1. The Medicare Actuary was asked two simple questions during a hearing- that it will bring down medical costs, and that people can keep their coverage if they like it.
The actuary, Richard Foster said, "I would say false, more so than true" regarding the costs. Regarding whether people can keep their coverage: "not true in all cases."
2. As people have pointed out, the Obama Administration STILL trots out what the CBO scored as cost savings. First of all, they score what is given to them, not what happens in the real world. They are simply given math equations to fill out. In other words, if a program costs $540 Billion and taxes are increased by $760 Billion, there will be a savings. Of course, all experts say these proposed numbers of cost savings are only true if you believe in flying cows.
3. Tax? In 09, Obama promised it was not a tax, rather a fine not to get insurance. Now, they are boxed in a legal corner and are screaming from the rooftops that it is indeed a tax. So did they lie twice, or just didn't get their "facts" straight??
Friday, January 28, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Repealing Obamacare succeeds in House
Probably the best line on repealing Obamacare came from an editorial from the Wall Street Journal:
"Obamacare cannot be fixed at the margins when it is so destructive at its core."
Well said....
"Obamacare cannot be fixed at the margins when it is so destructive at its core."
Well said....
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Liberal doozies for the week
Just in case the mainstream media didn't catch these greatest hits for the week, here are some outrageous comments by liberals this week:
- Our buddy Harry Reid calling China's President a "dictator" while he was visiting.
- House Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee saying the repeal of HC is unconstitutional. Umm, what about forcing us to buy something, I don't see that in the constitution!
- Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying her party would have lost "more seats" if HC reform wasn't passed. Umm, do she not know that over half our population want it repealed in every poll? Or that 2/3 of doctors are against it?
- Liberal meda like David Corn STILL saying the likes of Sarah Palin caused the deranged nutcase in Arizona to go on a shooting spree. Breathtaking!
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Arizona shootings
Several people were shot in a public meeting, with congresswoman Giffords, a Democrat, and a federal judge, who is a Christian conservative. Right after the massacre took place, liberal pundits went on the air proclaiming it was the political right- Palin, Limbaugh, Tea Party are partly responsible because of all of the heated rhetoric. This is just breathtaking that they would take this tack, though not suprising in the least. They do this all the time. When there's a shooting, blame society, blame gun owners, blame Christians, but never ever blame the insane person who carried through these violent acts.
The above is the classic difference between a liberal and conservative mindset... Liberals believe there's always a societal reason behind anyone's violent actions.... Conservatives believe that we should be all held accountable for our actions and not always want to blame other things for ones actions-- it's called personal accountability!
So when Obama says to his political enemies to "get in their face and argue with them", or "if they bring a knife, we will bring a gun", or when the Democrat organization puts out a "target" map of Republicans they want to take down... I can go on forever with these examples.
The fact is, that's what politicians do. It's not a call for actually carrying out these acts; they are metaphors, even when conservatives do them, not just liberals.
And the backlash is under way. This is the reason why the NYT is getting DESTROYED by The Wall Street Journal. This is why MSNBC is getting spanked by Fox News. This is why network coverage is about non-existent. Period, end of sentence!
The above is the classic difference between a liberal and conservative mindset... Liberals believe there's always a societal reason behind anyone's violent actions.... Conservatives believe that we should be all held accountable for our actions and not always want to blame other things for ones actions-- it's called personal accountability!
So when Obama says to his political enemies to "get in their face and argue with them", or "if they bring a knife, we will bring a gun", or when the Democrat organization puts out a "target" map of Republicans they want to take down... I can go on forever with these examples.
The fact is, that's what politicians do. It's not a call for actually carrying out these acts; they are metaphors, even when conservatives do them, not just liberals.
And the backlash is under way. This is the reason why the NYT is getting DESTROYED by The Wall Street Journal. This is why MSNBC is getting spanked by Fox News. This is why network coverage is about non-existent. Period, end of sentence!
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Obamacare unconstitutional
Now that a Federal Judge has ruled that mandating a citizen to buy a product is indeed unconstituional, backers of the Constitution have won a major battle. There are several other lawsuits that have yet to be determined on this issue. Ultimately, this is headed for the Supreme Court. Wouldn't it be something if a President's biggest piece of legislation during his term was ruled unconstitutional? That would be amazing!
And talk about double-speak. During the healthcare fight, Democrats and Obama promised those who didn't buy insurance would be fined, not taxed, is now not true. Since the constitution prohibits the action of fining someone for not buying a good or service, they are now saying it is indeed a tax. If they were so certain it was not a tax last year, how can it all of a sudden be defined as a tax this year?
Change we CANNOT believe in!!
And talk about double-speak. During the healthcare fight, Democrats and Obama promised those who didn't buy insurance would be fined, not taxed, is now not true. Since the constitution prohibits the action of fining someone for not buying a good or service, they are now saying it is indeed a tax. If they were so certain it was not a tax last year, how can it all of a sudden be defined as a tax this year?
Change we CANNOT believe in!!
Repeal Obamacare
Now that the GOP has won in a huge landslide in the House of Representatives, they are fulfilling the promise to the American people if they took control of power again- they are voting next week to repeal Obamacare. Of course, this will not pass the Senate or the President's veto pen. Nonetheless, it sets battle lines for 2012. And the advantage on this is clearly with the GOP. As it stands, there are STILL no polls out there that think Obamacare is good. Moreso, majorities not only are against it, but want it repealed.
And for Democrats to say Republicans are going to starve the "good parts" of it, that's a non-starter. If they only wanted the good things in it (reducing the donut hole, not allowing insurance companies to insure pre-exisiting conditions, etc.) they are making the case for Republicans. In fact, Republicans are in favor of these parts. But there are things that have to be repealed in order to get rid of the bad (mandating us to buy or receive penalty) and adding the good (such as tort reform) into the overall health care reform.
It cannot be repeated enough- Republicans won a huge majority in the House and Governorships, as well as reducing the deficit in the Senate, largely on this issue. And the support AGAINST Obamacare is the only position that has major support from both parties.
I'd also be interested to see those Democrats who voted for Obamacare last year in the Senate, to see where they stand now. These would be the vulnerable Democrats who are up for re-election in 2012 and represent states that clearly are against Obamacare. This would include Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana, Jim Webb of Virginia, and so on. I'd venture to guess that if this group decides to keep their support for Obamacare this year, they will indeed be an extinct species when it comes time for re-election. So much so that they will be wiped off the map in the way many Democrats were this past election (see Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas).
And for Democrats to say Republicans are going to starve the "good parts" of it, that's a non-starter. If they only wanted the good things in it (reducing the donut hole, not allowing insurance companies to insure pre-exisiting conditions, etc.) they are making the case for Republicans. In fact, Republicans are in favor of these parts. But there are things that have to be repealed in order to get rid of the bad (mandating us to buy or receive penalty) and adding the good (such as tort reform) into the overall health care reform.
It cannot be repeated enough- Republicans won a huge majority in the House and Governorships, as well as reducing the deficit in the Senate, largely on this issue. And the support AGAINST Obamacare is the only position that has major support from both parties.
I'd also be interested to see those Democrats who voted for Obamacare last year in the Senate, to see where they stand now. These would be the vulnerable Democrats who are up for re-election in 2012 and represent states that clearly are against Obamacare. This would include Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana, Jim Webb of Virginia, and so on. I'd venture to guess that if this group decides to keep their support for Obamacare this year, they will indeed be an extinct species when it comes time for re-election. So much so that they will be wiped off the map in the way many Democrats were this past election (see Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas).
Raising the debt ceiling
The White House Economic team is saying that it's completely irresponsible and "dangerous" for Republicans to stall or vote no on raising the debt ceiling. Would this be regarded as hypocritical if their boss did exactly the same thing in 2006?
As senator, Obama voted no on raising the debt ceiling because it was a Republican in the White House. Was it reckless then? In addition, in 07 and again in 08, Obama was a non-voter for this same thing. So in these cases, was it not important enough to vote on these things?
Once again, Obama being hypocritical. And his policies/actions/statements fly in the face of "change we can believe in". As all non kool-aid drinkers now know, this was all just words..... no actions to support change he promised.
As senator, Obama voted no on raising the debt ceiling because it was a Republican in the White House. Was it reckless then? In addition, in 07 and again in 08, Obama was a non-voter for this same thing. So in these cases, was it not important enough to vote on these things?
Once again, Obama being hypocritical. And his policies/actions/statements fly in the face of "change we can believe in". As all non kool-aid drinkers now know, this was all just words..... no actions to support change he promised.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)