People.com:
Tiger Woods has been dumped again by a corporate sponsor, this time by Gatorade.
A spokeswoman for the drink maker, sold by PepsiCo, confirmed Friday that it had discontinued its endorsement deal with the scandal-plagued golf star.
"We no longer see a role for Tiger in our marketing efforts and have ended our relationship," Jennifer Schmit said in a statement. "We wish him all the best."
27 February 2010
Europe Turning on "Global Warming"
Parliament has recently begun to audit the East Anglia Climate Research Unit for the emails that were sent out last November. Something the US needs to with all of their Climate research units. The EPA, who has reported they made drastic claims to get action to be taken.
Here is a memo sent to Parliament blasting the Science of Global Warming:
What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.
2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.
4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.
5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.
Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?
10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.
11. The first of the review’s terms of reference is limited to: “…manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice…” The term ‘acceptable’ is not defined and might better be replaced with ‘objective’.
12. The second of the review’s terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU’s policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.
Here is a memo sent to Parliament blasting the Science of Global Warming:
What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.
2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.
4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.
5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.
Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?
10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.
11. The first of the review’s terms of reference is limited to: “…manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice…” The term ‘acceptable’ is not defined and might better be replaced with ‘objective’.
12. The second of the review’s terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU’s policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.
26 February 2010
Comment On The Welfare State
Here is a comment a posted on a blog the other day on the welfare state:
Also i think the bailouts can for lack of a better word 'help' with the welfare thing. poor people see the banks with no money, then they look at Obama giving out money to the banks and it appears that they are better now, because Obama just gave them money. So they look at that and think, "hey he helped the banks when they were in trouble, now he'll help us." And that is the mentality.
An argument could also be made that by keeping people on welfare you are distracting them with money, to get votes and obtain power. Sort of the 'carrot on the end of the string for the rabbit' idea. People then become dependent on the government.
So then they think it is good when really it is just keeping them poor and on the dole. So the dems paint that image in their heads, and then when people say "no give them a chance, let them get off the dole and try and do something," which would mean taking away their check, they view it as "against the poor" when really it is simply against the government breeding future voters (kids on welfare) and...yeah, i think by now you understand my point.
Also i think the bailouts can for lack of a better word 'help' with the welfare thing. poor people see the banks with no money, then they look at Obama giving out money to the banks and it appears that they are better now, because Obama just gave them money. So they look at that and think, "hey he helped the banks when they were in trouble, now he'll help us." And that is the mentality.
An argument could also be made that by keeping people on welfare you are distracting them with money, to get votes and obtain power. Sort of the 'carrot on the end of the string for the rabbit' idea. People then become dependent on the government.
So then they think it is good when really it is just keeping them poor and on the dole. So the dems paint that image in their heads, and then when people say "no give them a chance, let them get off the dole and try and do something," which would mean taking away their check, they view it as "against the poor" when really it is simply against the government breeding future voters (kids on welfare) and...yeah, i think by now you understand my point.
He May Be The Most Arrogant Person I Have Ever Seen
Watch this video from yesterday's health care summit. It's a little rematch exchange between Senator John McCain and our president Obama. And it just ended so, distastefully and showed such arrogance on Obama's part.
"The election is over."
--BHO
So that, i mean. Never, have i seen a more arrogant president, in my life time. Bush 1 was not arrogant, Clinton had an arrogant side to him, but he was fairly realistic majority of the time, uh, Bush had some arrogance to him, but again nothing too bad. This guy. I can't, i am speechless. This is like this declaration that he made last winter or spring, when he declared, "I won."
The election, is over. What he means by this is, i don't care what you guys on the right isle say, the election is over, i won. I'm in charge. The American people had their opportunity, but now the election is over. It's Barack time now.
Can you imagine, if Bush said this, if it was Bush, oh, the media, the democrats, everyone. Would be all over him.
When he says that the way he has phrased this, will get objection from the other side, because that's not what his entire SOTU was about. He didn't lie for two hours to get an objection and a riled up GOP to paint them bad or anything.
This man, i could tear my hair out. I just want to rip my eyelids off when listening to this guy. Like i wish, Mike Tyson was here so he could bite my ears off so i don't have to hear him.
Lie, after lie, after lie. His arrogance here, just so....AAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!
Good lord! This man, this president, is so out of touch with the American people, this congress, with an approval rating of 10%! it's no wonder Obama's rating have plummeted faster than the dollar. His numbers have dropped 30% in a year.
It makes me want to throw up, when he levels those kinds of claims.
"The election is over."
--BHO
So that, i mean. Never, have i seen a more arrogant president, in my life time. Bush 1 was not arrogant, Clinton had an arrogant side to him, but he was fairly realistic majority of the time, uh, Bush had some arrogance to him, but again nothing too bad. This guy. I can't, i am speechless. This is like this declaration that he made last winter or spring, when he declared, "I won."
The election, is over. What he means by this is, i don't care what you guys on the right isle say, the election is over, i won. I'm in charge. The American people had their opportunity, but now the election is over. It's Barack time now.
Can you imagine, if Bush said this, if it was Bush, oh, the media, the democrats, everyone. Would be all over him.
When he says that the way he has phrased this, will get objection from the other side, because that's not what his entire SOTU was about. He didn't lie for two hours to get an objection and a riled up GOP to paint them bad or anything.
This man, i could tear my hair out. I just want to rip my eyelids off when listening to this guy. Like i wish, Mike Tyson was here so he could bite my ears off so i don't have to hear him.
Lie, after lie, after lie. His arrogance here, just so....AAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!
Good lord! This man, this president, is so out of touch with the American people, this congress, with an approval rating of 10%! it's no wonder Obama's rating have plummeted faster than the dollar. His numbers have dropped 30% in a year.
It makes me want to throw up, when he levels those kinds of claims.
Tea Parties Go Overseas
Audio from todays Glenn Beck Program:
GLENN: Daniel Hannan is on from Europe how are you sir?
DANIEL: Glad to be here.
GLENN: First of all, I want to talk a little bit about a tea party, is it this weekend in England.
DANIEL: Tomorrow in Bryson. But obviously this being England, we'll be serving tea at it rather than dumping it into the channel.
GLENN: How many people are you expecting to show up at the English this is the first time this has ever happened, a tea party, if you will, in England.
DANIEL: First time we've ever done it in this way. I don't huge it to be huge, honest. As I understand it as the case in the U.S. when they started in 2008 they began initially as a trickle. Then they became a flood. But I'm confident that they will grow. We have a government, this is the amazing thing, you're protesting with nothing like as much to protest as we have. We have a government that has taken a trillion pounds in additional taxation since they took office. More than we would have done if my party had been in power at the same rate. 111 tax rises since 1997. And this is unbelievable, with all these extra tax rises, we're running a deficit of 12.6% of GDP. We have the same deficit Greece has. Where has all the money gone? And that's something that you don't have to be kind of a strong conservative to have concerns about.
GLENN: In the EU, Daniel, because you are a member of the EU parliament, right?
DANIEL: Correct.
GLENN: How concerned are you about I mean this is a domino. Man, you've got Greece, Spain is in this mix. Portugal is in this mix. Ireland. All of Europe and the United Kingdom seems to be in real peril.
DANIEL: Well, we would be if we had joined the Euro. Thank heaven we kept the pound. Because, like I say, Greece's deficit is 12.7. Ours is 12.6%. The only thing that saved us from a Greece like collapse is the fact we were able to have a devaluation of our currency instead of having that devaluation in output and jobs. You guys wouldn't want to swap your problems for Europe, as severe as your problems are with the way things are going there. But I'll tell you another thing. We've got, when you say we're stealing your idea about the tea parties and stuff. The warcry of tax without representation doesn't really apply so much these days in the U.S. Yes, your taxes are too high and they're rising but at least they're set by people you can vote for. Increasingly, the European Union is starting to levy, if you like federal taxation, and so the protest of no taxation without representation is now much more relevant in Europe, because we feel that we have impulse being levied on us that we can't get rid of.
GLENN: Daniel Hannan is on from Europe how are you sir?
DANIEL: Glad to be here.
GLENN: First of all, I want to talk a little bit about a tea party, is it this weekend in England.
DANIEL: Tomorrow in Bryson. But obviously this being England, we'll be serving tea at it rather than dumping it into the channel.
GLENN: How many people are you expecting to show up at the English this is the first time this has ever happened, a tea party, if you will, in England.
DANIEL: First time we've ever done it in this way. I don't huge it to be huge, honest. As I understand it as the case in the U.S. when they started in 2008 they began initially as a trickle. Then they became a flood. But I'm confident that they will grow. We have a government, this is the amazing thing, you're protesting with nothing like as much to protest as we have. We have a government that has taken a trillion pounds in additional taxation since they took office. More than we would have done if my party had been in power at the same rate. 111 tax rises since 1997. And this is unbelievable, with all these extra tax rises, we're running a deficit of 12.6% of GDP. We have the same deficit Greece has. Where has all the money gone? And that's something that you don't have to be kind of a strong conservative to have concerns about.
GLENN: In the EU, Daniel, because you are a member of the EU parliament, right?
DANIEL: Correct.
GLENN: How concerned are you about I mean this is a domino. Man, you've got Greece, Spain is in this mix. Portugal is in this mix. Ireland. All of Europe and the United Kingdom seems to be in real peril.
DANIEL: Well, we would be if we had joined the Euro. Thank heaven we kept the pound. Because, like I say, Greece's deficit is 12.7. Ours is 12.6%. The only thing that saved us from a Greece like collapse is the fact we were able to have a devaluation of our currency instead of having that devaluation in output and jobs. You guys wouldn't want to swap your problems for Europe, as severe as your problems are with the way things are going there. But I'll tell you another thing. We've got, when you say we're stealing your idea about the tea parties and stuff. The warcry of tax without representation doesn't really apply so much these days in the U.S. Yes, your taxes are too high and they're rising but at least they're set by people you can vote for. Increasingly, the European Union is starting to levy, if you like federal taxation, and so the protest of no taxation without representation is now much more relevant in Europe, because we feel that we have impulse being levied on us that we can't get rid of.
Your Civil Liberties Under Fire
Today the USA Patriot Act was renewed in the house with a 315-97 vote.
Let me spell this out for you, this give the government the right to tap your phones, hack your emails, and screen all private imports and allows them to detain you for up to 48 hours without cause, and strips your right to a lawyer and fair trial, if then suspect you are guilty WITHOUT evidence.
This is what BHO has supported so far while in office. If you still are not convinced he is a fascist, i suggest you read the bill and what it contains, i suggest, you look at the 'hate crimes legislation' and what that consists of, and i suggest you look at his economic (including health care) policies and then tell me to my face, this is not a form of fascism.
Note, while i am deeply angry that BHO and the house did not strike this down, i am also furious with president Bush for bringing this into law in the first place.
Let me spell this out for you, this give the government the right to tap your phones, hack your emails, and screen all private imports and allows them to detain you for up to 48 hours without cause, and strips your right to a lawyer and fair trial, if then suspect you are guilty WITHOUT evidence.
This is what BHO has supported so far while in office. If you still are not convinced he is a fascist, i suggest you read the bill and what it contains, i suggest, you look at the 'hate crimes legislation' and what that consists of, and i suggest you look at his economic (including health care) policies and then tell me to my face, this is not a form of fascism.
Note, while i am deeply angry that BHO and the house did not strike this down, i am also furious with president Bush for bringing this into law in the first place.
Obama Appoints Andy Stern to Deficit Comission
I don't know how, but some how, the SEIU head guru, Andy Stern has gotten around president Obama's 'no lobbyist' policy. Andy Stern is a big time lobbyist. He is from the SEIU of all places!
This is the guy who has said, he will not have lobbyists in his administration. He already has hundreds. Now this guy! This is president, unlike any other. Bush, lied a lot, but you knew he was lying when he did. He knew it. But this guy, this guy, he seriously thinks he is being honest with you. Even when he is telling a complete lie. He has a gift, he can look you straight in the face, and tell and all out lie, and act like it is right. And people believe him!
The current senate bill in 10 years will cost us 2.5 trillion dollars adding billions to the deficit. Now, if you remember, back in October, we were assured that nothing he passed would add a single dime to the deficit. Well that is the biggest lie i've heard.
Look up the lobbyists in his administration. He has told everyone a lie. And he has gotten away with it. I have never been so frustrated with a president ever. I mean, Nixon, sure he did a bad thing, he lied, but this guy. I- Nixon looks like a great trustworthy man compared to this guy. This, he just looks at you and lies, and the media just sucks up to him, doesn't report it, and then they get government funds! (MSNBC).
He doesn't have lobbyists!!! That is what he told us during his SOTU. So then Andy Stern, well, he simply avoided that policy. He got in, and no one is saying anything.
Mr. President, i understand you don't have lobbyists, but who are these people then?
* 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.
* Andy Stern, lobbyist for SEIU until 2007, and began lobbying again in 2009.
This is the guy who has said, he will not have lobbyists in his administration. He already has hundreds. Now this guy! This is president, unlike any other. Bush, lied a lot, but you knew he was lying when he did. He knew it. But this guy, this guy, he seriously thinks he is being honest with you. Even when he is telling a complete lie. He has a gift, he can look you straight in the face, and tell and all out lie, and act like it is right. And people believe him!
The current senate bill in 10 years will cost us 2.5 trillion dollars adding billions to the deficit. Now, if you remember, back in October, we were assured that nothing he passed would add a single dime to the deficit. Well that is the biggest lie i've heard.
Look up the lobbyists in his administration. He has told everyone a lie. And he has gotten away with it. I have never been so frustrated with a president ever. I mean, Nixon, sure he did a bad thing, he lied, but this guy. I- Nixon looks like a great trustworthy man compared to this guy. This, he just looks at you and lies, and the media just sucks up to him, doesn't report it, and then they get government funds! (MSNBC).
He doesn't have lobbyists!!! That is what he told us during his SOTU. So then Andy Stern, well, he simply avoided that policy. He got in, and no one is saying anything.
Mr. President, i understand you don't have lobbyists, but who are these people then?
* 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.
* Andy Stern, lobbyist for SEIU until 2007, and began lobbying again in 2009.
25 February 2010
Are you People Really This Stupid?!
This is from CBS today:
“The President often seemed exasperated with Republican arguments,” CBS's Chip Reid empathetically conveyed in reporting on Thursday's health care policy summit before he declared that President Obama had achieved what he needed to accomplish:
Well, he really did, Katie. What he really wanted to do was convince the American people, and more importantly wavering Democrats in Congress, that the Republicans are the party of no. They won't compromise and he now has no choice but to move ahead with Democrats alone."
Really. That's it isn't. The president has no choice but to move on and show the American people that the Republicans are hopeless. Right. Because it just can't be that only about 28% of the American people actually want this legislation or any kind of Obamacare passed. It can't be that about 78& want the house and senate to start over, and scrap this bill all together. 78% are against this monstrosity. 78%!!! 78% are standing with the Republicans and are flipping off Obama.
It isn't that the people are all 'nuts for this bill' and now Obama has to lead them without the Republicans. They don't want this!!!! Look at the polls!!! Listen to them!!! They don't want this!!!
Are you people really this stupid?
“The President often seemed exasperated with Republican arguments,” CBS's Chip Reid empathetically conveyed in reporting on Thursday's health care policy summit before he declared that President Obama had achieved what he needed to accomplish:
Well, he really did, Katie. What he really wanted to do was convince the American people, and more importantly wavering Democrats in Congress, that the Republicans are the party of no. They won't compromise and he now has no choice but to move ahead with Democrats alone."
Really. That's it isn't. The president has no choice but to move on and show the American people that the Republicans are hopeless. Right. Because it just can't be that only about 28% of the American people actually want this legislation or any kind of Obamacare passed. It can't be that about 78& want the house and senate to start over, and scrap this bill all together. 78% are against this monstrosity. 78%!!! 78% are standing with the Republicans and are flipping off Obama.
It isn't that the people are all 'nuts for this bill' and now Obama has to lead them without the Republicans. They don't want this!!!! Look at the polls!!! Listen to them!!! They don't want this!!!
Are you people really this stupid?
The Taxes Are Coming! The Taxes Are Coming!
I don't know what to think of this. I truly don't. I have never been so frightened, of a piece of legislation. The white house will tell you it is the Republicans that are scaring the people, but he's wrong. It is not the Republicans that are scaring me, (however they aren't make me feel 'safe') but it is in fact his policies and the democrat's bills that are scaring me.
Take a look at the Heritage Foundation's list of some of the new taxes that will be coming to a hospital near you if this passes.
* Require information reporting on payments to corporations (2011 – $17.1 billion)
* Exclusion of unprocessed fuels from the cellulosic biofuel produce credit (immediately upon passage – $23.9 billion)
* Codify economic substance doctrine and impose penalties for underpayments (immediately upon passage – $4.9 billion)
* Increase Hospital Insurance portion of the payroll tax and apply it to investment income for families earning more than $250,000 a year ($200,000 for single filers) (2012 – $183.6)
* Excise tax on “Cadillac” insurance plans valued at more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families (2018 – $32.7 billion)*
* Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs (2011 – $33.4 billion)*
* Impose excise tax on manufacturers and importers of medical devices (2012 – $20 billion)*
* Impose annual fee on health insurance companies (2014 – $59.5 billion)*
* Excise tax on indoor tanning services (2010 – $2.7 billion)*
* Limit Health Savings Accounts (HSA) (2011 – $5.0 billion)*
* Increase taxes on unqualified distributions from HSAs (2011 – $1.4 billion)*
* Limit Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA) (2014 – $11.4 billion)*
* Eliminate deduction of expenses allocable to Medicare Part D subsidy (2012 – $2.6 billion)*
* Limit deductions for medical expenses (2013 – $15.2 billion)*
* Higher taxes on compensation above $500,000 paid to officers, employees, directors and service providers of covered health insurance providers (2013 – $0.6 billion)
* Higher taxes on certain health organizations (2010 – $0.4 billion)*
Scary isn't it. This is the future of America. This along with the 2,400 page bill in the Senate. If this is passed, it truly will be a 'nuclear option.' It will be as if some one has nuked our nation, and we will be consumed by tyranny.
Take a look at the Heritage Foundation's list of some of the new taxes that will be coming to a hospital near you if this passes.
* Require information reporting on payments to corporations (2011 – $17.1 billion)
* Exclusion of unprocessed fuels from the cellulosic biofuel produce credit (immediately upon passage – $23.9 billion)
* Codify economic substance doctrine and impose penalties for underpayments (immediately upon passage – $4.9 billion)
* Increase Hospital Insurance portion of the payroll tax and apply it to investment income for families earning more than $250,000 a year ($200,000 for single filers) (2012 – $183.6)
* Excise tax on “Cadillac” insurance plans valued at more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families (2018 – $32.7 billion)*
* Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs (2011 – $33.4 billion)*
* Impose excise tax on manufacturers and importers of medical devices (2012 – $20 billion)*
* Impose annual fee on health insurance companies (2014 – $59.5 billion)*
* Excise tax on indoor tanning services (2010 – $2.7 billion)*
* Limit Health Savings Accounts (HSA) (2011 – $5.0 billion)*
* Increase taxes on unqualified distributions from HSAs (2011 – $1.4 billion)*
* Limit Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA) (2014 – $11.4 billion)*
* Eliminate deduction of expenses allocable to Medicare Part D subsidy (2012 – $2.6 billion)*
* Limit deductions for medical expenses (2013 – $15.2 billion)*
* Higher taxes on compensation above $500,000 paid to officers, employees, directors and service providers of covered health insurance providers (2013 – $0.6 billion)
* Higher taxes on certain health organizations (2010 – $0.4 billion)*
Scary isn't it. This is the future of America. This along with the 2,400 page bill in the Senate. If this is passed, it truly will be a 'nuclear option.' It will be as if some one has nuked our nation, and we will be consumed by tyranny.
The Reality of Obama's Tax Cuts
The reality is, there were none. Obama loves to say "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." He is referring to his 'first time homebuyers tax credit and his child's tax credit and many other tax credits from the stimulus.
Yet the fact is, a tax credit is not the same thing as a tax cut. A tax cut, is a reduction in tax rates. These credits, did not lower tax rates all. It did not lower the prices of college tuition or homes at all. Really all it did was tell people how to behave in order to keep their money. The argument could then be made that this is a form of tyranny. However some credits or incentives are some times effective, but certainly not tax cuts.
The other interesting thing about his whole "cut taxes for Americans paying for college" is, i didn't know college tuition was a tax. So what he is saying is that, if i have this right, is that if i go to say, Macalester College (note i wouldn't and, probably couldn't but this is just for the example), the tuition fee, is a tax. Really? Since when.
A tax credit, when it gets down to it, is simply government spending, just in the form of a 'credit' from treasury to an individual. So it is no different from the government spending money on a pet project to re-sod the D.C. mall. It is the same basic principle. The difference is the money goes to people, not a sodding business. Would we call a government stimulite that spends money to build a bridge a tax cuts? Of course not. The other interesting thing is, like the bridge, or the D.C. mall project, who do you think pays for those? You. You pay TAXES for the government to take your money, and give it out to people, to tell them how to act so they can spend some money. So, redistribution, AND tyranny. Wow, the best of both worlds right?
These 'cuts' as he calls them are also refundable, which means people, who pay no taxes get them. Well how can you cut taxes for some one who doesn't pay taxes?
In short, Obama's "tax cuts" are wildy inaccurate, no, non existent. He never cut taxes.
Yet the fact is, a tax credit is not the same thing as a tax cut. A tax cut, is a reduction in tax rates. These credits, did not lower tax rates all. It did not lower the prices of college tuition or homes at all. Really all it did was tell people how to behave in order to keep their money. The argument could then be made that this is a form of tyranny. However some credits or incentives are some times effective, but certainly not tax cuts.
The other interesting thing about his whole "cut taxes for Americans paying for college" is, i didn't know college tuition was a tax. So what he is saying is that, if i have this right, is that if i go to say, Macalester College (note i wouldn't and, probably couldn't but this is just for the example), the tuition fee, is a tax. Really? Since when.
A tax credit, when it gets down to it, is simply government spending, just in the form of a 'credit' from treasury to an individual. So it is no different from the government spending money on a pet project to re-sod the D.C. mall. It is the same basic principle. The difference is the money goes to people, not a sodding business. Would we call a government stimulite that spends money to build a bridge a tax cuts? Of course not. The other interesting thing is, like the bridge, or the D.C. mall project, who do you think pays for those? You. You pay TAXES for the government to take your money, and give it out to people, to tell them how to act so they can spend some money. So, redistribution, AND tyranny. Wow, the best of both worlds right?
These 'cuts' as he calls them are also refundable, which means people, who pay no taxes get them. Well how can you cut taxes for some one who doesn't pay taxes?
In short, Obama's "tax cuts" are wildy inaccurate, no, non existent. He never cut taxes.
Reconciliations Hypocrisy
Here we have, key democrats, speaking out against President Bush's use of the 'nuclear option' for his judicial nomination.
Face It Hayworth, You're Done
Today the Minnesota Governor, Tim Pawlenty endorsed sen. John McCain.
I believe now that JD Hayworth is finished. With both Pawlenty and Palin backing McCain now, he can run away with this election.
The tea partiers who love Sarah Palin, will now vote for McCain, and with a conservative voice like Pawlenty, and NO big endorsements for Hayworth, well i think it is safe to declare McCain the winner.
Hayworth better step on the gass pedal if he hopes to win this fall.
I believe now that JD Hayworth is finished. With both Pawlenty and Palin backing McCain now, he can run away with this election.
The tea partiers who love Sarah Palin, will now vote for McCain, and with a conservative voice like Pawlenty, and NO big endorsements for Hayworth, well i think it is safe to declare McCain the winner.
Hayworth better step on the gass pedal if he hopes to win this fall.
Democrats On Thin Ice
Another election is shaping itself out to be very ugly for the democrats. The Deleware senate race has Republican Mike Castle up by 21 points!
Castle (R): 52%
Coons(D): 3%
If the dems lose this seat, it will add 1,000 pounds to the sinking ship that is the Democratic Party.
Castle (R): 52%
Coons(D): 3%
If the dems lose this seat, it will add 1,000 pounds to the sinking ship that is the Democratic Party.
24 February 2010
Ramblings on Health care Debate
While democrats are hoping for some bipartisan on health care, they know deep down, that aint happening. And it is because of that, they know that reconciliations is there only option left.
Now this is ironic because it is they who were so critical of such tactics for Bush's judicial nominee process.
"I say to my friends on the Republican side: You may own the field right now,But you won't own it forever, and I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing."
Well so much for that. I mean this, do they honestly think- this is not about health care. It is about a power grab. And this is how they will do it. I told you yesterday, one way or another they are going to get this passed. Either through boxcar legislation, or reconciliations, or pole vaulting over the fence, some how, they will pass this.
Look this bill is a piece of crap. Take this post from IBD:
[ The president's plan "puts our budget and economy on a more stable path by reducing the deficit by $100 billion over the next 10 years — and about $1 trillion over the second decade — by cutting government overspending and reining in waste, fraud and abuse," the White House says on its Web site.
Sound too good to be true? It is.
None of the numbers can be believed. The plan is a result of blatantly dishonest accounting for the real costs of the program, while grossly overstating its benefits. Americans should know the actual 10-year cost is closer to $2 trillion over 10 years, not the $950 billion claimed, when all the actual costs are toted up. ]
But uh, back to the uh, the prayers from Joe Biden, they have clearly gone unanswered, but fellow democrats, and even him. Even he is supporting this, closed door meeting style, shut out republicans, 51 vote stuff. So it is typical politics in Washington, complain and bitch while the other party is in control, and claim changes to the system on the campaign, and once you're in don't change a damn thing, but do the exact same thing, only worse.
Washington has not "changed" under this administration. It has only gotten worse.
This health care stuff is so scary, because it is the, it's the best way for government to seize the most power. They drive out private insurance, they begin to sink the free market, they regulate your rights as to doctors plans and costs, they control you, they then move to control who gets care and who doesn't. They could also move to total single payer, where they would then assign doctors to certain places, and if you were one, but not needed they would tell you to move. This is tyranny in its best form. This cannot pass.
"If we lose freedom here there's no place to escape to, this is the last stand on earth."
Now this is ironic because it is they who were so critical of such tactics for Bush's judicial nominee process.
"I say to my friends on the Republican side: You may own the field right now,But you won't own it forever, and I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing."
Well so much for that. I mean this, do they honestly think- this is not about health care. It is about a power grab. And this is how they will do it. I told you yesterday, one way or another they are going to get this passed. Either through boxcar legislation, or reconciliations, or pole vaulting over the fence, some how, they will pass this.
Look this bill is a piece of crap. Take this post from IBD:
[ The president's plan "puts our budget and economy on a more stable path by reducing the deficit by $100 billion over the next 10 years — and about $1 trillion over the second decade — by cutting government overspending and reining in waste, fraud and abuse," the White House says on its Web site.
Sound too good to be true? It is.
None of the numbers can be believed. The plan is a result of blatantly dishonest accounting for the real costs of the program, while grossly overstating its benefits. Americans should know the actual 10-year cost is closer to $2 trillion over 10 years, not the $950 billion claimed, when all the actual costs are toted up. ]
But uh, back to the uh, the prayers from Joe Biden, they have clearly gone unanswered, but fellow democrats, and even him. Even he is supporting this, closed door meeting style, shut out republicans, 51 vote stuff. So it is typical politics in Washington, complain and bitch while the other party is in control, and claim changes to the system on the campaign, and once you're in don't change a damn thing, but do the exact same thing, only worse.
Washington has not "changed" under this administration. It has only gotten worse.
This health care stuff is so scary, because it is the, it's the best way for government to seize the most power. They drive out private insurance, they begin to sink the free market, they regulate your rights as to doctors plans and costs, they control you, they then move to control who gets care and who doesn't. They could also move to total single payer, where they would then assign doctors to certain places, and if you were one, but not needed they would tell you to move. This is tyranny in its best form. This cannot pass.
"If we lose freedom here there's no place to escape to, this is the last stand on earth."
Democrats in Deep Trouble
It was back in the spring last year when Arlen Specter jumped ships to join the Democrats and began pushing for left wing legislation.
Now he has to stand before his constituents on judgment day where they will determine his fate.
So far his chances do not look good, and the people of Pennsylvania may send him packing for his flip flop and liberal agenda.
According to a new poll Specter trails GOPer Pat Toomey 44% to 33% with 16% undecided. The poll also showed that Benedict Arlen's primary challenger would do even worse up against Toomey.
The dems may very easily lose yet another big seat in another crucial state.
Now he has to stand before his constituents on judgment day where they will determine his fate.
So far his chances do not look good, and the people of Pennsylvania may send him packing for his flip flop and liberal agenda.
According to a new poll Specter trails GOPer Pat Toomey 44% to 33% with 16% undecided. The poll also showed that Benedict Arlen's primary challenger would do even worse up against Toomey.
The dems may very easily lose yet another big seat in another crucial state.
Universal Nighmare: The New Bill
Here is a list, complements of the Heritage Foundation, of problems in the bill being proposed by the president:
* The President’s proposal ignores “doc fix” legislation, which would cost roughly $200 billion over ten years. As Capretta notes, it is ironic that the President does not account for this provision, but includes several other Medicare provisions in his proposal.
* Non-coverage spending would add about $90 billion to the cost of the bill.
* Cost estimates for the President’s plan should apply to the ten year window from 2011 to 2020—not to 2019. This would add approximately $200 billion more to the cost of the bill.
* The President’s plan includes the CLASS Act, premiums from which are double-counted. Fixing this adds $72 billion to the cost of the bill.
* The true ten year window of the bill, including spending reductions, new revenues, and new spending, is 2014 to 2023. During this period, the Senate bill would cost $2.3 trillion. Adding the President’s additional provisions, at $75 billion, as well as the aforementioned provisions, arrives at a grand total of over $2.5 billion.
Now uh, the White house estimates that this bill will cost around 950 billion. Yet the CBO, says that this is inaccurate and "far from "reality." In other words, this is just wishful thinking on the White Houses part.
I have not read much of this bill, but from what i have seen, it is loaded with new taxes and regulations that will only further shoot up medical costs.
This bill is a bad idea and i will blog more about it later when i know more about this.
* The President’s proposal ignores “doc fix” legislation, which would cost roughly $200 billion over ten years. As Capretta notes, it is ironic that the President does not account for this provision, but includes several other Medicare provisions in his proposal.
* Non-coverage spending would add about $90 billion to the cost of the bill.
* Cost estimates for the President’s plan should apply to the ten year window from 2011 to 2020—not to 2019. This would add approximately $200 billion more to the cost of the bill.
* The President’s plan includes the CLASS Act, premiums from which are double-counted. Fixing this adds $72 billion to the cost of the bill.
* The true ten year window of the bill, including spending reductions, new revenues, and new spending, is 2014 to 2023. During this period, the Senate bill would cost $2.3 trillion. Adding the President’s additional provisions, at $75 billion, as well as the aforementioned provisions, arrives at a grand total of over $2.5 billion.
Now uh, the White house estimates that this bill will cost around 950 billion. Yet the CBO, says that this is inaccurate and "far from "reality." In other words, this is just wishful thinking on the White Houses part.
I have not read much of this bill, but from what i have seen, it is loaded with new taxes and regulations that will only further shoot up medical costs.
This bill is a bad idea and i will blog more about it later when i know more about this.
Joy Behar Laughs about Cheney's Heart Attack
This is another great moment in journalism, here we have a transcript of a clip from the Joy Behar show last night. This, is the media for you:
JOY BEHAR, HOST: I`m back with Bill Maher.
You know, Bill, Dick Cheney is having, he`s had his fifth heart attack today. And it`s a funny thing -- it`s a funny thing about him. I mean, the most reasonable people are like, really? They don`t even care. Or I just find it interesting that he doesn`t get any sympathy from people around -- around me any way.
BILL MAHER: Well, he`s a robot the Soviets made in the 1970s you know --
BEHAR: That`s true. That`s probably why.
All right, let`s talk about health care for a second. I feel a little bit snookered (ph) because there is public option in this bill that`s coming up. And so what are we really --
MAHER: Right.
JOY BEHAR, HOST: I`m back with Bill Maher.
You know, Bill, Dick Cheney is having, he`s had his fifth heart attack today. And it`s a funny thing -- it`s a funny thing about him. I mean, the most reasonable people are like, really? They don`t even care. Or I just find it interesting that he doesn`t get any sympathy from people around -- around me any way.
BILL MAHER: Well, he`s a robot the Soviets made in the 1970s you know --
BEHAR: That`s true. That`s probably why.
All right, let`s talk about health care for a second. I feel a little bit snookered (ph) because there is public option in this bill that`s coming up. And so what are we really --
MAHER: Right.
23 February 2010
You Can Kiss Private Health Insurance Goodbye
Price controls. That is President Obama's newest strategy to stop sky rocketing health care prices. He finally admitted that his bill, that of course he has nothing to do with. Notice how he distances himself away from these bills. He doesn't want to be held responsible for them until, well until they fail and there's nothing we can do about it.
/but the other day he said that the government's new plan, would be to reject any prices that they find, "unreasonable."
So now, how does this tie into to driving out private insurance? Think about this logically. We know that is the ultimate goal. Some how they're gonna get there. They will go with executive order, they'll try reconciliations, they'll try "poll vaulting over the fence" or box car legislation. One way or another, they are going to pass this.
So the goal is a government take over, and a path towards single payer. So single payer means...a single payer. One. The government. No room for private insurance.
So by deeming private insurance "unreasonable" and killing all of its plans and premiums because they are, of course "unreasonable" and thus they run out of plans they can offer, and then they run out all together.
This cannot pass. It can't. Or else that along with a Cadillac tax, and you can kiss private insurance goodbye.
/but the other day he said that the government's new plan, would be to reject any prices that they find, "unreasonable."
So now, how does this tie into to driving out private insurance? Think about this logically. We know that is the ultimate goal. Some how they're gonna get there. They will go with executive order, they'll try reconciliations, they'll try "poll vaulting over the fence" or box car legislation. One way or another, they are going to pass this.
So the goal is a government take over, and a path towards single payer. So single payer means...a single payer. One. The government. No room for private insurance.
So by deeming private insurance "unreasonable" and killing all of its plans and premiums because they are, of course "unreasonable" and thus they run out of plans they can offer, and then they run out all together.
This cannot pass. It can't. Or else that along with a Cadillac tax, and you can kiss private insurance goodbye.
Dallas Responds To Keith Olbermann
Here is the Dallas Texas response to Keith Olbermann's question "where are the people of color" at the tea parties. Of course, i would be considered a "tea bagger" by the left, and i am Hispanic.
But besides that here is the video response that i hope Keith watches. Hey Keith, quick wacking and watch this:
So Keith, Michelle Malkin, what would you call her? White?
How about Marco Rubio, he's Cuban!
How about people like Thomas Sowell, conservative? yes. Black? yes.
The FOX NEWS, analyst, Angela McGlowan. Or i suppose she is just a sellout to the black community.
How about that right wing goon, "teabagger" Michael Steele?
How about Martin Luther King Jr.'s Niece, Alveda King? A conservative activist.
How about me? A Hispanic, conservative "right wing teabagging" blogger.
But besides that here is the video response that i hope Keith watches. Hey Keith, quick wacking and watch this:
So Keith, Michelle Malkin, what would you call her? White?
How about Marco Rubio, he's Cuban!
How about people like Thomas Sowell, conservative? yes. Black? yes.
The FOX NEWS, analyst, Angela McGlowan. Or i suppose she is just a sellout to the black community.
How about that right wing goon, "teabagger" Michael Steele?
How about Martin Luther King Jr.'s Niece, Alveda King? A conservative activist.
How about me? A Hispanic, conservative "right wing teabagging" blogger.
Palin Backing McCain
The former Alaska governor Sarah Palin will now being going down to campaign for Arizona senator John McCain. McCain is in a tight race as self proclaimed 'Tea Party candidate' challengers like JD Hayowrth.
This could however turn McCain into a 'Tea Party candidate' since most of the tea partiers really like Sarah Palin. So then when she campaigns for McCain, well i think you get the point.
This could however turn McCain into a 'Tea Party candidate' since most of the tea partiers really like Sarah Palin. So then when she campaigns for McCain, well i think you get the point.
22 February 2010
Elvis Is Alive!!!
This made me laugh hard. I literally burst out laughing at this one. Uh get this; According to a CBS poll, 7% of people, think Elvis is still alive. Insane right? These people are, a little, well they're, not all together upstairs.
Yet, if you thought that was funny. Even funnier, is the same CBS took another poll, and found, that only 6% of people think the stimulus created jobs!
More people think Elvis is alive than people think the stimulus created jobs. That is fantastic. So i guess, i can go around saying Elvis is alive, and well that is bad, but that's not nearly as bad, as saying that the stimulus created jobs.
I wonder how many people, in comparison to those who think the stimulus created jobs, think the earth is flat?
Yet, if you thought that was funny. Even funnier, is the same CBS took another poll, and found, that only 6% of people think the stimulus created jobs!
More people think Elvis is alive than people think the stimulus created jobs. That is fantastic. So i guess, i can go around saying Elvis is alive, and well that is bad, but that's not nearly as bad, as saying that the stimulus created jobs.
I wonder how many people, in comparison to those who think the stimulus created jobs, think the earth is flat?
Global Warming Fail
Hey buddy? How exactly did you make that?
Guy: "Oh out of snow of course!"
Really, where did you get enough snow?
Guy: "You see last week we got pounded with snow. Just tons of it, 30 inches of the white stuff. The president called the storm 'Snowmageddon.'
FAIL
What Happened To Balancing The Budget?
Remember back when Obama was touting his line about how we need to balance the budget?
Now apparently deficits are the cure. Wow, we are all Keynesians now.
Now apparently deficits are the cure. Wow, we are all Keynesians now.
Cato Vs. Obama
Here is a nice write up of Obama's health care proposal from the Cato Institute:
Here are the five White House selling points, followed by my doubts:
1. “It makes insurance more affordable by providing the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history, reducing premium costs for tens of millions of families and small business owners who are priced out of coverage today. This helps over 31 million Americans afford health care who do not get it today – and makes coverage more affordable for many more.”
Not true. It would make insurance more affordable for those who receive subsidies and more expensive for taxpayers who finance those subsidies. It would make insurance more affordable for those who wait until they have preexisting conditions to buy a “Cadillac plan,” and more expensive for those who have been paying for a high-quality plan for years. It would make insurance more affordable for those with adult children living at home, and more expensive for singles and childless couples. If would make insurance more affordable for obese alcoholic smokers and more expensive for people with a healthy diet and exercise. It is all about redistributing health.
The estimate that those lured into subsidized plans and Medicaid would otherwise be uninsured is largely false, as is the related illusion that the number of uninsured would drop by 31 million. Economists know from past expansions of taxpayer-financed benefits that such giveaways mainly substitute for or “crowd out” benefits otherwise purchased by employers or individuals.
2. “It sets up a new competitive health insurance market giving tens of millions of Americans the exact same insurance choices that members of Congress will have.”
Not true. Very few of the insurance companies who choose to participate in the large group plan for federal employees (75% financed by taxpayers) would also offer individual policies for relatively few people on the proposed exchanges. If the federal government made good on the President’s recent threats to slap price controls on premiums, no sensible insurers would participate. If the federal government attempted to impose Medicare-like reimbursement rates on doctors and hospitals, only second-rate doctors and hospitals would accept the insurance. Even the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix recently stopped accepting Medicare because Medicare payments (which “reform” would cut even more) don’t come close to covering expenses.
3. “It brings greater accountability to health care by laying out commonsense rules of the road to keep premiums down and prevent insurance industry abuses and denial of care.”
Not true. The thinly-veiled threat of Nixonian price controls on health insurers would drive capital out of the industry, and likely end in “cost-plus” regulations that are simply encourage higher costs. The next point deals with some of those “commonsense rules.”
4. “It will end discrimination against Americans with pre-existing conditions.”
Not true. Basing premiums on known health risks is not discrimination but sound actuarial practice. Compelling insurers to charge similar rates to healthy and sick applicants makes no more sense than compelling them to charge the same rates to smokers and non-smokers. Compelling insurers to keep people on the plan even if they lie about their health or lifestyle must result in higher premiums for honest and/or healthy people.
5. “It puts our budget and economy on a more stable path by reducing the deficit by $100 billion over the next ten years – and about $1 trillion over the second decade – by cutting government overspending and reining in waste, fraud and abuse.”
Not true. The costly new subsidies and extra Medicaid spending could reduce future deficits only if taxes were increased even more than spending. By that logic, the President could propose $99 trillion of new spending and $100 trillion of new taxes and claim the result would put the government’s budget (as opposed to taxpayers’ budget) “on a more stable plan.”
Here are the five White House selling points, followed by my doubts:
1. “It makes insurance more affordable by providing the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history, reducing premium costs for tens of millions of families and small business owners who are priced out of coverage today. This helps over 31 million Americans afford health care who do not get it today – and makes coverage more affordable for many more.”
Not true. It would make insurance more affordable for those who receive subsidies and more expensive for taxpayers who finance those subsidies. It would make insurance more affordable for those who wait until they have preexisting conditions to buy a “Cadillac plan,” and more expensive for those who have been paying for a high-quality plan for years. It would make insurance more affordable for those with adult children living at home, and more expensive for singles and childless couples. If would make insurance more affordable for obese alcoholic smokers and more expensive for people with a healthy diet and exercise. It is all about redistributing health.
The estimate that those lured into subsidized plans and Medicaid would otherwise be uninsured is largely false, as is the related illusion that the number of uninsured would drop by 31 million. Economists know from past expansions of taxpayer-financed benefits that such giveaways mainly substitute for or “crowd out” benefits otherwise purchased by employers or individuals.
2. “It sets up a new competitive health insurance market giving tens of millions of Americans the exact same insurance choices that members of Congress will have.”
Not true. Very few of the insurance companies who choose to participate in the large group plan for federal employees (75% financed by taxpayers) would also offer individual policies for relatively few people on the proposed exchanges. If the federal government made good on the President’s recent threats to slap price controls on premiums, no sensible insurers would participate. If the federal government attempted to impose Medicare-like reimbursement rates on doctors and hospitals, only second-rate doctors and hospitals would accept the insurance. Even the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix recently stopped accepting Medicare because Medicare payments (which “reform” would cut even more) don’t come close to covering expenses.
3. “It brings greater accountability to health care by laying out commonsense rules of the road to keep premiums down and prevent insurance industry abuses and denial of care.”
Not true. The thinly-veiled threat of Nixonian price controls on health insurers would drive capital out of the industry, and likely end in “cost-plus” regulations that are simply encourage higher costs. The next point deals with some of those “commonsense rules.”
4. “It will end discrimination against Americans with pre-existing conditions.”
Not true. Basing premiums on known health risks is not discrimination but sound actuarial practice. Compelling insurers to charge similar rates to healthy and sick applicants makes no more sense than compelling them to charge the same rates to smokers and non-smokers. Compelling insurers to keep people on the plan even if they lie about their health or lifestyle must result in higher premiums for honest and/or healthy people.
5. “It puts our budget and economy on a more stable path by reducing the deficit by $100 billion over the next ten years – and about $1 trillion over the second decade – by cutting government overspending and reining in waste, fraud and abuse.”
Not true. The costly new subsidies and extra Medicaid spending could reduce future deficits only if taxes were increased even more than spending. By that logic, the President could propose $99 trillion of new spending and $100 trillion of new taxes and claim the result would put the government’s budget (as opposed to taxpayers’ budget) “on a more stable plan.”
Dear Media,
To the liberal, democrat sucking "journalists" who have referred to the GOP, at anytime as, the party of 'no.'
This point was brought to my attention by George Will. He said on a Sunday Show that the GOP being the party of NO, was maybe, well, a good thing.
He brought up this point, and since Keith Olbermann may read this (in reference to his poll numbers being taken straight from an unknown blog with no sources in early December on his show 'Countdown (to no ratings)') i will make this as simple as possible so even the dumbest and dullest of the dumb and dull, can understand.
Abraham Lincoln, was a Republican, listen up Keith, and uh all you other "journalists", he was a GOPer, and was sent to tackle slavery. Now, the southern Democrats supported slavery, (gee Keith, i though it was the GOP that was racist, boy see what you can learn when you listen to history and facts instead of well, the media) and they proposed bills to keep slavery. Well what was Lincoln's answer? "No." He was against every single southern democrat attempt to keep slavery, and ran on his agenda of ending slavery. That was the GOP, and the answer, no matter what, was, NO.
So that's the party of no for ya. Read into that, and perhaps reconsider if just saying no and going with what you think is right, is a bad thing or not.
This point was brought to my attention by George Will. He said on a Sunday Show that the GOP being the party of NO, was maybe, well, a good thing.
He brought up this point, and since Keith Olbermann may read this (in reference to his poll numbers being taken straight from an unknown blog with no sources in early December on his show 'Countdown (to no ratings)') i will make this as simple as possible so even the dumbest and dullest of the dumb and dull, can understand.
Abraham Lincoln, was a Republican, listen up Keith, and uh all you other "journalists", he was a GOPer, and was sent to tackle slavery. Now, the southern Democrats supported slavery, (gee Keith, i though it was the GOP that was racist, boy see what you can learn when you listen to history and facts instead of well, the media) and they proposed bills to keep slavery. Well what was Lincoln's answer? "No." He was against every single southern democrat attempt to keep slavery, and ran on his agenda of ending slavery. That was the GOP, and the answer, no matter what, was, NO.
So that's the party of no for ya. Read into that, and perhaps reconsider if just saying no and going with what you think is right, is a bad thing or not.
Rubio Up Big
While Florida governor Charlie Crist was boasting on Fox & Friends this morning and said he was excited for, "victory in august", a new Rasmussen poll of the Florida Senate race has opposing GOP candidate Marco Rubio beating him by 18 point.
Rubio took 54% of the vote while Crist took just 36% with 7% undecided.
So, Crist may be in for a disappointment in a few months.
Rubio took 54% of the vote while Crist took just 36% with 7% undecided.
So, Crist may be in for a disappointment in a few months.
21 February 2010
Ron Paul Tells It Like It Is at CPAC
Here is Ron Paul preaching the truth at this past weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference:
This is the guy who won the CPAC straw poll for 2012 GOP candidate. Paul 2012!!!
This is the guy who won the CPAC straw poll for 2012 GOP candidate. Paul 2012!!!
The Ice Is Melting!!
Arctic Ice is Growing:
5 Apr 09 - Yes, you read that right. The amount of ice around Antarctica has increased 4.7 percent since 1980. Yet all we hear about are the comparatively tiny areas that are melting.
[National Snow & Ice Data Center]
Ok, so there you go. arctic ice expands, by 4.7%!
This along with the exposure of the lie, that the Himalayan Glaciers will melt by 2035.
Also from the NSIDC, in 1980 arctic ice covered 3.5 million sq. miles. Well that is quite impressive right? So what is it now? Probably like 1.2 million sq miles. WRONG. In 2009 the arctic ice covered approximately 5 million sq miles.
"Wait, are you telling me that the arctic ice has GROWN in the last 20 30 years??"
Yes i am, by 1.5 million sq miles.
5 Apr 09 - Yes, you read that right. The amount of ice around Antarctica has increased 4.7 percent since 1980. Yet all we hear about are the comparatively tiny areas that are melting.
[National Snow & Ice Data Center]
Ok, so there you go. arctic ice expands, by 4.7%!
This along with the exposure of the lie, that the Himalayan Glaciers will melt by 2035.
Also from the NSIDC, in 1980 arctic ice covered 3.5 million sq. miles. Well that is quite impressive right? So what is it now? Probably like 1.2 million sq miles. WRONG. In 2009 the arctic ice covered approximately 5 million sq miles.
"Wait, are you telling me that the arctic ice has GROWN in the last 20 30 years??"
Yes i am, by 1.5 million sq miles.
Regarding The Second Amendment
Here is a write up i did on the second amendment and the right to bare arms:
Today we the people face a serious problem as our freedom and constitution are being destroyed amendment by amendment. Today the problem is guns. or so that is what the government and media want you to think. The problem is most certainly not guns. More guns means less crime. In 1976 Washington D.C. enacted a gun control ban. Between when the law was passed ('76) and 1991 the homicide rate rose by 200% and 12% in the U.S.
Gun Control doesn't solve anything. in fact in more cases than not it makes things worse. Gun Control is just another law to break.
In february of 1994 the "Brady Bill" was passed. This bill made a five business day waiting period to purchase a hand gun AND a background check on the consumer.
Rightly done the Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional in 1997 saying that it is unlawful for the Federal Government to mandate background checks on gun buyers. I could argue to a gun control liberal who supports this, that the background check is racial profiling.
In December of 1998 A felon ID card was amended to the Brady Bill. During the first 17 months, 13 people were convicted for illegal attempts to buy hand guns. And that right there helps prove a point. Common sense, criminals who already break stealing, murder and the like laws will have no problem breaking a gun control law and the illegal gun rate has infact gone up since the passing of the Brady Bill.
When guns are banned no one wins. The government losses when criminals break their precious law and get a gun illegal and the normal average citizen losses when they are stuck up by a criminal and have no way to defend themselves. Guns do not kill, people kill. from the 50s-60s about 60% of crimes were caused by guns. now two points, this is misleading because in a lot of cases a gun was involved but never fired. in some situations the gun wasn't even loaded. Also the majority of victims in this case did not have guns and no way of defense. Back to the 60%. This sounds very telling that 60% of crimes are due to guns but so what? Would you feel better if they were stabbed to death? Or perhaps, pushed out of a window?
in 1987 Florida instituted a "Right-To-Carry" law. This removed gun limits and control. the results: The state of Florida's homicide rate dropped 35%, and the fire arm homicide rate fell 37%. Since the assault weapon ban in 1993, 9 school shootings have taken place and crime rates have gone up.
Guns are over hyped by the gov't and media. They want us to believe that guns are the biggest threat and killer. did you know that cars kill more people than guns. in 1995 cars killed 43,900 people while guns killed just 1,400. And yet we are still to believe guns take the most lives? Fire arms are the cause for just about 1.7% of all fatal accidents. So 99.3% of all other accidents are due to some other cause. 1.7%. Guns are involved in 1.7% of fatal accidents! 1.7%!!!!
There is no point in banning guns. It is senseless to implement a law to prevent criminals who aren't going to abide by a gun control rule. The people who they are trying to stop break laws. This is just another law they break. And it takes away the right of people to defend themselves making them more vulnerable to guns and criminals.
Gun Rights is based off of the second amendment which gives us the right to have guns:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Gun control proponents have argued that the use of the word "people" in this Amendment, refers not to the civilian population of the United States, but to the State National Guard Units.
This is incorrect, it is not the word people but militia that you need to look at. the word militia means people.
John Adams, the author of the 2nd amendment argued that a standing federal army could not be capable of conducting a coup to take over the nation. He estimated that based on the country's population at the time, a federal standing army could not field more than 25,000 - 30,000 men. He wrote:
"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--John Adams (author of the 2nd amnd.
The second amendment was meant for a free standing united militia of citizens to be able to have guns to protect themselves from harms way. The militia means people, we the people have a right to keep and bear arms and that right, shall NOT be infringed.
Today we the people face a serious problem as our freedom and constitution are being destroyed amendment by amendment. Today the problem is guns. or so that is what the government and media want you to think. The problem is most certainly not guns. More guns means less crime. In 1976 Washington D.C. enacted a gun control ban. Between when the law was passed ('76) and 1991 the homicide rate rose by 200% and 12% in the U.S.
Gun Control doesn't solve anything. in fact in more cases than not it makes things worse. Gun Control is just another law to break.
In february of 1994 the "Brady Bill" was passed. This bill made a five business day waiting period to purchase a hand gun AND a background check on the consumer.
Rightly done the Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional in 1997 saying that it is unlawful for the Federal Government to mandate background checks on gun buyers. I could argue to a gun control liberal who supports this, that the background check is racial profiling.
In December of 1998 A felon ID card was amended to the Brady Bill. During the first 17 months, 13 people were convicted for illegal attempts to buy hand guns. And that right there helps prove a point. Common sense, criminals who already break stealing, murder and the like laws will have no problem breaking a gun control law and the illegal gun rate has infact gone up since the passing of the Brady Bill.
When guns are banned no one wins. The government losses when criminals break their precious law and get a gun illegal and the normal average citizen losses when they are stuck up by a criminal and have no way to defend themselves. Guns do not kill, people kill. from the 50s-60s about 60% of crimes were caused by guns. now two points, this is misleading because in a lot of cases a gun was involved but never fired. in some situations the gun wasn't even loaded. Also the majority of victims in this case did not have guns and no way of defense. Back to the 60%. This sounds very telling that 60% of crimes are due to guns but so what? Would you feel better if they were stabbed to death? Or perhaps, pushed out of a window?
in 1987 Florida instituted a "Right-To-Carry" law. This removed gun limits and control. the results: The state of Florida's homicide rate dropped 35%, and the fire arm homicide rate fell 37%. Since the assault weapon ban in 1993, 9 school shootings have taken place and crime rates have gone up.
Guns are over hyped by the gov't and media. They want us to believe that guns are the biggest threat and killer. did you know that cars kill more people than guns. in 1995 cars killed 43,900 people while guns killed just 1,400. And yet we are still to believe guns take the most lives? Fire arms are the cause for just about 1.7% of all fatal accidents. So 99.3% of all other accidents are due to some other cause. 1.7%. Guns are involved in 1.7% of fatal accidents! 1.7%!!!!
There is no point in banning guns. It is senseless to implement a law to prevent criminals who aren't going to abide by a gun control rule. The people who they are trying to stop break laws. This is just another law they break. And it takes away the right of people to defend themselves making them more vulnerable to guns and criminals.
Gun Rights is based off of the second amendment which gives us the right to have guns:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Gun control proponents have argued that the use of the word "people" in this Amendment, refers not to the civilian population of the United States, but to the State National Guard Units.
This is incorrect, it is not the word people but militia that you need to look at. the word militia means people.
John Adams, the author of the 2nd amendment argued that a standing federal army could not be capable of conducting a coup to take over the nation. He estimated that based on the country's population at the time, a federal standing army could not field more than 25,000 - 30,000 men. He wrote:
"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--John Adams (author of the 2nd amnd.
The second amendment was meant for a free standing united militia of citizens to be able to have guns to protect themselves from harms way. The militia means people, we the people have a right to keep and bear arms and that right, shall NOT be infringed.
Hey Olby, Here Are Those People of Color You Were Asking For
Now, i am never one to call out people cased on race or skin color. Frankly i don't care. But recently certain blow bag, small balled commentators on certain propaganda networks have accused the Tea Party movement as, racist. The idea is centered around the fact that there are NO minorities in this.
Now, let me just point out that i am Hispanic. I was born in Guatemala and was lucky enough to come and live here in the US where i could be free from a broken socialist government. Or at least at the time. Now, things are starting to seem quite similar, but, that's another story.
So without further ado, i present to you, a video made by someone who then posted it on youtube, featuring colored people at Tea Parties. Again i usually am not one to pick out the blacks or the Hispanics where ever i go but felt i had to stick it to Olbermann, because, well, i just hate that guy. I really do.
So uh, Oralmann, here are those 'people of color' you were askin' about.
Now, let me just point out that i am Hispanic. I was born in Guatemala and was lucky enough to come and live here in the US where i could be free from a broken socialist government. Or at least at the time. Now, things are starting to seem quite similar, but, that's another story.
So without further ado, i present to you, a video made by someone who then posted it on youtube, featuring colored people at Tea Parties. Again i usually am not one to pick out the blacks or the Hispanics where ever i go but felt i had to stick it to Olbermann, because, well, i just hate that guy. I really do.
So uh, Oralmann, here are those 'people of color' you were askin' about.
Score For Libertarians
Last night, was the closing of the CPAC conference and, uh, the whole weekend, was great, from Rubio, to Romney, to Pawlenty, to Will, to well, everyone there.
But the most interesting part was at the end, when they took a straw poll, for the 2012 GOP candidate.
The result, was shocking and exciting. The libertarian, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) won the poll with 31% The next best was Mitt Romney with 22%. A 9 point lead! 9 point lead for Ron Paul. And notice that the, Huckabee, was second to last. With i believe 2%. Sarah Palin was 3rd with only 7%. So the winner, by a landslide, was one of the only if not the only, true libertarians in the house, Ron Paul.
Perhaps the libertarian GOP of Goldwater is coming back. But then again, perhaps not.
As Glenn Beck said last night:
Republicans are like progressive lite. It's like if someone is sticking a screw driver in your eye, and the other guy is saying no stop, stop. And then he pulls it out but puts a pin in your eye.
(that was paraphrased)
But the most interesting part was at the end, when they took a straw poll, for the 2012 GOP candidate.
The result, was shocking and exciting. The libertarian, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) won the poll with 31% The next best was Mitt Romney with 22%. A 9 point lead! 9 point lead for Ron Paul. And notice that the, Huckabee, was second to last. With i believe 2%. Sarah Palin was 3rd with only 7%. So the winner, by a landslide, was one of the only if not the only, true libertarians in the house, Ron Paul.
Perhaps the libertarian GOP of Goldwater is coming back. But then again, perhaps not.
As Glenn Beck said last night:
Republicans are like progressive lite. It's like if someone is sticking a screw driver in your eye, and the other guy is saying no stop, stop. And then he pulls it out but puts a pin in your eye.
(that was paraphrased)
19 February 2010
~A Taste Of Health Care Reform~
Here is a post that i came across from the Foundry. I found it to be quite interesting and it contained a very valid point. Anyway, uh, here it is:
The Foundry:
Anthem Blue Cross, the California subsidiary of Wellpoint, one of the nation’s largest health insurers, recently announced steep premium increases for its individual (i.e., not employment-based) insurance customers. The political response to these premium increases – of up to 39% for almost 700,000 customers – was swift and blunt. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius ordered a federal investigation into how Anthem could “justify” the increases, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) scheduled a hearing, MoveOn.org launched a petition drive, and President Obama himself jumped at the opportunity to claim this as justification for the Democrat health reform effort, calling it “a portrait of the future if we don’t do something now.” Today, HHS released a report citing similar premium increases in several other states.
On the contrary – it’s a portrait of the future for the entire United States if either the House or Senate Democrats’ health bill becomes law. The Wall Street Journal points out that while Wellpoint as a whole is profitable, it has been losing money in this particular market, and these steep premium increases are the direct result of California’s state insurance regulations. Regulations require that insurance companies offer individual “conversion policies” to former employees who have exhausted their COBRA continuation coverage rights. This may be a good idea in principle, but California takes it a step further and sets the premiums to be charged for such coverage by statute. And, since those electing to take advantage of this option are disproportionately those with higher than average health care costs (often due to pre-existing conditions), the statutory rates aren’t sufficient to cover the costs of providing care for those patients. To stay in business – and indeed, to meet financial solvency regulations also imposed by the state – insurance companies have to get the money someplace, and the only place left is to increase premiums for customers not covered by the statute. Essentially, several of California’s regulations have combined to, in effect, require these steep premium increases.
California’s regulations are much less extreme versions of the regulations imposed by both the Democrat health care reform bills – the one that passed the House on November 7 and the one that passed the Senate on December 24. The House bill would direct a newly-created bureaucracy to determine what services insurance must cover, and directs that the Commissioner of that bureaucracy “shall deny excessive premiums or premium increases,” without defining “excessive” and in particular, without regard to whether premiums not deemed “excessive” are enough to allow insurers to pay for the required benefits. The Senate bill would also direct bureaucracy to determine what services insurance must cover, but would impose a complicated system of taxes and “medical loss ratio” requirements that could combine to force insurance plans to pay out more in taxes and claims than they take in in premiums.
Both bills would also require insurers to sell health plans to all comers at prices fixed without regard to their health history. Therefore, healthy people would have an incentive to forego insurance and pay the tax penalty – which would be less than the price of the health plan – knowing they could enroll in a health plan whenever they “need” it. The result would be that almost everyone in the insurance pool would have substantial health care needs, spreading the cost of health care over a much smaller insured population. That would produce very steep premium increases nationwide – no doubt much higher than the increases Anthem Blue Cross has been forced to impose in California.
The recent premium increases in California may indeed be it “a portrait of the future”—a scaled-down portrait of the future under Obamacare.
The Foundry:
Anthem Blue Cross, the California subsidiary of Wellpoint, one of the nation’s largest health insurers, recently announced steep premium increases for its individual (i.e., not employment-based) insurance customers. The political response to these premium increases – of up to 39% for almost 700,000 customers – was swift and blunt. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius ordered a federal investigation into how Anthem could “justify” the increases, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) scheduled a hearing, MoveOn.org launched a petition drive, and President Obama himself jumped at the opportunity to claim this as justification for the Democrat health reform effort, calling it “a portrait of the future if we don’t do something now.” Today, HHS released a report citing similar premium increases in several other states.
On the contrary – it’s a portrait of the future for the entire United States if either the House or Senate Democrats’ health bill becomes law. The Wall Street Journal points out that while Wellpoint as a whole is profitable, it has been losing money in this particular market, and these steep premium increases are the direct result of California’s state insurance regulations. Regulations require that insurance companies offer individual “conversion policies” to former employees who have exhausted their COBRA continuation coverage rights. This may be a good idea in principle, but California takes it a step further and sets the premiums to be charged for such coverage by statute. And, since those electing to take advantage of this option are disproportionately those with higher than average health care costs (often due to pre-existing conditions), the statutory rates aren’t sufficient to cover the costs of providing care for those patients. To stay in business – and indeed, to meet financial solvency regulations also imposed by the state – insurance companies have to get the money someplace, and the only place left is to increase premiums for customers not covered by the statute. Essentially, several of California’s regulations have combined to, in effect, require these steep premium increases.
California’s regulations are much less extreme versions of the regulations imposed by both the Democrat health care reform bills – the one that passed the House on November 7 and the one that passed the Senate on December 24. The House bill would direct a newly-created bureaucracy to determine what services insurance must cover, and directs that the Commissioner of that bureaucracy “shall deny excessive premiums or premium increases,” without defining “excessive” and in particular, without regard to whether premiums not deemed “excessive” are enough to allow insurers to pay for the required benefits. The Senate bill would also direct bureaucracy to determine what services insurance must cover, but would impose a complicated system of taxes and “medical loss ratio” requirements that could combine to force insurance plans to pay out more in taxes and claims than they take in in premiums.
Both bills would also require insurers to sell health plans to all comers at prices fixed without regard to their health history. Therefore, healthy people would have an incentive to forego insurance and pay the tax penalty – which would be less than the price of the health plan – knowing they could enroll in a health plan whenever they “need” it. The result would be that almost everyone in the insurance pool would have substantial health care needs, spreading the cost of health care over a much smaller insured population. That would produce very steep premium increases nationwide – no doubt much higher than the increases Anthem Blue Cross has been forced to impose in California.
The recent premium increases in California may indeed be it “a portrait of the future”—a scaled-down portrait of the future under Obamacare.
Will Delivers Strong Speech @ CPAC
In case you missed it here is part 1 of 2 of George F. Will's great speech last night at the CPAC.
CPAC: Romney's Speech
Here is a video of former Governor Mitt Romney's speech he delivered at the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference last night.
18 February 2010
CPAC 2010
Today began the Conservative political Action Conference 2010. There were many great speeches from; Liz Cheney, Sen. Jim Demint, Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio.
You can watch highlights of the CPAC at townhall.com
All you have to do is put this link into your search bar: http://townhall.com/cpac
There you can see the speeches at watch the CPAC.
And don't forget, if there is one thing of the CPAC that you watch, tune in on Sunday night to watch Glenn Beck give the closing key note speech.
You can watch highlights of the CPAC at townhall.com
All you have to do is put this link into your search bar: http://townhall.com/cpac
There you can see the speeches at watch the CPAC.
And don't forget, if there is one thing of the CPAC that you watch, tune in on Sunday night to watch Glenn Beck give the closing key note speech.
17 February 2010
Happy Anniversary!
On this day one year ago we faced 8.1% unemployment. We were spending 3% of the GDP, Bush gave us a 2.5 trillion dollar public debt and a 550 billion dollar deficit.
Then the Stimulus Bill was passed. Today we have 9.7% unemployment. A projected 4 trillion dollar deficit and 6.4 trillion through 2020, we owe 1.6 trillion more, we have 12 trillion dollar debt and spending 23% of the GDP.
Happy anniversary!
While the Whitehouse is claiming this has created (or saved, what ever the hell that means) 2 million jobs, despite the fuzzy math and AP reported errors, it is irrelevant when you factor in the 4 million people who have lost jobs since the stimulus. 8 million jobs have been lost in this recession which began in late 2007, half of which have come since the stimulus.
Then the Stimulus Bill was passed. Today we have 9.7% unemployment. A projected 4 trillion dollar deficit and 6.4 trillion through 2020, we owe 1.6 trillion more, we have 12 trillion dollar debt and spending 23% of the GDP.
Happy anniversary!
While the Whitehouse is claiming this has created (or saved, what ever the hell that means) 2 million jobs, despite the fuzzy math and AP reported errors, it is irrelevant when you factor in the 4 million people who have lost jobs since the stimulus. 8 million jobs have been lost in this recession which began in late 2007, half of which have come since the stimulus.
You're Right Keith, Where are The Black People?
For those of you who, uh have not heard Keith Olbermann, he has constantly, almost on a regular basis, accused things like Fox News or the Tea Parties of being racist.
A better thing to look at would be gee uh maybe right where he is, at A Mess-NBC.
Check out this great video:
A better thing to look at would be gee uh maybe right where he is, at A Mess-NBC.
Check out this great video:
GOP Wins Two More Special Elections
In New Hampshire, Republican state Rep. David Boutin defeated Democrat state Rep. Jeff Goley to win a special election for the state Senate. The seat had belonged to Ted Gatsas (R), who resigned to become mayor of Manchester last month. Democrats still hold a 14-10 edge in the upper chamber.
In Alabama, Republicans picked up a Democratic-held seat in the state House. Funeral home owner K.L. Brown (R) defeated teacher Ricky Haley (D) by nearly 14 points.
Uh, one quick thing about Alabama and its politics. I have hear a lot about Alabama being racist. And it is only neo-confederates and nazis and other racists that are down there. The Alabama politics are far from being run by "Republican right wing racists." In fact the GOP only holds 45 house seats, compared with the DEMOCRATS 60 seats. The government has a vast Democrat Majority. Right Wing Racists? Try again.
So uh, that was a side note, but these are two more notable special elections that the GOP has won. So that puts them ahead now, 5-1 in big notable special elections.
In Alabama, Republicans picked up a Democratic-held seat in the state House. Funeral home owner K.L. Brown (R) defeated teacher Ricky Haley (D) by nearly 14 points.
Uh, one quick thing about Alabama and its politics. I have hear a lot about Alabama being racist. And it is only neo-confederates and nazis and other racists that are down there. The Alabama politics are far from being run by "Republican right wing racists." In fact the GOP only holds 45 house seats, compared with the DEMOCRATS 60 seats. The government has a vast Democrat Majority. Right Wing Racists? Try again.
So uh, that was a side note, but these are two more notable special elections that the GOP has won. So that puts them ahead now, 5-1 in big notable special elections.
A Tale Of Two Climates
So you think the Global Warming debate is over? You think that there has always been global warming?
Take a look at this cover from Time magazine in 2001 about Global Warming:
Now compare that, with this one from 1973 on, what's this? Could it be? Global...Cooling?
Funny how that works huh?
One decade we are ripping out hair out over global cooling, and the next global warming.
It's a cycle, it's a cycle! It's A CYCLE!!!
Take a look at this cover from Time magazine in 2001 about Global Warming:
Now compare that, with this one from 1973 on, what's this? Could it be? Global...Cooling?
Funny how that works huh?
One decade we are ripping out hair out over global cooling, and the next global warming.
It's a cycle, it's a cycle! It's A CYCLE!!!
Point & Counter Point: Entitled To Health Care
Another debate with another dimwit. This one is an argument on weather or not the poor are entitled to health care.
Me: Alright so you do think that people are entitled to health care.
Lib: Yes. Absolutely.
Me: Ok so can you point to me where in the bill of RIGHTS, that is found?
Lib: Um, well it's not in there but it is common sense that everyone should get health care.
Me: Let me ask you something. How do we pay for this?
Lib: Well the top 5% earners already make a ton of money and therefore are expected to pay their fair share-
Me: They pay 40% of the bill.
Lib: Well but they should be paying more the poor are the one's hit the hardest-
Me: They pay 2.7%. The top 5% pay 40%. 40%!
Lib: Well they don't, they need to pay it fair.
Me: Hang on, let me see if i understand this, 40%, 40%. It is, less than 2.7%? Are you telling me, that 2.7%, is more than 40%?
Lib: Ok so like-
Me: Oh, oh now i see, i get it, now it's time to back pedal. You want that one back?
Lib: I mean they should pay for it because they have the most money.
Me: No if it weren't for them then there would be no health care. If it weren't for them those who pay 2.7% of the bill would be unemployed.
Lib: Well...
Me: Alright let me ask you thin, you're saying that the top 5% owe it to the people to pay for the health care bill correct?
Lib: Yes, th-
Me: Ok so what did they do?
Lib: What?
Me: What did they do? What did they do to owe them debt?
Lib: Do you mean like...?
Me: No, no, YOU said that they OWE it to the people to pay for it. What have they done, that they owe them a debt.
Lib: They make tons of money an-
Me: And so why do they owe them anything?
Lib: Because they can-
Me: Really so just because i CAN buy some one's home or just because i CAN build on a preserved land area means i should?
Lib: No that's not what i'm saying at all.
Me: You are telling me that they owe them a debt. They owe them health care!
Lib: Yes they do,
Me: And i'm asking you what they did to owe them debt! What happened? Did they lose a lawsuit case? Did they...uh.. what, what, what did they do?
Lib: Well they
Me: Do they not owe the top 5% anything? Like thanks? Or maybe gratitude?
Lib: Ok i see your point. I kind of agree with it-
Me: So do you have an answer? Why do they owe them health care? Cause you can't find it in the bill of rights, and you can't explain why they are entitled to it and why the rich owe it to them to pay for it.
Lib: Um i don't know, you're not talking about entitlement-
Me: No that's exactly what i'm talking about. Ah get out of here. You don't know. You can't explain. That's it. They cannot explain how all of the sudden the top 5% or the rich, uh, owe the poor health care. They didn't do anything. They made money, they succeeded. They are not entitled to it.
If they are please explain it to me. What happened. How do the rich now "owe them a debt?"
It doesn't make sense. They don't make sense. I asked him, several times. He couldn't tell me. See this is some one with a big mouth and a small mind.
Me: Alright so you do think that people are entitled to health care.
Lib: Yes. Absolutely.
Me: Ok so can you point to me where in the bill of RIGHTS, that is found?
Lib: Um, well it's not in there but it is common sense that everyone should get health care.
Me: Let me ask you something. How do we pay for this?
Lib: Well the top 5% earners already make a ton of money and therefore are expected to pay their fair share-
Me: They pay 40% of the bill.
Lib: Well but they should be paying more the poor are the one's hit the hardest-
Me: They pay 2.7%. The top 5% pay 40%. 40%!
Lib: Well they don't, they need to pay it fair.
Me: Hang on, let me see if i understand this, 40%, 40%. It is, less than 2.7%? Are you telling me, that 2.7%, is more than 40%?
Lib: Ok so like-
Me: Oh, oh now i see, i get it, now it's time to back pedal. You want that one back?
Lib: I mean they should pay for it because they have the most money.
Me: No if it weren't for them then there would be no health care. If it weren't for them those who pay 2.7% of the bill would be unemployed.
Lib: Well...
Me: Alright let me ask you thin, you're saying that the top 5% owe it to the people to pay for the health care bill correct?
Lib: Yes, th-
Me: Ok so what did they do?
Lib: What?
Me: What did they do? What did they do to owe them debt?
Lib: Do you mean like...?
Me: No, no, YOU said that they OWE it to the people to pay for it. What have they done, that they owe them a debt.
Lib: They make tons of money an-
Me: And so why do they owe them anything?
Lib: Because they can-
Me: Really so just because i CAN buy some one's home or just because i CAN build on a preserved land area means i should?
Lib: No that's not what i'm saying at all.
Me: You are telling me that they owe them a debt. They owe them health care!
Lib: Yes they do,
Me: And i'm asking you what they did to owe them debt! What happened? Did they lose a lawsuit case? Did they...uh.. what, what, what did they do?
Lib: Well they
Me: Do they not owe the top 5% anything? Like thanks? Or maybe gratitude?
Lib: Ok i see your point. I kind of agree with it-
Me: So do you have an answer? Why do they owe them health care? Cause you can't find it in the bill of rights, and you can't explain why they are entitled to it and why the rich owe it to them to pay for it.
Lib: Um i don't know, you're not talking about entitlement-
Me: No that's exactly what i'm talking about. Ah get out of here. You don't know. You can't explain. That's it. They cannot explain how all of the sudden the top 5% or the rich, uh, owe the poor health care. They didn't do anything. They made money, they succeeded. They are not entitled to it.
If they are please explain it to me. What happened. How do the rich now "owe them a debt?"
It doesn't make sense. They don't make sense. I asked him, several times. He couldn't tell me. See this is some one with a big mouth and a small mind.
Look Out Obey, We're Coming For You Next
Key writer of the Porkulus bill, Rep. David Obey (D-WI) Has a new challenger. Sean Duffy is a fiscal conservative who is running for Obeys seat. He has recently received big endorsements, and one from former governor Sarah Palin.
An article was written about this race from Newsweek entitled; "Could Obey be Coakley'd?"
http://duffyforcongress.com/articles/NRO-Could-Obey-Be-Coakleyd
Given the big downfalls in Jersey, Va, and The Mass, i see a potential train wreck for the author of the failed stimulus.
Culver's Conservative hereby endorses: Candidate Sean Duffy for Congress Wisconsin District # 7.
An article was written about this race from Newsweek entitled; "Could Obey be Coakley'd?"
http://duffyforcongress.com/articles/NRO-Could-Obey-Be-Coakleyd
Given the big downfalls in Jersey, Va, and The Mass, i see a potential train wreck for the author of the failed stimulus.
Culver's Conservative hereby endorses: Candidate Sean Duffy for Congress Wisconsin District # 7.
Great Moments in Journalism
Journalism doesn't get any better than this. In his Worst Person in the World segment on Tuesday's "Countdown," the A-Mess NBC's Keith Olbermann went after Fox's Glenn Beck for a comment he made about Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar on that morning's "Fox & Friends":
If I were in charge, we'd be interrogating him. And we'd interrogate him, and interrogate him, and interrogate him and then we'd shoot him in the head. ... Shoot him in the head before we all of a sudden release him into, what? Primary schools in New York City? What are we going to do with this guy?
Olbermann's answer? "Well, since it's worked with a lot of other people whose plans would destroy America, give him a show on Fox News"
Wow. Investigative journalism is dead. This is what the news and journalism has come to. How distasteful. In Keith's own words; "God forgive you."
If I were in charge, we'd be interrogating him. And we'd interrogate him, and interrogate him, and interrogate him and then we'd shoot him in the head. ... Shoot him in the head before we all of a sudden release him into, what? Primary schools in New York City? What are we going to do with this guy?
Olbermann's answer? "Well, since it's worked with a lot of other people whose plans would destroy America, give him a show on Fox News"
Wow. Investigative journalism is dead. This is what the news and journalism has come to. How distasteful. In Keith's own words; "God forgive you."
16 February 2010
Melting Credibility
Even more proof that the Global Warming idea is a hoax. It is false science that has been twisted and distorted. It is a scam.
Medina= 9/11 Conspirator
On his radio show Friday, wow i'm citing Glenn Beck a lot lately, uh, Beck interviewed candidate for governor in Texas, Debra Medina. Um Medina had that week faced criticism and was accused of being a 9/11 truther. So Beck wanted to clear that up and get the story straight.
Watch this, and see how she answers this.
'uh, hmm, oh, uh, gee ,uh ya know there are some strong arguments, ya know, people need to know the facts, i think it is, *duh* i'm not gonna take a position'
Can you read into that any other way, other than, 'yes i'm a truther, but i'm not gonna say it that openly. I mean if you truly were not a truther, you would say, uh your answer would be, of course not. I am nothing of the sort right? Or you would say, absolutely. Or you could fumble around and say yes in a a very vague way as she did. If the answer was no, then no is what she should have said. She did not deny being a 9/11 truther. She never said yes openly but she said that there have been good questions about it that have been raised, and she said their were "strong argument." I mean, how else do you take that?
Watch this, and see how she answers this.
'uh, hmm, oh, uh, gee ,uh ya know there are some strong arguments, ya know, people need to know the facts, i think it is, *duh* i'm not gonna take a position'
Can you read into that any other way, other than, 'yes i'm a truther, but i'm not gonna say it that openly. I mean if you truly were not a truther, you would say, uh your answer would be, of course not. I am nothing of the sort right? Or you would say, absolutely. Or you could fumble around and say yes in a a very vague way as she did. If the answer was no, then no is what she should have said. She did not deny being a 9/11 truther. She never said yes openly but she said that there have been good questions about it that have been raised, and she said their were "strong argument." I mean, how else do you take that?
We're Headed Towards The 1930s
Last night on his radio show, which is, the 3rd most listened to show, in all of America. Glenn Beck, told us how FDR won the re-election. He saved funds from the New Deal, and he used those funds, and he funneled in tons of money into districts where he might win or he might lose. Not where he was for sure going to win or for sure going to lose. Where it was a swing vote.
Now, he warned us last night, there is still, of the 787 billion dollar stimulus, two thirds of the money left over, that has been held back. There are midterms coming up, there are many swing states and elections for Democrats. Watch for the funneling in of money for those states and districts, and that money will most likely be used to create jobs. So then the representatives will say, "see look what i did for you all." and they will get elected.
Now i drew along with that an even bigger conclusion. If he does that, and the those states that got the big spending get jobs, they can then single out red states who don't get the money, and say "well look they're following your policies and they don't have jobs. It's just here where we spent money that we have jobs." Then voters turn and see that, and vote even more Democrats.
It worked in the 1930s. FDR used it, who is to say Obama won't do the same. Two thirds left of the stimulus money, being poured into districts, maybe, even a district near you, or even, your district.
Now, he warned us last night, there is still, of the 787 billion dollar stimulus, two thirds of the money left over, that has been held back. There are midterms coming up, there are many swing states and elections for Democrats. Watch for the funneling in of money for those states and districts, and that money will most likely be used to create jobs. So then the representatives will say, "see look what i did for you all." and they will get elected.
Now i drew along with that an even bigger conclusion. If he does that, and the those states that got the big spending get jobs, they can then single out red states who don't get the money, and say "well look they're following your policies and they don't have jobs. It's just here where we spent money that we have jobs." Then voters turn and see that, and vote even more Democrats.
It worked in the 1930s. FDR used it, who is to say Obama won't do the same. Two thirds left of the stimulus money, being poured into districts, maybe, even a district near you, or even, your district.
15 February 2010
Here's Your Global Warming
National Weather SErvice:
000
NOUS44 KFWD 121011
PNSFWD
TXZ091>095-100>107-115>123-129>135-141>148-156>162-174-175-121800-
PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE FORT WORTH TX
410 AM CST FRI FEB 12 2010
...SNOW EVENT ONE FOR THE RECORD BOOKS...
AT MIDNIGHT ON FEBRUARY 11TH...DFW AIRPORT HAD RECORDED 11.2 INCHES
OF SNOW. THIS BREAKS THE PREVIOUS DAILY RECORD FOR FEBRUARY 11TH OF
1.4 INCHES SET IN 1988. THIS ALSO BREAKS THE PREVIOUS 24-HOUR RECORD
FOR FEBRUARY...7.5 INCHES ON FEBRUARY 17, 1978 AND FEBRUARY 25, 1924.
AT 4 AM ON FEBRUARY 12TH...DFW AIRPORT HAD REPORTED A 24-HOUR
SNOWFALL TOTAL OF 12.5 INCHES. THIS BREAKS THE PREVIOUS ALL TIME
24-HOUR SNOWFALL TOTAL RECORD OF 12.1 INCHES SET JANUARY 15-16, 1964.
THE SNOWFALL TOTAL ON FEBRUARY 11TH IS THE GREATEST CALENDAR-DAY
SNOWFALL TOTAL ON RECORD FOR DALLAS/FORT WORTH. THE PREVIOUS RECORD
WAS 7.8 INCHES ON JANUARY 15, 1964 AND JANUARY 14, 1917.
THIS BRINGS THE SEASONAL SNOWFALL TOTAL TO 15.7 INCHES...WHICH IS
THE 2ND HIGHEST SEASONAL TOTAL ON RECORD FOR DALLAS/FORT WORTH. THIS
IS THE SNOWIEST WINTER IN 32 SEASONS (SINCE 1977-1978).
..............
There see, record snow fall in DALLAS, TEXAS!!! In TEXAS!!! Almost a foot of snow in DALLAS TEXAS!!! Will somebody smack Al Gore across the face please!!!! I'm gonna lose my mind!! The previous record was 1.4 inches. This is in freaking TEXAS!!! AHHH!!!
Here, you still don't believe me, how about this? Prof. Phil Jones from East Anglia Climate Research Center says no global warming since 1995!!!
"THERE has been no global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted yesterday in a major U-turn.
Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.
The admission comes as new research casts serious doubt on temperature records collected around the world and used to support the global warming theory.
Researchers said yesterday that warming recorded by weather stations was often caused by local factors rather than global change."
[Source: Express British Newspaper interview]
Do you still need more proof?!?!? look at all of my other posts about this. Read the climategate emails, look at the weather tread!!!! Just SHUT UP ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!
000
NOUS44 KFWD 121011
PNSFWD
TXZ091>095-100>107-115>123-129>135-141>148-156>162-174-175-121800-
PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE FORT WORTH TX
410 AM CST FRI FEB 12 2010
...SNOW EVENT ONE FOR THE RECORD BOOKS...
AT MIDNIGHT ON FEBRUARY 11TH...DFW AIRPORT HAD RECORDED 11.2 INCHES
OF SNOW. THIS BREAKS THE PREVIOUS DAILY RECORD FOR FEBRUARY 11TH OF
1.4 INCHES SET IN 1988. THIS ALSO BREAKS THE PREVIOUS 24-HOUR RECORD
FOR FEBRUARY...7.5 INCHES ON FEBRUARY 17, 1978 AND FEBRUARY 25, 1924.
AT 4 AM ON FEBRUARY 12TH...DFW AIRPORT HAD REPORTED A 24-HOUR
SNOWFALL TOTAL OF 12.5 INCHES. THIS BREAKS THE PREVIOUS ALL TIME
24-HOUR SNOWFALL TOTAL RECORD OF 12.1 INCHES SET JANUARY 15-16, 1964.
THE SNOWFALL TOTAL ON FEBRUARY 11TH IS THE GREATEST CALENDAR-DAY
SNOWFALL TOTAL ON RECORD FOR DALLAS/FORT WORTH. THE PREVIOUS RECORD
WAS 7.8 INCHES ON JANUARY 15, 1964 AND JANUARY 14, 1917.
THIS BRINGS THE SEASONAL SNOWFALL TOTAL TO 15.7 INCHES...WHICH IS
THE 2ND HIGHEST SEASONAL TOTAL ON RECORD FOR DALLAS/FORT WORTH. THIS
IS THE SNOWIEST WINTER IN 32 SEASONS (SINCE 1977-1978).
..............
There see, record snow fall in DALLAS, TEXAS!!! In TEXAS!!! Almost a foot of snow in DALLAS TEXAS!!! Will somebody smack Al Gore across the face please!!!! I'm gonna lose my mind!! The previous record was 1.4 inches. This is in freaking TEXAS!!! AHHH!!!
Here, you still don't believe me, how about this? Prof. Phil Jones from East Anglia Climate Research Center says no global warming since 1995!!!
"THERE has been no global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted yesterday in a major U-turn.
Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.
The admission comes as new research casts serious doubt on temperature records collected around the world and used to support the global warming theory.
Researchers said yesterday that warming recorded by weather stations was often caused by local factors rather than global change."
[Source: Express British Newspaper interview]
Do you still need more proof?!?!? look at all of my other posts about this. Read the climategate emails, look at the weather tread!!!! Just SHUT UP ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!
Time To End The Global Warming Debate
Read this part of a great article from freepublic.com
Core measurements and satellite data show that the polar ice caps (arctic and antarctic) are expanding, not shrinking. The Australian recently published an article on the fact that the antarctic ice cap is growing:
ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap. . . .
Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia’s Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.
A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded. ("Antarctic Ice is Growing, Not Melting Away," http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...57-401,00.html)
Dr. Ian Allison of the Australian Antarctic Division Glaciology Program rejects alarmist claims about ice-cap melting::
Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.
"Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years." . ("Antarctic Ice is Growing, Not Melting Away," http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...57-401,00.html)
The North Pole ice cap (arctic) is not melting away either. In fact, the arctic ice cap grew by 9% from 2007 to 2008:
"We have news from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). They say: The melt is over. And we’ve added 9.4% ice coverage from this time last year. Though it appears NSIDC is attempting to downplay this in their web page announcement today, one can safely say that despite irrational predictions seen earlier this year, we didn’t reach an “ice free north pole” nor a new record low for sea ice extent." (Arctic Sea Ice Melt Season Officially Over; Ice Up Over 9% from Last Year http://www.m4gw.com:2005/m4gw/2008/0...s_growing.html)
Core measurements and satellite data show that the polar ice caps (arctic and antarctic) are expanding, not shrinking. The Australian recently published an article on the fact that the antarctic ice cap is growing:
ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap. . . .
Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia’s Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.
A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded. ("Antarctic Ice is Growing, Not Melting Away," http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...57-401,00.html)
Dr. Ian Allison of the Australian Antarctic Division Glaciology Program rejects alarmist claims about ice-cap melting::
Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.
"Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years." . ("Antarctic Ice is Growing, Not Melting Away," http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...57-401,00.html)
The North Pole ice cap (arctic) is not melting away either. In fact, the arctic ice cap grew by 9% from 2007 to 2008:
"We have news from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). They say: The melt is over. And we’ve added 9.4% ice coverage from this time last year. Though it appears NSIDC is attempting to downplay this in their web page announcement today, one can safely say that despite irrational predictions seen earlier this year, we didn’t reach an “ice free north pole” nor a new record low for sea ice extent." (Arctic Sea Ice Melt Season Officially Over; Ice Up Over 9% from Last Year http://www.m4gw.com:2005/m4gw/2008/0...s_growing.html)
Quick Comment On Global Warming
Let me just say, and i know about this global warming, i have read up on it, i tortured myself by watching Fat Albert Gore's movie, and well, as you all know i was in Florida this past weekend.
Weather overview:
1) first we are informed due to snow delays in the south our return flight would be delayed.
2) First day, high of about 42 degrees, rainy. Low of 32 degrees that night.
My parental units, said this was by far the coldest trip to Florida they have ever had. Also a few weeks ago i was on my weather.com App on my Blackberry and i saw weather for Florida, "severe ice warning throughout Florida." Severe Ice warnings, 32 degrees. Where's the warming?
Weather overview:
1) first we are informed due to snow delays in the south our return flight would be delayed.
2) First day, high of about 42 degrees, rainy. Low of 32 degrees that night.
My parental units, said this was by far the coldest trip to Florida they have ever had. Also a few weeks ago i was on my weather.com App on my Blackberry and i saw weather for Florida, "severe ice warning throughout Florida." Severe Ice warnings, 32 degrees. Where's the warming?
Dems Waving The White Flag
Another Democrat has surrendered to the American people yet again. Indian Senator Evan Bayh has announced that he will NOT seek re-election this fall.
This, along now with the death of John Murtha (i am not happy he died), Chris Dodd who will not seek re-election, you've got Pat Kennedy not seeking re-election, Candidates not running at all, so dropping out of races. These democrats are running for the hills.
They know they can't win. All of their poll numbers are down. Uh what's his name the squish squash, Benedict Arlen, he's gone. He's out this fall, remember where you heard that. Reid's polls are down, as well as every other Democrat.
So these democrats, are actually very smart. They know they will get thrown out, so to ease the burn the dems will face this fall, they aren't running. I feel even more confident that this fall the GOP will take back the house.
So while democrats retreat, and GOPers hull in astonishing numbers of contributions, it seems like 1994 all over again.
This, along now with the death of John Murtha (i am not happy he died), Chris Dodd who will not seek re-election, you've got Pat Kennedy not seeking re-election, Candidates not running at all, so dropping out of races. These democrats are running for the hills.
They know they can't win. All of their poll numbers are down. Uh what's his name the squish squash, Benedict Arlen, he's gone. He's out this fall, remember where you heard that. Reid's polls are down, as well as every other Democrat.
So these democrats, are actually very smart. They know they will get thrown out, so to ease the burn the dems will face this fall, they aren't running. I feel even more confident that this fall the GOP will take back the house.
So while democrats retreat, and GOPers hull in astonishing numbers of contributions, it seems like 1994 all over again.
We're Back
Well if you have noticed, i did not blog all weekend. Now i usually do not blog on Saturdays but this was, Thursday night, Friday, Sat, and Sunday. I was gone, on vacation in Florida, but as Sean Hannity says, let not your heart be troubled i will be back tomorrow after some research and reading to give my opinion and insight on the daily news.
I will post again later tonight, but for now i have to do some other work so we'll be back. From Minnesota, happy Presidents day.
I will post again later tonight, but for now i have to do some other work so we'll be back. From Minnesota, happy Presidents day.
Ooh Look Who Has Hand Notes Now
So uh, Gibby boy, the lame white house media guy who, i can't stand but that's another story or post for another time, uh, wrote a shopping list on his hand last week, to make fun of Sarah Palin who did that during the Tea Party Convention speech she gave.
So uh i did some searching on youtube, and you won't believe what i found. The monster, Diane franken-Feinstein, using hand notes in a, Calif. Gubernatorial DEBATE. Yes, a gov. debate. Not just a speech.
So here is that, um skip to about 1:40 or so to see that part of....
This video:
So uh i did some searching on youtube, and you won't believe what i found. The monster, Diane franken-Feinstein, using hand notes in a, Calif. Gubernatorial DEBATE. Yes, a gov. debate. Not just a speech.
So here is that, um skip to about 1:40 or so to see that part of....
This video:
11 February 2010
Obama's Polls Tank Again
Yesterday President Obama's approval rating fell down, to 44%. 44% of the nation now approves of Obama's Job. That means that his disapproval is not up at 56%. This is the lowest approval rating ever for a president at this time during their administration.
If that's not bad enough for Obama, his health care reform now has a 78% opposition rate. But they keep talking about ramming through this bill, poll vaulting over the fence, i don't think their joking. They seriously think as Glenn BEck said on his radio show yesterday, they really think that 78% of Americans, are idiots.
78%! 22% actually think it is good and support it. I mean i remember back when opposition was only at 53% And that was huge! 78%. i can remember when approval was 60%. Now it is at 22%. Mr. President, wake up. Stop, stop with this health care stuff. Just stop and listen. Or you'll here us loud and clear, in November.
If that's not bad enough for Obama, his health care reform now has a 78% opposition rate. But they keep talking about ramming through this bill, poll vaulting over the fence, i don't think their joking. They seriously think as Glenn BEck said on his radio show yesterday, they really think that 78% of Americans, are idiots.
78%! 22% actually think it is good and support it. I mean i remember back when opposition was only at 53% And that was huge! 78%. i can remember when approval was 60%. Now it is at 22%. Mr. President, wake up. Stop, stop with this health care stuff. Just stop and listen. Or you'll here us loud and clear, in November.
Why We Are Demanding Higher Taxes On Ourselves
Social justice advocates and spread the wealthers kick their chops at the sound of something like closing the cooperate tax loopholes and finally making the evil corporations pay their "fair share."
The tax system is “full of corporate loopholes,” Obama said at the White House today, as he outlined the plan along with his tax cheat, Timothy Geithner. The tax proposals, which will be part of a detailed budget the administration releases later this week, would raise a total of about $210 billion over the next decade.
Oh great! Onward to victory! Go get those rich fatcats!
The only problem with that is corporations do not pay taxes. They transfer them. Every single tax charge a company pays is built into the cost of their good or service. Higher taxes on corporations really means higher taxes on the consumer.
It is quite interesting really, to view all of these people get whipped up by the government, into an angry mob of people against corporations demanding higher taxes on themselves.
So you have all of these people, the ones who think they deserve tax cuts and no one else. The people who think that they are doing something by demanding corporations pay more in taxes, are getting fooled by this rather straight forward economic logic.
The tax system is “full of corporate loopholes,” Obama said at the White House today, as he outlined the plan along with his tax cheat, Timothy Geithner. The tax proposals, which will be part of a detailed budget the administration releases later this week, would raise a total of about $210 billion over the next decade.
Oh great! Onward to victory! Go get those rich fatcats!
The only problem with that is corporations do not pay taxes. They transfer them. Every single tax charge a company pays is built into the cost of their good or service. Higher taxes on corporations really means higher taxes on the consumer.
It is quite interesting really, to view all of these people get whipped up by the government, into an angry mob of people against corporations demanding higher taxes on themselves.
So you have all of these people, the ones who think they deserve tax cuts and no one else. The people who think that they are doing something by demanding corporations pay more in taxes, are getting fooled by this rather straight forward economic logic.
10 February 2010
Point & Counter Point
And now another debate with a dimwit on, Wal-Mart
Me: Ok so now, you are for the closing of Wal-mart, you are a big "boycott wal-mart" guy. Why?
Lib: Because they are shipping jobs overseas and only care about making money. I think they are exploiting the poor an-
Me: Ok, stop, stop, stop. Exploiting the poor? How by offering them jobs? Giving people jobs is exploiting them? Well i guess if it is televised porn, then yes that would be exploitation of people but uh, this, this is a job at an American cooperation. A goods store.
Lib: Well i mean, they give them low salaries, and
Me: Compared to what? Compared to an executive CEO? Of course they have lower salaries.
Lib: Yeah but like they are super low and their benefits are terrible and again all they do is exploit the poor.
Me: Alright let me get this straight, they exploit the poor, by offering them jobs, they provide in select stores, FREE over the counter and prescription drugs-
Lib: Oh well that is just to look better in the-
Me: Oh of course, how could i not see through that. So they offer free medicine, even though it's all just a scam, but they pay their cashiers less then the CEO at AIG, and we should shut them down, because...? why?
Lib: Because, *deep breath* ah holy lord i've been through this, they are tricking poor people, they scam people, and ship jobs overseas.
Me: Right, so, ok so we should shut them down, the millions of people who work there, regardless of pay, no job, for them, would be better than having a job, do i have that about right?
Lib: Well it's not just that they have a job, it is that it doesn't pay them well or it ships their job to China.
Me: Do you know why they ship there jobs over to China?
Lib: Because it's easier for them and they can make more money yes, that's all they care about.
Me: Alright now, i have noticed you have avoided the topic of Wal-Mart's prices.
Lib: Well they are irrelevant, lots of places have cheap prices-
Me: Have you been to a place, other than dollar stores or good will stores, where there are cheaper prices?
Lib: Well, not really but that-
Me: Is exactly where your argument starts to fall apart. Wal-Mart sends some one over to China, where oh by the way they can maybe be paid, $40.00 an hour instead of $10.00 here, and they then, by saving that money, are able to give out lower prices. They then open up in poorer neighborhoods and offer cheap goods to poorer people. Notice a lot of black people shop at Wal-Marts. Why do you suppose that is?
Lib: 'Cuz it's cheaper but-
Me: And if we make them keep jobs here, they won't save as much, and then they will lay off more people, and raise costs, because it is more expensive to operate here so they need more money to stay in business and give people jobs. And then to make money they raise costs which how did you put it, oh yeah exploits the poor who cannot afford the higher prices which is why they shop at Wal-Mart to begin with.
Lib: But Wal-Mart should still increase its wages.
Me: Alright my friend let me read you this post from the blog 'Cafe Hayek' is is blogged by an Econ professor at George Mason University:
"Shopping at Wal-Mart yesterday, I asked the cashier if she liked her job. Yes, she said, smiling. How long had she been at Wal-Mart? Three months. Where had she worked before? Safeway, the grocery store. Why did she come to Wal-Mart? The pay was better. Really, I asked? How, yes. How were the benefits at Wal-Mart compared to Safeway? Not as good. But she needed the money, she told me. She had a young daughter."
Hmmm. She moved to Wal-Mart because, what was that? "The pay was better."
Case closed. This has been another point and counter point, debate with a dimwit. The key is to tell them what they are saying. Often times it doesn't make sense, but they think it does, so just repeat it to them and they will process it and then back track and run for the hills. Oh and sarcasm works even better.
Me: Ok so now, you are for the closing of Wal-mart, you are a big "boycott wal-mart" guy. Why?
Lib: Because they are shipping jobs overseas and only care about making money. I think they are exploiting the poor an-
Me: Ok, stop, stop, stop. Exploiting the poor? How by offering them jobs? Giving people jobs is exploiting them? Well i guess if it is televised porn, then yes that would be exploitation of people but uh, this, this is a job at an American cooperation. A goods store.
Lib: Well i mean, they give them low salaries, and
Me: Compared to what? Compared to an executive CEO? Of course they have lower salaries.
Lib: Yeah but like they are super low and their benefits are terrible and again all they do is exploit the poor.
Me: Alright let me get this straight, they exploit the poor, by offering them jobs, they provide in select stores, FREE over the counter and prescription drugs-
Lib: Oh well that is just to look better in the-
Me: Oh of course, how could i not see through that. So they offer free medicine, even though it's all just a scam, but they pay their cashiers less then the CEO at AIG, and we should shut them down, because...? why?
Lib: Because, *deep breath* ah holy lord i've been through this, they are tricking poor people, they scam people, and ship jobs overseas.
Me: Right, so, ok so we should shut them down, the millions of people who work there, regardless of pay, no job, for them, would be better than having a job, do i have that about right?
Lib: Well it's not just that they have a job, it is that it doesn't pay them well or it ships their job to China.
Me: Do you know why they ship there jobs over to China?
Lib: Because it's easier for them and they can make more money yes, that's all they care about.
Me: Alright now, i have noticed you have avoided the topic of Wal-Mart's prices.
Lib: Well they are irrelevant, lots of places have cheap prices-
Me: Have you been to a place, other than dollar stores or good will stores, where there are cheaper prices?
Lib: Well, not really but that-
Me: Is exactly where your argument starts to fall apart. Wal-Mart sends some one over to China, where oh by the way they can maybe be paid, $40.00 an hour instead of $10.00 here, and they then, by saving that money, are able to give out lower prices. They then open up in poorer neighborhoods and offer cheap goods to poorer people. Notice a lot of black people shop at Wal-Marts. Why do you suppose that is?
Lib: 'Cuz it's cheaper but-
Me: And if we make them keep jobs here, they won't save as much, and then they will lay off more people, and raise costs, because it is more expensive to operate here so they need more money to stay in business and give people jobs. And then to make money they raise costs which how did you put it, oh yeah exploits the poor who cannot afford the higher prices which is why they shop at Wal-Mart to begin with.
Lib: But Wal-Mart should still increase its wages.
Me: Alright my friend let me read you this post from the blog 'Cafe Hayek' is is blogged by an Econ professor at George Mason University:
"Shopping at Wal-Mart yesterday, I asked the cashier if she liked her job. Yes, she said, smiling. How long had she been at Wal-Mart? Three months. Where had she worked before? Safeway, the grocery store. Why did she come to Wal-Mart? The pay was better. Really, I asked? How, yes. How were the benefits at Wal-Mart compared to Safeway? Not as good. But she needed the money, she told me. She had a young daughter."
Hmmm. She moved to Wal-Mart because, what was that? "The pay was better."
Case closed. This has been another point and counter point, debate with a dimwit. The key is to tell them what they are saying. Often times it doesn't make sense, but they think it does, so just repeat it to them and they will process it and then back track and run for the hills. Oh and sarcasm works even better.
Birthday Wish
Culvers Birthday Shout Out, To; Glenn Beck. Happy Birthday Glenn! Keep doing what you do and keep fighting every day and night, on the air waves and on the tv.
Paul Ryan's Health Care Reform
1. Changing the Tax Treatment of Health Coverage
Current tax treatment of health insurance gives preference to employer-based coverage by making benefits tax free to the employee and the employer alike. Obviously, this tax policy only benefits those who receive coverage through their employer. It benefits those who also have the biggest benefit packages, usually, but not always, the wealthy. Ryan’s “Roadmap”replaces this inequitable system through creating a system of refundable tax credits of $2,300 for individuals and $5,700 for families for the purchase of health coverage. As Heritage experts have pointed out this will transform the market to respond to patients’ needs, allow portability of insurance between jobs, and further the goal of universal access.
Replacing the tax exclusion with a health care tax credit would not only help the middle class buy insurance and extend coverage to the uninsured; it would also set in place powerful incentives to reduce the rapid growth in health care expenditures…individuals and families will have the ability to choose the health plan they want, own it, and take it with them from job to job. This tax credit would also have the added benefit of allowing individuals and families to decide how much of their compensation comes to them in the form of health insurance
2. Promoting State- Based Reform and Exchanges
The Ryan “Roadmap” would create a Federal-State partnership to help states that wanted to do so create State Health Insurance Exchanges, featuring high-risk pools combined with guaranteed access to care with affordable premiums. A state health insurance exchange can be designed many different ways. The key question is what is the objective of such an exchange. For consumers who want to own and control their health insurance, and take it with them from job to job, a properly designed state exchange, as Heritage’s Robert Moffit argues, can make it easy for employees , especially those in small businesses to compare and buy affordable health plans. It can unleash the free market forces of choice and competition. An exchange designed to restrict health options, as is now being promoted by the Left, is just another regulatory roadblock to personal freedom.
3. Allow Interstate Purchasing of Health Coverage
Congressman Ryan’s proposal would also allow individuals to use their refundable tax credits towards the purchase of health insurance policies in any state. As Moffit explains, interstate competition would lead to broader and more intense competition, greater personal choice and more affordable coverage, and would secure value for consumers’ dollars.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office evaluated Congressman Ryan’s Roadmap favorably, finding that “[The health insurance tax credit] could impose significant downward pressure on… the growth of overall spending on health care.” The Roadmap would also reform Medicare, putting it on more solid fiscal ground and molding it into a more consumer-driven system.
Even the President has kind words to say about the Rep. Ryan’s Roadmap, calling it a “detailed” and “legitimate” plan to tackle our fiscal crisis.
This to me is so much better than Obamacare. This, i mean this is just amazing. This i believe is the most comprehensive, more brilliant attempt to tackle health care ever in this country.
Current tax treatment of health insurance gives preference to employer-based coverage by making benefits tax free to the employee and the employer alike. Obviously, this tax policy only benefits those who receive coverage through their employer. It benefits those who also have the biggest benefit packages, usually, but not always, the wealthy. Ryan’s “Roadmap”replaces this inequitable system through creating a system of refundable tax credits of $2,300 for individuals and $5,700 for families for the purchase of health coverage. As Heritage experts have pointed out this will transform the market to respond to patients’ needs, allow portability of insurance between jobs, and further the goal of universal access.
Replacing the tax exclusion with a health care tax credit would not only help the middle class buy insurance and extend coverage to the uninsured; it would also set in place powerful incentives to reduce the rapid growth in health care expenditures…individuals and families will have the ability to choose the health plan they want, own it, and take it with them from job to job. This tax credit would also have the added benefit of allowing individuals and families to decide how much of their compensation comes to them in the form of health insurance
2. Promoting State- Based Reform and Exchanges
The Ryan “Roadmap” would create a Federal-State partnership to help states that wanted to do so create State Health Insurance Exchanges, featuring high-risk pools combined with guaranteed access to care with affordable premiums. A state health insurance exchange can be designed many different ways. The key question is what is the objective of such an exchange. For consumers who want to own and control their health insurance, and take it with them from job to job, a properly designed state exchange, as Heritage’s Robert Moffit argues, can make it easy for employees , especially those in small businesses to compare and buy affordable health plans. It can unleash the free market forces of choice and competition. An exchange designed to restrict health options, as is now being promoted by the Left, is just another regulatory roadblock to personal freedom.
3. Allow Interstate Purchasing of Health Coverage
Congressman Ryan’s proposal would also allow individuals to use their refundable tax credits towards the purchase of health insurance policies in any state. As Moffit explains, interstate competition would lead to broader and more intense competition, greater personal choice and more affordable coverage, and would secure value for consumers’ dollars.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office evaluated Congressman Ryan’s Roadmap favorably, finding that “[The health insurance tax credit] could impose significant downward pressure on… the growth of overall spending on health care.” The Roadmap would also reform Medicare, putting it on more solid fiscal ground and molding it into a more consumer-driven system.
Even the President has kind words to say about the Rep. Ryan’s Roadmap, calling it a “detailed” and “legitimate” plan to tackle our fiscal crisis.
This to me is so much better than Obamacare. This, i mean this is just amazing. This i believe is the most comprehensive, more brilliant attempt to tackle health care ever in this country.
Misunderstanding The Tea Party
The Tea Party movement is a political Andromeda Strain to the media, a baffling outbreak of viral unhappiness which has thus far defied every attempt at diagnosis. This is unsurprising, since the media has little interest in listening to what the Tea Party is actually saying. Instead, they attempt to stuff this remarkable grassroots movement into a variety of scary costumes, so they can be conveniently dismissed.
The most common of these costumes is a straitjacket. The media likes to view the Tea Party as a psychotic break with establishment reality. Writing in the L.A. Times, Gregory Rodriguez calls American distrust of government “neurotic – irrational, defensive, and born of emotional trauma.” He prescribes a dose of past-life regression therapy, until we get back to “our national birth trauma, our violent revolt against our ‘father’, King George III, which gave us our independence in the first place.” Wow, people named George cast really long shadows over history, don’t they?
If the buckles on the straitjacket break, certain elements of the Left are quick to dress the Tea Party in white sheets. The tedious Joe Queenan, working for a Guardian U.K. that evidently couldn’t afford to hire an American writer who has actually seen a Tea Party rally, describes the attendees as “smallish, grassroots, inbred” anti-intellectual pasty-white Nixon voters. He also can’t stress enough how white these abhorrent, pasty-white, “ethnically monochromatic” white crackers are. Oh, and they’re also a small fringe movement that likes to send tiny squads of loudmouths to intimidate rural Idaho congressmen… but they’re also a vast, sinister, potentially violent mob, lurking in the deep red shadows of flyover country, where people have forgotten how to properly appreciate their massive central government.
If you can’t quite buy the image of the Tea Party as a massive Birth of a Nation re-enactment, some liberals would like to conjure marionette strings leading from their awkwardly jerking limbs, up to puppet handles gripped in swollen feline paws. Lee Fang at Think Progress sees the helpless, mindless swarms of protesters as nothing but a Pampered Chef party for Republican “profiteers.” The mainstream press retails the usual smear about anyone who protests high taxes or government spending as either unwitting tools, or paid operatives, of the fat cats who stand to rake in millions from their agenda. (Remember the feeble attempts to paint anyone who disagreed with ObamaCare as henchmen of the insurance industry? Joe Queenan would remind you they were white henchmen of the white-owned insurance industry.)
Of course, no leftist caricature of the Tea Party would be complete without a dunce cap. To paraphrase the exasperated alien villain of Plan 9 From Outer Space, these protesters are stupid, stupid, stupid! They’re slaves of a woman Stephen Colbert assures us is “a f—ing retard.” Kurt Andersen of New York Magazine sees them as irrational hysterics, whipped into a frenzy by talk-radio hosts, threatening to unleash mere anarchy upon the nation by planting themselves ankle-deep in the blood-dimmed tide of mindless intransigence. They’re too dense to realize the establishment they oppose is an eternal institution, their lives mere grains of sand against its trillion-dollar fortifications.
The Tea Party movement is not crazy, hateful, or stupid. Their rallies are disarmingly cheerful affairs, which most certainly do include women and minorities. The movement is still in the process of coalescing, and seeks inspiration and representation, rather than leadership. They know their country is rocketing down the wrong path, and while the current President has a heavy hand on the throttle, the course was set long before he entered politics.
If you seek madness, look for it in the President’s delusional State of the Union speech, or the people who indulge his belief that another three or four trillion piled onto a $14 trillion national debt will get us at least halfway to utopia. If you want to taste hatred, sample the venom directed at Sarah Palin, the only person currently capable of building a bridge between the energy of the Tea Party, and the established resources of the GOP. If you would like stupidity illustrated, witness the spectacle of the Democrats passing off their oily mass of backroom deals and political payoffs as a rational plan for improving health care.
The lack of a comprehensive solution doesn’t make criticism invalid. The point is that comprehensive solutions are inherently inadequate, compared to the creative power of free markets and private industry. Tea Party stalwarts are entirely rational in refusing to submit themselves as raw materials for the next big adventure in central planning. After several lifetimes of watching an increasingly huge federal government fail at almost everything it tries, while displaying increasingly less enthusiasm for the Constitutional duty of national defense that it actually excels at, the middle class demands the freedom and respect to get busy solving its own problems. They’re understandably tired of watching every story in the evening news twisted into another reason the government needs more money, every market fluctuation offered as proof the private sector has too much freedom, and every change in the weather presented as a omen their standard of living is a mortal wound to the Earth.
Donald Luskin of the Wall Street Journal worries that the Tea Party could veer into destructive populism. Others fear they’ll mutate into a third-party dead end that drains enough strength from the Republicans to ensure a continued plunge into the collectivist abyss. Both are real dangers – there are always predators hiding in the grass roots. I believe the Tea Party is not a populist revolt against Wall Street, but rather a firm indictment of centralized power in general. Big Business brings reduced costs and advanced products to consumers, and American prosperity would be impossible without the financial resources of major banks, from business loans to credit cards. However, when Big Business merges with Big Government, the result always ends up looking more like the latter. The temptation to purchase government power is great, and it has many aggressive salesmen. Risk-taking is an essential component of growth… but there is no such thing as subsidized risk, and no healthy gamble can be made by companies which have gained federal certification as Too Big To Fail.
Here is an essay that i found on the Hot Air blog today:
The Tea Party movement is not simplistic. It’s a revolt against the simplistic, and painfully inaccurate, notion that spending bills solve problems, and legislation is the only real form of action. It’s a rising tide of indignation from people tired of being told they’re ineligible to participate in the national discussion because of their race, class, religious belief, radio listening habits, or choice of cable news network. The idea that tagging a huge movement as “all-white” would serve as a devastating insult is deeply insulting to Americans of every skin color.
The Tea Party movement is young, and it could make a lot of mistakes… but it’s amazing how much it’s accomplished so far, just by clearing its throat. It’s not surprising the Left is trying to dismiss them, instead of answering their questions… but they’ve come too far to be discarded as lunatics, hatemongers, or idiots. They’re not a blank screen where the Left can project its neuroses and obsessions. They reject the narrative of a fading nation that should do the best it can to make amends for centuries of sins before it dies. They have not yet begin to fight, and theirs is the energy of a revolutionary spirit that can’t wait to get back to building a future beyond the limited imagination of their detractors.
The most common of these costumes is a straitjacket. The media likes to view the Tea Party as a psychotic break with establishment reality. Writing in the L.A. Times, Gregory Rodriguez calls American distrust of government “neurotic – irrational, defensive, and born of emotional trauma.” He prescribes a dose of past-life regression therapy, until we get back to “our national birth trauma, our violent revolt against our ‘father’, King George III, which gave us our independence in the first place.” Wow, people named George cast really long shadows over history, don’t they?
If the buckles on the straitjacket break, certain elements of the Left are quick to dress the Tea Party in white sheets. The tedious Joe Queenan, working for a Guardian U.K. that evidently couldn’t afford to hire an American writer who has actually seen a Tea Party rally, describes the attendees as “smallish, grassroots, inbred” anti-intellectual pasty-white Nixon voters. He also can’t stress enough how white these abhorrent, pasty-white, “ethnically monochromatic” white crackers are. Oh, and they’re also a small fringe movement that likes to send tiny squads of loudmouths to intimidate rural Idaho congressmen… but they’re also a vast, sinister, potentially violent mob, lurking in the deep red shadows of flyover country, where people have forgotten how to properly appreciate their massive central government.
If you can’t quite buy the image of the Tea Party as a massive Birth of a Nation re-enactment, some liberals would like to conjure marionette strings leading from their awkwardly jerking limbs, up to puppet handles gripped in swollen feline paws. Lee Fang at Think Progress sees the helpless, mindless swarms of protesters as nothing but a Pampered Chef party for Republican “profiteers.” The mainstream press retails the usual smear about anyone who protests high taxes or government spending as either unwitting tools, or paid operatives, of the fat cats who stand to rake in millions from their agenda. (Remember the feeble attempts to paint anyone who disagreed with ObamaCare as henchmen of the insurance industry? Joe Queenan would remind you they were white henchmen of the white-owned insurance industry.)
Of course, no leftist caricature of the Tea Party would be complete without a dunce cap. To paraphrase the exasperated alien villain of Plan 9 From Outer Space, these protesters are stupid, stupid, stupid! They’re slaves of a woman Stephen Colbert assures us is “a f—ing retard.” Kurt Andersen of New York Magazine sees them as irrational hysterics, whipped into a frenzy by talk-radio hosts, threatening to unleash mere anarchy upon the nation by planting themselves ankle-deep in the blood-dimmed tide of mindless intransigence. They’re too dense to realize the establishment they oppose is an eternal institution, their lives mere grains of sand against its trillion-dollar fortifications.
The Tea Party movement is not crazy, hateful, or stupid. Their rallies are disarmingly cheerful affairs, which most certainly do include women and minorities. The movement is still in the process of coalescing, and seeks inspiration and representation, rather than leadership. They know their country is rocketing down the wrong path, and while the current President has a heavy hand on the throttle, the course was set long before he entered politics.
If you seek madness, look for it in the President’s delusional State of the Union speech, or the people who indulge his belief that another three or four trillion piled onto a $14 trillion national debt will get us at least halfway to utopia. If you want to taste hatred, sample the venom directed at Sarah Palin, the only person currently capable of building a bridge between the energy of the Tea Party, and the established resources of the GOP. If you would like stupidity illustrated, witness the spectacle of the Democrats passing off their oily mass of backroom deals and political payoffs as a rational plan for improving health care.
The lack of a comprehensive solution doesn’t make criticism invalid. The point is that comprehensive solutions are inherently inadequate, compared to the creative power of free markets and private industry. Tea Party stalwarts are entirely rational in refusing to submit themselves as raw materials for the next big adventure in central planning. After several lifetimes of watching an increasingly huge federal government fail at almost everything it tries, while displaying increasingly less enthusiasm for the Constitutional duty of national defense that it actually excels at, the middle class demands the freedom and respect to get busy solving its own problems. They’re understandably tired of watching every story in the evening news twisted into another reason the government needs more money, every market fluctuation offered as proof the private sector has too much freedom, and every change in the weather presented as a omen their standard of living is a mortal wound to the Earth.
Donald Luskin of the Wall Street Journal worries that the Tea Party could veer into destructive populism. Others fear they’ll mutate into a third-party dead end that drains enough strength from the Republicans to ensure a continued plunge into the collectivist abyss. Both are real dangers – there are always predators hiding in the grass roots. I believe the Tea Party is not a populist revolt against Wall Street, but rather a firm indictment of centralized power in general. Big Business brings reduced costs and advanced products to consumers, and American prosperity would be impossible without the financial resources of major banks, from business loans to credit cards. However, when Big Business merges with Big Government, the result always ends up looking more like the latter. The temptation to purchase government power is great, and it has many aggressive salesmen. Risk-taking is an essential component of growth… but there is no such thing as subsidized risk, and no healthy gamble can be made by companies which have gained federal certification as Too Big To Fail.
Here is an essay that i found on the Hot Air blog today:
The Tea Party movement is not simplistic. It’s a revolt against the simplistic, and painfully inaccurate, notion that spending bills solve problems, and legislation is the only real form of action. It’s a rising tide of indignation from people tired of being told they’re ineligible to participate in the national discussion because of their race, class, religious belief, radio listening habits, or choice of cable news network. The idea that tagging a huge movement as “all-white” would serve as a devastating insult is deeply insulting to Americans of every skin color.
The Tea Party movement is young, and it could make a lot of mistakes… but it’s amazing how much it’s accomplished so far, just by clearing its throat. It’s not surprising the Left is trying to dismiss them, instead of answering their questions… but they’ve come too far to be discarded as lunatics, hatemongers, or idiots. They’re not a blank screen where the Left can project its neuroses and obsessions. They reject the narrative of a fading nation that should do the best it can to make amends for centuries of sins before it dies. They have not yet begin to fight, and theirs is the energy of a revolutionary spirit that can’t wait to get back to building a future beyond the limited imagination of their detractors.
09 February 2010
Rubio Draws Big Endorsement
Yesterday Indiana's Mike Pence (GOP) endorsed candidate Marco Rubio who is running for the US senate in Florida.
Here are Pence's words:
"I am proud to endorse Marco Rubio for the United States Senate. Marco Rubio's faith in free markets, limited government and traditional moral values make him the right choice for Republicans in this race. At a time when the American people long for leaders of principle, Marco Rubio will be a courageous check and balance on the current Washington establishment.
“With Washington spending money we don't have and empowering the government at the expense of individual freedom, we need more leaders like Marco Rubio who are willing to take a stand for the common sense and common values of the American people."
So now Rubio, who is sure to win, has two major endorsements within the US senate, Mike Pence and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Oh and Culver's Conservative
Here are Pence's words:
"I am proud to endorse Marco Rubio for the United States Senate. Marco Rubio's faith in free markets, limited government and traditional moral values make him the right choice for Republicans in this race. At a time when the American people long for leaders of principle, Marco Rubio will be a courageous check and balance on the current Washington establishment.
“With Washington spending money we don't have and empowering the government at the expense of individual freedom, we need more leaders like Marco Rubio who are willing to take a stand for the common sense and common values of the American people."
So now Rubio, who is sure to win, has two major endorsements within the US senate, Mike Pence and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Oh and Culver's Conservative
Pennsylvainia
With the recent death of Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) Pennsylvania will hold a special election this spring. Now the Dems have not had much success with these midterm and special elections for far. There was Virginia and New Jersey who both elected Republican governors, and quite recently the Massachusetts special election to replace the late Ted Kennedy's seat, that, also went to a Republican.
Democrats now face another heated race as Murtha while in office held around a 40% approval rating. So this now opens up many opportunities for the GOP to take another seat in the house and thus add to their roll tide of new Republicans.
These special election often show when a party is on the ropes. The democrats must now be horrified of the thought of losing other seat to the GOP.
2009-2010 Scoreboard:
GOP- 3 Dems-1
Democrats now face another heated race as Murtha while in office held around a 40% approval rating. So this now opens up many opportunities for the GOP to take another seat in the house and thus add to their roll tide of new Republicans.
These special election often show when a party is on the ropes. The democrats must now be horrified of the thought of losing other seat to the GOP.
2009-2010 Scoreboard:
GOP- 3 Dems-1
08 February 2010
Your Tax Dollars Hard At Work
Last night you may have noticed there was an ad for the 2010 US Census.
Now what you may not have noticed is that the ad cost YOU, 2.5 million dollars.
For 2.5 million bucks, tell me, is this even a good ad? This is just government as usual, they can't even make a good commercial.
Now what you may not have noticed is that the ad cost YOU, 2.5 million dollars.
For 2.5 million bucks, tell me, is this even a good ad? This is just government as usual, they can't even make a good commercial.
Senate Bill May Violate The, First Amendment?
Here is what the Cato Institute says about the Senate bill and how it could violate of all things, the first amendment.
Avery points to a troubling provision of the Senate-passed health care bill that Democrats are trying to get through the House:
In a section creating a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to conduct comparative-effectiveness research, the bill allows the withholding of funding to any institution where a researcher publishes findings not “within the bounds of and entirely consistent with the evidence,” a vague authorization that creates a tremendous tool that can be used to ensure self-censorship and conformity with bureaucratic preferences….As AcademyHealth notes, “Such language to restrict scientific freedom is unprecedented and likely unconstitutional.”
He warns that government bureaucrats aren’t likely to let that power go unused.
In July 2007, AcademyHealth, a professional association of health services and health policy researchers, published results of a study of sponsor restrictions on the publication of research results. Surprisingly, the results revealed that more than three times as many researchers had experienced problems with government funders related to prior review, editing, approval, and dissemination of research results. In addition, a higher percentage of respondents had turned down government sponsorship opportunities due to restrictions than had done the same with industrial funding. Much of the problem was linked to an “increasing government custom and culture of controlling the flow of even non-classified information.”
Avery points to a troubling provision of the Senate-passed health care bill that Democrats are trying to get through the House:
In a section creating a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to conduct comparative-effectiveness research, the bill allows the withholding of funding to any institution where a researcher publishes findings not “within the bounds of and entirely consistent with the evidence,” a vague authorization that creates a tremendous tool that can be used to ensure self-censorship and conformity with bureaucratic preferences….As AcademyHealth notes, “Such language to restrict scientific freedom is unprecedented and likely unconstitutional.”
He warns that government bureaucrats aren’t likely to let that power go unused.
In July 2007, AcademyHealth, a professional association of health services and health policy researchers, published results of a study of sponsor restrictions on the publication of research results. Surprisingly, the results revealed that more than three times as many researchers had experienced problems with government funders related to prior review, editing, approval, and dissemination of research results. In addition, a higher percentage of respondents had turned down government sponsorship opportunities due to restrictions than had done the same with industrial funding. Much of the problem was linked to an “increasing government custom and culture of controlling the flow of even non-classified information.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
