-
Obamacare Implodes
May 15, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Obama’s Rising Inequality
May 8, 2013 | 101 comments
-
Downsize the Liberals
May 1, 2013 | 53 comments
-
Fight Back! Privatize the FAA!
April 24, 2013 | 65 comments
-
Fallacies and Charades
April 17, 2013 | 14 comments
The Obama Watch
He’s Playing You
Welcome to another edition of Obama’s Fables.
On June 30 in Racine, Wisconsin, at the kickoff of what has turned into Barack Obama’s Socialism Victory Tour for Democrat candidates this fall, the President enlightened us with the following:
“You remember all the fear-mongering that was going on during the health care debate? All of you were told, you’re going to lose your health care. It’s going to be socialized. The government is going to come in and death panels are going to be set up and — remember that? And now, we’re about three, four months into it, and everybody is looking around and — (laughter). But at the time — at the time it was scary.”
The Obamacare socialized medicine takeover legislation doesn’t even go into effect until 2014, and he is saying now in 2010 just 3 or 4 months after its passage, hey, look around, where are all those scary results they told us about?
What I am wondering, actually, is just how stupid does he think we are? He is thinking that enough of us are too stupid to know that his socialized medicine bill doesn’t go into effect until 2014, and that he can play us for fools with this kind of shameful, manipulative, abusive rhetoric.
Brother Love’s Traveling Salvation Show
The next week, President Obama took his stand-up comedy routine to Las Vegas, where he made an appearance on behalf of the lame duck Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Obama explained, “A lot of people in Washington forget where they came from. Harry remembers every single day.” But after 24 years in Washington, Harry Reid long ago left his Nevada roots behind. He is now an East Coast socialist spear carrier for Barack Obama, dreaming of going down in history as the man who shepherded socialized medicine through the Senate, instead of listening to his Nevada constituents who overwhelmingly opposed the legislation.
As Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid didn’t just vote for the TARP bank bailouts. He led their passage in the Senate. He didn’t just vote for the stimulus. He led its enactment in the Senate. He led the enactment as well of the Obama budgets with a runaway federal spending increase of 25% and federal welfare spending increase of one third in President Obama’s first two years alone. He led enactment of the spending, budgets and deficits that CBO now projects will double the national debt in just four years by 2012 to $11.6 trillion, and quadruple it to $20.3 trillion by 2020, when the federal deficit under current Reid/Obama policies will still be over $1 trillion. CBO also reports that Reid/Obama federal budgeting increased out of control entitlement spending by $2 trillion over the next 10 years even before passage of Obamacare.
And what has Nevada gotten in return? The highest unemployment rate in America, at a depression level 14%, higher even than Michigan, which is suffering a long-term depression under its Harvard-trained Governor Jennifer Granholm. Also the highest rate of home foreclosures in America, and the highest rate of personal bankruptcies.
But President Obama’s focus in Las Vegas was Harry Reid’s opponent in this fall’s elections, Tea Party and free-market advocate Sharron Angle. Offering another chapter for Aesop’s Fables, a collection of fairy tale bedtime stories for children, Obama said regarding Angle, “She wants to phase out and privatize Social Security and Medicare. Phase out and privatize them.”
But Harry Reid and Barack Obama have already done a pretty good job of phasing out and looting Medicare and Social Security themselves. The recently passed Obamacare legislation includes $2.9 trillion in Medicare cuts over the next 20 years, which is how Obama got his claim that the legislation would actually reduce the deficit. That $2.9 trillion comes mostly out of the payments to doctors and hospitals for the medical care they provide to seniors under Medicare.
As Dick Morris has explained so well, those draconian Medicare cuts would cause havoc and chaos in health care for seniors. Doctors, hospitals, surgeons, and specialists providing critical care to the elderly such as surgery for hip and knee replacements, sophisticated diagnostics through MRIs and CT scans, and even treatment for cancer and heart disease will shut down and disappear in much of the country, and others would stop serving Medicare patients. If the government is not going to pay, then seniors are not going to get the health services, treatment, and care they expect. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, now founder of the Center for Health Transformation, writes in his new book To Save America,
“Clearly, you cannot cut Medicare by more than half a trillion dollars [over the first 10 years] and not jeopardize seniors’ access to care. Medicare access is already declining. The Mayo Clinic announced that on January 1, 2010, its Arizona facilities would stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries because the federal government does not pay the clinic enough to even cover its costs. According to Lynn Closway, spokeswoman for Mayo, the clinic lost $840 million in 2008 treating Medicare patients. And that’s before the Democrats’ half a trillion in cuts.”
The remaining Medicare cuts in the Reid Obamacare legislation come out of Medicare Advantage, the option for private insurance coverage under Medicare which close to 25% of America’s seniors, including many in Nevada, had already chosen as a better deal. The government’s own Chief Actuary for Medicare has already estimated that more than 50% of seniors will lose their Medicare Advantage due to the Reid/Obamacare cuts in Medicare, despite President Obama’s repeated insistence that under his Obamacare plan if you like your health insurance you can keep it (playing you again).
Meanwhile, Harry Reid has been in the forefront of the raid on the Social Security trust funds for 24 years now in the U.S. Senate (talk about time for a change). Every year in the Congressional leadership, Harry Reid has led the federal government to take any surplus left in Social Security to spend on other government programs, in return for government IOUs to the so-called trust fund. CBO has just reported that now the surpluses are gone, with Social Security in deficit this year for the first time since President Reagan saved the program in 1983. Social Security is now left with nothing but nearly $3 trillion in federal IOUs, with no cash or any other asset to back them up. That $3 trillion in the Social Security trust funds is yet another debt liability of the American taxpayers, which they will have to pay for again, in addition to their escalating payroll taxes, in order to continue payment of Social Security benefits for the next 25 years, when the supposed trust funds will run out completely.
Maybe the next time President Obama feels the urge to demagogue Social Security and Medicare, he should lie down until it passes.
About the Author
Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (129) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Peter Ferrara
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/14/hes-playing-you
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Shamus| 7.14.10 @ 6:36AM
Obama really is deluded. But so are the people who elected him.
vtwin| 7.14.10 @ 8:54AM
No, you been “deluded” but the Republican party!
“When George W. Bush took office, he inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion”
“The Congressional Budget Office projected a cumulative budget surplus of about $5.6 trillion between 2002 and 2011”
What the F*** happened?
Two inequitable tax cuts for America’s richest individuals and corporations, a 60% surge in government spending, two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and an unfunded give away to the Drug Companies aka Medicare Part D.
“[But] the worst legacy of [Bush’s] eight years is that despite colossal government spending, most Americans are worse off than they were in 2001.“
Between 2002 and 2006, the wealthiest 10% saw a 95% gain in income in fact “the nation’s 15,000 richest families doubled their annual income, from $15 million to over $30 million,” corporate profits increased 68%, while middle class families saw their incomes SHRINK by 1%.
http://www.srwolf.com/reports/.....illion.pdf
vtwin| 7.14.10 @ 8:55AM
Sorry, by the Republican party!
vtwin| 7.14.10 @ 8:59AM
“Fool me once, shame on —-shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.14.10 @ 9:30AM
VTwin
You are truly stuck on stupid. sorry, I just can't fix stupid.
Jeremiah| 7.14.10 @ 9:36AM
Trolltwin, Bush inherited no budget surplus. He inherited a CBO projected surplus that never materialized. It was almost all created by the dotcom bubble, that burst before he took office.
Clinton had the good fortune to sail the ship of state under sunny skies on calm seas. To his credit, he did no harm to the economy and was a master at reconciling his base to reality - seeming to be pulled screaming and kicking into welfare reform and Nafta. He had the additional luck of having the insanity of the dotcom bubble spur growth that his tax policies would otherwise have slowed.
Obama's policies are a direct and sustained assault on prosperity and America's future unlike any president, Republican or Democrat, has ever embarked on. You really come across as rather silly and not terribly bright to continue to argue that we should believe you and Obama about how wonderful everything is rather than believing our own eyes.
vtwin| 7.14.10 @ 9:59AM
“The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's [1999] record surplus of $122.7 billion.” --CNN 9/27/2000
ben| 7.14.10 @ 12:08PM
If Clinton was so fiscally responsible as to create a surplus, why then did our national debt increase from every single Clinton budget?
FY Year-National Debt/Defecit
FY 1994-$4.692749trillion/$281.26 billion
FY 1995-$4.973982 trillion/$281.23 billion
FY 1996-$5.224810 trillion /$250.83 billion
FY1997-$5.413146 trillion /$188.34 billion
FY 1998-$5.526193 trillion /$113.05 billion
FY1999-$5.656270 trillion /$130.08 billion
FY2000-$5.674178 trillion /$17.91 billion
FY 2001-$5.807463 trillion /$133.29 billion
Source: US Treasury
-Because ther was no surplus.
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
Tom| 7.14.10 @ 8:22PM
Well said, Ben. People do not seem to realize that the supposed surpluses were driven entirely through borrowing from the Social Security 'Trust Fund'. The lockbox that is never locked and not a box.
Skineer| 7.14.10 @ 5:04PM
Moped,
You evidently missed the "projected" part of Jeremiah's reply.
In smaller words, IT WAS A GUESS. It didn't materialize for the reasons Jeremiah stated.
What a maroon.
Appleby| 7.14.10 @ 9:19PM
Does September 11, 2001 ring any bells in your limited little mind?
Radegunda| 7.14.10 @ 1:02PM
The best thing that happened to Clinton was that he provoked the election of a Republican Congress, which compelled him (very much against his preferences) to balance the budget and be more centrist in his policies. The economy started improving AFTER the Republicans took Congress---just is it started turning down again in after Dems took Congress in 2007.
The 1994 elections also brought in more Republican governors and Republican-controlled state legislatures, thus creating a better business climate at the state level. Just look at the map of states that businesses are fleeing today.
Dan Hirsch| 7.14.10 @ 9:39AM
vtwin;
Your Harley has obviously given you terminal shaken baby syndrome.
Most Americans might remember the little 9/11 thing that sort of stopped the economy for three months in 2001. Most Americans would have noticed the subsequent 7 years of economic growth that had unemployment below 5%. Most Americans would remember that in 2006 the annual budget deficit was $159B. Most Americans will be stunned to find out that for this year it will be $1.6 TRILLION.
Oh, and this year the Democrat majorities didn't even bother to write, much less debate and pass a budget for the federal government.
So like, why, vtwin, is this Republicans' fault? Why is this the fault of tax cuts? Maybe, it's the fault of four years of unconstrained, unlimited, unconscionable, brain dead fiscal policy at the hands of the Democrat Congress. They do pass the budgets, they do appropriate the funds, they are RESPONSIBLE for it. Whether they act responsibly or not.
The financial fortunes of the earners in this country are made by the private sector and taken away by taxation.
My question to you, vtwin:
Are you an unrepentant communist or a just useful idiot?
Me nolite conculare!
vtwin| 7.14.10 @ 10:11AM
"The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration..." -- wall street journal
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics.....on-record/
Skinner| 7.14.10 @ 5:06PM
Goebbels would be SO proud of you!
WhiteBikerTrash| 7.14.10 @ 9:47AM
VTwin, what is it? Shovel? Evo? Twincam?
Sorry to tell you, but George W. Bush is a Progressive!! A Herbert Hoover for our time. Yet when you complain about his allowing Congress to spent "Progressively" you fail to note that our latest Progressive President has racked up more deficit in his first year than the former created in eight long years. So we can agree Progressive spending is wrong, and must be stopped!! Oh and your statistics? Benjamin Disraeli first said, then was quoted by "Mark Twain" "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.". You really need to look into the numbers, you will discover that the statistics you quote are purposely skewed to make an invalid point! Your lack of logical, Critical thinking shines through in all of your post. you must own a Honda Shadow, and think Evo is old skool. (Yes, misspelled on pourpose) "If you have to ask you can't understand"
vtwin| 7.14.10 @ 11:12AM
“Our latest Progressive President has racked up more deficit in his first year than the former created in eight long years.”
“You really need to look into the numbers,”
National Debt 2000 $5.6 Trillion, 2008 $10 Trillion (before bailouts)
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/.....histo5.htm
Yes, old is kool.
It’s a Knuckle! And, if you have ask bro you aren't WhiteBikerTrash!!!
ben| 7.14.10 @ 12:31PM
Our Nat'l Debt is currently over $13 trillion.
GW added $4.4 trillion in 8 years.
Obama added $3 trillion in 1.5 years.
Obama voted for TARP.
Obama claims to have inherited $1.3 trillion of his $1.6 trillion 2009 defecit from GW.
How does a $400 billion Omnibus bill + $900 billion Stimulus bill add up to only $300 billion.
JimE| 7.14.10 @ 10:37PM
Vtroll, your cut and paste jibberish is tiresome an merely serve to expose you lack of intelligence. Reteat back into obama's anus.
Indiana Alex| 7.14.10 @ 9:28AM
The reason you people keep backing these morons is that you can't think for yourself and have to rely on ACORN faxed talking points.
Come up with an orriganal thought if you are able.
vtwin| 7.14.10 @ 10:50AM
“ACORN,” is that all you got?
RCV| 7.14.10 @ 12:44PM
Alex - I have to laugh - The TAS crowd hasn't come up with an original thought in years. You guys simply read nothing but this recycled right-wing nonsense, and then repeat it to each other. You might spend some time occassionally reading points of views you don't already agree with. You might actually learn something.
Radegunda| 7.14.10 @ 1:04PM
How does the world look from down there in that sand hole that you've got your head in?
Tim*| 7.14.10 @ 1:14PM
Aaaaand , exactly & specifically that would be pseudo intellect plastic elitist LawBoy ?
R Martin| 7.14.10 @ 9:30AM
What a load of rubbish. That $5.6 trillion surplus never existed. It was a projection by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in January 2001 to cover the next decade. It assumed that late-1990s economic growth and the stock-market bubble (which had already peaked) would continue forever and generate record-high tax revenues. It assumed no recessions, no terrorist attacks, no wars, no natural disasters, and that all discretionary spending would fall to 1930s levels. And it underscores how much confidence should be placed in CBO estimates. The projected $5.6 trillion surplus between 2002 and 2011 will more likely be a $6.1 trillion deficit through September 2011. That's a $11.7 trillion swing.
How much of that is related to the Bush tax cuts? The Heritage Foundation has analyzed the swing and reported the following: the $1.7 billion Bush tax cuts accounted for just 14% of the swing. The bulk of the swing resulted from economic and technical revisions (33%), other new spending (32%), net interest on the debt (12%), the 2009 stimulus (6%) and other tax cuts (3%). Specifically, the tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 are responsible for just 4% of the swing. If there were no Bush tax cuts, runaway spending and economic factors would have guaranteed more than $4 trillion in deficits over the decade and kept the budget in deficit every year except 2007.
You leftists always predictably revert to the blame Bush strategy, because you are unable to point to any accomplishments of your own. And you rely heavily on perfidy.
vtwin| 7.14.10 @ 9:43AM
“The Heritage Foundation,” you’re joking right?
David Williams| 7.14.10 @ 10:57AM
Address the analysis, not the source. You know, you seem much more Smart Car than vtwin.
JP| 7.14.10 @ 9:52AM
“When George W. Bush took office, he inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion”
Actually the surplus was already gone. Revenues plunged in the wake of the Dot Com bust. The surplus you speak of occured from 1998-2000, was the result of the 1997 cut in capital gain taxes.
The CBO hadn't a clue what was going on. For, in 1996 they projected $100-$150 billion annual defecits through 2010. Even as late as 1997 they still forecasted defecits. They were as shocked as Clinton was when the budget surpluses arrived. And no where did I read that the CBO forecasted trillion surpluses. Where did you get those numbers? Huff Po? Any decent economist would tell you that the short term surpluses were the result of unexpected high capital gains brought on by the Dot Com excesses. By the time Bush43 was inaugerated, all of these high tech stocks were in free-fall.
Here's another little nugget. The wealthiest 1% of Americans pay nearly 20% of our income taxes. The wealthiest 10% pay over 50%; and the poorist 40% pay nothing (they actually get money back from the government via the EIC and other subsidies which were brought about because of the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts). A family of 5 that earns $65,000 a year gets back on average $4000 from the government thanks to Bush.
vtwin| 7.14.10 @ 11:19AM
" As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers)."
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whor.....ealth.html
“Poorist 40% pay nothing” of course they “pay nothing,” they don’t have any money, that’s what poor means.
Unscrupulous| 7.14.10 @ 5:36PM
vspin,
Why not have 99% pay nothing? They're all poor in comparison to the top 1%. Are you honestly saying 40% of this Country has no money?
ciedrick Arland | 8.11.10 @ 1:39AM
VTwin you have just shown your socialist colors. You are a disgrace to all American motorcycles. You ride a rice burner buddy. Either you are a member of the proletariat who is too ignorant to know what is happening to you.
Or you are a communist flat out. Which is it? Your last bit of stats sounded like you support a marxist approach, of hate the bourgeoisie and use the proletariat as if they were a dictator. This of screams communism. So which is it? Ignorance or a communist.
There is no room for communism in our capitalist Nation. Obama is a communist in our White House. He is using the economic doctrines of a homosexuals, demonic, human viewpoint of how to spend a capitalist nation into socialism with out them knowing it of Keynes. Go buy a real bike.
George True| 7.14.10 @ 9:56AM
Vtroll, stop drinking the bong water! Once again, you are spouting the standard leftist talking points, while not having a clue what you are talking about.
The Bush tax cuts gave a small decrease in taxes to "the rich", gave massive decreases to the middle class, and all but eliminated federal tax for those earning less than $30K per year. For the record, "the rich" got a 3.6% decrease in federal withholding tax, while families earning $46-$70K had their federal withholding cut in half. How exactly, does that represent a tax cut for "the rich"? The leftists got a lot of mileage out of that slogan, but it has always been an outrageous lie from the beginning. Because leftist useful idiots like yourself never do your homework, you just repeat the slogans like good little robots.
vtwin| 7.14.10 @ 10:37AM
" As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers)."
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whor.....ealth.html
George True| 7.14.10 @ 1:55PM
So what??
Skinner| 7.14.10 @ 5:10PM
Moped
If you're gonna keep doing it, so am I.
Goebbels would be SO proud of you!
jmulcahy| 7.14.10 @ 10:11PM
vtwin:
You probably haven't paid Federal income tax in years, but you must be aware that the IRS taxes income not wealth. You are comparing apples and oranges, fiscally speaking.
Here are the facts:
The top 1% of earners pay 39% of Federal Income tax. In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now with a top rate of 355, they pay more than double that share.
The top 25% of earners pay 86% of all income taxes. The top 50% of earners pay 97% of all income taxes. So the bottom 50% of earners have money, pay no Federal taxes and spend it on TV sets, cars,vacations etc.
Nick in Virginia| 7.14.10 @ 10:22AM
9/11 happened. If you can't understand how that impacted our society, go back to your Democratic party talking points papers.
And the phony $128 billion surplus was as a result of the Social Security surplus; there was still a deficit in the operational funds. But now, even SocSec has gone negative.
True, Bush ran big deficits. Under Clinton, the Average Daily Deficit for his 8 years was $500,000,000 per day; under Bush for 8 years, it was tripled to $1,600,000,000. Under 0bama, it has TRIPLED AGAIN, to $4,900,000,000 PER DAY, with all projections showing it will stay at about that rate until 0bama is out of office. Even the Dems are saying it will be at least 5 years before the annual deficit drops below $1,000,000,000,000 (One Trillion), and by then, our national debt will be about $20,000,000,000,000 (Twenty Trillion).
And like most Democrats, you just don't understand the issue of cutting tax RATES (not tax AMOUNTS). Under Bush, after the rate cuts, the US set a record for the highest tax revenues ever. You libs can't understand a dynamic market system. You think raising tax RATES also raises tax REVENUE, and it may, for the short term. But what you don't factor into the equation is how raising RATES has a negative effect on the business climate, and in the long run things get WORSE instead of BETTER.
And one more thing about Bush's spending: his two biggest plans, No Child Left Behind and the Prescription Drug Benefit, were criticized by conservatives because they spent too much money. They were also criticized by liberals because they DIDN'T SPEND ENOUGH MONEY. Now that the libs are in charge, as I showed, 0bama is spending enough money to make Bush look like a piker.
vtwin| 7.14.10 @ 10:40AM
“9/11 happened. If you can't understand how that impacted our society, go back to your Democratic party talking points papers.”
The greatest financial meltdown since the Great Depression happened. If you can't understand how that impacted our society, go back to your Republican Party talking points papers.
Clinton nee Publius | 7.14.10 @ 11:25AM
I see now. Your solution is to take the Bush era deficits and use them to demonstrate that budget deficits by Obama that are 5 times as large as the deficit in 2006 - the last year of the Republican Congress - is somehow good policy.
Clever...
That will win over the people...
Let's see, we'll quadruple spending and use the proven method of "spending our way to prosperity" and "borrowing our way out of debt" liberal policies to create liberal prosperity.
There's only one problem with the whole shebang: it has never worked. Not once in 100 years of liberal-progressive policies. None of them have ever met the promises of their proponents.
We say "NO" because you haven't had a single one work yet. When you get one to work you come back and talk to us then.
In the meantime...
Don't tell us that adding 33 million people to the federal entitlement program cost load is going to reduce the costs of the program because it cannot. Sorry comrade vtwin - the laws of mathematics and Rational Choice Theory apply to even liberal pussbags like you whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.
In the modern era we have had to endure the burden of the liberal-progressive movement that has given us nothing but a huge national debt. While I would be the first to say that Republicans could have had a spine and stood up for what was necessary - as in eradicating liberalism from our society permanently on a compulsory basis - the fact that they allowed you to continue to run the longest and largest criminal conspiracy scheme and modern American history could only have happened by virtue of at least a portion of them being bribed with a portion of the funds the liberal movement has stolen from us.
Yes, stolen.
Folks, the part to remember here is that there is no sustainable policy for economic growth and prosperity in the liberal-progressive movement - there is just them stealing money under color of authority to "redistribute it" (give it to the co-conspirators who put them in office as their share of the spoil). These people are desperate to avoid accountability for being the very thieves and criminals we need to have out of our society once and for all time.
You have to ask yourself some important questions to determine where you heart and your intentions should be.
First, how many so-called liberal-progressive economic policies have met their original goals since inception? The answer is not a single one.
Then, what is the historical outcome of societies ruled by liberal-progressives? The answer is wanton murder. Over 100 million were murdered in the last 100 years to usher in world socialism, true communism and the other "branded" political societies of the liberal-progressive movement.
Third, ask yourself where the money comes from for these programs these people want to continue to fund. They say China as if that makes it okay. Fine. Where does China get the excess money? From commercial activity (exports) undertaken in our country. So, whether the money comes from us in taxes, comes from us in borrowings or comes from us through loans made by the Chinese using our money - they are taking our money to support that which is inefficient and always bound to fail.
Why should we support this when we know it will fail?
Why should we allow them to continue this so-called political movement? Is it not just as dangerous to our national security as the other terrorist movements? Are the goals not the same? How long should we tolerate this criminal conspiracy's continued existence? Should we not seek to spare ourselves - and generation unborn - from the oppression and economic slavery they are seeking to perpetrate upon us in the name of supporting their criminal conspiracy? Should they not be held accountable and removed from our society permanently? If we allow them to continue to live amongst us will it not be likely that at some point they will murder millions of Americans to sustain their criminal conspiracy? When is the preservation of our society worth our own lives instead of supporting their sense of entitlement and their sense of privilege as the price of our continued existence?
vtwin| 7.14.10 @ 12:37PM
"Eradicating liberalism from our society permanently on a compulsory basis…Why should we allow them to continue…How long should we tolerate this…Should they not be…removed from our society permanently? “
“Bring it on,” limp-dick Nazi!
shooter| 7.14.10 @ 6:10PM
you must of ran your knuckle over your head in the not to distance past .i'd rather be a limpdick nazi then a totally braindead idiot so go back to sucking of your little dem buddies piss ant
RCV| 7.14.10 @ 12:46PM
The Fascist emerges from the disguise of a respecter of liberty.
Tim*| 7.14.10 @ 1:04PM
The Obama emerges from the disguise of a respecter of liberty.
Author ! Author !
Tim*| 7.14.10 @ 12:33PM
" The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. This article is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn't a surplus under Clinton."
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
mmille| 7.14.10 @ 3:23PM
reply to vtwin:
You dismissed the predicate in your premise. The CBO's projections were conditional. The surplus would happen if there was no war (9/11), no drastic increase in welfare programs, and the projected increase of the stock market. Do you wish to restate your premise? Bush is not solely responsible for dilemma. Mind you, think more critically as opposed to regurgitating.
Jack Hellner| 7.14.10 @ 4:47PM
The budget under Republicans and bush went from $1.8 trillion in FY 1995 to $2.5 Trillion in 2007 up less than 4% per year. Since 2007 when Obama and the Dems took control it is up to $3.8 trillion, up more than 10% per year with low inflation. The deficit was $161 Billion in 2007 and unemployment was 4.7%. Where is it today? Why hasn't the massive spending helped. As for the fictitious surplus Bush inherited, the stock market collapsed in March 2000, 10 months before Bush got in and revenues to the govt went down rapidly in 2001 on stock market gains and stock options. That is what caused the surplus to disappear, not Bush.
RDN in Houston| 7.14.10 @ 5:11PM
vtwin you are either a nitwit or a troll. Tax cuts don't a deficit make. Excess, built in spending increased the deficit from 2001 to 2006. From 2006 through 2008, the Dims controlled both houses...the senate and house pass spending bills. Any surplus generated by tax cuts were eaten up by profiligate spending. Tax cuts generate economic activity while tax increases reduce activity. Tax changes are dynamic.
vtwin| 7.15.10 @ 8:42AM
“Tax cuts generate economic activity while tax increases reduce activity.” And, the tooth fairy puts money under your pillow.
Spoonman| 7.14.10 @ 9:34AM
Shamus, I dispise obama and always have but I have noticed a really interesting trend - my friends who thought his poop didn't stink in 2008 are now opposed to him and his administration. Not eveyone mind you but a significnat number are now willing to vacalize their regrets for having voted for him. Hopefully the vast majority of Amercaican voting this fall and in local, state and fedewral elections through and including 2012's Presidential contest will vote for candiadtes supporting smaller government, less spending, less taxes, and a more a certain and predicitable future - that would set the stage for job growth and a much recovered economy in the United States.
gypsy| 7.14.10 @ 1:09PM
Quite so Shamus, all you have to do is to read this moron "vtwin" directly below this space. Hey vtwin, how does deficit spending under Bush justify HUGE deficit spending under Obama? Youi might want to take that crack pipe out before babbling again
Alan Brooks| 7.14.10 @ 4:59PM
vtwin,
the Grand Old Potatoheads don't realize how relieved still the electorate is that Bush left office last year.
Tim*| 7.14.10 @ 7:33PM
Alan BLAMES BUUUUUUSSSSHHHHHH !
Obama to Police , " That Bad Man Bush Handed Me The Gun Last Year And This Year It Just Went Off And Killed The Economy " !
Police Take Obama Away In A Police Wagon.
The One| 7.14.10 @ 7:06AM
Dear Diary:
What with the unemployment rate around 15% (I’ve prevailed on the bean counters so far to lie about the numbers to make me look better), a well in the Gulf of Mexico that’s been pumping crude oil into the sea for going on three months now, thanks to one of my biggest campaign contributors, a foreign policy so spectacularly unsuccessful that not only will Iran develop an atomic bomb soon but even Switzerland kicks sand in our faces, and with Sasquatch so grumpy lately, it seems that a brother just can’t catch a break. It makes me irascible, for shizzle, and makes me want to tear Joe Biden’s face and hands off and eat them.
Hey, I know what would be primo! I’ll sneak down to the bowling alley to smoke a coupla Kools, then I’ll call Eric to come over and we’ll twist up a coupla fat ones and watch Glenn Beck on Fox. You can laugh, but he’s the onliest one that sees what I’m doing.
Later on tonight, I’ll call His Royal Highness, King Abdallah, peace be upon him. Abdallah be fixin’ up President Doctor Idi Amin’s old crib in Jiddah for me. Make no mistake, after I’ve trashed the American economy, I’m gonna need somewheres to chill. Aloha!
oilydoilyobama| 7.14.10 @ 7:29AM
The longer I live the more convinced I become of there being no one more cynical than any leader in the Democrat political party. Democrat leaders know the unionized public education system has delivered a voting bloc that can be massaged and motivated with appeals to the basest human emotions: fear, greed, envy. The wretched cynicism of Democrat political leadership is corrosive. They despise everyone's Liberty but their own.
neo-libertarian| 7.14.10 @ 7:53AM
Well you know what those “Tea Party” people say about saving the Republic, the Constitution, Freedom and Economic viability, “Don’t let a demented, egocentric, socialist, snake oil salesman go to waste.”
Ret. Marine| 7.14.10 @ 7:58AM
Yeah and when is someone on this site, (staff writers) going to tell us something we don't already know, obammmma, is a *uc*-up with everything he attempts to do. With dingy harry in his front pocket and the NBPP in his back what's there to worry about, the next lie fomenting from his two-pie-hole hole?
What say we just stop with all the returning facts and start to consider what to do next when the change of power sweeps these bastards off to the gitmo prision system. I don't want to hear or read anything other than the word REPEAL, and jail. It is not bad enought that roughtly 53-53% of my fellow citizens are complete and confirmed idiots, I have to read on a daily basis they are lead by the most powerful idiot of them all, obummer-boy, kenya's favorite missing idiot son. Senf this priock packing off to either kanya or gitmo, and then we can have an honest debate about what to do to the rest who have partaken in the robbery fo this Nations Republic.
Bennett Bishop| 7.14.10 @ 8:02AM
Why has this (use your own characterization) been allowed to remain in the Oval Office? He is totally un-American, and unfit to serve.
RCV| 7.14.10 @ 12:49PM
Because we, the American people, elected him to be our President, that's why.
Radegunda| 7.14.10 @ 1:09PM
"Because we, the stupid, ignorant portion of the American people, in league with a slavishly dishonest mass media, elected him to be our Emperor and Messiah."
FIFY
gypsy| 7.14.10 @ 1:13PM
Yes, and the clear thinking among all those Obama voters has had serious buyers remorse after realizing that the candidate they voted for is only camouflage for the tyrant who lied to get elected. That's why Obamas poll numbers are even more underwater than the average American mortgage
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.14.10 @ 8:04AM
One of the interesting backdrops to the housing meltdown started in 1995 when the Community Reinvestment Act rules were rewritten in ways that Congress never authorized.
Amazingly the Republican led Congress sat on their hands and did little to stop it over the next few years.
The way that Clinton blackmailed the banks was that if they did not lend to minorities their CRA ratings went down, which prevented the banks from expanding or merging.
Then Clinton got Andrew Cuomo who directed HUD, and who was and is another prominent Democrat, to change the rules to allow Fannie and Freddie to get into the sub-prime market.
Fannie and Freddie were allowed to capitalize their debt at 2.5%, while banks were required to capitalize it at 10%. The leverage created by this financial voodoo then became the linchpin for the upcoming financial maelstrom.
Fannie and Freddie then became a second career to many prominent Democrats, in particular Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick. Franklin Raines made over 94 million and Jamie Gorelick made over 23 million during this period.
Franklin Raines was later found guilty of a civil violation and fined and in a final twist of fate, an insurance policy paid for by the public took care of it.
From 1995 to 2008 389 politicians received political donations from Fannie/Freddie. Not only did Fannie/Freddie donate over 200 million to Congress during that period of time, but many radical think tanks and housing groups received millions from the so called charitable arm of Fannie/Freddie.
In 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned over half of all public debt on mortgages, over 3.5 trillion. The taxpayers are now bailing that out.
In effect, the program worked increasing minority ownership of homes. It would have been far cheaper to simply give them those homes, i.e., less effect on the economy.
However, the Clinton legacy is that minority home ownership is now rapidly shrinking. Clinton ended up screwing the people he claimed he wanted to help.
What you can take away from this is that all progressives disdain the wealth while they do everything they can to get wealthy themselves. Progressives work off of other people's dimes. They rarely have enough commitment to spend their own money.
Lastly, all central economic planning always fails.
That bodes ill for the planned health care slated to start in 2014, and other measures recently entered, including deals with GM.
It also bodes ill for you. Whether you like it or not, you're involved.
Ironically, the new financial regulations overhaul bill has a provision (342) which requires that financial decisions regarding the public be made for the same phony reasons of race. Scott Brown, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, quasi-Republicans, are going to put it over the top.
mmille| 7.15.10 @ 2:25PM
Bill Hussein O'Stalin
I agree with your aforementioned points. I do, however, have to add that Republicans played a hand in the Boom and Bust as well. Read Thomas Sowell's Housing Boom and Bust to point toward my premise. It is a must read historical view on the rise and fall of American Housing Ownership from an economist point of view. Government was and continues to be the culprit. Bush called his involvement compassionate conservatism.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.16.10 @ 6:59PM
I never implied the Republicans weren't involved. When I said 389 politicians received funds I think you can safely assume that many were Republicans.
Louis Jenkins| 7.14.10 @ 8:21AM
"And now, we're about three, four months into it, and everybody is looking around and -- (laughter)."
Well, they may be laughing now, but all that will change when the health care debacle really kicks in. Truely, if things weren't so dire I'd be laughing too. All the way to the poor house. Time is running out for the Pretender n Chief. This shtick that he's touting is about as dry as re-runs of the Partridge Family. In fact, his time has ran out.
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.14.10 @ 8:27AM
Ret Marine,
I'm with you. Mr. Ferrara has written some blockbuster articles in the past, but these days it seems that he and the other writers are simply regurgitating.
Mr. Terrell,
I hope you will encourage your writers to lean forward in their thinking. Some of the very best thought on your site is now coming from your commenters.
Here are some thoughts for articles:
1. What about civil disobedience...and when?
2. What about non-compliance...and the trigger?
3. What is happening to "small businesses" across the country.
4. Why can't we get real numbers from our government?
5. Why don't Republicans start having daily news conferences on the Capitol steps...raising hell?
6. The country is now totally polarized...earners and takers.
7. What can we do between now and November/February.
8. Can a Republican majority start "congressional indictment" proceedings against the criminal liers in our government?
Folks,
Let's help the writers out. Ideas you would like researched?
Louis Jenkins| 7.14.10 @ 9:52AM
Yes, Old Texican here are a few ideas I'd like searched out:
Get rid of the Baby Boomers via Health Care Death Panels- they tend to vote Republican or at least conservative. (And yes, death panels are in the document.) And the birds are twittering and singing as though nothing has happened.
Cap and Trade- more taxes and fewer jobs. More taxes equals less money to buy the important items in household. Make the populace more dependent on the Feds for their money and make them use less energy-the growth factor for any population.
Taxation- I’ll get you my pretties, and your 401 K too. Get ready for the worst tax keel hauling we’ve seen to date. 01/01/11.
The War in Afghanistan- Make the troops fight with their arms tied behind them. Yes, they’re there, but not being allowed to defend themselves is a crock. And we can’t even call Islamofacist Islamofacists.
Illegal Immigration- Sue the pants off of Arizona. The only state that has so far stood up for what is correct. Make them a whipping boy. Besides, Obumar needs those votes that 20 million illegals will bring in the 2012 election.
The Stimulus Package- a boondoggle piece of legislation. Where’s the jobs at Mr. Obumar? A few census jobs? Get real. Shovel ready jobs- were are they at? Infrastructure in this nation has suffered and the Stimulus Package hasn’t done a thing. In fact, it will be several years before we see anything resembling a new bridge, unless of course, it’s in DC.
Stifle the Internet- a blossoming form of communication. But instead the government wants to smoother it by controlling the “word”. Even placing patents on ideas? How ridiculous.
Kagan nomination- another liberalocrat. And the Republicans don’t see the light?
Israel- let just kick them to the curb and not give them the time of day. After all, Obumar is a Muslim in WASP clothing.
The Birth Certificate- well, you be the judge as to why Obumar hasn’t come clean with his records.
The Gulf Oil debacle- can’t blame this one on Bush, but Obumar is doing his best. Playing golf while the Gulf burned.
On and on. Yes, there’s something wrong with America and her 57 states. Take any factor or all of them for it matters not.
DonDuke | 7.14.10 @ 8:36AM
You know, if I wasn't so angry at what "we" have done to ourselves by allowing this fraud to be the head of our government, I would be able to laugh at the absurdity of it all. However, I am moving into my 60's having contributed tons to Social Security and Medicare and am beginning to realize that Obama and his gang have every intention of eliminating any benefits I have expected. You know, I think the next 10-20 years or so is going to see a lot of seniors in big trouble and literally on the street. -Sigh-
Brian Mc| 7.14.10 @ 8:40AM
The alien said that we, as Americans, go "forward"...? Someone needs tell him that sometimes, you must go back to truly go forward.
Somebody help me with the actual quote on this one. Was it C.S. Lewis? The alien is sending us over the cliff...and laughing as he goes.
I can't wait to see him in cuffs.
Anthony| 7.14.10 @ 8:46AM
Yes, I can see November from my house!!! Bye Bye Harry Reid, you disgrace. Have you all contributed to Ms. Engle's campaign? Please do so, even if it's a modest amount. Harry is about to meet Tom, (Daschle, that is).
Oh , and Barry, don't get too used to Air Force One and the Congressional Gulf Club. You'll be back on the Chicago public links soon enough.
Mimi Do| 7.14.10 @ 8:56AM
KEN....I like the # no. 5....Daily news conferences on the Capital steps....maybe they can get Mark Levin for a spokesmen. The last 2 nights he knocked it out of the park! This will shine the light on their antics and wrong policies.
pending_unemployment| 7.14.10 @ 9:07AM
I've now started this comment three times, and I think this is the least angry I can do. For the last 15 years I have worked with a church based managed care company that served over 200K medicare, medicaid, individual, and group lives. I love my job. I love my mission. I love the strong ethics of my company- we've been willing to take a financial hit to do the right thing. No more, it seems. In about 90 days I will be unemployed- an entire career sacrificed at the altar of socialism. Small, private companies like my employer simply cannot afford the massive infrastructure investment required to operate in the post-reform market, and the loss ratio requirements are unreasonable for a company that provides the level of personal service we proudly and unashamedly provide and for which our members have constantly voiced their appreciation. I'm fighting to find work before then, but like my 400+ colleagues, the economy in which we strike out to find work is not as welcoming. While I am highly trained, extensively skilled, industry savvy, and massively motivated I fear I will become that which I most despise- dependent on someone other than myself to provide for my family. I am livid with this administration. The cosmic joke of it all is that as Obama is both the engineer of my plight and most likely the man I'll have to rely on to prevent total collapse because of it. Can anyone say indentured servant?
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.14.10 @ 9:27AM
Pending
I'm very sorry.
Thank you for that moving post. I have worked with fine companies like yours for many years.
Have you noticed the stock prices of Welpoint and Aetna lately? What would be your guess as to when the personel even at those giants begin to get scared to death? Will they have to ultimately join SEIU?
How old a person are you? I have some ideas.
you can e-mail us at kbjudgeroybean06@gmail.com
George True| 7.14.10 @ 10:14AM
You are so right. The mandated loss ratios are designed to cripple private-sector health insurance companies. The Commies kept repeating the lie "If you like your current coverage, you can keep it", while knowing full well that their bill, by design and intent, would put your insurance company that offers that plan out of business.
pending_unemployment| 7.14.10 @ 12:01PM
Yes, sadly those who opposed this 'reform' allowed the administration to convince the public that the loss ratio was a measure of profit vs loss as opposed to what it truly is- a measure of claim expense to overhead. I fully expect that minimum ratio to continue to climb until carriers are expected to spent nearly 100% on claim costs, and somehow find other revenue to pay for things like electricity, computers, stamps, etc. Had it been better explained that an � loss ratio did NOT mean 15% profit, this clause would have been a non-issue and never included. Alas, it is not so, and now we suffer at the opportunity missed. So much focus on UHC's 2009 profit of 2.9 billion as a shock number never was translated into the actual 3.6% profit that it translates into (source:CNN Money.com, fortune 500). In all honesty, most business owners would consider liquidation with that meager return. They'd be better off investing in long term T Bills.
George True| 7.14.10 @ 2:20PM
It frustrated me no end that not one Republican was willing or able to state that simple fact. Not one conservative commentator on Fox said, "Well, you have to remember that UHC is one of the largest health insurers in America. They insure over 26 million people, so that 2.9 billion in profits represents a profit margin of ONLY 3.6%. That is a very slim profit margin by any standards."
As an independent insurance broker, I saw the handwriting on the wall several years ago and gradually steered my practice in a different direction than health insurance. Now it is less than 10% of what I do, and none too soon. Health insurance companies are cutting commissions across the board. I have had my commissions cut already anywhere from 12-50%, and the ins companies are all saying expect more commission cuts this year. This is because they are getting ready for the mandatory loss ratio going into effect Jan 1st.
Even a well run insurance company that made good underwriting decisions and ran a lean-n-mean operation is getting squeezed hard. They are already raising premiums as a result, and come January you can expect some huge increases in premiums. They have no other choice, other than just getting out of the business. This is what Obamacare has wrought, and we ain't seen nothing yet.
vtwin| 7.14.10 @ 6:10PM
What does the Heath insurance industry contribute, to the heath care of Americans, to justify “2.9 billion in profits …a profit margin of ONLY 3.6%”?
George True| 7.14.10 @ 7:45PM
You know Vtroll, there is an old saying. Better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Your question displays a profound ignorance of all things to do with the economy, business, and money. (Just like your pal Obama.)
The insurance company does nothing for the health care of its clients. That is not their job. Their job is to PAY THE CLAIM. That's why it's called INSURANCE. A contractual agreement where one party (the insured) agrees to incur a small but certain loss in the form of premium in order to shift the risk of a catastrophic loss to the other party (the insurance company). The insurance company has very little to do with the COSTS of health care. They just pay the claims.
Does being a moron come easily for you, or do you have to work at it?
vtwin| 7.14.10 @ 8:24PM
So, the answer is NOTHING for a profit margin of 3.6%!
Adam Smith| 7.14.10 @ 9:52PM
Vtwin, you're an idiot, and not even a useful one. You've proved it. I condemn you to eternity in Hell with Markos Moulitsos, another prating coxcomb almost as ignorant of basic economics as you are. You and your little Greek friend can take turns reading to each other from the works of Karl Marx, snorting drain cleaner, and boffing each other. Is there anything good inside of you?
George True| 7.14.10 @ 10:45PM
You apparently can't read. I answered your question. The insurance company assumed the risk, and paid the claims. That what they DO. Why shouldn't they make money by doing it? And besides, since when does any legitimate company that provides a product or service that people need or want, insurance or otherwise, have to justify their profits to anyone???
Tim*| 7.14.10 @ 7:48PM
DUUUHHH !
" Fed officials offered a slightly more downbeat view of the economy.
They now predict the economy will grow between 3 percent and 3.5 percent this year. That's down from forecast of 3.2 percent to 3.7 percent made in April.
There's little relief in sight for high unemployment. The jobless rate, now at 9.5 percent, would stay at that figure or in the best case fall to 9.2 percent this year. In the April forecast, the Fed had a slightly lower bottom number of 9.1 percent. Fed officials suggested it would take five or six years for the economy to get back to full health. Analysts say that would mean an unemployment rate closer to 5.5 percent to 6 percent range."
AMENBRO| 7.14.10 @ 9:14AM
SSSSSCCCCCHHHAAAAZZZAM GOOAALLLLYEEEEE SGT. CARTER!!
Do you think ?? Where was such insiteful word fer word blow by blow bloviation during the 2 years this POS now POTUs was making claims in front of ACCORn they would be at the table in the White House, SEIU your fight is my fight, 20 years sittin on a pew participating in the GOSPEL OF HATE..I refuse to waste my time typing the missed opportunities until afterwards. YOU WERE SCARED TO PUT IT UP THEN WHY NOW??
GD it it takes a recovered alcoholic & drug Addict Glen Beck, Ruch Limbaugh, Sean Hannity , you know those REAL AMERICANS all you jealous can't sell a book to save your aholes deomonize, to be out there making these CLARION CALLS damn near DECADES ahead of this happening & this is what you shovel onto this site as a contribution to the CONTINUING CRISIS..You really outta be ashamed. I've been clean & sober 30 frickin years.
WTF is your excuse
davelnaf| 7.14.10 @ 9:19AM
Good article. After reading this article one wonders if House and Senate Democrats understand the bind they are in with Obama. Do they understand that if they don’t back away from this increasingly toxic president their time in the political wilderness after this November will be anything but temporary? Also, in the spirit of adding insult to injury, House and Senate dems should consider the possibility they might be looking at a very long time in the wilderness if their party’s hard left dregs become its living face on the increasingly irrelevant MSM. One could go on, but you get the picture.
Rmm| 7.14.10 @ 9:31AM
It is getting harder to keep your chin up these days, under this Obaman barrage of garbage talk. The guy continues to do what he has done his entire adult life, game the system. He couldn't tell the truth even if his life depended on it. All the while he must think America is overly loaded with morons who believe his tripe.
Come November, this administration needs to have their collective ears pinned back. I say good riddance!
A. C. Santore| 7.14.10 @ 9:53AM
For heaven's sake, Rmm, do not "keep your chin up."
You're only providing a big target for an Obama left hook - a far left hook.
You'd be better off keeping your powder dry and a 24-hour guard at the gate.
A. C. Santore| 7.14.10 @ 9:51AM
Mr. Ferrara started his otherwise excellent article with this question: "What I am wondering, actually, is just how stupid does he think we are? He is thinking that enough of us are too stupid to know that his socialized medicine bill doesn't go into effect until 2014, and that he can play us for fools with this kind of shameful, manipulative, abusive rhetoric."
How sad I am to burst your bubble, but he does think we're stupid - very stupid...
...and so far, he's been right.
We'll know for certain in November.
JP| 7.14.10 @ 10:05AM
Here's the Dems game plan
1)Continue to blame Bush and Cheney for everything
2)Lose control of the House and lose up to 6 Senate seats. It's beyond thier control now. The voters are getting angier by the day.
3)Use the lame duck session (Nov-Jan) to pass Cap and Tax, Immigation Reform (amnesty), and institute the VAT (probably a 10% VAT).
4)In 2011 and 2012, blame the GOP for the double dip recession, huge defecits, Medicare disasters, and other crisis.
5)Hope the voters take the bait.
mkj| 7.14.10 @ 10:36AM
Real simple analogy: Wizard of Oz
gypsy| 7.14.10 @ 1:34PM
at least the Wizard could fly a balloon and frighten off witches
The Al| 7.14.10 @ 12:40PM
In looking at some of the links that Vtwin posted up near the top of this, I found that some of the information was a little misleading (go figure). Not sure if it was intentionally done or if he just had no idea what he was talking about. It could be either of the two, or maybe both.
Vtwin showed this link and quoted this part of it; "National Debt 2000 $5.6 Trillion, 2008 $10 Trillion"
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/.....histo5.htm
Now, I could be wrong on this, but the link he posted and quoted show the Public Debt, as in credit cards and mortgages etc. This is the personal debt of all Americans, not the Federal Deficit, which many of you had been referring to.
So, as we all already are aware of, the Federal Deficit for Bush at it's highest was something around $468 billion throughout his 8 years as president. Obama's Federal Deficit for year one was around $1.6 trillion.
Vtwin had a moot point and the facts he chose to use are simply incorrect. Wasn't there an article on Spectator yesterday about Olberman purposely using information out of context to try and incite people? A common liberal methodology. The way to combat this is simply to look at their information and discover how absurd it is.
Radegunda| 7.14.10 @ 12:55PM
Obummer was saying "Look, those terrible things didn't happen, the sun came up, the birds are chirping, ha ha" A DAY OR TWO after the bill passed---thus proving (once again) what a cynical punk he is.
A few days later, he told a little parable: "It's like the farmer who goes out to the fields a week after he's planted the seeds, and he doesn't see any crops, and he says, 'Oh no! We're going to starve!'" . . . the point of which is that a week is not long enough to see the results of a policy! And a few days earlier, his mockery rested on the notion that a day or two is plenty of time to see the results.
The intellectual incoherence was stunning, as were the total lack of seriousness, and the mocking tone of the punk demagogue.
Sheila| 7.14.10 @ 2:05PM
Anthony and A. C. Santore - I, too, can see November from here. What I see is massive fraud, blacks and Jews voting as they always have, and scared seniors sticking with the democrats. What I see is an unprincipled and ball-less republican party. What I see is a representative republic turned into a failed, multiculturalist democracy. But, then, I've always been an optimist. Decline and fall.
Margie| 7.14.10 @ 6:09PM
"Blacks and Jews voting as they always have?" Spoken like a true white nationalist. (You're words, not mine.)
Get a life, Sheila. God created us equal. Get over it.
RCV| 7.18.10 @ 10:49PM
Thanks, Margie.
Marc Jeric| 7.14.10 @ 2:32PM
Social Security = giant Ponzi scheme. In numbers:
Imagine aq young profesional starting at age of 25 wuth about $100,000/year gross earnings. Let us forget inflation and salary increases: he pays about $7,000/year in direct contributions to the Social Security fund; his company sends in his name another $7,000/year; then he has to pay income tax on his $7,000 SS contribution, say another $2,000/yr. So his total cost is not $7,000 but $16,ooo/yr. And so it goes for 40 years when, at the age of 65 the guy retires. The government wii give him his SS pension of about 1,600/month until he dies at age of 80 - that is a total 15 years x12 months x $1,600 = $288,000.
Now if the guy could have invested his contributions of $ 16,000 every year at a tax-free 5% municipal bonds for 40 years with compounding he would have had at age 65 a princely sum of about $2,100,000. This compares with his SS payments of $288,000.
That difference of $1,800,000 is what the government stole from him.
George True| 7.14.10 @ 2:32PM
This worries me too. At this point, almost two full years after the 2008 election, the RNC has still done nothing whatsoever about countering the Dems successful Secretary of State project which has returned enormous dividends for them. As a result, they elected corrupt leftist Secs of State in a number of the battleground states who then duly certified fraudulent election results. They are still in place, and once again this November they will throw all the close elections to the Dems.
I am also worried about the corrupt and criminal Obama justice department willfully refusing to purge the voter rolls of felons, deceased, and those who have moved out of the district. There should be a firestorm of loud and vehement protest over this by our Republican congressmen and senators in Washington. But so far, not a peep out of them.
Steve A| 7.14.10 @ 2:33PM
Here is the depth of thought for our boy VTwin: It goes something like this: It's Ok for Obama to completely destroy the economy because the prior Republican president started the process & you did not complain loudly enough at that time. Plus....I voted for Obama & thereofore, I & my EGO, would be bruised itf I admitted he was, at best, completely ignorant of what it takes to make a profit in a free market.
George True| 7.14.10 @ 2:35PM
The above was a reply to Shelia's comment about an unprincipled and ball-less Republican party.
Steve A| 7.14.10 @ 2:49PM
Come on George. If you take away the felons, deceased, illegals & throw in those with an IQ less than 80, the Dems. lose every time. Would not be fair.
Gerald Stephens| 7.14.10 @ 3:01PM
Yes, Obama thinks the people are stupid and can actually make a case for it. All demigods believe and feed on it.
Ball-less Republicans? You can take that to the bank. The passivity currently on display in the Kagan case is breathtaking. The 'nation's full faith and trust' awaits the outcome. Anyone shirking the battle is a political dead man/woman walking.
John II| 7.14.10 @ 3:03PM
Amid all this nasty right-wing ranting, I should like to say something on behalf of Professor Obama.
I just can't think of anything.
Margie| 7.14.10 @ 6:13PM
But wait. Before you say something, if you can think of it~ are we sure he was even really a Professor? I'm not. In which case you'd be at even more of a loss, no doubt.
Steve A| 7.14.10 @ 3:10PM
Here is the good news. The Country is systematically being divided into 2 separate categories. On one side, you have a bunch of meal ticket, gimme my free stuff, I can't do it on my own so the guvmnt needs to save my ass group. On the flip side, you have those who actually get it done & pay the freakin bill for all this nonsense. When it really comes down to it, & it will shortly, I'll take my chances with those who actually make it happen vs. the slack jawed moron with his hand out.
John II| 7.14.10 @ 4:42PM
In his characteristically mendacious Vegas speech, the Professor threw in a few big truths, apparently in rhetorical service to the lies. He said that the private sector is where the wealth is produced. Since his sole reason for saying anything publicly is political effect, a natural assumption would be that Professor Obama doesn't really believe that the private sector is where the wealth comes from. Perhaps, like Poncho Villa when he controlled Mexico briefly, the Professor believes that wealth comes from the printing machines in the treasury, and everything will be fine if the government just prints more money, preferably with portraits of the Professor himself on every denomination.
On the other hand, perhaps in his primitive grasp of economics the Professor at least does believe that wealth he wishes to redistribute somehow comes from the private sector, and he was not only using a truth for rhetorical effect but consciously uttering a truth.
On the other hand, since the Professor surely believes that the State subsumes the private sector, perhaps he was merely being coy, not letting on that he really believes that the source of productivity is the State. In other words, from his optic, he was uttering only a half-truth for political effect.
In any event, the Professor continues in his sophomoric devotion to policies that suppress the private sector, including its productivity--but it is indeed hard to parse the speeches of a serial liar. Perhaps he honestly doesn't know what the hell he's doing . . . or perhaps he knows exactly what he's doing, impoverishing the nation for the sake of aggrandizing himself and his class, or perhaps . . . perhaps . . . here's a good one: perhaps he's a closet conservative who's trying to save the nation by showing us all the consequences of lefty asininity.
It's all so confusing.
Datsun Mark| 7.14.10 @ 3:21PM
The IOU's the government has taken from the Social Security fund is like the movie Dumb & Dumber when the two nitwits spend the all the money found in the suitcase. When the bad guy opens the suitcase expecting to see the cash all he sees is a pile of papers with scribbles on them. Jim Carrey says "these are better than money, they're IOU's counted for to the last penny. Oh, be careful, you might want to hold on to that one...it's biggie $185,000 for the Ferrari we bought."
David| 7.14.10 @ 3:27PM
vtwin, there is no sense in arguing with someone like you - it would be like arguing with a door knob.
John II| 7.14.10 @ 10:04PM
I just figured it out! VTWIN stands for Venereal Tangos With Inadvertent Nihilism. Boy, those lefties are really clever with their acronyms.
dw| 7.14.10 @ 4:13PM
All these elite libs can't help but think those who voted for him are stupid. Behind closed doors they have to telling each other how they can't believe they actually got elected in America. They knew they had the democrat moron vote in the bag but its the ones that put them over the top they wonder about. I can not help but have the same wondermont at the gullibility of so many. How easily they can sell their home grown American heritage down the river for his foriegn born philosophy. Shame on them.
Alan Brooks| 7.14.10 @ 5:34PM
vtwin, they wont listen;
Repuglicans did not listen when George Will wrote at the end of 1991: "if George (HW) Bush is re-nominated next year he will almost certainly lose, and if Bush is re-elected his second administration will be worse than his first."
The GOP did not heed the warning that Bob Dole was a dork, and that Kemp was the better of the two on the ticket.
In 2000 the GOP elected ANOTHER Bush!
And re-elected him.
Let the clueless pigheads screw it up again & again until they learn that though America is unruly, it is not stupid. Americans are not going to elect another second-rate Bushclone-type.
Tim*| 7.14.10 @ 8:15PM
Apparently Americans are not gonna elect A Third Rate Obama again , either there , Sport .
( Obama Job Approval )
Gallup Polling For 7/11 - 7/13 :
Approve : 45 Percent
Disapprove : 47 Percent
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .
We Take Down Obama's Congressional Enablers In November .
John II| 7.14.10 @ 10:19PM
Still, it's rather scary that 45 percent continue tol claim approval, even if that's rather better than 74 percent.
If the so-called mainstream media were doing their jobs, the support would have dropped to about 25 percent. That is, 20 percent hardcore lefty ideologues and 5 percent witless no-accounts. I still think it's true that approximately 75 percent of the Americano electorate are sane approximately 85 percent of the time. That's more than enough to preserve the American experiment, but Bush's chronic inarticulateness proves how dangerous are a contempt for rhetoric as well as an utter reliance on rhetoric.
Professor Obama's faster decline suggests that the latter is more dangerous for the practitioner, as well as the objects of his appeal. We must thank God that the latter is all the Left has in its declining years. We may be witnessing the collapse of the rationalist optic, after nearly three hundred years of intermittent dominance in the West. The Americano experiment is proving to be more truly radical than supposed by any academic lefty.
RCV| 7.15.10 @ 1:34PM
Gallup Poll on Congressional generic vote:
Repoublicans 46, Democrats 47.
I wouldn't count on it, Timmy.
Alan Brooks| 7.14.10 @ 5:39PM
PS;
vtwin, if we let the GOP slip (case in point: Uncle Tom Steele) in its own puddle, there is no reason to get angry.
Miguel Santiago| 7.14.10 @ 6:07PM
Obama is scaring me more and more. The man looks like he never will be leaving office and after the November elections where the Democrats are all but destroyed, will there be the expected crisis after crisis? Will he try something dictatorial? The people are on to him at least and waking up faster and faster now. Even online games are asking questions that are upsetting the Obama Administration. Google '2011 Obama's Coup Fails' and see how that one asks 'Is this a game or reality' I bet you say it is reality. That makes life much more complex and scary as we enter the election season now. The Democrats have shown who they are now and will a Marxist like Obama allow them to lose in November?
Robert| 7.14.10 @ 10:41PM
It's gonna come down to starting a war with Iran in the late summer (4 carrier groups are assembled around Iran already), declaring martial law in October, and suspending the elections in November. Easy!
ds80| 7.15.10 @ 12:27AM
History will show it was people like "vtwin" and "Alan Brooks" who elected the first failed black president.
Invincibly ignorant.
Yosemeti Sam| 7.15.10 @ 2:14AM
" He's Playing You ...."
People, people, people - um, Leftoids excluded!
Of note:
The medley BHO performs on his political barker
tours is generically known as - Foul Play in F minor!
May November 2, 2010 usher in another medley - happy days are here again in A, as in America, major!
General Quarters| 7.15.10 @ 3:00AM
Support Or Join Your Local Tribunals.
Every Law Abiding Citizen Has Standing.
Document Those In Gov. That Violate Their Oaths.
Undeniably Ineligible.
Justice Is Coming.
Answers1| 7.16.10 @ 4:52AM
Liar-in-Chief.
Tenn Slim| 7.16.10 @ 7:39AM
Opine
"What I am wondering, actually, is just how stupid does he think we are?"
Actually, he regards the USA Electorate as a Sleeping Intellectual Giant. Stupid, no, asleep, yes.
His very visible concern, this summer, is that the Aesopian Rhetoric he and Podesta/Alexander use to explain the mystery of the Leftist Agenda is becoming clear to the MAJORITY of the USA Citizenry. No longer, no way, can his minions snow the public. They read and re read Saul ALynski Rules for Radical, turned the prose against him via the Tea Party, Town Halls and this was a HUGE surprise to the Left. Now, the Aesopian language generates laughter, the ONE response the LEFT cannot stand.
Expect more Rhetoric, now from a page right out of Lenin/Trotsky/Stalin. No the gloves are off. The Aesopian language will be blatant, clear and direct.
We Stand Warned.
Semper FI
WE WILL PREVAIL
Truth Punishes You| 7.17.10 @ 7:04PM
Looks like the lying right-wing filth at American Spectator and their ignorant readers are at it again. The Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale/Pheonix, AZ is not declining to accept Medicare. They are refusing to accept Medicare Advantage plans, which are private plans not Medicare, not contracted with the Scottsdale/Pheonix, AZ clinic. Medicare Advantage (Medicare Part C) are the private right-wing ripoff of the Medicare system that Republicans and Democrats in the pocket of the corrupt insurance industry created during the Clinton Administration. In Medicare Part C, you sign over all your federal Medicare benefits to a private insurance company and they supposedly provide you with health insurance. It's those ripoff private plans Mayo has said "NO THANKS" to and they have told are credible, media sources that. For you right-wing nutjobs who don't want to believe this, go the Mayo website:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/bill.....icare.html
and read the section on "Medicare Advantage Plans"
Peter Ferrara is either ignorant or a bald-faced liar, and quite possibly both, because in this article he is clearly implying something other than the truth, which is that Mayo Clinic in AZ is refusing to accept patients WITH SOME TYPES OF PRIVATE INSURANCE from companies to which those patients stupidly signed over their government Medicare benefits.
Phineas| 7.18.10 @ 6:51PM
Vtwin, Profits do not represent money taken from society that thereby impoverishes the citizenry. The notion that economic activity is such a "zero sum" is an almost universal fallacy of the left. If it were true, we would live in caves and forage for food.
Profit represents value ADDED to society, NOT value removed.
Let me see if I can make it clear how the market system works, at least when it is allowed to do so.
A company buys goods and services. It pays people to make something new out of those goods and services. It sells the new thing. Duh?
The price of the new thing, aka the MARKET PRICE is what buyers CHOOSE to pay. If that is more than the cost to make it, the spread (profit) is the INCREASE in value that buyers assign the new thing - buyers who are FREE to reject it.
FREE MARKET. FREE TO CHOOSE. Do you follow?
FREEDOM is what decides the value and the profit (or loss).
Which is also why the left hates the market - because of the choices people make when free to do so. Those are not to the liking of a self-anointed elite whose core belief is that they know better - about everything. I wish every liberal could see, even if just for a minute, how deep runs the contempt conservatives have for them, and how profoundly it is justified.