Every legitimate poll,
every recent election,
town hall meetings and,
the mere existence and growth of the Tea Party,
all give a CLEAR AND RESOUNDING NO
TO HAVING OBAMACARE CRAMMED DOWN OUR THROATS.
However, Obama, Pelosi and others seem to be deaf or such staunch ideologues that the messages don't matter.
The Democrats will pay a huge price in November if they continue to:
-pander to the special interest lobbyists who wrote the ObamaCare bills
-pander to the Far Left who want government run health care
-no matter high high the cost or
-how degraded the quality
-as along as it is equal for everyone.
If Obama, Pelosi and the Leftist Democrats were truly interested in separately needed health care reform they would :
-scrap ObamaCare
-work with Republicans on simple solutions
- like removing barriers to buying insurance across state lines,
-tort reform,
-high penalties for insurance companies that drop customers or refuse legitimate claims,
-create private high risk pools,
-create small business pools,
-modify tax laws to benefit individuals buying insurance
-increase limits on tax-free Health Savings Accounts
and more,
that leave health care in the private sector but make needed improvements.
BUT, WE ALL KNOW BY NOW THAT THE OBAMA-PELSOI-REID AGENDA IS TO:
-FIRST TAKE CONTROL,
-MAKE PEOPLE MORE DEPENDENT ON GOVERNMENT BECAUSE THE ELITISTS THINK PEOPLE ARE TOO STUPID TO TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES,
-INCREASE THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT,
-PAY OFF SPECIAL INTERESTS LIKE THE UNIONS, AARP, TRIAL LAWYERS
-CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR HUGE PORK SPENDING IN RETURN FOR POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND VOTES AND
-FIND VEHICLES TO INCREASE TAXES DIRECTLY OR SNEAKILY THROUGH VARIOUS SO-CALLED "FEES' ASSOCIATED WITH INSURANCE AND THE PROVIDERS OF CARE.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
It's Not Just a Peasant Revolution
It's NOT JUST a "PEASANT REVOLUTION" that we are seeing with
New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts.
It's the majority of Independents, traditional Republicans, Conservatives, some moderate Democrats, the new Tea Party,
all who have HAD ENOUGH AFTER ONE YEAR.
IN NOVEMBER 2010, WE NEED TO VOTE OUT EVERY INCUMBENT OF EITHER PARTY WHO:
-voted for the first Stimulus/jobs (actually non-jobs pork) bill
-voted for Cap and Trade
-voted for ObamaCare
-supported Cash for Clunkers
-supported the bailouts of GM, Chrysler, AIG and most of the banks
-supports closing GITMO
-supports civilian trials for Islamic Terrorists
-opposes tort reform in health industry
-supports card check for unions
-opposes closing borders to illegal aliens
-opposes buying health insurance across state lines
-accepts "pork" for their district or state
-opposes open trade
-opposes better regulation of Fannie and Freddie
-supports another wasteful Jobs/Stimulus bill (more pork)
-supports more hiring in the public sector
-supports voting rights for illegal aliens
-opposes some long term plan for Social Security and Medicare change
THEN IN 2012, WE CAN DUMP OBAMA ALONG WITH Holder, Geithner, Napolitano Emanuel, Bernanke and the rest of the incompetents, cheats, career public executives, academics with no common sense and lobbyists running the government under Obama.
New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts.
It's the majority of Independents, traditional Republicans, Conservatives, some moderate Democrats, the new Tea Party,
all who have HAD ENOUGH AFTER ONE YEAR.
IN NOVEMBER 2010, WE NEED TO VOTE OUT EVERY INCUMBENT OF EITHER PARTY WHO:
-voted for the first Stimulus/jobs (actually non-jobs pork) bill
-voted for Cap and Trade
-voted for ObamaCare
-supported Cash for Clunkers
-supported the bailouts of GM, Chrysler, AIG and most of the banks
-supports closing GITMO
-supports civilian trials for Islamic Terrorists
-opposes tort reform in health industry
-supports card check for unions
-opposes closing borders to illegal aliens
-opposes buying health insurance across state lines
-accepts "pork" for their district or state
-opposes open trade
-opposes better regulation of Fannie and Freddie
-supports another wasteful Jobs/Stimulus bill (more pork)
-supports more hiring in the public sector
-supports voting rights for illegal aliens
-opposes some long term plan for Social Security and Medicare change
THEN IN 2012, WE CAN DUMP OBAMA ALONG WITH Holder, Geithner, Napolitano Emanuel, Bernanke and the rest of the incompetents, cheats, career public executives, academics with no common sense and lobbyists running the government under Obama.
Entitlements Are Driving the U.S. to Financial Disaster
MEDICARE , SOCIAL SECURITY and many other entitlment programs ARE A HUGE PART OF WHY THE COUNTRY IS GOING BROKE.
This system is unsustainable. People receiving benefits are getting more than they put in, and the government did not save or invest their contributions to grow the pot of money, but rather greedily and irresponsibly spent the funds on other "programs".
QUESTION:
-Exactly who is paying for the Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits being paid out? Is it some mystical "free" phenomenon?
ANSWER:
-Borrowed money accruing as unsustainable debt to China and others
-High taxes, such as the highest corporate tax rate in industrialized nations
-Income, social security and Medicare taxes paid by those not yet in the plans and who will not have their contributions waiting for them when needed; in a snowballing deficit.
People may be happy with Medicare and think they are getting something for nothing but it's a fool's dream. There is no such thing as "free benefits".
The national debt, annual deficit budgets, taxes and broken health care system attest to the "no free lunch".
The fix is certainly not to expand the broken system as ObamaCare would do.
This system is unsustainable. People receiving benefits are getting more than they put in, and the government did not save or invest their contributions to grow the pot of money, but rather greedily and irresponsibly spent the funds on other "programs".
QUESTION:
-Exactly who is paying for the Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits being paid out? Is it some mystical "free" phenomenon?
ANSWER:
-Borrowed money accruing as unsustainable debt to China and others
-High taxes, such as the highest corporate tax rate in industrialized nations
-Income, social security and Medicare taxes paid by those not yet in the plans and who will not have their contributions waiting for them when needed; in a snowballing deficit.
People may be happy with Medicare and think they are getting something for nothing but it's a fool's dream. There is no such thing as "free benefits".
The national debt, annual deficit budgets, taxes and broken health care system attest to the "no free lunch".
The fix is certainly not to expand the broken system as ObamaCare would do.
How the U.S. Ranks in Health Care
The TRUTH about the World Health Organization (WHO) ranking of United States as 37th is a decade old, greatly misleading and often quoted incorrectly to make a political statement. Here are some facts.
The WHO ranking is NOT JUST FOR THE QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE, but consists of five factors, arbitrarily weighted, where only one factor is strictly for health care, one is a mixture and health care and some subjective factors and three are for WHO criteria of "fairness" which favor socialized health care countries.
The "Health Level" is weighted only 25% of the total score and is a measure of life expectancy which is the closest criterion to health care quality. If you remove homicide rate and accident death rate, which are social issues, then the United States has a longer life expectancy than any other country.
A second factor, "Responsiveness", is weighted only 12.5% and measures factors such as choice of doctors and speed of service which are relevant to quality of care, but also contains some other qualitative factors not related to quality of health care.
The other three factors account for 62.5% of the total score and reward systems where everyone gets the same level of care no matter how bad it is and where everyone pays the same percentage of income for health care no matter how much they earn. A country that has uniformly poor care where the government runs the system and taxes everyone on their ability to pay will rank higher than a country that has excellent care for most citizens but only medium care for some citizens and which has a free market for patients and providers.
The U.S. has the highest quality of health care, is the most advanced technologically and attracts thousands of foreigners who can afford to come here with medical problems; they don't go to the other 36 nations with higher WHO rankings.
All those who believe the WHO rankings ought to travel to one of the first 36 countries when they have a serious illness.
The WHO ranking is NOT JUST FOR THE QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE, but consists of five factors, arbitrarily weighted, where only one factor is strictly for health care, one is a mixture and health care and some subjective factors and three are for WHO criteria of "fairness" which favor socialized health care countries.
The "Health Level" is weighted only 25% of the total score and is a measure of life expectancy which is the closest criterion to health care quality. If you remove homicide rate and accident death rate, which are social issues, then the United States has a longer life expectancy than any other country.
A second factor, "Responsiveness", is weighted only 12.5% and measures factors such as choice of doctors and speed of service which are relevant to quality of care, but also contains some other qualitative factors not related to quality of health care.
The other three factors account for 62.5% of the total score and reward systems where everyone gets the same level of care no matter how bad it is and where everyone pays the same percentage of income for health care no matter how much they earn. A country that has uniformly poor care where the government runs the system and taxes everyone on their ability to pay will rank higher than a country that has excellent care for most citizens but only medium care for some citizens and which has a free market for patients and providers.
The U.S. has the highest quality of health care, is the most advanced technologically and attracts thousands of foreigners who can afford to come here with medical problems; they don't go to the other 36 nations with higher WHO rankings.
All those who believe the WHO rankings ought to travel to one of the first 36 countries when they have a serious illness.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Faulty 2011 Budget Plan
1. The 2011 fiscal year budget has 5 items that are acknowledged as "frozen" (national security, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and net interest on debt) for a total of $2.6 trillion. Projected revenue with numerous tax increases on the "wealthy and "fees" (which are taxes) on certain industries and products, is $2.6 trillion; not all of the increase and fees will actually get through Congress.This leaves unsupported all non-security discretionary spending and other mandated programs at a minimum deficit of $1.2 trillion but more likely $1.6 trillion.The current 2010 fiscal budget is approximately in the same shape.
2. Obama's plan to cut a small fraction of the $500 billion non-discretionary spending next year is a joke compared to the size of the problem.
3. The revenue side must be increased and this can only be done by creating jobs and wealth in the PRIVATE sector.
4. Proposals for further taxing the "rich", taxing gains and dividends , other hidden "fees" (actually taxes by another name which will fall on everyone) and stifling growth by further taxing of corporations with overseas operations(when the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate of 30 top industrialized nations) will decrease investment, decrease exports and cost jobs.
5. Now, how is more government spending for public sector jobs or more mandated entitlements going to help?
6. It will certainly make Washington more powerful and give politicians a control over a larger fraction of the GDP and thus over votes, but it will not help grow the GDP or revenues topay for existing programs.
2. Obama's plan to cut a small fraction of the $500 billion non-discretionary spending next year is a joke compared to the size of the problem.
3. The revenue side must be increased and this can only be done by creating jobs and wealth in the PRIVATE sector.
4. Proposals for further taxing the "rich", taxing gains and dividends , other hidden "fees" (actually taxes by another name which will fall on everyone) and stifling growth by further taxing of corporations with overseas operations(when the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate of 30 top industrialized nations) will decrease investment, decrease exports and cost jobs.
5. Now, how is more government spending for public sector jobs or more mandated entitlements going to help?
6. It will certainly make Washington more powerful and give politicians a control over a larger fraction of the GDP and thus over votes, but it will not help grow the GDP or revenues topay for existing programs.
Spending The Way to Recovery -It Didn't Work For FDR in the 1930s
The economy was a disaster under Hoover and FDR, it remained a disaster for 10 long years because FDR tried socialist economic fixes, the same things that Obama is doing. Unemployment was 16.3% in 1931 and still 17.2% in 1939. It only got much better with WW2 when America was forced into investing in factories and wartime provided jobs. War is not the desirable answer but the lesson is that encouraging investment in production rather than phony government make-work jobs is the answer.
So, tax RATE cuts on corporate, capital gains, dividends and top end income are what will stimulate the economy.
Things were also worse under Carter than now, not because he was a socialist like FDR but because he was incompetent in every aspect of his presidency. They only got better when Reagan did just the opposite of what Obama is doing; that is, tax rate cuts.
Japan in the 1990s was in a decadelong recession and still hasn't fully recovered because they tried for ten years to government spend their way out of a recession. It didn't work.
Evidently, these lessons are too complicated for Obama and his administration.
FDR was a "spread-the-wealth-around" kind of guy; BO is following FDR's examples such as FDR's government created make-work jobs, government support of unionization, government regulation of many industries, inhibiting free-trade, The result for the FDR years prior to WW2: a median unemployment of over 17% for all of FDR's years up to WW2, because all of this socialism, being "fair", did nothing to stimulate entrepenuership, investment in industry, real job growth.
So, tax RATE cuts on corporate, capital gains, dividends and top end income are what will stimulate the economy.
Things were also worse under Carter than now, not because he was a socialist like FDR but because he was incompetent in every aspect of his presidency. They only got better when Reagan did just the opposite of what Obama is doing; that is, tax rate cuts.
Japan in the 1990s was in a decadelong recession and still hasn't fully recovered because they tried for ten years to government spend their way out of a recession. It didn't work.
Evidently, these lessons are too complicated for Obama and his administration.
FDR was a "spread-the-wealth-around" kind of guy; BO is following FDR's examples such as FDR's government created make-work jobs, government support of unionization, government regulation of many industries, inhibiting free-trade, The result for the FDR years prior to WW2: a median unemployment of over 17% for all of FDR's years up to WW2, because all of this socialism, being "fair", did nothing to stimulate entrepenuership, investment in industry, real job growth.
Obama Scolds the Supreme Court, But Obama Was Wrong
In his State of the Union speech, Obama scolded the Supreme Court for its decision to allow domestic corporations, and unions, to contribute to campaigns from general funds:
FIRST, THE SUPREME COURT DOES OT EXIST TO RUBBER STAMP THE WISHES OF THE ELECTED BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.
Any high school student should know about the independence of the three branches of government.
The Supreme Court is supposed to decide if cases brought before it are consistent with the Constitution and are they are guided by the wisdom of prior Court decisions, but they are not their to simply rubber stamp prior court decisions or the wishes of the President.
SECOND, OBAMA WAS ABSOLUTELY WRONG IN HIS STATEMENT THAT FOREIGN CORPORATIONS CAN NOW DONATE MONEY TO CAMPAIGNS.
One expert after another has commented that this is still specifically and clearly forbidden.
JUSTICE ALITO WAS CORRECT IN HIS GUT REACTION MOUTHING THAT WHAT OBAMA SAID WAS "DEFINITELY NOT TRUE".
It is clear that Obama and whomever gave him that line in his speech did not read or understand the Court's decision.
But, we all know that the Constitution is just an annoyance to Obama.
In the past, Obama has specifically said and wrote that he doesn't like the Constitution because it places too many restrictions on what the federal government.
NO KIDDING!
This was exactly what the founders intended! They were leery of a central (federal government with too much power and they intended to distribute the power to the States and to keep the federal government in check by distributing power to Congress and the Supreme Court.
FIRST, THE SUPREME COURT DOES OT EXIST TO RUBBER STAMP THE WISHES OF THE ELECTED BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.
Any high school student should know about the independence of the three branches of government.
The Supreme Court is supposed to decide if cases brought before it are consistent with the Constitution and are they are guided by the wisdom of prior Court decisions, but they are not their to simply rubber stamp prior court decisions or the wishes of the President.
SECOND, OBAMA WAS ABSOLUTELY WRONG IN HIS STATEMENT THAT FOREIGN CORPORATIONS CAN NOW DONATE MONEY TO CAMPAIGNS.
One expert after another has commented that this is still specifically and clearly forbidden.
JUSTICE ALITO WAS CORRECT IN HIS GUT REACTION MOUTHING THAT WHAT OBAMA SAID WAS "DEFINITELY NOT TRUE".
It is clear that Obama and whomever gave him that line in his speech did not read or understand the Court's decision.
But, we all know that the Constitution is just an annoyance to Obama.
In the past, Obama has specifically said and wrote that he doesn't like the Constitution because it places too many restrictions on what the federal government.
NO KIDDING!
This was exactly what the founders intended! They were leery of a central (federal government with too much power and they intended to distribute the power to the States and to keep the federal government in check by distributing power to Congress and the Supreme Court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)