boccieri (D-OH), Jason Altmire (D-PA), and Steve Dreihaus (D-OH) need to be called to vote no.
Among these, John Boccieri (D-OH), Jason Altmire (D-PA), and Steve Dreihaus (D-OH) need to be called to vote no.
14 January 2010
Welcome To Capitalism
Political Joke of The Day:
Donald Trump's daughter, Ivanka, was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal ideals she was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs -- what her dad dismissed as "redistribution of wealth."
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, and a rich one at that -- a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his, rather than benefit society.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. "You don't need to spend money on these expensive furnishings in this huge house when there are people who need to earn more than minimum wage and better food!" she lectured.
To her shock and amazement, all The Donald said in reply was "Welcome to socialism."
That's it? she thought to herself -- no argument? But before she could even think of a follow-up, he actually changed the subject! "How are you doing with your studies?" Trump asked her.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"
She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."
The Donald was closing in now. He asked Ivanka, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."
Ivanka, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair!? I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"
The Donald slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to capitalism."
Donald Trump's daughter, Ivanka, was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal ideals she was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs -- what her dad dismissed as "redistribution of wealth."
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, and a rich one at that -- a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his, rather than benefit society.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. "You don't need to spend money on these expensive furnishings in this huge house when there are people who need to earn more than minimum wage and better food!" she lectured.
To her shock and amazement, all The Donald said in reply was "Welcome to socialism."
That's it? she thought to herself -- no argument? But before she could even think of a follow-up, he actually changed the subject! "How are you doing with your studies?" Trump asked her.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"
She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."
The Donald was closing in now. He asked Ivanka, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."
Ivanka, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair!? I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"
The Donald slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to capitalism."
Obamacare Preview: Massachusetts
Welcome to the state of Massachusetts. A peaceful state, and also the only state in the union with government run health care. Yet while Obamacare promises to reduce costs and create access for all, MassCare, which is almost identical to obamacare, tells a vastly contrasting story.
According to the Merrit Hawkin's Survey of 2009 Physician Wait Times, Boston by far has the longest wait time for an appointment. In Boston the average wait period is 63 days for a doctor appointment. That compared to the national average of 20 days. Or my state, Minnesota, Minneapolis has about a 10 day wait time.
As far as reducing costs, Masscare also contradicts what has been said about Obamacare.
The cost of an average premium in Massachusetts, is $8,537 per year. Compare that now with the national average of $2,316, or Minnesota where the average premium cost is $2,424
According to the Merrit Hawkin's Survey of 2009 Physician Wait Times, Boston by far has the longest wait time for an appointment. In Boston the average wait period is 63 days for a doctor appointment. That compared to the national average of 20 days. Or my state, Minnesota, Minneapolis has about a 10 day wait time.
As far as reducing costs, Masscare also contradicts what has been said about Obamacare.
The cost of an average premium in Massachusetts, is $8,537 per year. Compare that now with the national average of $2,316, or Minnesota where the average premium cost is $2,424
GOP: We'll Take Back The House
Politico:
GOP leaders have privately settled on a strategy to win back the House by putting the vast majority of their money and energy into attacking Democrats — and turning this election into a national referendum on the party in power.
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, one of 10 leaders who attended a strategy session in Annapolis, Md., this week, said the party will attack Democrats relentlessly for the stimulus, health care and cap-and-trade bills.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31481.html#ixzz0cdV8uBgi
2010 elections are coming up faster than you think. Culvers predicts the second Boston Tea Party and Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts, Reid is going to be thrown out. Dodd's seat will go to a republican. All the blue dogs need to be careful for they are in risk of being voted out, and the RINOs in the GOP are all in deep trouble with the American people. They have spent like democrats, they have controlled like democrats and taxed like democrats for the past eight years. They might as well be democrats.
This is further down the road towards 2012, but once the Rinos are gone, watch out neo-cons, you're next.
GOP leaders have privately settled on a strategy to win back the House by putting the vast majority of their money and energy into attacking Democrats — and turning this election into a national referendum on the party in power.
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, one of 10 leaders who attended a strategy session in Annapolis, Md., this week, said the party will attack Democrats relentlessly for the stimulus, health care and cap-and-trade bills.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31481.html#ixzz0cdV8uBgi
2010 elections are coming up faster than you think. Culvers predicts the second Boston Tea Party and Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts, Reid is going to be thrown out. Dodd's seat will go to a republican. All the blue dogs need to be careful for they are in risk of being voted out, and the RINOs in the GOP are all in deep trouble with the American people. They have spent like democrats, they have controlled like democrats and taxed like democrats for the past eight years. They might as well be democrats.
This is further down the road towards 2012, but once the Rinos are gone, watch out neo-cons, you're next.
13 January 2010
Beck The Key Note Speaker!
On February 20 in D.C. talk radio host and Fox News host, Glenn Beck will give the key note speech at the 2010 CPAC conference.
Obamacare and The Status Quo
The Cato Institute:
House and Senate Democrats have produced health care legislation whose mandates, subsidies, tax penalties, and health insurance regulations would penalize work and reward Americans who refuse to purchase health insurance. As a result, the legislation could trap many Americans in low-wage jobs and cause even higher health-insurance premiums, government spending, and taxes than are envisioned in the legislation.
Those mandates and subsidies would impose effective marginal tax rates on low-wage workers that would average between 53 and 74 percent— and even reach as high as 82 percent—over broad ranges of earned income. By comparison, the wealthiest Americans would face tax rates no higher than 47.9 percent.
Over smaller ranges of earned income, the legislation would impose effective marginal tax rates that exceed 100 percent. Families of four would see effective marginal tax rates as high as 174 percent under the Senate bill and 159 percent under the House bill. Under the Senate bill, adults starting at $14,560 who earn an additional $560 would see their total income fall by $200 due to higher taxes and reduced subsidies. Under the House bill, families of four starting at $43,670 who earn an additional $1,100 would see their total income fall by $870.
In addition, middle-income workers could save as much as $8,000 per year by dropping coverage and purchasing health insurance only when sick. Indeed, the legislation effectively removes any penalty on such behavior by forcing insurers to sell health insurance to the uninsured at standard premiums when they fall ill. The legislation would thus encourage “adverse selection”—an unstable situation that would drive insurance premiums, government spending, and taxes even higher.
House and Senate Democrats have produced health care legislation whose mandates, subsidies, tax penalties, and health insurance regulations would penalize work and reward Americans who refuse to purchase health insurance. As a result, the legislation could trap many Americans in low-wage jobs and cause even higher health-insurance premiums, government spending, and taxes than are envisioned in the legislation.
Those mandates and subsidies would impose effective marginal tax rates on low-wage workers that would average between 53 and 74 percent— and even reach as high as 82 percent—over broad ranges of earned income. By comparison, the wealthiest Americans would face tax rates no higher than 47.9 percent.
Over smaller ranges of earned income, the legislation would impose effective marginal tax rates that exceed 100 percent. Families of four would see effective marginal tax rates as high as 174 percent under the Senate bill and 159 percent under the House bill. Under the Senate bill, adults starting at $14,560 who earn an additional $560 would see their total income fall by $200 due to higher taxes and reduced subsidies. Under the House bill, families of four starting at $43,670 who earn an additional $1,100 would see their total income fall by $870.
In addition, middle-income workers could save as much as $8,000 per year by dropping coverage and purchasing health insurance only when sick. Indeed, the legislation effectively removes any penalty on such behavior by forcing insurers to sell health insurance to the uninsured at standard premiums when they fall ill. The legislation would thus encourage “adverse selection”—an unstable situation that would drive insurance premiums, government spending, and taxes even higher.
A Good Joke
Here is a joke a friends sent me today in Seminar class:
There was a farmer who was very protective of his daughters. Before
every date, he would meet the young man at the porch with his shotgun,
and if he didn't measure up, he'd make sure they left.
One day all three of his daughters were going out on the same night.
The first young man drove up and approached the porch.
"Hi, my name is Joe, I'm here to get Flo, we're going to the show, is
she ready to go?" The farmer liked this guy, and let him leave with his
daughter.
Shortly, the next guy drove up and approached the porch.
"Hi, my name is Freddy, I'm here to get Betty, we're going for
spaghetti, is she ready?" The farmer liked this guy too, and let him
leave with his second daughter.
Soon the third guy drove up and approached the porch.
"Hi, my name is Chuck..." and the farmer shot him.
There was a farmer who was very protective of his daughters. Before
every date, he would meet the young man at the porch with his shotgun,
and if he didn't measure up, he'd make sure they left.
One day all three of his daughters were going out on the same night.
The first young man drove up and approached the porch.
"Hi, my name is Joe, I'm here to get Flo, we're going to the show, is
she ready to go?" The farmer liked this guy, and let him leave with his
daughter.
Shortly, the next guy drove up and approached the porch.
"Hi, my name is Freddy, I'm here to get Betty, we're going for
spaghetti, is she ready?" The farmer liked this guy too, and let him
leave with his second daughter.
Soon the third guy drove up and approached the porch.
"Hi, my name is Chuck..." and the farmer shot him.
12 January 2010
Encouraging Bad Health Plans
And now more growing talk and support for the Cadillac Plan Tax. Now this tax would hit any one with a good health care plan from their employer. Instead of giving rewards to those who offer the best health care plans, to push for better health plans for employees, they're going to tax those who give the best plans.
So now, if i am an employer, and i offer the top of the line, top of the liner health care for my employees, and then if this cadillac tax is passed, i get taxed for that. I get punished for providing my employees with good health care. I thought this was about giving good quality health care to people. Not causing businesses to stop giving good health plans, which is what this will do.
Let me tell you what the real plan is. It is, as i have explained before, it's a government take over. So this tax will reduce the care given from businesses, which in some cases will cause some to lose their employer provided care. Next they then go onto the public option. Then private places will not cover as many people, so they will be getting more care via public option, which creates a slow and steady pace to put more people on the dole and remove them from the private business care.
This is not the only step but it is certainly a step towards driving out private, employer provided health care.
So now, if i am an employer, and i offer the top of the line, top of the liner health care for my employees, and then if this cadillac tax is passed, i get taxed for that. I get punished for providing my employees with good health care. I thought this was about giving good quality health care to people. Not causing businesses to stop giving good health plans, which is what this will do.
Let me tell you what the real plan is. It is, as i have explained before, it's a government take over. So this tax will reduce the care given from businesses, which in some cases will cause some to lose their employer provided care. Next they then go onto the public option. Then private places will not cover as many people, so they will be getting more care via public option, which creates a slow and steady pace to put more people on the dole and remove them from the private business care.
This is not the only step but it is certainly a step towards driving out private, employer provided health care.
Taxing Banks To Pay For Tarp~The Foundry
The Foundry:
It is fun and politically profitable to attack banks and bankers, especially in the wake of a bailout program estimated to have cost American taxpayers some $150 billion. Given this, the plan floated yesterday by the Obama Administration to charge a “fee” (read tax) on financial institutions to cover losses under the TARP program is understandable. That doesn’t make it sensible.
The plan will do nothing to force those responsible for much of TARP’s losses — primarily AIG, General Motors, and Chrysler – to reimburse the Treasury one cent. That money is likely lost. It will, however, force firms that didn’t take bailout money – and those that took money but have already paid it back with interest, to subsidize the money losers.
Worse, it promises to do so in a way that is going to make the financial system less sound, and possibly even make it harder for ordinary Americans to save for retirement.
As reported so far, there’s no word on exactly what form the fee would take, but several potential methods have been mentioned, each worse than the next one.
• Surtax: It could be a surtax on top of existing business taxes, to be paid by firms over a certain size. But this would hit the healthiest firms – those least likely to impose bailout costs. Of course, the mere existence of such a surtax will immediately reduce the stock price of financials that still need to raise capital levels, and are vulnerable to further losses on commercial real estate, consumer products, etc.
• Excise tax: Under an excise tax, assessed on assets, payroll, or perhaps average pay of top executives, firms would be taxed more “equally”. But that means problem institutions will be further weakened and be even more vulnerable to failing. Moreover, excise taxes no doubt will be used to penalize politically unpopular expenses – regardless of justification — increasing government micromanagement.
• Surcharge on financial transactions: A third proposal would be to charge a 0.25 percent tax on all stock, bond or other financial transactions. Unfortunately, this idea would mainly hit the 401(k) type retirement savings accounts of ordinary Americans, for a very high proportion of stock transactions are connected with the management of these accounts. The tax, small as it seems, will be added to the costs paid by these plans, thus further reducing the money that future retirees will have to live on.
It is fun and politically profitable to attack banks and bankers, especially in the wake of a bailout program estimated to have cost American taxpayers some $150 billion. Given this, the plan floated yesterday by the Obama Administration to charge a “fee” (read tax) on financial institutions to cover losses under the TARP program is understandable. That doesn’t make it sensible.
The plan will do nothing to force those responsible for much of TARP’s losses — primarily AIG, General Motors, and Chrysler – to reimburse the Treasury one cent. That money is likely lost. It will, however, force firms that didn’t take bailout money – and those that took money but have already paid it back with interest, to subsidize the money losers.
Worse, it promises to do so in a way that is going to make the financial system less sound, and possibly even make it harder for ordinary Americans to save for retirement.
As reported so far, there’s no word on exactly what form the fee would take, but several potential methods have been mentioned, each worse than the next one.
• Surtax: It could be a surtax on top of existing business taxes, to be paid by firms over a certain size. But this would hit the healthiest firms – those least likely to impose bailout costs. Of course, the mere existence of such a surtax will immediately reduce the stock price of financials that still need to raise capital levels, and are vulnerable to further losses on commercial real estate, consumer products, etc.
• Excise tax: Under an excise tax, assessed on assets, payroll, or perhaps average pay of top executives, firms would be taxed more “equally”. But that means problem institutions will be further weakened and be even more vulnerable to failing. Moreover, excise taxes no doubt will be used to penalize politically unpopular expenses – regardless of justification — increasing government micromanagement.
• Surcharge on financial transactions: A third proposal would be to charge a 0.25 percent tax on all stock, bond or other financial transactions. Unfortunately, this idea would mainly hit the 401(k) type retirement savings accounts of ordinary Americans, for a very high proportion of stock transactions are connected with the management of these accounts. The tax, small as it seems, will be added to the costs paid by these plans, thus further reducing the money that future retirees will have to live on.
ObamaPolls: The Great Flip Plop
It's official: the newest CNN poll has reveled that:
Forty-eight percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday say Obama’s presidency has been a failure so far, with 47 percent saying Obama has been a success. The poll’s January 12 release comes just 8 days before Obama marks one year in the White House.
Finally more people disapprove of Obama's job than approve. His polls have plummeted more in his first year than any other president. Even Bush.
48/47...America, is waking up
Forty-eight percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday say Obama’s presidency has been a failure so far, with 47 percent saying Obama has been a success. The poll’s January 12 release comes just 8 days before Obama marks one year in the White House.
Finally more people disapprove of Obama's job than approve. His polls have plummeted more in his first year than any other president. Even Bush.
48/47...America, is waking up
Big Government Meets Reality
California has now announced that it will repeal its Cap-and-Trade program until the unemployment rate hits 5.5. Note, Cal has an unemployment rate of 12.3%, and also the highest state tax rates in the union.
Apparently cap-and-trade costs to much and has raised energy prices, hmm go figure. And what's that it also, killed jobs? Interesting.
In the world of Big Government- The ego has landed
Apparently cap-and-trade costs to much and has raised energy prices, hmm go figure. And what's that it also, killed jobs? Interesting.
In the world of Big Government- The ego has landed
Boston Tea Party Part 2
A week from today the polls will be closing in Massachusetts. Mass's left wing politics dates back over the past 50 years. It is one of the most liberal states in the union. In the 72 race Nixon won 49 states. Of course the one he lost, Massachusetts.
But despite Mass's leftism, a small but powerful revolt has been brewing. Mass is heavily taxed, drained by the government health care, and plagued by big government nanny state laws. This has all been created by Senator Ted Kennedy. However, times have changed, GOP candidate Scott Brown has closed in on the Democratic hopeful for Kennedy's seat.
If elected it would show a huge swing in the political spectrum as Massachusetts, the leftist state would reject 60 years of liberalism. Throwing the dems out of office. Thus a second Boston Tea Party. Saying no to over taxation and the nanny state.
Stay tuned for the Boston Tea Party Part 2~~19 January 2010
But despite Mass's leftism, a small but powerful revolt has been brewing. Mass is heavily taxed, drained by the government health care, and plagued by big government nanny state laws. This has all been created by Senator Ted Kennedy. However, times have changed, GOP candidate Scott Brown has closed in on the Democratic hopeful for Kennedy's seat.
If elected it would show a huge swing in the political spectrum as Massachusetts, the leftist state would reject 60 years of liberalism. Throwing the dems out of office. Thus a second Boston Tea Party. Saying no to over taxation and the nanny state.
Stay tuned for the Boston Tea Party Part 2~~19 January 2010
Obama Killing The 10th Amendment
President Obama Signs Executive Order Establishing Council of Governors
Executive Order will Strengthen Further Partnership Between the Federal and State and Local Governments to Better Protect Our Nation
--Whitehouse.gov
How ironic that during this, i began reading the Federalist Papers. The idea of separation of powers between state of federal.
"The bipartisan Council will be composed of ten State Governors who will be selected by the President to serve two year terms."
hmm i wonder what that arrangement will be like, nine democrats and one republican? There, both sides. Bi-partisan.
What happened to "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This is a violation of Federalism, state rights, and a slow start to the abolition of our constitution.
Executive Order will Strengthen Further Partnership Between the Federal and State and Local Governments to Better Protect Our Nation
--Whitehouse.gov
How ironic that during this, i began reading the Federalist Papers. The idea of separation of powers between state of federal.
"The bipartisan Council will be composed of ten State Governors who will be selected by the President to serve two year terms."
hmm i wonder what that arrangement will be like, nine democrats and one republican? There, both sides. Bi-partisan.
What happened to "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This is a violation of Federalism, state rights, and a slow start to the abolition of our constitution.
11 January 2010
Brown's Huge Day
GOP candidate for Massachusetts senate has just today, raise $800,000 from donors. Talk about buying your way in.
A great day for Brown as he seeks to take former senator Kennedy's seat in a few weeks.
A great day for Brown as he seeks to take former senator Kennedy's seat in a few weeks.
Health Reform Down In Polls
The Latest Rasmussen Poll:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 17% believe passage of the legislation will achieve the stated goal of reducing health care costs. Fifty-seven percent (57%) think it will lead to higher costs.
Fifty-two percent (52%) also believe passage of the legislation will lead to a decline in the quality of care.
Overall, 40% of voters nationwide favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Fifty-five percent (55%) are opposed. As has been the case throughout the debate, those who feel strongly about the issue are more likely to be opposed. Just 19% of voters Strongly Favor the plan while 45% are Strongly Opposed.
Can people talk any louder? The people do not want this to pass. Washington, i ask that you respond to us, and remember that the building you meat in, the room that you vote in, we own that. Take a hint, we don't want this.
"Here sir, the people govern."
--Hamilton
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 17% believe passage of the legislation will achieve the stated goal of reducing health care costs. Fifty-seven percent (57%) think it will lead to higher costs.
Fifty-two percent (52%) also believe passage of the legislation will lead to a decline in the quality of care.
Overall, 40% of voters nationwide favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Fifty-five percent (55%) are opposed. As has been the case throughout the debate, those who feel strongly about the issue are more likely to be opposed. Just 19% of voters Strongly Favor the plan while 45% are Strongly Opposed.
Can people talk any louder? The people do not want this to pass. Washington, i ask that you respond to us, and remember that the building you meat in, the room that you vote in, we own that. Take a hint, we don't want this.
"Here sir, the people govern."
--Hamilton
Blago Is Blacker Than Obama
"“I’m blacker than Barack Obama. I shined shoes. I grew up in a five-room apartment. My father had a little laundromat in a black community not far from where we lived,” Blagojevich said. “I saw it all growing up.”
-Blago
Black, cleaned shoes...how racist!
-Blago
Black, cleaned shoes...how racist!
10 January 2010
Movie Review: Avata...*yawn*...r
Well last weekend was my birthday so i thought to myself, "hey why not go see Avatar?" it's suppose to be a great movie so much hype, so exciting, so cultivating, so...boring.
I fell asleep about half way through. I don't fall asleep during movies easily. i can remember just two other occasions. I hated both of those movies. There were so many irrelevant parts it was unbelievable.
Like the part when he is praying or what ever right before the battle, and then she comes and says, that the mother doesn't pick sides. "oh." OH? that's it. well what was the point of that. stupid, destroyed the dramatic moment. mainly the whole thing was boring, could have been fit into an hour and a half really.
The only part worth while is the past 20 minutes, the big battle. And i suppose the first 45 minutes to get some context. But other than that it thought it was boring and definitely not action packed.
i want Obama's change back, but first, on a much smaller scale, i would like my ticket money for Avatar back.
I fell asleep about half way through. I don't fall asleep during movies easily. i can remember just two other occasions. I hated both of those movies. There were so many irrelevant parts it was unbelievable.
Like the part when he is praying or what ever right before the battle, and then she comes and says, that the mother doesn't pick sides. "oh." OH? that's it. well what was the point of that. stupid, destroyed the dramatic moment. mainly the whole thing was boring, could have been fit into an hour and a half really.
The only part worth while is the past 20 minutes, the big battle. And i suppose the first 45 minutes to get some context. But other than that it thought it was boring and definitely not action packed.
i want Obama's change back, but first, on a much smaller scale, i would like my ticket money for Avatar back.
Celebrity Watch: Lohan's Car Accident
TMZ reports:
Lindsay Lohan's car struck a photog this morning, and her driver is now a person of interest in a criminal assault with a deadly weapon investigation.
The incident occurred at 12:30 AM in front The Hotel Cafe in Hollywood. Lindsay's driver was behind the wheel of her BMW when it made contact with the paparazzo.
The photog was not taken to the hospital
Lindsay is not a suspect -- though she was reportedly inside the car during the incident.
Ironically, it was Lindsay's assistant reported the incident.
Lindsay Lohan's car struck a photog this morning, and her driver is now a person of interest in a criminal assault with a deadly weapon investigation.
The incident occurred at 12:30 AM in front The Hotel Cafe in Hollywood. Lindsay's driver was behind the wheel of her BMW when it made contact with the paparazzo.
The photog was not taken to the hospital
Lindsay is not a suspect -- though she was reportedly inside the car during the incident.
Ironically, it was Lindsay's assistant reported the incident.
Celeb Watch: The Fall & Rise of Miley
By now the radio stations have killed the hit 'Party In The USA' for the "fans" and people are bored with it and think it is old all ready. Thus Culver's pronounces the song dead.
In other news, Miley has also announced that 2010 will be the last season of the Disney show 'Hannah Montana.' Seems like Miley is going to fade away into the sunset before long.
NOT SO FAST-
Miley is starting in the movie 'The Last Song' in theaters 2 April 2010. She also will be releasing a new album 'Robot' sometime this summer, and there is now talk of a Hannah Montana: The Movie, sequel.
So despite the fact that it seems like this pop sensation is falling, rest assured for fans, she will be coming back
In other news, Miley has also announced that 2010 will be the last season of the Disney show 'Hannah Montana.' Seems like Miley is going to fade away into the sunset before long.
NOT SO FAST-
Miley is starting in the movie 'The Last Song' in theaters 2 April 2010. She also will be releasing a new album 'Robot' sometime this summer, and there is now talk of a Hannah Montana: The Movie, sequel.
So despite the fact that it seems like this pop sensation is falling, rest assured for fans, she will be coming back
Dems Plot To Pass Health Reform
The Democrats will do anything to pass health care. Even oh say, cheat a vote to get it.
It is now rumored by many sources, that the Massachusetts Democrats, in the event of GOP candidate Scott Brown winning the former Senator Kennedy's seat, will try and block/delay the seating until after the health care bill is passed.
So let's see here, people don't want this bill to pass, so to show that they elect some one who will vote no. But the dems could care less what you say, because they have forgotten that we the people run this nation. So they stall his seating and pass it through, because they are desperate to ram this thing down our throats.
This was suppose to be the 'New Washington' but this seems more like business as usual in D.C.
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/healthcare/view.bg?articleid=1224249
^ Here is what the Boston Herald says about this ^
It is now rumored by many sources, that the Massachusetts Democrats, in the event of GOP candidate Scott Brown winning the former Senator Kennedy's seat, will try and block/delay the seating until after the health care bill is passed.
So let's see here, people don't want this bill to pass, so to show that they elect some one who will vote no. But the dems could care less what you say, because they have forgotten that we the people run this nation. So they stall his seating and pass it through, because they are desperate to ram this thing down our throats.
This was suppose to be the 'New Washington' but this seems more like business as usual in D.C.
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/healthcare/view.bg?articleid=1224249
^ Here is what the Boston Herald says about this ^
Brown Pulls Ahead In Mass. Senate Race
A new PPP Poll released last night shows GOP candidate ahead of Democrat Coackley, with a 48-47 lead. Hardly much of a lead but considering this is way up from just Monday when he was down by almost 10%.
This along with Dodd's seat, and most likely Reids seat, will be huge wins in 2010.
The new poll is good news, but where there is a likely GOP victory, one group is always there to rig the election. I suspect that group ACORN will be back in Massachusetts.
This along with Dodd's seat, and most likely Reids seat, will be huge wins in 2010.
The new poll is good news, but where there is a likely GOP victory, one group is always there to rig the election. I suspect that group ACORN will be back in Massachusetts.
09 January 2010
Keith Does It Again
What would you do, sir, if terrorists were killing 45,000 people every year in this country? Well, the current health care system, the insurance companies, and those who support them are doing just that. ... Those fighting health care reform – not those debating its shape or its nuance – people who demand the status quo, they are killing 45,000 Americans a year.
Olbermann concluded by comparing ObamaCare opponents to terrorists: "Because they die individually of disease and not disaster, Neil Boortz and those who ape him in office and out, approve their deaths, all 45,000 of them – a year – in America. Remind me again, who are the terrorists?"
^ Keith Olbermann ^
Oh He's so bad. So, so bad. I mean I get liberal media figures, but this guy, is just bad. He talk with that poetic, Shakespearean dialogue, "what wouldeth you do sir!?" I mean can you imagine if Rush Limaugh accused proponents of Obamacare to be terrorists? Well Olbermann would probably be all over that. It is also surprising to here this from him of all people who criticizes people everyday for saying things like this.
This is coming from the guy who said the CIA kept the info on the Yemen terror attack, to make Obama look bad.
Olbermann concluded by comparing ObamaCare opponents to terrorists: "Because they die individually of disease and not disaster, Neil Boortz and those who ape him in office and out, approve their deaths, all 45,000 of them – a year – in America. Remind me again, who are the terrorists?"
^ Keith Olbermann ^
Oh He's so bad. So, so bad. I mean I get liberal media figures, but this guy, is just bad. He talk with that poetic, Shakespearean dialogue, "what wouldeth you do sir!?" I mean can you imagine if Rush Limaugh accused proponents of Obamacare to be terrorists? Well Olbermann would probably be all over that. It is also surprising to here this from him of all people who criticizes people everyday for saying things like this.
This is coming from the guy who said the CIA kept the info on the Yemen terror attack, to make Obama look bad.
Olbermann's Latest Theory
Another Keith Olbermann Moment
Wait a minute, i thought it was only Fox News that produced conspiracy theories, and tin foil hat junk.
Wait a minute, i thought it was only Fox News that produced conspiracy theories, and tin foil hat junk.
Glenn Beck On 'Birthers'
Here is a video from the January 4th Glenn Beck Program on why the birther movement is counter productive:
Point & Counter Point
I have gotten in a numerous amount of arguments with people throughout my life, and i feel that some are just to priceless to not share.
Here is one of them. This one is on, To Big To Fail
Me: Ok so let me try and make this easy for you, well first of all why, what do you think about all of these bailouts?
Leftist: well it's better than your way which would be to let them die. Markets and insurance just want to kill of companies. And-
Me: Alright, so let's say some one gets an F on everything they do, at a pay-to learn school (private) and yeah that's all they ever get is Fs nothing else. Should that person flunk out? In like college should they flunk out?
Leftist: They do all the time, bu-
Me: Oh they do, do they? And why is that?
Leftist: because they have to meat certain standards-
Me: And what happens when they don't meat those standards?
Leftist: they fail-
Me: Exactly, now how is that different from companies going under? If the company doesn't provide then it goes under. Same thing, larger scale. Companies compete, some win some lose. No one is too big to fail.
Leftist: Um well it's not the same, but you're just shouting and what ever.
--Case Closed--
Culver's: 1 Leftists: 0
Here is one of them. This one is on, To Big To Fail
Me: Ok so let me try and make this easy for you, well first of all why, what do you think about all of these bailouts?
Leftist: well it's better than your way which would be to let them die. Markets and insurance just want to kill of companies. And-
Me: Alright, so let's say some one gets an F on everything they do, at a pay-to learn school (private) and yeah that's all they ever get is Fs nothing else. Should that person flunk out? In like college should they flunk out?
Leftist: They do all the time, bu-
Me: Oh they do, do they? And why is that?
Leftist: because they have to meat certain standards-
Me: And what happens when they don't meat those standards?
Leftist: they fail-
Me: Exactly, now how is that different from companies going under? If the company doesn't provide then it goes under. Same thing, larger scale. Companies compete, some win some lose. No one is too big to fail.
Leftist: Um well it's not the same, but you're just shouting and what ever.
--Case Closed--
Culver's: 1 Leftists: 0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
