by j. wright - 12/31/2009
Apparently before socialist leaning Democrat supporters begin to ravenously ''eat their own'' they must start nibbling around the edges as noted columnist Maureen Dowd did in a surprising column published recently in the NYT. For sure, Dowd injected her usual Bush Derangement Syndrome attacks, including attacks on former VP Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfield, but by no means did she show any pity for President Obama and his pitiful national security team's recent actions.
I wish she had gone farther. What are we watching today in our intelligence gathering circles? The same type of ''intelligence wall" that stifled two previous administrations with political infighting? Have we forgotten the "Jamie Gorelick Wall" that was in vogue under President Clinton barring anti-terror investigators from accessing information or communicating with other federal security agencies? The ''Wall'' that the 9/11 Commission eliminated and later set up guidelines to be implemented that would improve our future security?
It's deja vu all over again, or close to it. Instead of being able to connect the dots, the current Obama Administration security heads are seemingly unable to recognize a dot when it's handed to them, and he is too busy playing golf to bother with an immediate acknowledgement of a near miss above our own soil. Instead we got unbelievable spin (blather) from Janet Napolitano, the current Secretary of Homeland Security about how well “the system” worked. The next day she reversed her self and said she was misunderstood; taken out of context. Had those remarks been uttered by Tom Ridge or Michael Chertoff, a couple of President Bush’s security chiefs, they would surely have been verbally tarred and feathered within hours by the national media and Democrat lawmakers and asked to submit their resignations immediately.
How's that ''hope and change'' working today? Not so hot as far as our national security is concerned, but Al Queda seems to be thriving under it. Unfortunately until the 2012 elections we are stuck with this amateurish administrative Lost Gonzo posse that President Obama has trotted out to lead our country
/
Happy New Year readers, good riddance to 2009!
jaq~
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
"What I Really Think of Health Care Reform"
by j. wright - 12/23/2009
My oldest daughter wrote recently asking my opinion of the proposed health care bills. The following was my answer.
IF it were real health care reform, the end result would cover people that really can't afford insurance, many will still be uninsured; overall drug and treatment costs would decrease; physicians would not have to pay exorbitant malpractice insurance premiums; people could buy their insurance coverage anywhere they wished, they can't now; they would get income tax breaks for setting up a personal medical savings accounts. It seems that none of those things will take place.
Origninally we were told that 47 million Americans were without health insurance converage. Then in a speech, President Obama lowered that number to 30 million. Now the experts are saying that after the passage of this bill, between 12 million and 25 million Americans will still NOT be insured. If that's the case, why are we bankrupting the country in the name of nationalized health care reform?
It's reform all right; it just doesn't do anything to improve on the health provider system we have now, but we will succeed in indebting you and your future grandkids' grandkids for the rest of their lives with another government entitlement program. All this is going to be done with borrowed dollars; you do know that the federal government operates on taxes and foreign loans don't you? They don't have any money of their own. It's not Obama's "stash" as some would like to believe.
Many current physicians have decided to retire early or leave the country when this is passed, and government estimates say that 30,000,000 additional people (which doesn't add up) will be added to the insurance roles. That means fewer doctors treating more people equals less than adequate medical care. Great, that’s something to look forward to.
Obama says this bill will create jobs: right, at the federal level. One report I read said that 118 new federal agencies (bureaucracies) would be needed to run this debacle. Who pays their salary? Yes, the U.S. taxpayer. Like we need a bigger, growing government.
Obama says this bill will lower the deficit. Not if you include the $240+ billion that is "off budget" in a separate bill called the "Doctor Fix." This is Medicare dollars that will be paid for services and for some reason, mostly to hoodwink the voters, is not inckuded in this health care reform bill.
Then there's this pipe dream that Congress is going to "cut" $500 billion out of Medicare funding. When pigs fly, my dear. This $500 billion is a big part of the great savings and deficit reduction expectations that Obama and the Democrat lawmakers are crowing about. No Congress in our lifetime is ever going to "cut" Medicare funding. You can take that to the bank.
Taxes will increase on about everything now to pay for this thing so you wage earners, if you are still employed, will have less money for food, clothing, mortgages, utility bills and my grandkids education. Forget anything else.
Most outrageous, the lawmakers we elected think they can force Americans to buy something, even if they don't want it. And if they don't buy it, they can be fined. And if they don't pay the fine, thay can be penalized thousands of additional dollars and jailed. Welcome to the USSA. I've read the constitution and can't seem to find where that's mentioned. There's also some mention of "equal protection under the law" in the constitution. Some states are receving preferential treatment in order to garner needed Senate votes to pass this monstrosity. Time will tell if any court in the land has the will to stand up and declare this mess illegal.
Does that answer your question, dear?
Love, Dad~
My oldest daughter wrote recently asking my opinion of the proposed health care bills. The following was my answer.
IF it were real health care reform, the end result would cover people that really can't afford insurance, many will still be uninsured; overall drug and treatment costs would decrease; physicians would not have to pay exorbitant malpractice insurance premiums; people could buy their insurance coverage anywhere they wished, they can't now; they would get income tax breaks for setting up a personal medical savings accounts. It seems that none of those things will take place.
Origninally we were told that 47 million Americans were without health insurance converage. Then in a speech, President Obama lowered that number to 30 million. Now the experts are saying that after the passage of this bill, between 12 million and 25 million Americans will still NOT be insured. If that's the case, why are we bankrupting the country in the name of nationalized health care reform?
It's reform all right; it just doesn't do anything to improve on the health provider system we have now, but we will succeed in indebting you and your future grandkids' grandkids for the rest of their lives with another government entitlement program. All this is going to be done with borrowed dollars; you do know that the federal government operates on taxes and foreign loans don't you? They don't have any money of their own. It's not Obama's "stash" as some would like to believe.
Many current physicians have decided to retire early or leave the country when this is passed, and government estimates say that 30,000,000 additional people (which doesn't add up) will be added to the insurance roles. That means fewer doctors treating more people equals less than adequate medical care. Great, that’s something to look forward to.
Obama says this bill will create jobs: right, at the federal level. One report I read said that 118 new federal agencies (bureaucracies) would be needed to run this debacle. Who pays their salary? Yes, the U.S. taxpayer. Like we need a bigger, growing government.
Obama says this bill will lower the deficit. Not if you include the $240+ billion that is "off budget" in a separate bill called the "Doctor Fix." This is Medicare dollars that will be paid for services and for some reason, mostly to hoodwink the voters, is not inckuded in this health care reform bill.
Then there's this pipe dream that Congress is going to "cut" $500 billion out of Medicare funding. When pigs fly, my dear. This $500 billion is a big part of the great savings and deficit reduction expectations that Obama and the Democrat lawmakers are crowing about. No Congress in our lifetime is ever going to "cut" Medicare funding. You can take that to the bank.
Taxes will increase on about everything now to pay for this thing so you wage earners, if you are still employed, will have less money for food, clothing, mortgages, utility bills and my grandkids education. Forget anything else.
Most outrageous, the lawmakers we elected think they can force Americans to buy something, even if they don't want it. And if they don't buy it, they can be fined. And if they don't pay the fine, thay can be penalized thousands of additional dollars and jailed. Welcome to the USSA. I've read the constitution and can't seem to find where that's mentioned. There's also some mention of "equal protection under the law" in the constitution. Some states are receving preferential treatment in order to garner needed Senate votes to pass this monstrosity. Time will tell if any court in the land has the will to stand up and declare this mess illegal.
Does that answer your question, dear?
Love, Dad~
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Again, Pass Anything to Save Face
by j. wright 12/16/2009
.
Journalist Jennifer Rubin, in a commentary.com article explains that the Democrats in the U.S. Senate are now at their wits end. Under mounting pressure they have dropped “another harebrained Harry Reid scheme.” But what’s next? The “ReidCare” public option idea has imploded along with adding more bodies to a failing Medicare including many who have reached 55 years of age. Ms. Rubin goes on, “ They need, because a few centrists insist on it, something that is semi-coherent and that actually might allow the Democrats to face the voters, who currently disfavor ObamaCare by a huge margin. What’s left after they take out the public option and the Medicare buy-in?”
A Republican leadership aide explains what’s left: “$500 billion in Medicare cuts, $400 billion in tax increases, raises premiums, raises costs, onerous regulations, individual mandates, employer mandates, and expensive subsidies.” So what’s not to like? Well, just about everything, boys and girls. And this is reform?
A Democrat leadership aide explained it another way, similar to a Willy Sutton bank robbery gone badly. They’re inside the bank surrounded outside by dozens of armed lawmen, their robbery plans went awry big time; they can leave the money and run, or shoot it out and take the money.
Apparently it has come down to this in the Senate… pass anything to save face and maybe give President Obama a boost in his plummeting job approval numbers, all at the expense of 1/6 of our faltering economy. Or maybe they can all go home and clear their heads. When they return, maybe they can come up with a few inexpensive, discrete reforms that will have bipartisan support and not destroy our present system. Maybe? When pigs fly.
Unfortunately I see the Democrats with their huge majority as more than willing to pass anything just to pass it, regardless of what the unintended consequences will be in the 2010 elections.
What we are seeing now in the Senate are a few Dems and Harry Reid behind closed doors again, not on C-Span as Obama the transparency candidate espoused, working on a 'new' bill while the rest of the Senate is wasting time debating much of the old one. Whatever passes the Senate, if it does, will then go to a Joint Conference Meeting with the Democrat Leaders of the Pelosi led House and God only knows what will come from that. All of the recent talk about dropping the public option and the Medicare buy-in may suddenly be back in play, including abortion funding, and at what financial cost? The problem is after it leaves the Joint Conference Committee, it takes only 51 votes in the Senate to pass it. Look for a few Democrat Senators, who may be in jeopardy in the upcoming 2010 elections, to seek political refuge and vote against it. Call it CYA, that's all it is.
Another problem, and a major problem at that, is that if this monstrosity is enacted it will be nearly impossible to rescind with Obama holding a veto pen, at least until the 2012 elections. If he is reelected in 2012 then we're really doomed. The America where many of us grew up will cease to exist.
jaq~
.
Journalist Jennifer Rubin, in a commentary.com article explains that the Democrats in the U.S. Senate are now at their wits end. Under mounting pressure they have dropped “another harebrained Harry Reid scheme.” But what’s next? The “ReidCare” public option idea has imploded along with adding more bodies to a failing Medicare including many who have reached 55 years of age. Ms. Rubin goes on, “ They need, because a few centrists insist on it, something that is semi-coherent and that actually might allow the Democrats to face the voters, who currently disfavor ObamaCare by a huge margin. What’s left after they take out the public option and the Medicare buy-in?”
A Republican leadership aide explains what’s left: “$500 billion in Medicare cuts, $400 billion in tax increases, raises premiums, raises costs, onerous regulations, individual mandates, employer mandates, and expensive subsidies.” So what’s not to like? Well, just about everything, boys and girls. And this is reform?
A Democrat leadership aide explained it another way, similar to a Willy Sutton bank robbery gone badly. They’re inside the bank surrounded outside by dozens of armed lawmen, their robbery plans went awry big time; they can leave the money and run, or shoot it out and take the money.
Apparently it has come down to this in the Senate… pass anything to save face and maybe give President Obama a boost in his plummeting job approval numbers, all at the expense of 1/6 of our faltering economy. Or maybe they can all go home and clear their heads. When they return, maybe they can come up with a few inexpensive, discrete reforms that will have bipartisan support and not destroy our present system. Maybe? When pigs fly.
Unfortunately I see the Democrats with their huge majority as more than willing to pass anything just to pass it, regardless of what the unintended consequences will be in the 2010 elections.
What we are seeing now in the Senate are a few Dems and Harry Reid behind closed doors again, not on C-Span as Obama the transparency candidate espoused, working on a 'new' bill while the rest of the Senate is wasting time debating much of the old one. Whatever passes the Senate, if it does, will then go to a Joint Conference Meeting with the Democrat Leaders of the Pelosi led House and God only knows what will come from that. All of the recent talk about dropping the public option and the Medicare buy-in may suddenly be back in play, including abortion funding, and at what financial cost? The problem is after it leaves the Joint Conference Committee, it takes only 51 votes in the Senate to pass it. Look for a few Democrat Senators, who may be in jeopardy in the upcoming 2010 elections, to seek political refuge and vote against it. Call it CYA, that's all it is.
Another problem, and a major problem at that, is that if this monstrosity is enacted it will be nearly impossible to rescind with Obama holding a veto pen, at least until the 2012 elections. If he is reelected in 2012 then we're really doomed. The America where many of us grew up will cease to exist.
jaq~
Monday, November 23, 2009
"The High Costs of Dying..."
by j. wright - 11/23/2009
.
Last Sunday I watched a portion of 60 Minutes on CBS-TV. Their first segment had to do with national health care. It began with an opening statistic (whose validity some might question) claiming $50 billion is expended annually to keep ailing seniors alive for an additional two months or so in their last days. Is the "do no harm" axiom now dependent on costs? Or on the sanctity of life?
We all should remember, it’s still the PATIENT'S choice to linger in possible pain with the HOPE (Remember that word? A favorite of many liberals) that their condition might improve. Remember that liberal favorote; CHOICE? It's not up to the Doctor or the Government to decide. Not yet anyway
CBS, as self-appointed experts in medicine and national economics, concluded in the case of extending a fellow human's life for an indeterminate length of time, that $50 billion dollars is obviously too much American capital to waste. We need to become more "cost effective."
On October 19, Senate Democrat Majority Harry Reid stated almost sneeringly that Medical Tort Reform would save "only" $50 billion a year.
On August 31, 2009 the NY Times said medical tort reform is moving to the fore of the health care debate, that medical malpractice cost the system $50 billion a year. Reid referred to it as a small fraction of the $2 trillion that health care reform would cost. Obviously a faux pas on Harry's part, one of those nasty unintended consequences of forgetting which lie to rely upon. His Senate bill claims to cost "only" $847 billion during the next ten years. Do the math... multiply $50 billion ten times: $500 billion. A small fraction, Harry?
If Medical Tort Reform were put in place, how many fewer needless tests and costly medications would our current system push in order to prevent frivolous lawsuits? No, apparently it’s easier to expect ailing seniors to just die rather than to take potential income away from trial lawyers, cronies who contribute tons of money to the Democrat Party. Sleaze politics
Is $50 Billion too much to spend on aging seniors or is it too little to save on overall health care? Decisions, decisions. It's still $50 billion every year. The Republican minority have insisted that any Health Care Reform include ways to save billions in Tort Reform. Harry Reid says no way. The Republicans also offered up eleven (11) amendments during the debate of these many bills, a,endments that would force the lawmakers to drop what they have now and be nsured like the rest of the country will be under their great plan. All eleven were nixed. These jokers are OUR employees, but who'd have guessed that?
$50 billion is either a drop in the bucket or it’s a needless waste of money. It depends on where your values lie. My question is simple, why should U.S. government bureaucrats now get into the business of determining when the ailing should die, or live, and for how long?
Proponents of the government plan say that many doctors feel that those final stabs at prolonging an uncomfortable life do more harm than good and not much good. I say it doesn't matter what the doctors or the government "feels" or concludes. If the patient is awake, lucid and can communicate their wishes, to either pull the plug or give it another try, it's their CHOICE.
How much longer we will have the FREEDOM of CHOICE is debatable under this president and our current lawmakers. The lawmakers passed Medicare and Medicaid years ago to afford seniors some type of medical care... as usual, their numbers were way off the target, like ten times less than the actual costs when it paned out. Quite a mistake. Now the Democrat lawmakers, seeing that mistake, want to take away between s450 - s500 billion in payments to doctors and care providers, who subsequently will NOT accept Medicare patients, or will discover a way to cut their losses like rationing care. The elderly will be the ones left holding the bag.
This new health care boondoggle will cause thousands of doctors to retire or move off shore; it will add millions of people that are now uninsured and still leave millions of Americans without coverage. Care and treatment will not improve, costs will increase. The deficit will expand. Our debts to foreign nations will increase as well. It will ultimately insure illegal aliens (for their future votes following amnesty legislation) and worst, it will use taxpayer money to fund voluntary abortions. Those are the bad things. It’s possible the good things that are included in the bill won’t justify the bad.
What in hell are those lawmakers (Democrats) thinking? They seem all to willing to pass a really bad law instead of trying to improve what we have now.
jaq~
.
Last Sunday I watched a portion of 60 Minutes on CBS-TV. Their first segment had to do with national health care. It began with an opening statistic (whose validity some might question) claiming $50 billion is expended annually to keep ailing seniors alive for an additional two months or so in their last days. Is the "do no harm" axiom now dependent on costs? Or on the sanctity of life?
We all should remember, it’s still the PATIENT'S choice to linger in possible pain with the HOPE (Remember that word? A favorite of many liberals) that their condition might improve. Remember that liberal favorote; CHOICE? It's not up to the Doctor or the Government to decide. Not yet anyway
CBS, as self-appointed experts in medicine and national economics, concluded in the case of extending a fellow human's life for an indeterminate length of time, that $50 billion dollars is obviously too much American capital to waste. We need to become more "cost effective."
On October 19, Senate Democrat Majority Harry Reid stated almost sneeringly that Medical Tort Reform would save "only" $50 billion a year.
On August 31, 2009 the NY Times said medical tort reform is moving to the fore of the health care debate, that medical malpractice cost the system $50 billion a year. Reid referred to it as a small fraction of the $2 trillion that health care reform would cost. Obviously a faux pas on Harry's part, one of those nasty unintended consequences of forgetting which lie to rely upon. His Senate bill claims to cost "only" $847 billion during the next ten years. Do the math... multiply $50 billion ten times: $500 billion. A small fraction, Harry?
If Medical Tort Reform were put in place, how many fewer needless tests and costly medications would our current system push in order to prevent frivolous lawsuits? No, apparently it’s easier to expect ailing seniors to just die rather than to take potential income away from trial lawyers, cronies who contribute tons of money to the Democrat Party. Sleaze politics
Is $50 Billion too much to spend on aging seniors or is it too little to save on overall health care? Decisions, decisions. It's still $50 billion every year. The Republican minority have insisted that any Health Care Reform include ways to save billions in Tort Reform. Harry Reid says no way. The Republicans also offered up eleven (11) amendments during the debate of these many bills, a,endments that would force the lawmakers to drop what they have now and be nsured like the rest of the country will be under their great plan. All eleven were nixed. These jokers are OUR employees, but who'd have guessed that?
$50 billion is either a drop in the bucket or it’s a needless waste of money. It depends on where your values lie. My question is simple, why should U.S. government bureaucrats now get into the business of determining when the ailing should die, or live, and for how long?
Proponents of the government plan say that many doctors feel that those final stabs at prolonging an uncomfortable life do more harm than good and not much good. I say it doesn't matter what the doctors or the government "feels" or concludes. If the patient is awake, lucid and can communicate their wishes, to either pull the plug or give it another try, it's their CHOICE.
How much longer we will have the FREEDOM of CHOICE is debatable under this president and our current lawmakers. The lawmakers passed Medicare and Medicaid years ago to afford seniors some type of medical care... as usual, their numbers were way off the target, like ten times less than the actual costs when it paned out. Quite a mistake. Now the Democrat lawmakers, seeing that mistake, want to take away between s450 - s500 billion in payments to doctors and care providers, who subsequently will NOT accept Medicare patients, or will discover a way to cut their losses like rationing care. The elderly will be the ones left holding the bag.
This new health care boondoggle will cause thousands of doctors to retire or move off shore; it will add millions of people that are now uninsured and still leave millions of Americans without coverage. Care and treatment will not improve, costs will increase. The deficit will expand. Our debts to foreign nations will increase as well. It will ultimately insure illegal aliens (for their future votes following amnesty legislation) and worst, it will use taxpayer money to fund voluntary abortions. Those are the bad things. It’s possible the good things that are included in the bill won’t justify the bad.
What in hell are those lawmakers (Democrats) thinking? They seem all to willing to pass a really bad law instead of trying to improve what we have now.
jaq~
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Passing A Bad Bill is Better Than Not Passing Any?
by j. wright - 11/19/2009
.
Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Company, behind closed doors again, NOT in the glare of C-Span cameras for all the world to see (as Candidate Obama promised) finally introduced the Senate's version of nationalized health care/insurance overhaul that the CBO estimates will cost $849 billion for the first ten years. Of course the new taxes to pay for this program begin now. The benefits, or lack of same, of the new plan will go into effect for the taxpayers six or seven years down the road, AFTER the 2012 elections. After the first ten years, who knows what the cost will be, or if the country will be solvent enough to afford it?
.
We've seen what happened to Medicare in the 25 years it has been in effect. It has exploded to ten times the cost of what was predicted by our "experts" in Washington. If "comprehensive health care reform" follows suit, our economy could totally collapse. There are areas where the goverenment should not involve itself (Read: meddle) and IMO, ths is one of them. Besides, its constitutionality is questionable, but who is examining at that?
..
The nearly $250 billion (1.4 trillion) "Doctor fix,” a stand-alone bill that strips a formula that automatically cuts Medicare physician payments out of "comprehensive" health reform, is still off budget, not paid for and raising the deficit. The Wall Street Journal writes, “This doctor maneuver is such a cleverly dishonest solution to their many contradictory promises that we're surprised Democrats didn't think of it sooner.” Will President Obama look the other way and break another huge campaign promise and sign health care reform into law while knowing it will definitely increase the deficit?
.
It should be interesting to see how he reacts after being taken "to the wood shed" by the Chinese over the ever expanding U.S. deficit, the incessant federal spending, and the threat of massive inflation in the future, which would place the billions of dollars the Chinese have 'invested' in the U.S. government in jeopardy.
.
The inmates are running the asylum and the Chinese recognize that. Too bad the MSM doesn't. They are too busy chasing former Governor Sarah Palin's skirt doing fact checks on her recent best selling book. Too bad someone from the Fourth Estate didn’t do as thorough a fact check on candidate Obama before the 2008 elections.
.
jaq~
.
Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Company, behind closed doors again, NOT in the glare of C-Span cameras for all the world to see (as Candidate Obama promised) finally introduced the Senate's version of nationalized health care/insurance overhaul that the CBO estimates will cost $849 billion for the first ten years. Of course the new taxes to pay for this program begin now. The benefits, or lack of same, of the new plan will go into effect for the taxpayers six or seven years down the road, AFTER the 2012 elections. After the first ten years, who knows what the cost will be, or if the country will be solvent enough to afford it?
.
We've seen what happened to Medicare in the 25 years it has been in effect. It has exploded to ten times the cost of what was predicted by our "experts" in Washington. If "comprehensive health care reform" follows suit, our economy could totally collapse. There are areas where the goverenment should not involve itself (Read: meddle) and IMO, ths is one of them. Besides, its constitutionality is questionable, but who is examining at that?
..
The nearly $250 billion (1.4 trillion) "Doctor fix,” a stand-alone bill that strips a formula that automatically cuts Medicare physician payments out of "comprehensive" health reform, is still off budget, not paid for and raising the deficit. The Wall Street Journal writes, “This doctor maneuver is such a cleverly dishonest solution to their many contradictory promises that we're surprised Democrats didn't think of it sooner.” Will President Obama look the other way and break another huge campaign promise and sign health care reform into law while knowing it will definitely increase the deficit?
.
It should be interesting to see how he reacts after being taken "to the wood shed" by the Chinese over the ever expanding U.S. deficit, the incessant federal spending, and the threat of massive inflation in the future, which would place the billions of dollars the Chinese have 'invested' in the U.S. government in jeopardy.
.
The inmates are running the asylum and the Chinese recognize that. Too bad the MSM doesn't. They are too busy chasing former Governor Sarah Palin's skirt doing fact checks on her recent best selling book. Too bad someone from the Fourth Estate didn’t do as thorough a fact check on candidate Obama before the 2008 elections.
.
jaq~
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
President Obama says Health Care Overhaul Isn't About Him
by j. wright - 11/09/2009
.
In August of this year, according to Senator Charles Grassley, (R-IA), “A Democrat congressman last week told (him) after a conversation with the president that the president had trouble in the House of Representatives, and it wasn’t going to pass if there weren’t some changes made and the president says, ‘You’re going to destroy my presidency.‘ “
.
That president is none other than Barack H. Obama. The very same who stood in front of his vaunted teleprompter and asserted at various times that, “…this (health care reform) isn’t about me.”
.
The same “ruin my presidency” line was reportedly used as leverage on some of the reluctant Democrat Representatives in the House last week when President Obama caucused with them pushing for passage of Speaker Pelosi’s 2,000+ page bill.
.
If it isn’t about Obama, who is it about? It isn’t about the majority of the taxpayers who will have to eventually pay for this boondoggle called reform. Since when does the legacy of one president take precedence over the welfare of the 307 million Americans to whom he swore an oath?
.
Poll after poll taken in recent weeks have shown a majority of Americans are not in favor of a government takeover of our current health provider system. Yes, changes must be implemented but not at the expense of destroying what is good about we have now.
.
Speaker Pelosi stood on the steps of the nation’s capitol and pronounced, “…we have listened to the people.” The same ordinary people she insulted and derided following the Tea Party protests and Town Hall meetings last summer?
.
In my opinion, we have a self-serving, arrogant, out-of-control administration and legislative branch where elected officials totally ignore the wishes of their employers, the taxpayers. This is not the America where I grew up.
.
jaq~
.
In August of this year, according to Senator Charles Grassley, (R-IA), “A Democrat congressman last week told (him) after a conversation with the president that the president had trouble in the House of Representatives, and it wasn’t going to pass if there weren’t some changes made and the president says, ‘You’re going to destroy my presidency.‘ “
.
That president is none other than Barack H. Obama. The very same who stood in front of his vaunted teleprompter and asserted at various times that, “…this (health care reform) isn’t about me.”
.
The same “ruin my presidency” line was reportedly used as leverage on some of the reluctant Democrat Representatives in the House last week when President Obama caucused with them pushing for passage of Speaker Pelosi’s 2,000+ page bill.
.
If it isn’t about Obama, who is it about? It isn’t about the majority of the taxpayers who will have to eventually pay for this boondoggle called reform. Since when does the legacy of one president take precedence over the welfare of the 307 million Americans to whom he swore an oath?
.
Poll after poll taken in recent weeks have shown a majority of Americans are not in favor of a government takeover of our current health provider system. Yes, changes must be implemented but not at the expense of destroying what is good about we have now.
.
Speaker Pelosi stood on the steps of the nation’s capitol and pronounced, “…we have listened to the people.” The same ordinary people she insulted and derided following the Tea Party protests and Town Hall meetings last summer?
.
In my opinion, we have a self-serving, arrogant, out-of-control administration and legislative branch where elected officials totally ignore the wishes of their employers, the taxpayers. This is not the America where I grew up.
.
jaq~
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Socialized Health-Care Is Already on the Books
by j. wright - 11/05/2009
.
In a televised interview recently, Dr. David Janda, orthopedic surgeon, University of Michigan, was featured as a guest. Janda, an author as well, is not a supporter of Obamacare in any fashion.
.
In his interview he indicated that half of the proposed government take-over of our health care system is already law, "slipped" into the previous Stimulus package (H.R. 1 EH, The American Investment and Recovery Act of 2009) and will soon take effect. You remember that bill: $787 billion in borrowed dollars, more than 1,000 pages mostly unread. Find it on the Internet at: http://readthestimulus.org/hr1_final.txt
.
Tragically, he indicated, no one from either party objected to the health provisions “slipped in” without discussion, which affects every one of us (see pages 445, 454, 479). Our medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. A new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure our doctors are doing what the federal government (bureaucrats) deem appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to have the remaining doctors who haven’t left the profession give up autonomy and learn to operate less like solo practitioners. Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties.
.
He also implied that if Obamacare passes into law, that 45% of the nation's current physicians will "retire" from practice. Add that fact to another, that more than 30 million new insured will be expecting treatment and we will have a total mess.
.
The previous “Stimulus” bill, now law, generated yet another bureaucracy, the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (see pages 190-192). Its goal is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they allegedly drive up costs. Mercy! Talk about achieving the lowest common denominator!
.
Unfortunately, the elderly will be the hardest hit. As Democrat Tom Daschle wrote in his recent book, ”Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.”
.
Keep in mind this is already the law of the land. “I’m from the government, I’m here to help.” Doesn’t make a lot of sense, does it?
.
jaq~
.
In a televised interview recently, Dr. David Janda, orthopedic surgeon, University of Michigan, was featured as a guest. Janda, an author as well, is not a supporter of Obamacare in any fashion.
.
In his interview he indicated that half of the proposed government take-over of our health care system is already law, "slipped" into the previous Stimulus package (H.R. 1 EH, The American Investment and Recovery Act of 2009) and will soon take effect. You remember that bill: $787 billion in borrowed dollars, more than 1,000 pages mostly unread. Find it on the Internet at: http://readthestimulus.org/hr1_final.txt
.
Tragically, he indicated, no one from either party objected to the health provisions “slipped in” without discussion, which affects every one of us (see pages 445, 454, 479). Our medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. A new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure our doctors are doing what the federal government (bureaucrats) deem appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to have the remaining doctors who haven’t left the profession give up autonomy and learn to operate less like solo practitioners. Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties.
.
He also implied that if Obamacare passes into law, that 45% of the nation's current physicians will "retire" from practice. Add that fact to another, that more than 30 million new insured will be expecting treatment and we will have a total mess.
.
The previous “Stimulus” bill, now law, generated yet another bureaucracy, the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (see pages 190-192). Its goal is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they allegedly drive up costs. Mercy! Talk about achieving the lowest common denominator!
.
Unfortunately, the elderly will be the hardest hit. As Democrat Tom Daschle wrote in his recent book, ”Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.”
.
Keep in mind this is already the law of the land. “I’m from the government, I’m here to help.” Doesn’t make a lot of sense, does it?
.
jaq~
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Two Examples of Deceit...
by j. wright October 22, 2009
.
.
In my construction supervision days, there was a time when the boss asked my Project Manager and me to each generate an estimate of a major renovation of an existing home in the exclusive Rancho Santa Fe community north of San Diego. It took us a couple of days and when we were finished, both of us had estimated a cost of slightly more than $700,000.
With estimates in hand we ventured into the boss’s office where he perused our numbers and began to line out various portions. We asked, “Are those items being deleted from the project?”
“No,” he answered, “Your numbers are too high.”
When the Senate Majority leader in Washington, D.C. attempted to remove about $250 billion dollars of future Medicare payments to doctors from the total cost of the proposed health care plan and pay for it “off budget” (Read: add it to the annual deficit.) the first thing I thought of was what my former employer attempted to create: a nice looking price, (a “low-ball”) but in the end, the home owner had to face the real cost of more than $700,000 as we had originally estimated.
I don’t know what most folks would call a stunt like that, but the word deceitful comes to my mind. The same applies to what the Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid attempted. And to the credit of twelve Senators from his own party plus the opposing Republicans, his attempt failed miserably. Maybe that’s a harbinger of things to come if and when a nationalized health care bill comes up for a vote.
No doubt our current health provider system needs improving. Beginning with a simpler plan we can afford financially seems more in order than to venture into the unknown and create additional unacceptable debt.
.
One such idea comes from the Coalition to Protect Patients Rights, an organization that opposes congressional efforts to revamp the health-care system, the group opposes all the legislation being proposed in the House and the Senate. The bills avoid giving patients control of their health care.
.
The coalition’s stance includes:
.
1. allowing people to buy insurance across state lines,
2. advocating for health savings accounts,
3. opposing the public option of government-run insurance and
4. giving patients vouchers and tax credits to purchase insurance.
.
The group also wants a revamping of medical malpractice suit filings that they say adds billions to health-care costs annually. Quoting one of the doctors involved, “What we want is a system where the patient controls their own destiny.”
.
Baby steps... not a total overhaul of our existing system.
.
jaq~
.
.
In my construction supervision days, there was a time when the boss asked my Project Manager and me to each generate an estimate of a major renovation of an existing home in the exclusive Rancho Santa Fe community north of San Diego. It took us a couple of days and when we were finished, both of us had estimated a cost of slightly more than $700,000.
With estimates in hand we ventured into the boss’s office where he perused our numbers and began to line out various portions. We asked, “Are those items being deleted from the project?”
“No,” he answered, “Your numbers are too high.”
When the Senate Majority leader in Washington, D.C. attempted to remove about $250 billion dollars of future Medicare payments to doctors from the total cost of the proposed health care plan and pay for it “off budget” (Read: add it to the annual deficit.) the first thing I thought of was what my former employer attempted to create: a nice looking price, (a “low-ball”) but in the end, the home owner had to face the real cost of more than $700,000 as we had originally estimated.
I don’t know what most folks would call a stunt like that, but the word deceitful comes to my mind. The same applies to what the Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid attempted. And to the credit of twelve Senators from his own party plus the opposing Republicans, his attempt failed miserably. Maybe that’s a harbinger of things to come if and when a nationalized health care bill comes up for a vote.
No doubt our current health provider system needs improving. Beginning with a simpler plan we can afford financially seems more in order than to venture into the unknown and create additional unacceptable debt.
.
One such idea comes from the Coalition to Protect Patients Rights, an organization that opposes congressional efforts to revamp the health-care system, the group opposes all the legislation being proposed in the House and the Senate. The bills avoid giving patients control of their health care.
.
The coalition’s stance includes:
.
1. allowing people to buy insurance across state lines,
2. advocating for health savings accounts,
3. opposing the public option of government-run insurance and
4. giving patients vouchers and tax credits to purchase insurance.
.
The group also wants a revamping of medical malpractice suit filings that they say adds billions to health-care costs annually. Quoting one of the doctors involved, “What we want is a system where the patient controls their own destiny.”
.
Baby steps... not a total overhaul of our existing system.
.
jaq~
Monday, October 19, 2009
So Much For Transparency..."
j. wright - 10/19/2009
.
On August 21, 2008, Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama said in a televised campaign stop that as president, when it came down to deciding on health care reform that it would be done out in the open with Democrats, Republicans, Independents, doctors, hospital and insurance company reps all gathered around a big table and televised on C-Span for the entire country to see. Transparency.
.
Apparently Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, Democrat Senators Max Baucus of Montana and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel didn’t see that speech. Either that or Barack Obama’s words mean nothing.
.
Those individuals, sans any Republicans, Independents, doctors, nurses, insurance execs etc. are meeting behind closed doors, not on C-Span, to decide what 1/6 of the nation’s total economy and 300,000,000 Americans health provider system will look like for generations to come. I’d be fearful of buying a used car from them let alone trust them to destroy our current health care system and replace it with one that looks like it will offer less to more, cost trillions we don’t have and still leave millions of Americans uninsured. This power grab is called progress? Only in Washington, D.C.
.
What ever happened to the “transparency” we heard so much about during the campaign? So far it seems to be missing in the Obama Administration; the administration that was purportedly based on “Change, change you can believe in.” So much for words, which candidate Obama said many times, have meaning. Really?
.
When the politicians listed above finish their work, their product will then be revised again in a Joint Conference Committee; mostly Democrats behind closed doors before being voted on by both Houses. No televised hearings, definitely no “transparency.” Duped again
.
On August 21, 2008, Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama said in a televised campaign stop that as president, when it came down to deciding on health care reform that it would be done out in the open with Democrats, Republicans, Independents, doctors, hospital and insurance company reps all gathered around a big table and televised on C-Span for the entire country to see. Transparency.
.
Apparently Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, Democrat Senators Max Baucus of Montana and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel didn’t see that speech. Either that or Barack Obama’s words mean nothing.
.
Those individuals, sans any Republicans, Independents, doctors, nurses, insurance execs etc. are meeting behind closed doors, not on C-Span, to decide what 1/6 of the nation’s total economy and 300,000,000 Americans health provider system will look like for generations to come. I’d be fearful of buying a used car from them let alone trust them to destroy our current health care system and replace it with one that looks like it will offer less to more, cost trillions we don’t have and still leave millions of Americans uninsured. This power grab is called progress? Only in Washington, D.C.
.
What ever happened to the “transparency” we heard so much about during the campaign? So far it seems to be missing in the Obama Administration; the administration that was purportedly based on “Change, change you can believe in.” So much for words, which candidate Obama said many times, have meaning. Really?
.
When the politicians listed above finish their work, their product will then be revised again in a Joint Conference Committee; mostly Democrats behind closed doors before being voted on by both Houses. No televised hearings, definitely no “transparency.” Duped again
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Debates Won: Wars Lost...
by j. wright - October 8, 2009
In a recent Wall Street Journal article, former Bush Administration White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove indicated, “The GOP is Winning the Health-Care Debate.”
.
Allow me to take on a former tennis great John McEnroe in-your-face attitude for a second: ''Winning the Debate? But Losing the War? You Can’t be Serious!” Great... if that's a victory please excuse me whilst my head explodes!
.
The Marxist idiots many of us voted into office are going to pass their idea of national health reform regardless of rapidly growing public disatisfaction and the possible political consequences. That's supposed to be a win for the nation?
.
Once in place, especially with Obama's veto pen until 2012, their idea of health reform will never be repealed and eventually we'll be ''enjoying'' a single payer monstrosity similar, maybe worse, than that in the UK and Canada.
.
Its becoming more and more plain that these power guzzling Marxists have no conscience when they are in the majority, and in typical liberal fashion, have this inane belief that they and they alone know what is best for the rest of us, the uneducated inferior types.
.
Sure, many of them will suffer at the polls in 2010 but it’s a small price to pay for their cause, as again, they will have forced their will upon us.To put it bluntly, we've had it. And I'd dearly love to be wrong.
.
Additionally, even with the so-called pass the CBO just gave Senator Max Baucus and the Senate Finance Committee's version of national health care; the numbers are a joke.
.
Out of that expected cost of $829-billion spread over ten years is a huge reduction in Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals of almost half; $404 billion. It's doubtful that will happen. Too many politicians see the folly in screwing with the seniors.The additional proposed taxes and fees will certainly take effect but not enough to offset the ''savings'' in lower Medicare expenses.
.
Then there's the so-called savings to be garnered by eliminating Medicare ''fraud and waste'' to the tune of $500 billion? LMAO! As if any Congress ever discovered fraud and waste and did anything.
.
So let's pretend this plan of theirs works for ten years. After that there is no allotment of money on any one's table to maintain this monster entitlement plan. Like now, Medicare/Medicaid is costing ten times what was planned at its inception 25 or so years ago. Imagine what our kids and their kid's kids will be facing in a couple of decades.
.
The radical leftists have been compared to as an army of ants. Close, only worse. The ants aren't so much interested in control and power as they are in survival.
.
They will accept a loss of the House in 2010 as long as they pass nationalized health care ''reform'' now.Like good socialists, they love their martyrs and are a patient lot. Sooner or later they would regain the House and control of the taxpayer dollars.
.
Personally, I don't see a miracle in the making that will prevent them from passing Obamacare or whatever it’s called. And the arrogant One's ego trip will be nauseating to behold when that takes place.
jaq~
In a recent Wall Street Journal article, former Bush Administration White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove indicated, “The GOP is Winning the Health-Care Debate.”
.
Allow me to take on a former tennis great John McEnroe in-your-face attitude for a second: ''Winning the Debate? But Losing the War? You Can’t be Serious!” Great... if that's a victory please excuse me whilst my head explodes!
.
The Marxist idiots many of us voted into office are going to pass their idea of national health reform regardless of rapidly growing public disatisfaction and the possible political consequences. That's supposed to be a win for the nation?
.
Once in place, especially with Obama's veto pen until 2012, their idea of health reform will never be repealed and eventually we'll be ''enjoying'' a single payer monstrosity similar, maybe worse, than that in the UK and Canada.
.
Its becoming more and more plain that these power guzzling Marxists have no conscience when they are in the majority, and in typical liberal fashion, have this inane belief that they and they alone know what is best for the rest of us, the uneducated inferior types.
.
Sure, many of them will suffer at the polls in 2010 but it’s a small price to pay for their cause, as again, they will have forced their will upon us.To put it bluntly, we've had it. And I'd dearly love to be wrong.
.
Additionally, even with the so-called pass the CBO just gave Senator Max Baucus and the Senate Finance Committee's version of national health care; the numbers are a joke.
.
Out of that expected cost of $829-billion spread over ten years is a huge reduction in Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals of almost half; $404 billion. It's doubtful that will happen. Too many politicians see the folly in screwing with the seniors.The additional proposed taxes and fees will certainly take effect but not enough to offset the ''savings'' in lower Medicare expenses.
.
Then there's the so-called savings to be garnered by eliminating Medicare ''fraud and waste'' to the tune of $500 billion? LMAO! As if any Congress ever discovered fraud and waste and did anything.
.
So let's pretend this plan of theirs works for ten years. After that there is no allotment of money on any one's table to maintain this monster entitlement plan. Like now, Medicare/Medicaid is costing ten times what was planned at its inception 25 or so years ago. Imagine what our kids and their kid's kids will be facing in a couple of decades.
.
The radical leftists have been compared to as an army of ants. Close, only worse. The ants aren't so much interested in control and power as they are in survival.
.
They will accept a loss of the House in 2010 as long as they pass nationalized health care ''reform'' now.Like good socialists, they love their martyrs and are a patient lot. Sooner or later they would regain the House and control of the taxpayer dollars.
.
Personally, I don't see a miracle in the making that will prevent them from passing Obamacare or whatever it’s called. And the arrogant One's ego trip will be nauseating to behold when that takes place.
jaq~
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Now Even the Lawmakers Can't Understand What They Propose...
by j. wright - October 3, 2009
.
In the wee hours of the morning last Friday, the Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Senator Max Baucus, (D-Montana) completed the mark up of their proposed health care reform bill. The committee has been working with what is described as a “conceptual” version, or one prepared in common sense language. It had been given in part to the their staffers, lawyers, who converted it to legislative language before an upcoming floor vote.
.
This is a portion of a quote from Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.): “I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life. We, we write in this committee and legislate with plain English and I think most of us can understand most of that. When you get into the legislative language, Senator Conrad actually read some of it, several pages of it, the other day and I don’t think anybody had a clue--including people who have served on this committee for decades--what he was talking about.”
.
There was more but perhaps you get the gist. The Senate Finance Committee is the same committee that voted down a proposal to have the bill placed on the Internet 72 hours before an up-down vote takes place on the floor. Senator John F. Kerry, (D-Mass.) indicated it would be too confusing. Was he implying that the average American is too stupid to understand words?
.
What I don’t understand is how the Obama Administration and the leftist Democrat legislators react to national polls concerning the public’s seeming disfavor with the Afghanistan conflict, yet totally ignore more conclusive polls concerning widespread opposition to major health care overhaul. Am I one of those average Americans Senator Kerry was speaking about? Maybe so but I do understand words.
.
In the wee hours of the morning last Friday, the Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Senator Max Baucus, (D-Montana) completed the mark up of their proposed health care reform bill. The committee has been working with what is described as a “conceptual” version, or one prepared in common sense language. It had been given in part to the their staffers, lawyers, who converted it to legislative language before an upcoming floor vote.
.
This is a portion of a quote from Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.): “I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life. We, we write in this committee and legislate with plain English and I think most of us can understand most of that. When you get into the legislative language, Senator Conrad actually read some of it, several pages of it, the other day and I don’t think anybody had a clue--including people who have served on this committee for decades--what he was talking about.”
.
There was more but perhaps you get the gist. The Senate Finance Committee is the same committee that voted down a proposal to have the bill placed on the Internet 72 hours before an up-down vote takes place on the floor. Senator John F. Kerry, (D-Mass.) indicated it would be too confusing. Was he implying that the average American is too stupid to understand words?
.
What I don’t understand is how the Obama Administration and the leftist Democrat legislators react to national polls concerning the public’s seeming disfavor with the Afghanistan conflict, yet totally ignore more conclusive polls concerning widespread opposition to major health care overhaul. Am I one of those average Americans Senator Kerry was speaking about? Maybe so but I do understand words.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Further Shredding of the Constitution
J Wright - 09/28/09
After reading a piece in Politico.com, not a radical right-wing web site by any measure, I'm convinced beyond any doubt that the present Obama administration and its fellow lawmakers in D.C. are totally out of their minds. The problem? If this version of Obamacare passes into law and you don't buy mandated health insurance you can be fined, or jailed.
Politico.com published: "Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.
Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."
.
The note was a follow-up to Ensign's questioning at the (Senate Finance Committee's) markup. This is the Committee that is headed by Senator Max Baucus of Montana. Originally he had a “gang of six:” himself, two other Democrat Senators plus three Republican Senators, holed up for several weeks attempting to hammer out what he referred to as a “bipartisan” health care reform package.
.
Apparently those Republicans, including a very liberal Olympia Snowe, concluded they were included only for “show”. When none of their suggestions were accepted by Baucus and the others, they walked. Now Senator Baucus is holding full committee hearings in an attempt to quickly mark up a questionable reform plan that up to now has had about 500 additional amendments added to it. The old adage about the definition of a camel comes to mind: a horse designed by a committee.
.
Yes, we need health care/treatment reform; but we don’t need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. And I totally question the constitutionality of mandating, or forcing citizens to buy anything.
.
jaq~
After reading a piece in Politico.com, not a radical right-wing web site by any measure, I'm convinced beyond any doubt that the present Obama administration and its fellow lawmakers in D.C. are totally out of their minds. The problem? If this version of Obamacare passes into law and you don't buy mandated health insurance you can be fined, or jailed.
Politico.com published: "Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.
Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."
.
The note was a follow-up to Ensign's questioning at the (Senate Finance Committee's) markup. This is the Committee that is headed by Senator Max Baucus of Montana. Originally he had a “gang of six:” himself, two other Democrat Senators plus three Republican Senators, holed up for several weeks attempting to hammer out what he referred to as a “bipartisan” health care reform package.
.
Apparently those Republicans, including a very liberal Olympia Snowe, concluded they were included only for “show”. When none of their suggestions were accepted by Baucus and the others, they walked. Now Senator Baucus is holding full committee hearings in an attempt to quickly mark up a questionable reform plan that up to now has had about 500 additional amendments added to it. The old adage about the definition of a camel comes to mind: a horse designed by a committee.
.
Yes, we need health care/treatment reform; but we don’t need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. And I totally question the constitutionality of mandating, or forcing citizens to buy anything.
.
jaq~
Friday, September 25, 2009
Now He's Thrown Israel Under the Bus!
by j. wright -09/25/2009
.
What was it that coke-head Sherlock Holmes always said to Dr. Watson ? "Elementary..."
.
In the spirit of sarcasm, IF Israel had not been designated as a sovereign nation in 1948 then there would be no 'mideast problem' today.
.
IF Hitler had been better at ridding the world of the 'infestation of Jews' during WW II: same conclusion.
.
As former Dallas QB "Dandy" Don Meredith once told sports columnist/announcer Howard Cosell, "If 'ifs and buts' were candy and nuts, what a Merry Christmas we'd all have."
.
Going back to the current but incessant, never ending 'mideast problem,' IF Jimmy Carter had developed a better pair of gonads as an adolescent, the mideast would be a far more stable place than it is today. All he can do now, in attempting to cover his skinny, saddle-ass, is blame Israel for everything bad that's ever happened and continue to kiss Muslim ass.
.
Apparently President Obama feels that same way. I'm still fuming over his bigoted speech last week at the United Nations general assembly railing at Israel. If I were Bibi Netanyahu, I'd flat knock him on his skinny ass for interferring in the governance of their country. Sure, it would violate untold political decorum but would send a definite message. :)
.
Originally, Obama said the 'new' mideast peace negotiations would commence with no set pre-conditions, then in his usual psuedo-intelligent chin jutting Il Duce fashion, proceeded to lay out several conditions that are, and will be, totally unacceptable to the Israelis. Talk about arrogance. Whose side is he on anyway? I guess we all know now.
.
jaq~
.
What was it that coke-head Sherlock Holmes always said to Dr. Watson ? "Elementary..."
.
In the spirit of sarcasm, IF Israel had not been designated as a sovereign nation in 1948 then there would be no 'mideast problem' today.
.
IF Hitler had been better at ridding the world of the 'infestation of Jews' during WW II: same conclusion.
.
As former Dallas QB "Dandy" Don Meredith once told sports columnist/announcer Howard Cosell, "If 'ifs and buts' were candy and nuts, what a Merry Christmas we'd all have."
.
Going back to the current but incessant, never ending 'mideast problem,' IF Jimmy Carter had developed a better pair of gonads as an adolescent, the mideast would be a far more stable place than it is today. All he can do now, in attempting to cover his skinny, saddle-ass, is blame Israel for everything bad that's ever happened and continue to kiss Muslim ass.
.
Apparently President Obama feels that same way. I'm still fuming over his bigoted speech last week at the United Nations general assembly railing at Israel. If I were Bibi Netanyahu, I'd flat knock him on his skinny ass for interferring in the governance of their country. Sure, it would violate untold political decorum but would send a definite message. :)
.
Originally, Obama said the 'new' mideast peace negotiations would commence with no set pre-conditions, then in his usual psuedo-intelligent chin jutting Il Duce fashion, proceeded to lay out several conditions that are, and will be, totally unacceptable to the Israelis. Talk about arrogance. Whose side is he on anyway? I guess we all know now.
.
jaq~
Friday, September 4, 2009
Why More Pro-health Care Reform Speeches?
by j wright
.
.
At the risk of sounding anti-Obamacare, whatever that is, its difficult for me to understand why President Obama, in the face of devastating public opinion to the contrary, insists that a total overhaul of our health care system is necessary. Why, if I wanted to replace my kitchen cabinetry and counter tops, would I begin by demolishing the entire house?
.
Now President Obama is set to make a high-level pitch for health care reform before a joint session of Congress. Many of those members, who if brave enough, recently stood before their constituents and felt the heat of an aroused public, who by all national polls are well satisfied enough with the current system that it doesn’t need to be totally destroyed and eventually taken over and operated by the federal government.
.
President Obama will be preaching to the choir, at least that’s how it appears to me. The more he speaks, the faster his job approval ratings plummet, and they have, like a stone. All of his “face time” on national television has done nothing for health reforms and has definitely affected his popularity. One definition of insanity is to continue doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Maybe listening to the people is in order.
.
Certainly, his failure to get consensus on health care reform can’t be blamed totally on the Republicans; they have been watching the congressional Democrats doing a good enough job of that. The House Democrats want a “public option.” (Government run health care; eventually eliminating private insurance providers.) The Senate Democrats say “No” to public option. The Republicans are left out of that stalemate all together. Many of their ideas are constructive and bear consideration but the special interests the Democrats favor prohibit even a look-see. No wonder much of the country is upset.
.
jaq~
.
.
At the risk of sounding anti-Obamacare, whatever that is, its difficult for me to understand why President Obama, in the face of devastating public opinion to the contrary, insists that a total overhaul of our health care system is necessary. Why, if I wanted to replace my kitchen cabinetry and counter tops, would I begin by demolishing the entire house?
.
Now President Obama is set to make a high-level pitch for health care reform before a joint session of Congress. Many of those members, who if brave enough, recently stood before their constituents and felt the heat of an aroused public, who by all national polls are well satisfied enough with the current system that it doesn’t need to be totally destroyed and eventually taken over and operated by the federal government.
.
President Obama will be preaching to the choir, at least that’s how it appears to me. The more he speaks, the faster his job approval ratings plummet, and they have, like a stone. All of his “face time” on national television has done nothing for health reforms and has definitely affected his popularity. One definition of insanity is to continue doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Maybe listening to the people is in order.
.
Certainly, his failure to get consensus on health care reform can’t be blamed totally on the Republicans; they have been watching the congressional Democrats doing a good enough job of that. The House Democrats want a “public option.” (Government run health care; eventually eliminating private insurance providers.) The Senate Democrats say “No” to public option. The Republicans are left out of that stalemate all together. Many of their ideas are constructive and bear consideration but the special interests the Democrats favor prohibit even a look-see. No wonder much of the country is upset.
.
jaq~
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Take Care of Federal Deficit Later?
by j. wright
.
Friday gave us a “Good news, bad news” scenario: the good news was that President Obama would be vacationing at Martha’s Vineyard and out of the public spotlight briefly. The bad news is that his administration released a revised report showing the growing federal spending deficit would explode to an outrageous $9 trillion during the next ten years instead of the $7.1 trillion they had projected after taking office. Contrary to the Obama Administration’s economic experts, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had predicted a $9.1 trillion deficit and it appears they had the right numbers all along.
So for the next ten years our federal government will go along, happily spending $900 billion more dollars annually than it takes in. I wish I could run my household finances like that. Maybe not, come to think of it. The really bad news is this $9 trillion expected deficit increase adds not only to the burgeoning $11.7 trillion National Debt, it doesn’t include a single dime for the cost of national health/insurance reform… if somehow passed, would be tacked on.
On May 24, 2009 President Obama, as quoted in the NY Post said during a lengthy interview referring to the country, " We are out of money, were broke.” He also added, as I remember, that our government’s current spending habits were “unsustainable.” So what is his solution? Break his campaign promise and increase taxes on every remaining wage earner in order to cover our various near bankrupt social programs? Or begin to reform all of them, cut wasteful fraud and spending and get our financial house in order before taking on anything new?
Still mired in a deepening recession, and with approximately 30 million currently out of work, a huge amount of social program dollars will never be collected. Scarlett O’Hara might suggest that we “…take care of it tomorrow.”
jaq~
.
Friday gave us a “Good news, bad news” scenario: the good news was that President Obama would be vacationing at Martha’s Vineyard and out of the public spotlight briefly. The bad news is that his administration released a revised report showing the growing federal spending deficit would explode to an outrageous $9 trillion during the next ten years instead of the $7.1 trillion they had projected after taking office. Contrary to the Obama Administration’s economic experts, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had predicted a $9.1 trillion deficit and it appears they had the right numbers all along.
So for the next ten years our federal government will go along, happily spending $900 billion more dollars annually than it takes in. I wish I could run my household finances like that. Maybe not, come to think of it. The really bad news is this $9 trillion expected deficit increase adds not only to the burgeoning $11.7 trillion National Debt, it doesn’t include a single dime for the cost of national health/insurance reform… if somehow passed, would be tacked on.
On May 24, 2009 President Obama, as quoted in the NY Post said during a lengthy interview referring to the country, " We are out of money, were broke.” He also added, as I remember, that our government’s current spending habits were “unsustainable.” So what is his solution? Break his campaign promise and increase taxes on every remaining wage earner in order to cover our various near bankrupt social programs? Or begin to reform all of them, cut wasteful fraud and spending and get our financial house in order before taking on anything new?
Still mired in a deepening recession, and with approximately 30 million currently out of work, a huge amount of social program dollars will never be collected. Scarlett O’Hara might suggest that we “…take care of it tomorrow.”
jaq~
Friday, August 14, 2009
Get Ready for Socialized Medicine
by jwright - August 12, 2009
.
The national health care reform proposals being generated in Washington and introduced in Town Hall meetings across the land are not receiving the warm welcome that many politicians wanted or expected. Many ordinary folks in attendance appear to be beyond angry with their lawmakers, who in fact were “hired” at the voting booths to represent but seem hell-bent on passing some sort of radical bill anyway. One in essence that “tears down the house to remodel the bathroom.” Apparently the lawmakers are more fearful of their leadership’s ability to destroy them than they are of the voters to boot them from office. How else could they all utter the identical pro-reform lines over and over?
.
The bill most discussed, of several being generated, is HR3200, a 1,018 page complicated monstrosity that if passed could result in 30,000 pages rivaling our IRS code. That after the government bureaucrat’s finish fine-tuning and defining it into a total remake of our current medical care system; one that isn’t broken but could definitely use some major changes.
.
The Democrats in power have rejected out-of-hand many changes proposed by Republicans including tort reform. A.good part of the escalating costs of medical care is passed on by the increasing costs of medical malpractice insurance. Anti-tort reform trial lawyers are a major financial contributor to the Democrats. No one wants to close that spigot.
NO one wants to close that spigot..
Another tidbit the Democrats refuse to consider is to allow the various independent insurance companies to sell their wares across state lines. For example, if you live in New York state today and wish to purchase lesser cost insurance in Delaware, you can't. Why?
.
Now the Town Hall attendees in disagreement with health care reform are accused of being a mob, organized rabble-rousers, etc. because they want their voices heard. So the opponents of free speech send in their own ‘mob’ of organized thugs, even to the point of beating a conservative black man who was handing out “Don’t Tread On Me” outside one of the meetings. Add to that, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her political toy-boy, Steny Hoyer, recently labeled public dissent as “un-American.” Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves!
.
One line I overheard last week sticks with me: ''They (the lawmakers) didn't come to listen, they came to teach.'' Good grief! I know all I need to know about any of their various health care reform plans, or as Obama now calls it, health 'insurance' reform. What I know is I don't want it! And for all of his so-called oratoical presence, President Obama can't explain it short of lying about what it includes.
.
What I fear most is that come hell-or-high water, these elected idiots, as I mentioned before, are more fearful of Obama's ability to destroy them politically than they are of their constituents booting them out of office. They will dutifully do the bidding of their leader, their Messiah, and pass this or a similar abomination anyway, regardless of massive public sentiment to the contrary.
.
Then what? Wait for the 2010 mid-terms, elect Republican or conservative Independents and attempt to rescind the entire mess with a president holding a veto pen? How much damage will have taken place in the interim?
.
I sincerely hope that those good folks who were duped into voting for ''change'' are choking on their fears right now.
.
jaq~
.
The national health care reform proposals being generated in Washington and introduced in Town Hall meetings across the land are not receiving the warm welcome that many politicians wanted or expected. Many ordinary folks in attendance appear to be beyond angry with their lawmakers, who in fact were “hired” at the voting booths to represent but seem hell-bent on passing some sort of radical bill anyway. One in essence that “tears down the house to remodel the bathroom.” Apparently the lawmakers are more fearful of their leadership’s ability to destroy them than they are of the voters to boot them from office. How else could they all utter the identical pro-reform lines over and over?
.
The bill most discussed, of several being generated, is HR3200, a 1,018 page complicated monstrosity that if passed could result in 30,000 pages rivaling our IRS code. That after the government bureaucrat’s finish fine-tuning and defining it into a total remake of our current medical care system; one that isn’t broken but could definitely use some major changes.
.
The Democrats in power have rejected out-of-hand many changes proposed by Republicans including tort reform. A.good part of the escalating costs of medical care is passed on by the increasing costs of medical malpractice insurance. Anti-tort reform trial lawyers are a major financial contributor to the Democrats. No one wants to close that spigot.
NO one wants to close that spigot..
Another tidbit the Democrats refuse to consider is to allow the various independent insurance companies to sell their wares across state lines. For example, if you live in New York state today and wish to purchase lesser cost insurance in Delaware, you can't. Why?
.
Now the Town Hall attendees in disagreement with health care reform are accused of being a mob, organized rabble-rousers, etc. because they want their voices heard. So the opponents of free speech send in their own ‘mob’ of organized thugs, even to the point of beating a conservative black man who was handing out “Don’t Tread On Me” outside one of the meetings. Add to that, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her political toy-boy, Steny Hoyer, recently labeled public dissent as “un-American.” Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves!
.
One line I overheard last week sticks with me: ''They (the lawmakers) didn't come to listen, they came to teach.'' Good grief! I know all I need to know about any of their various health care reform plans, or as Obama now calls it, health 'insurance' reform. What I know is I don't want it! And for all of his so-called oratoical presence, President Obama can't explain it short of lying about what it includes.
.
What I fear most is that come hell-or-high water, these elected idiots, as I mentioned before, are more fearful of Obama's ability to destroy them politically than they are of their constituents booting them out of office. They will dutifully do the bidding of their leader, their Messiah, and pass this or a similar abomination anyway, regardless of massive public sentiment to the contrary.
.
Then what? Wait for the 2010 mid-terms, elect Republican or conservative Independents and attempt to rescind the entire mess with a president holding a veto pen? How much damage will have taken place in the interim?
.
I sincerely hope that those good folks who were duped into voting for ''change'' are choking on their fears right now.
.
jaq~
Monday, August 3, 2009
What is in the Democrats drinking water?
by j wright - August 3, 2009
.
A friend of a different political persuasion questioned what is in my drinking water that causes me to post here? Similarly I’d ask what’s in the water of many of our elected officials in Washington when they utter some of the things they do?
.
President Obama began it with his statement that although he didn’t have the facts about an arrest made in Cambridge MA went on to assert, “The police acted stupidly.” This was at the end of a press conference covering his health care reform proposals.
.
On that topic, Senate Majority Harry Reid, D-NV, blamed the media for “making up” the August 1st health legislation deadline. That flying in the face of several video clips showing Obama, Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, pushing incessantly for a pre-recess deadline.
.
Pelosi later publically accused our health insurance providers of being the “villains” in this process.
.
Later, Representative Charlie Rangell, D-NY described our current health care system as “terrible.” Terrible? I’m well satisfied with mine, and other than the annual cost increases of Medicare, my insurance premiums have not increased since 2001.
.
Fellow Michigander John Conyers, Democrat, House Chairman, Committee of the Judiciary, questioned why lawmakers should bother to read 1,000+ page bills before passing them because it would take two days and two lawyers to explain it. Unbelievable!
.
Then Democrat Barney Frank of Massachusetts, House Financial Services Chairman was caught on video saying the “public option” that Obama wants to include is the best way to achieve single payer coverage (such as Canada and the UK have). That would ultimately result in the rationing or outright refusal of some aspects of medical care, especially for senior citizens.
.
This contentious, omnibus health care plan is being hashed over in several proposed bills; none of which the national polls find appealing to the informed voters. None of which many Republicans are involved in in or supporting. We need to reform our health system, perhaps starting with tort reform in order to get law suits agaionst doctors and hospitals uinder control BUT that would hinder the trial lawyers ability to make tons of money, AND the trial lawyers are one big fat special interest that supports the Democrat Party.
.
Another move would be to allow insurance cmpanies to sell their services across state lines, increasng competition and lowering costrs to the nsured. Why this isn't in effect already is a mystery to me.
.
jaq~
.
A friend of a different political persuasion questioned what is in my drinking water that causes me to post here? Similarly I’d ask what’s in the water of many of our elected officials in Washington when they utter some of the things they do?
.
President Obama began it with his statement that although he didn’t have the facts about an arrest made in Cambridge MA went on to assert, “The police acted stupidly.” This was at the end of a press conference covering his health care reform proposals.
.
On that topic, Senate Majority Harry Reid, D-NV, blamed the media for “making up” the August 1st health legislation deadline. That flying in the face of several video clips showing Obama, Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, pushing incessantly for a pre-recess deadline.
.
Pelosi later publically accused our health insurance providers of being the “villains” in this process.
.
Later, Representative Charlie Rangell, D-NY described our current health care system as “terrible.” Terrible? I’m well satisfied with mine, and other than the annual cost increases of Medicare, my insurance premiums have not increased since 2001.
.
Fellow Michigander John Conyers, Democrat, House Chairman, Committee of the Judiciary, questioned why lawmakers should bother to read 1,000+ page bills before passing them because it would take two days and two lawyers to explain it. Unbelievable!
.
Then Democrat Barney Frank of Massachusetts, House Financial Services Chairman was caught on video saying the “public option” that Obama wants to include is the best way to achieve single payer coverage (such as Canada and the UK have). That would ultimately result in the rationing or outright refusal of some aspects of medical care, especially for senior citizens.
.
This contentious, omnibus health care plan is being hashed over in several proposed bills; none of which the national polls find appealing to the informed voters. None of which many Republicans are involved in in or supporting. We need to reform our health system, perhaps starting with tort reform in order to get law suits agaionst doctors and hospitals uinder control BUT that would hinder the trial lawyers ability to make tons of money, AND the trial lawyers are one big fat special interest that supports the Democrat Party.
.
Another move would be to allow insurance cmpanies to sell their services across state lines, increasng competition and lowering costrs to the nsured. Why this isn't in effect already is a mystery to me.
.
jaq~
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
My 2-cents
by jwright
.
.
Comedian Steven Wright once said, "If you get a penny for your thoughts, why do we always put our '2-cents' in?"
.
Real Politics columnist John Stossel writes on the very confusing issue of national health care reform: “It's crazy for a group of mere mortals to try to design 15% of the U.S. economy. It's even crazier to do it by August. Yet that is what some members of Congress presume to do. They intend, as the New York Times puts it, ‘to reinvent the nation's health care system’. Let that sink in. A handful of people who probably never even ran a small business actually think they can reinvent the health care system.”
.
Stossel gives the congressional legislators credit for being mere mortals. I’d liken them more to being arrogant snake oil salesmen with blown dried hair and good quality suits. There was a saying that the definition of an expert is anyone more than 25 miles from home. This appears to be the case of the lawmakers who are attempting to follow President Obama’s orders and overhaul (or possibly ruin?) our national health care system.
.
From the liberal NY Times: “Three of the five Congressional committees working on legislation to reinvent the nation’s health care system delivered bills this week along the lines proposed by President Obama. Instead of celebrating their success, many Democrats were apprehensive, nervous and defensive.” That’s understandable. Much of what they are proposing is so bizarre that even the unwashed, average American can understand it. Recent national polls reflect it’s not to their liking.
.
The lawmakers can’t predict it’s eventual cost in new taxes, or if it actually improves the system or replaces it with what Canada and the UK currently “enjoy.” Still, President Obama is pressing hard for something now. Too often, and unfortunately, what a bill contains is secondary to its passing. This controversial bill will affect everyone, forever. Why the rush? Do it right.
.
jaq~
.
Information sources:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/22/arrogance_97561.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/health/policy/18health.html?_r=3&hp
.
.
Comedian Steven Wright once said, "If you get a penny for your thoughts, why do we always put our '2-cents' in?"
.
Real Politics columnist John Stossel writes on the very confusing issue of national health care reform: “It's crazy for a group of mere mortals to try to design 15% of the U.S. economy. It's even crazier to do it by August. Yet that is what some members of Congress presume to do. They intend, as the New York Times puts it, ‘to reinvent the nation's health care system’. Let that sink in. A handful of people who probably never even ran a small business actually think they can reinvent the health care system.”
.
Stossel gives the congressional legislators credit for being mere mortals. I’d liken them more to being arrogant snake oil salesmen with blown dried hair and good quality suits. There was a saying that the definition of an expert is anyone more than 25 miles from home. This appears to be the case of the lawmakers who are attempting to follow President Obama’s orders and overhaul (or possibly ruin?) our national health care system.
.
From the liberal NY Times: “Three of the five Congressional committees working on legislation to reinvent the nation’s health care system delivered bills this week along the lines proposed by President Obama. Instead of celebrating their success, many Democrats were apprehensive, nervous and defensive.” That’s understandable. Much of what they are proposing is so bizarre that even the unwashed, average American can understand it. Recent national polls reflect it’s not to their liking.
.
The lawmakers can’t predict it’s eventual cost in new taxes, or if it actually improves the system or replaces it with what Canada and the UK currently “enjoy.” Still, President Obama is pressing hard for something now. Too often, and unfortunately, what a bill contains is secondary to its passing. This controversial bill will affect everyone, forever. Why the rush? Do it right.
.
jaq~
.
Information sources:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/22/arrogance_97561.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/health/policy/18health.html?_r=3&hp
Friday, July 17, 2009
Is Your Home Really Your Castle?
by j. wright
.
So you think “your home is your castle?” Not if the U.S. Senate passes the questionable “climate” bill the House of Representatives passed last week on a 219-212 vote. It legislates mandatory home inspections by federal regulators (Big Brother?) who will demand to audit every aspect of your home under the threat of substantial and repeated fines if their visits are denied or their demands not satisfied.
.
The inspectors shall request copies of utility bills, or permission to obtain copies from your utility companies and use them to produce an estimate of generalized heating and cooling end-uses; and will inspect for R-values of wall/ceiling/floor insulation; type of windows: glazing type and frame material; type, model number, and location of heating/cooling system, ductwork, location and R-value of duct insulation; type of foundation if crawl, basement, or slab; the age and efficiency of your hardwired light fixtures and screw-in bulbs and the number of water faucets, showerheads just to name a few areas.
.
Does this mandatory intervention violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing protection from unreasonable search and seizure? “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
..
This legislation was fueled on the automatic assumption that global warming is taking place and it attributes to rising CO2 levels, despite the fact that this is a highly contentious question and is being rejected by more and more international scientists, but who cares? This government knows best even when it ignores the Constitution. Your choice: federal fines, or do you spend dollars you can’t spare to upgrade?
.
jaq~
.
So you think “your home is your castle?” Not if the U.S. Senate passes the questionable “climate” bill the House of Representatives passed last week on a 219-212 vote. It legislates mandatory home inspections by federal regulators (Big Brother?) who will demand to audit every aspect of your home under the threat of substantial and repeated fines if their visits are denied or their demands not satisfied.
.
The inspectors shall request copies of utility bills, or permission to obtain copies from your utility companies and use them to produce an estimate of generalized heating and cooling end-uses; and will inspect for R-values of wall/ceiling/floor insulation; type of windows: glazing type and frame material; type, model number, and location of heating/cooling system, ductwork, location and R-value of duct insulation; type of foundation if crawl, basement, or slab; the age and efficiency of your hardwired light fixtures and screw-in bulbs and the number of water faucets, showerheads just to name a few areas.
.
Does this mandatory intervention violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing protection from unreasonable search and seizure? “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
..
This legislation was fueled on the automatic assumption that global warming is taking place and it attributes to rising CO2 levels, despite the fact that this is a highly contentious question and is being rejected by more and more international scientists, but who cares? This government knows best even when it ignores the Constitution. Your choice: federal fines, or do you spend dollars you can’t spare to upgrade?
.
jaq~
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Step Two in Totalitarianism - Mandatory Home Inspections
by jwright-July 8, 2009
.
So you think “your home is your castle?” Maybe not if the U.S. Senate actually passes the questionable “climate” bill the House of Representatives passed last week on a 219-212 vote. It legislates mandatory home inspections by federal government regulators (Big Brother?) who will demand to audit every aspect of your home under the threat of substantial and repeated fines if their visits are denied or their demands not satisfied.
The inspectors shall request copies of utility bills, or permission to obtain copies from your utility companies and use them to produce an estimate of generalized end-uses (heating, and cooling); and then will inspect for R-values of wall/ceiling/floor insulation; Square footage and approximate age of home; Type of windows: glazing type(s) and frame material(s); Type, model number, and location of heating/cooling system(s); Type of ductwork, location and R-value of duct insulation, and any indications of previous duct sealing; Type of foundation if crawl, basement, or slab; Checklist of common air-leakage sites; Estimated age and efficiency of major appliances such as dishwashers, refrigerators, freezers, washers and dryers; Number and type of hardwired light fixtures and screw-in bulbs in portable lamps suitable for energy efficient re-lamping; Visual indications of condensation; Presence and location of exhaust fans, and whether they are vented outdoors; Number and type of water faucets, showerheads; and Presence and type(s) of combustion equipment; blocked chimney, and corroded or missing vent connections
This legislation was fueled on the automatic assumption that global warming is taking place and it attributes to rising CO2 levels, despite the fact that this is a highly contentious question and is being rejected by more and more international scientists, but who cares? Government knows best. If your home doesn’t pass muster, what then? Federal fines, or do you spend dollars you can’t spare to upgrade?
jaq~
.
Information source: http://www.infowars.com/bureaucrats-will-carry-out-mandatory-home-inspections-under-climate-bill/
.
So you think “your home is your castle?” Maybe not if the U.S. Senate actually passes the questionable “climate” bill the House of Representatives passed last week on a 219-212 vote. It legislates mandatory home inspections by federal government regulators (Big Brother?) who will demand to audit every aspect of your home under the threat of substantial and repeated fines if their visits are denied or their demands not satisfied.
The inspectors shall request copies of utility bills, or permission to obtain copies from your utility companies and use them to produce an estimate of generalized end-uses (heating, and cooling); and then will inspect for R-values of wall/ceiling/floor insulation; Square footage and approximate age of home; Type of windows: glazing type(s) and frame material(s); Type, model number, and location of heating/cooling system(s); Type of ductwork, location and R-value of duct insulation, and any indications of previous duct sealing; Type of foundation if crawl, basement, or slab; Checklist of common air-leakage sites; Estimated age and efficiency of major appliances such as dishwashers, refrigerators, freezers, washers and dryers; Number and type of hardwired light fixtures and screw-in bulbs in portable lamps suitable for energy efficient re-lamping; Visual indications of condensation; Presence and location of exhaust fans, and whether they are vented outdoors; Number and type of water faucets, showerheads; and Presence and type(s) of combustion equipment; blocked chimney, and corroded or missing vent connections
This legislation was fueled on the automatic assumption that global warming is taking place and it attributes to rising CO2 levels, despite the fact that this is a highly contentious question and is being rejected by more and more international scientists, but who cares? Government knows best. If your home doesn’t pass muster, what then? Federal fines, or do you spend dollars you can’t spare to upgrade?
jaq~
.
Information source: http://www.infowars.com/bureaucrats-will-carry-out-mandatory-home-inspections-under-climate-bill/
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Step One in Totalitarianism - Cap and Trade
by jwright
HEADLINE: Dollar Falls Most in Month as China Urges New Reserve Currency. That was the June 27 headline at Bloomberg.com, published by the Bloomberg Professional, a service terminal that provides real-time financial news, market data, and analysis.
.
The U.S. Dollar declined the most against the Euro and dropped in value versus the Yen after China challenged Obamanomics and repeated its call for a new global currency.
.
What does the decline in value of the dollar mean for you and me? In a capsule, according to the Gerson Lehman Group, its devaluation means higher prices for our every day goods and commodities, as they are expected to continue to rise along with the value of energy, oil, precious and base metals. Fuel costs will increase, and consumer credit will shrink while inflation increases (punishing those like me and others on a fixed income).
.
The opponents of the president’s ominous Cap-and-Trade bill that passed recently in the U.S. House of Representatives said much the same. In the opinion of millions it’s a new, unfair tax on energy consumption that will essentially increase the costs of everything we use. Slowdowns in corporate production will ensue. American businesses relocating offshore would result, subsequently followed with the loss of American jobs.
Some politicians say the bill makes sense because if energy costs rise, consumption will be less. The nebulous reasoning is that we’ll then lessen our dependence on foreign oil and somehow change our planet’s climate. Is this like rearranging the chairs in a restaurant’s public smoking section while the growing smoke cloud lingers everywhere? With China and India’s growth, the pollution on the planet increases while our cost of living increases and our standard of living erodes, the economy continues to founder, and worse, the central federal government attains more power. We are the losers.
Sources: www.bloomberg.com; www.glgroup.com/
.
jaq~
HEADLINE: Dollar Falls Most in Month as China Urges New Reserve Currency. That was the June 27 headline at Bloomberg.com, published by the Bloomberg Professional, a service terminal that provides real-time financial news, market data, and analysis.
.
The U.S. Dollar declined the most against the Euro and dropped in value versus the Yen after China challenged Obamanomics and repeated its call for a new global currency.
.
What does the decline in value of the dollar mean for you and me? In a capsule, according to the Gerson Lehman Group, its devaluation means higher prices for our every day goods and commodities, as they are expected to continue to rise along with the value of energy, oil, precious and base metals. Fuel costs will increase, and consumer credit will shrink while inflation increases (punishing those like me and others on a fixed income).
.
The opponents of the president’s ominous Cap-and-Trade bill that passed recently in the U.S. House of Representatives said much the same. In the opinion of millions it’s a new, unfair tax on energy consumption that will essentially increase the costs of everything we use. Slowdowns in corporate production will ensue. American businesses relocating offshore would result, subsequently followed with the loss of American jobs.
Some politicians say the bill makes sense because if energy costs rise, consumption will be less. The nebulous reasoning is that we’ll then lessen our dependence on foreign oil and somehow change our planet’s climate. Is this like rearranging the chairs in a restaurant’s public smoking section while the growing smoke cloud lingers everywhere? With China and India’s growth, the pollution on the planet increases while our cost of living increases and our standard of living erodes, the economy continues to founder, and worse, the central federal government attains more power. We are the losers.
Sources: www.bloomberg.com; www.glgroup.com/
.
jaq~
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Why This Particular Health Care Reform Package?
by j. wright
.
A clever quote from a former U.S Senator, Illinois Republican Everett McKinley Dirksen said, "A million here, a million there, soon adds up to real money."
Not any more, at least if you are an elected legislator working in Washington, D. C.
Remember as recently as last fall when President Bush's Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson asked for a then astronomical $700 billion dollars ($700,000,000,000.00) which was approved after much wailing and gnashing of Congressional teeth. Called TARP for Troubled Asset Relief Program, it expanded beyond the $700 billion before leaving the Senate. Congress entrusted Paulson, unconstitutionally, to "fix" the financial mess; it's still with us. Where did the $700 billion in taxpayer dollars go?
Now we are getting used to larger numbers: trillions with 12 zeroes. Dirksen's millions here and there pale in comparison. President Obama started pushing a new health care reform package that was to top out at $1.trillion (1,000,000,000,000.00) over ten years. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) took a closer look and came up with $1.6 trillion. Today, their revised figure is $3 trillion. This astronomical amount of future taxpayer debt (Quoting Obama: we don’t have the money) will supposedly provide Americans with a questionable health care program similar to that of the UK and Canada. That's something to look forward to.
Why are we considering this? To provide access or coverage for some unverified number of Americans who for a multitude of reasons, some personal, do not have health insurance coverage? Even the various plans being considered do not cover everyone, that’s been reported for weeks. So how much will this boondoggle really cost if it passes? Many of the legislators are in the dark though they seem willing to pass the bill anyway. Can "We the People" stop them? Maybe when pigs fly. We need health care reform but is this it?
jaq~
.
A clever quote from a former U.S Senator, Illinois Republican Everett McKinley Dirksen said, "A million here, a million there, soon adds up to real money."
Not any more, at least if you are an elected legislator working in Washington, D. C.
Remember as recently as last fall when President Bush's Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson asked for a then astronomical $700 billion dollars ($700,000,000,000.00) which was approved after much wailing and gnashing of Congressional teeth. Called TARP for Troubled Asset Relief Program, it expanded beyond the $700 billion before leaving the Senate. Congress entrusted Paulson, unconstitutionally, to "fix" the financial mess; it's still with us. Where did the $700 billion in taxpayer dollars go?
Now we are getting used to larger numbers: trillions with 12 zeroes. Dirksen's millions here and there pale in comparison. President Obama started pushing a new health care reform package that was to top out at $1.trillion (1,000,000,000,000.00) over ten years. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) took a closer look and came up with $1.6 trillion. Today, their revised figure is $3 trillion. This astronomical amount of future taxpayer debt (Quoting Obama: we don’t have the money) will supposedly provide Americans with a questionable health care program similar to that of the UK and Canada. That's something to look forward to.
Why are we considering this? To provide access or coverage for some unverified number of Americans who for a multitude of reasons, some personal, do not have health insurance coverage? Even the various plans being considered do not cover everyone, that’s been reported for weeks. So how much will this boondoggle really cost if it passes? Many of the legislators are in the dark though they seem willing to pass the bill anyway. Can "We the People" stop them? Maybe when pigs fly. We need health care reform but is this it?
jaq~
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Do We Have An Over-reaching Executive Administration?
by j. wright
Two things in the national political works at this writing concern me greatly. One that may become enacted is the proposed appointment by President Obama of an “Executive-Pay Czar,” or as sometimes referred to in the media, a “Master of Compensation.” This appointed “Master,” not one selected or approved by Congress, will be filled by attorney Kenneth Feinberg, formerly on vice-president Joe Biden’s economic advisory staff. Feinberg’s job will be to ensure that private companies that received tazpayer bailout dollars from the questionable Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP) are abiding by the new executive pay levels put in place by Obama.
To begin with, TARP’s constitutionality was highly questionable when the Democrat controlled Congress relinquished its sovereign responsibility for the disbursement of the national treasury to the Executive branch, namely the Secretary of the Treasury under former president Bush and now under Obama. Add to that, the naming of a "Pay Czar" is another affront to the American free enterprise system exercised by the Executive branch whose apparent intention is to control private business expenditures. It has been reported that the new federal “Pay Czar’s” authority could possibly even reach into private companies that were NOT recipients of TARP. This the America where I grew up? Hardly.
The other issue is how Chrysler Corporation’s remaining debt holders had their day before the U.S. Supreme Court and lost, leaving the Indiana pensioners whose retirement savings were wrapped up in Chrysler bonds, standing alone in challenging Obama and his administration who earlier had called for “shared sacrifice” in this issue.
As National Review printed recently: “It should be noted that Chrysler’s unions, unsecured creditors who jumped to the head of the line thanks to White House power play, did not give an inch on their base pay or pension terms. Who would call that shared sacrifice?”
jaq~
National Review quote source: http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTA4MTRlYmFiODhhNGU5MDI0YjhhMGNkZTY1NzAwY2Y=.
Two things in the national political works at this writing concern me greatly. One that may become enacted is the proposed appointment by President Obama of an “Executive-Pay Czar,” or as sometimes referred to in the media, a “Master of Compensation.” This appointed “Master,” not one selected or approved by Congress, will be filled by attorney Kenneth Feinberg, formerly on vice-president Joe Biden’s economic advisory staff. Feinberg’s job will be to ensure that private companies that received tazpayer bailout dollars from the questionable Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP) are abiding by the new executive pay levels put in place by Obama.
To begin with, TARP’s constitutionality was highly questionable when the Democrat controlled Congress relinquished its sovereign responsibility for the disbursement of the national treasury to the Executive branch, namely the Secretary of the Treasury under former president Bush and now under Obama. Add to that, the naming of a "Pay Czar" is another affront to the American free enterprise system exercised by the Executive branch whose apparent intention is to control private business expenditures. It has been reported that the new federal “Pay Czar’s” authority could possibly even reach into private companies that were NOT recipients of TARP. This the America where I grew up? Hardly.
The other issue is how Chrysler Corporation’s remaining debt holders had their day before the U.S. Supreme Court and lost, leaving the Indiana pensioners whose retirement savings were wrapped up in Chrysler bonds, standing alone in challenging Obama and his administration who earlier had called for “shared sacrifice” in this issue.
As National Review printed recently: “It should be noted that Chrysler’s unions, unsecured creditors who jumped to the head of the line thanks to White House power play, did not give an inch on their base pay or pension terms. Who would call that shared sacrifice?”
jaq~
National Review quote source: http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTA4MTRlYmFiODhhNGU5MDI0YjhhMGNkZTY1NzAwY2Y=.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Whom to Advise in the Ongoing Israeli-Palestinian Issue
by jwright
In reading Philadelphia Inquirer columnist and editorial board member Trudy Rubin’s recent column in the Cadillac News, I found myself amazed at her naiveté in general with the ongoing, never ending Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Ms. Rubin suggested that President Obama “coulda-woulda-shoulda” said things much differently when meeting earlier with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the White House and she offered some examples.
I’m not an expert on mid-east politics but my memory still works. The suggestion that Israeli should again seriously recognize a sovereign Palestinian state brings to mind what happened when the Israel government decided to remove itself, it’s people and military from the contentious Gaza Strip neighboring Egypt. This was a unilateral act on Israel’s part to show the Palestinians and their neighboring Arab state supporters that peaceful coexistence might be possible. It takes two to tango.
Israel discovered too late when Hamas, the elected Palestinian terrorist government of the Gaza Strip, began to ruthlessly and indiscriminately shower the neighboring Israeli villages and towns with rockets, killing and injuring hundreds of innocent men, women and children. All while the United Nations looked the other way. Very convenient for Hamas, a declared enemy of Israel who has vowed to never recognize Israel as a Jewish State, or as a sovereign state at all.
I also don’t know Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu personally but I’d wager that he is not interested in having a repeat of that mindless behavior coming from the West Bank from a newly formed sovereign Palestinian State. My suggestion would be to not advise Israeli on what to do but instead direct any further discussion at the terrorist government in Gaza, and to any potential Palestinian terrorists in the West Bank. In my biased opinion, that’s who requires that proverbial trip to the woodshed.
.
jaq~
In reading Philadelphia Inquirer columnist and editorial board member Trudy Rubin’s recent column in the Cadillac News, I found myself amazed at her naiveté in general with the ongoing, never ending Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Ms. Rubin suggested that President Obama “coulda-woulda-shoulda” said things much differently when meeting earlier with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the White House and she offered some examples.
I’m not an expert on mid-east politics but my memory still works. The suggestion that Israeli should again seriously recognize a sovereign Palestinian state brings to mind what happened when the Israel government decided to remove itself, it’s people and military from the contentious Gaza Strip neighboring Egypt. This was a unilateral act on Israel’s part to show the Palestinians and their neighboring Arab state supporters that peaceful coexistence might be possible. It takes two to tango.
Israel discovered too late when Hamas, the elected Palestinian terrorist government of the Gaza Strip, began to ruthlessly and indiscriminately shower the neighboring Israeli villages and towns with rockets, killing and injuring hundreds of innocent men, women and children. All while the United Nations looked the other way. Very convenient for Hamas, a declared enemy of Israel who has vowed to never recognize Israel as a Jewish State, or as a sovereign state at all.
I also don’t know Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu personally but I’d wager that he is not interested in having a repeat of that mindless behavior coming from the West Bank from a newly formed sovereign Palestinian State. My suggestion would be to not advise Israeli on what to do but instead direct any further discussion at the terrorist government in Gaza, and to any potential Palestinian terrorists in the West Bank. In my biased opinion, that’s who requires that proverbial trip to the woodshed.
.
jaq~
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
A Letter from a Dodge Dealer, soon to be "former dealer."
by jwright
.
For all the supporters of President Obama and his Administration currently intent on socializing or destroying privately owned businesses, some very much like Don's Auto Clinic here in Cadillac, MI , or that of a personal life-long friend, (James) McHugh Dodge-Jeep in Zanesville, OH.
Please read on...
.
May 19, 2009 - Letter from a Dodge dealer
.
Letter to the Editor:
.
My name is George C. Joseph. I am the sole owner of Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu, a family owned and operated business in Melbourne, Florida. My family bought and paid for this automobile franchise 35 years ago in 1974. I am the second generation to manage this business.
.
We currently employ 50+ people and before the economic slowdown we employed over 70 local people. We are active in the community and the local chamber of commerce. We deal with several dozen local vendors on a day to day basis and many more during a month. All depend on our business for part of their livelihood. We are financially strong with great respect in the market place and community. We have strong local presence and stability.
.
I work every day the store is open, nine to ten hours a day. I know most of our customers and all our employees. Sunshine Dodge is my life.
.
On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able to do any warranty service work.
.
Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory. Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler's insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.
.
HOW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN THIS HAPPEN? THIS IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY
.
This is beyond imagination! My business is being stolen from me through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN. We did NOTHING wrong.
.
This atrocity will most likely force my family into bankruptcy. This will also cause our 50+ employees to be unemployed. How will they provide for their families? This is a total economic disaster.
.
HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
.
I beseech your help, and look forward to your reply. Thank you.
Sincerely,
.
George C. Joseph
President & Owner
Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu
.
Source: American Thinker Blog: Letter from a Dodge dealer
.
Welcome to the new United Socialist States of America boys and girls.
.
"Change You Can Believe In?" I hope the millions of star-stunned idiots that voted for Mr. Obama are discovering that it's not becoming the "Change" they expected.
..
jaq~
.
For all the supporters of President Obama and his Administration currently intent on socializing or destroying privately owned businesses, some very much like Don's Auto Clinic here in Cadillac, MI , or that of a personal life-long friend, (James) McHugh Dodge-Jeep in Zanesville, OH.
Please read on...
.
May 19, 2009 - Letter from a Dodge dealer
.
Letter to the Editor:
.
My name is George C. Joseph. I am the sole owner of Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu, a family owned and operated business in Melbourne, Florida. My family bought and paid for this automobile franchise 35 years ago in 1974. I am the second generation to manage this business.
.
We currently employ 50+ people and before the economic slowdown we employed over 70 local people. We are active in the community and the local chamber of commerce. We deal with several dozen local vendors on a day to day basis and many more during a month. All depend on our business for part of their livelihood. We are financially strong with great respect in the market place and community. We have strong local presence and stability.
.
I work every day the store is open, nine to ten hours a day. I know most of our customers and all our employees. Sunshine Dodge is my life.
.
On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able to do any warranty service work.
.
Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory. Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler's insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.
.
HOW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN THIS HAPPEN? THIS IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY
.
This is beyond imagination! My business is being stolen from me through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN. We did NOTHING wrong.
.
This atrocity will most likely force my family into bankruptcy. This will also cause our 50+ employees to be unemployed. How will they provide for their families? This is a total economic disaster.
.
HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
.
I beseech your help, and look forward to your reply. Thank you.
Sincerely,
.
George C. Joseph
President & Owner
Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu
.
Source: American Thinker Blog: Letter from a Dodge dealer
.
Welcome to the new United Socialist States of America boys and girls.
.
"Change You Can Believe In?" I hope the millions of star-stunned idiots that voted for Mr. Obama are discovering that it's not becoming the "Change" they expected.
..
jaq~
Friday, May 8, 2009
Will Michigan's Stimulus Billions Be Rescinded Too?
by jwright
.
A couple of weeks ago the Detroit News reported that the State House Republican leaders in Lansing were pressuring Governor Jennifer Granholm to slash state spending another half-billion dollars because revenue is falling short by $25 million a week.
The Republicans suggested that Granholm could accomplish the spending cuts by reducing all governmental departments wages by 5 percent across-the-board; a 5 percent wage cut for Michigan's 52,000 state workers and a 5 percent increase in the amount state workers must contribute for health care coverage.
They also called for 5 percent cuts in lawmakers' office budgets, pay for non-teaching workers at the 15 public universities and pay for legislative employees. It wasn’t mentioned if the state lawmakers, the second highest paid in the nation, would accept a wage cut as well.
This should be interesting to watch. The Los Angeles Times has reported that the Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money to California if its Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget. California, much like Michigan only worse off financially, has a tremendous budget deficit currently with no seeming resolution in sight.
.
Like California, many of Michigan’s state workers fall in the category as union members. Will Obama’s Administration threaten fellow Democrat Governor Jennifer Granhom with rescinding the billions of “stimulus” dollars promised to Michigan now? Or, because she is a Democrat, will they simply look the other way if Michigan’s state workers are forced to accept a cut?
.
I’m semi-curious as to how many of our state workers might have voted for both Obama and Granholm and are wondering why today. Like I said, this should be interesting to watch.
.
jaq~
.
A couple of weeks ago the Detroit News reported that the State House Republican leaders in Lansing were pressuring Governor Jennifer Granholm to slash state spending another half-billion dollars because revenue is falling short by $25 million a week.
The Republicans suggested that Granholm could accomplish the spending cuts by reducing all governmental departments wages by 5 percent across-the-board; a 5 percent wage cut for Michigan's 52,000 state workers and a 5 percent increase in the amount state workers must contribute for health care coverage.
They also called for 5 percent cuts in lawmakers' office budgets, pay for non-teaching workers at the 15 public universities and pay for legislative employees. It wasn’t mentioned if the state lawmakers, the second highest paid in the nation, would accept a wage cut as well.
This should be interesting to watch. The Los Angeles Times has reported that the Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money to California if its Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget. California, much like Michigan only worse off financially, has a tremendous budget deficit currently with no seeming resolution in sight.
.
Like California, many of Michigan’s state workers fall in the category as union members. Will Obama’s Administration threaten fellow Democrat Governor Jennifer Granhom with rescinding the billions of “stimulus” dollars promised to Michigan now? Or, because she is a Democrat, will they simply look the other way if Michigan’s state workers are forced to accept a cut?
.
I’m semi-curious as to how many of our state workers might have voted for both Obama and Granholm and are wondering why today. Like I said, this should be interesting to watch.
.
jaq~
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Obama's Grand Plan to Spend Us Into Prosperity
J wright says; "This isn't an original of mine. It's an article based on a recent Fact Check report and well worth repeating."
.
FACT CHECK.org:
Obama disowns deficit he helped shape
Apr 29, 5:55 PM (ET)By CALVIN WOODWARD
WASHINGTON (AP) - "That wasn't me," Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One. It actually was him - and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years - who shaped a budget so out of balance.
.
And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.
.
Obama met citizens at an Arnold, Mo., high school Wednesday in advance of his prime-time news conference. Both forums were a platform to review is progress at the 100-day mark and look ahead.
.
At various times, he brought an air of certainty to ambitions that are far from cast in stone.
His assertion that his proposed budget "will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" is an eyeball-roller among many economists, given the uncharted terrain of trillion-dollar deficits and economic calamity that the government is negotiating.
.
He promised vast savings from increased spending on preventive health care in the face of doubts that such an effort, however laudable it might be for public welfare, can pay for itself, let alone yield huge savings.
.
A look at some of his claims Wednesday:
.
OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years." - in Missouri.
.
THE FACTS: Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months - a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.
.
To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.
The economy has worsened under Obama, though from forces surely in play before he became president, and he can credibly claim to have inherited a grim situation.
Still, his response to the crisis goes well beyond "one-time charges."
.
He's persuaded Congress to expand children's health insurance, education spending, health information technology and more. He's moving ahead on a variety of big-ticket items on health care, the environment, energy and transportation that, if achieved, will be more enduring than bank bailouts and aid for homeowners.
.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated his policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion.
---
OBAMA: "I think one basic principle that we know is that the more we do on the (disease) prevention side, the more we can obtain serious savings down the road. ... If we're making those investments, we will save huge amounts of money in the long term." - in Missouri.
.
THE FACTS: It sounds believable that preventing illness should be cheaper than treating it, and indeed that's the case with steps like preventing smoking and improving diets and exercise. But during the 2008 campaign, when Obama and other presidential candidates were touting a focus on preventive care, the New England Journal of Medicine cautioned that "sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching." It said that "although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."
.
And a study released in December by the Congressional Budget Office found that increasing preventive care "could improve people's health but would probably generate either modest reductions in the overall costs of health care or increases in such spending within a 10-year budgetary time frame."
---
OBAMA: "You could cut (Social Security) benefits. You could raise the tax on everybody so everybody's payroll tax goes up a little bit. Or you can do what I think is probably the best solution, which is you can raise the cap on the payroll tax." - in Missouri.
.
THE FACTS: Obama's proposal would reduce the Social Security trust fund's deficit by less than half, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
.
That means he would still have to cut benefits, raise the payroll tax rate, raise the retirement age or some combination to deal with the program's long-term imbalance.
.
Workers currently pay 6.2 percent and their employers pay an equal rate - for a total of 12.4 percent - on annual wages of up to $106,800, after which no more payroll tax is collected.
.
Obama wants workers making more than $250,000 to pay payroll tax on their income over that amount. That would still protect workers making under $250,000 from an additional burden. But it would raise much less money than removing the cap completely.
---
Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.
.
FACT CHECK.org:
Obama disowns deficit he helped shape
Apr 29, 5:55 PM (ET)By CALVIN WOODWARD
WASHINGTON (AP) - "That wasn't me," Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One. It actually was him - and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years - who shaped a budget so out of balance.
.
And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.
.
Obama met citizens at an Arnold, Mo., high school Wednesday in advance of his prime-time news conference. Both forums were a platform to review is progress at the 100-day mark and look ahead.
.
At various times, he brought an air of certainty to ambitions that are far from cast in stone.
His assertion that his proposed budget "will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" is an eyeball-roller among many economists, given the uncharted terrain of trillion-dollar deficits and economic calamity that the government is negotiating.
.
He promised vast savings from increased spending on preventive health care in the face of doubts that such an effort, however laudable it might be for public welfare, can pay for itself, let alone yield huge savings.
.
A look at some of his claims Wednesday:
.
OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years." - in Missouri.
.
THE FACTS: Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months - a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.
.
To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.
The economy has worsened under Obama, though from forces surely in play before he became president, and he can credibly claim to have inherited a grim situation.
Still, his response to the crisis goes well beyond "one-time charges."
.
He's persuaded Congress to expand children's health insurance, education spending, health information technology and more. He's moving ahead on a variety of big-ticket items on health care, the environment, energy and transportation that, if achieved, will be more enduring than bank bailouts and aid for homeowners.
.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated his policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion.
---
OBAMA: "I think one basic principle that we know is that the more we do on the (disease) prevention side, the more we can obtain serious savings down the road. ... If we're making those investments, we will save huge amounts of money in the long term." - in Missouri.
.
THE FACTS: It sounds believable that preventing illness should be cheaper than treating it, and indeed that's the case with steps like preventing smoking and improving diets and exercise. But during the 2008 campaign, when Obama and other presidential candidates were touting a focus on preventive care, the New England Journal of Medicine cautioned that "sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching." It said that "although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."
.
And a study released in December by the Congressional Budget Office found that increasing preventive care "could improve people's health but would probably generate either modest reductions in the overall costs of health care or increases in such spending within a 10-year budgetary time frame."
---
OBAMA: "You could cut (Social Security) benefits. You could raise the tax on everybody so everybody's payroll tax goes up a little bit. Or you can do what I think is probably the best solution, which is you can raise the cap on the payroll tax." - in Missouri.
.
THE FACTS: Obama's proposal would reduce the Social Security trust fund's deficit by less than half, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
.
That means he would still have to cut benefits, raise the payroll tax rate, raise the retirement age or some combination to deal with the program's long-term imbalance.
.
Workers currently pay 6.2 percent and their employers pay an equal rate - for a total of 12.4 percent - on annual wages of up to $106,800, after which no more payroll tax is collected.
.
Obama wants workers making more than $250,000 to pay payroll tax on their income over that amount. That would still protect workers making under $250,000 from an additional burden. But it would raise much less money than removing the cap completely.
---
Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
More Attacks from the Left on our Constitution
by j wright
.
Recently a bill was introduced in the U.S Senate that would allow President Obama to shut down the Internet in the event of a national emergency. A Zogby poll afterward reflected that 81 % of those polled were in opposition with only 5% in favor of such a drastic move.
.
Another rights infringing bill that could pass the U.S. House this week would outlaw preaching on homosexuality, calling it a “hate crime.” What happened to the First amendment of our Constitution allowing Freedoms of Religion and Expression?
.
Or should we consider Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano's recent controversial report to our nation's law enforcement officials to be looked at as a hate crime as well, not to mention the continuing vitriolic blasts aimed at Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin and her family by the extreme leftists, especially MSNBC Cable News and the mainstream press? I mean they are mere words, similar to those the House bill would label hate as crimes.
Fair is fair. What Congress is attempting is far worse than a Christian Pastor or layperson expressing an opinion, which the last time I looked, the First Amendment still protected.
Maybe the next set of laws our Democrat Congress will consider might eliminate the open practice of Christianity altogether, making its practice punishable. What a wonderful new world we're living in today, so full of "Change."
President Obama has been in office 100 days or so and he had an opportunity, as did former President Clinton, to work wonders. Instead he is caving to the radical leftists in his party, who in my opinion, seem hell-bent on driving America’s government in the direction of progressive socialism, or worse. I’m not certain this is the “Change” many of his supporters had in mind, certainly not what the Founding Fathers of our Republic had in mind. Pray folks.
.
jaq~
.
Recently a bill was introduced in the U.S Senate that would allow President Obama to shut down the Internet in the event of a national emergency. A Zogby poll afterward reflected that 81 % of those polled were in opposition with only 5% in favor of such a drastic move.
.
Another rights infringing bill that could pass the U.S. House this week would outlaw preaching on homosexuality, calling it a “hate crime.” What happened to the First amendment of our Constitution allowing Freedoms of Religion and Expression?
.
Or should we consider Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano's recent controversial report to our nation's law enforcement officials to be looked at as a hate crime as well, not to mention the continuing vitriolic blasts aimed at Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin and her family by the extreme leftists, especially MSNBC Cable News and the mainstream press? I mean they are mere words, similar to those the House bill would label hate as crimes.
Fair is fair. What Congress is attempting is far worse than a Christian Pastor or layperson expressing an opinion, which the last time I looked, the First Amendment still protected.
Maybe the next set of laws our Democrat Congress will consider might eliminate the open practice of Christianity altogether, making its practice punishable. What a wonderful new world we're living in today, so full of "Change."
President Obama has been in office 100 days or so and he had an opportunity, as did former President Clinton, to work wonders. Instead he is caving to the radical leftists in his party, who in my opinion, seem hell-bent on driving America’s government in the direction of progressive socialism, or worse. I’m not certain this is the “Change” many of his supporters had in mind, certainly not what the Founding Fathers of our Republic had in mind. Pray folks.
.
jaq~
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Big Time Corruption Discovered in the Big Federal Bail Outs
by jwright
.
The corruption has begun. And Whudda Thunk?
.
Last fall you may remember that Bush administration’s Secretary of the Treasury Paulson saw a major financial crisis looming and asked Congress, led by liberal Democrats since 2006, to grant him $750 billion in taxpayer dollars to “bail out” various financial institutions and banks.
.
According to a recent post in the Baltimore Sun, what started out last October as a single-purpose $750 billion effort to buy toxic securities has now under President Obama and the spend happy Democrat Congress morphed into 12 separate programs that covers up to $3 trillion in direct spending, loans and loan guarantees. The program has now committed an amount equal to the entire annual federal budget.
.
Treasury Secretary Paulson spent half of the original $750 billion. President Obama’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (the same guy who earlier failed to pay his federal taxes in full and now heads up the IRS) is spending the balance, and more.
.
Today we have a major disclosure of corruption and fraud in the bailout program according to investigators who have opened 20 criminal probes into possible securities fraud, tax law violations, insider trading and mortgage modification fraud. The chief investigator indicated that the investigations are just the first wave of cases by his office. He expects criminal indictments to occur later this year.
.
He added that ultimately, the fraud could run into the tens of billions of dollars and the risk of those kinds of criminal activities is growing as the bailout becomes bigger and more complex.
.
The original $750 billion seems small now compared to the multi-trillions of taxpayer dollars the Obama Administration has proposed in further bailouts and reckless spending. The Treasury Department was asked to abandon its current proposed method of buying certain toxic assets. Treasury responded saying it would "consider" the request. Apparently corruption is no big deal.Treasury responded saying that the recommendations would be "considered"
.
How will it end? How many taxpayer dollars will find their way into the wrong hands?
jaq~
.
The corruption has begun. And Whudda Thunk?
.
Last fall you may remember that Bush administration’s Secretary of the Treasury Paulson saw a major financial crisis looming and asked Congress, led by liberal Democrats since 2006, to grant him $750 billion in taxpayer dollars to “bail out” various financial institutions and banks.
.
According to a recent post in the Baltimore Sun, what started out last October as a single-purpose $750 billion effort to buy toxic securities has now under President Obama and the spend happy Democrat Congress morphed into 12 separate programs that covers up to $3 trillion in direct spending, loans and loan guarantees. The program has now committed an amount equal to the entire annual federal budget.
.
Treasury Secretary Paulson spent half of the original $750 billion. President Obama’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (the same guy who earlier failed to pay his federal taxes in full and now heads up the IRS) is spending the balance, and more.
.
Today we have a major disclosure of corruption and fraud in the bailout program according to investigators who have opened 20 criminal probes into possible securities fraud, tax law violations, insider trading and mortgage modification fraud. The chief investigator indicated that the investigations are just the first wave of cases by his office. He expects criminal indictments to occur later this year.
.
He added that ultimately, the fraud could run into the tens of billions of dollars and the risk of those kinds of criminal activities is growing as the bailout becomes bigger and more complex.
.
The original $750 billion seems small now compared to the multi-trillions of taxpayer dollars the Obama Administration has proposed in further bailouts and reckless spending. The Treasury Department was asked to abandon its current proposed method of buying certain toxic assets. Treasury responded saying it would "consider" the request. Apparently corruption is no big deal.Treasury responded saying that the recommendations would be "considered"
.
How will it end? How many taxpayer dollars will find their way into the wrong hands?
jaq~
Saturday, April 11, 2009
The Hypocrisy of Liberal Socialism Laid Bare
j. wright says, "This is one of the best descriptions of the Hypocrisy of Liberal Socialism I've ever read. If only we knew who wrote it. Enjoy!"
.
There was a time in recent American history when certain Soviet jokes didn't work in translation - not so much because of the language differences, but because of the lack of common sociopolitical context. But that is changing. As President Obama is preparing us for a great leap towards collectivism, I find myself recollecting forgotten political jokes I shared with comrades while living in the old country under Brezhnev, Andropov, and Gorbachev. (I was too young to remember the Khrushchev times, but I remember the Khrushchev jokes.) I also noticed that the further America "advances" back to the Soviet model, the more translatable the old Soviet jokes become.
.
Not all Soviet advancements have metastasized here yet, but we have nearly four more glorious years in which to make it happen.
.
One of my favorite Russian political jokes was this, the six dialectical contradictions of socialism in the USSR:
.
There is full employment - yet no one is working.
No one is working - yet the factory quotas are fulfilled.
The factory quotas are fulfilled - yet the stores have nothing to sell.
The stores have nothing to sell - yet people got all the stuff at home.
People got all the stuff at home - yet everyone is complaining.
Everyone is complaining - yet the voting is always unanimous.
.
It reads like a poem - only instead of the rhythm of syllables and rhyming sounds, it's the rhythm of logic and rhyming meanings. If I could replicate it, I might start a whole new genre of "contradictory six-liners." It would be extremely difficult to keep it real and funny at the same time, but I'll try anyway.
.
Dialectical contradictions are one of the pillars in Marxist philosophy, which states that contradictions eventually lead to a unity of opposites as the result of a struggle. This gave a convenient "scientific" excuse for the existence of contradictions in a socialist society, where opposites were nice and agreeable - unlike the wild and crazy opposites of capitalism that could never be reconciled. Hence the joke.
.
Then I moved to America, where wild and crazy opposites of capitalism were supposedly at their worst. Until recently, however, the only contradictions that struck me as irreconcilable were these:
.
Economic justice:
America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.
Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.
They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government.
Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer.
The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.
They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries.
.
Hollywood clichés:
Without capitalism there'd be no Hollywood - yet Hollywood dislikes capitalism.
Hollywood dislikes capitalism - yet they sue for unauthorized copying of movies.
They sue for unauthorized copying - yet on screen they teach us to share.
On screen they teach us to share - yet they keep their millions to themselves.
They keep their millions to themselves - yet they revel in stories of American misery and depravity.
They revel in stories of American misery and depravity - yet they blame the resulting anti-American sentiment on capitalism.
They blame the anti-American sentiment on capitalism - yet capitalism ensures the continuation of a system that makes Hollywood possible.
.
I never thought I would see socialist contradictions in America, let alone write about them. But somehow all attempts to organize life according to "progressive" principles always result in such contradictions. And in the areas where "progressives" have assumed positions of leadership - education, news media, or the entertainment industry - contradictions become "historically inevitable."
.
If one were accidentally to open his eyes and compare the "progressive" narrative with facts on the ground, one might start asking questions. Why, for instance, if the war on terror breeds more terrorists, haven't there been attacks on the U.S. soil since 2001? Why would anyone who supports free speech want to silence talk radio? And why is silencing the opposition called the "Fairness Doctrine"?
.
After the number of "caring," bleeding-heart politicians in Washington reached a critical mass, it was only a matter of time before the government started ordering banks to help the poor by giving them risky home loans through community organizers:
Which resulted in a bigger demand,
which resulted in rising prices,
which resulted in slimmer chances of repaying the loans,
which resulted in more pressure on the banks,
which resulted in repackaging of bad loans,
which resulted in a collapse of the banks,
which resulted in a recession,
which resulted in many borrowers losing their jobs,
which resulted in no further mortgage payments,
which resulted in a financial disaster,
which resulted in a worldwide crisis, with billions of poor people overseas - who had never seen a community organizer, nor applied for a bad loan - becoming even poorer than they had been before the "progressives" in the U.S. government decided to help the poor.
.
As if that were not enough, the same bleeding hearts are now trying to fix this by nationalizing the banks so that they can keep issuing risky loans through community organizers. In other words, to prevent the toast from landing buttered side down, they're planning to butter the toast on both sides and hope that it will hover in mid-air. Which also seems like a sensible alternative energy initiative.
.
Years ago, moving to America made me feel as though I had traveled in a time machine from the past. But after the recent "revolutionary" changes have turned reality on its head - which is what "revolution" literally means - I'm getting an uneasy feeling I had come from your future.
As your comrade from the future, I also feel a social obligation to help my less advanced comrades in the American community, and prepare them for the transition to the glorious world of underground literature, half-whispered jokes, and the useful habit of looking over your shoulder. Don't become a nation of cowards - but watch who might be listening.
Let's start with these few.
People's power:
Liberals believe they're advancing people's power - yet they don't believe people can do anything right without government guidance.
People can't do anything right - yet the government bureaucracy can do everything right.
The government bureaucracy can do everything - yet liberals don't like it when the government takes control of their lives.
Liberals don't like it when the government takes control of their lives - yet they vote for programs that increase people's dependency on the government.
They vote for programs that increase people's dependency on the government - yet they believe they're advancing people's power.
Public education:
Liberals have been in charge of education for 50 years - yet education is out of control.
Education is out of control - yet liberal teaching methods prevail.
Liberal teaching methods prevail - yet public schools are failing.
Public schools are failing - yet their funding keeps growing.
Their funding keeps growing - yet public schools are always underfunded.
Public schools are always underfunded - yet private schools yield better results for less.
Private schools yield better results for less - yet public education is the only way out of the crisis.
One has to believe this author hit the proverbial nail squarely on its head! Amen!
jaq~
.
There was a time in recent American history when certain Soviet jokes didn't work in translation - not so much because of the language differences, but because of the lack of common sociopolitical context. But that is changing. As President Obama is preparing us for a great leap towards collectivism, I find myself recollecting forgotten political jokes I shared with comrades while living in the old country under Brezhnev, Andropov, and Gorbachev. (I was too young to remember the Khrushchev times, but I remember the Khrushchev jokes.) I also noticed that the further America "advances" back to the Soviet model, the more translatable the old Soviet jokes become.
.
Not all Soviet advancements have metastasized here yet, but we have nearly four more glorious years in which to make it happen.
.
One of my favorite Russian political jokes was this, the six dialectical contradictions of socialism in the USSR:
.
There is full employment - yet no one is working.
No one is working - yet the factory quotas are fulfilled.
The factory quotas are fulfilled - yet the stores have nothing to sell.
The stores have nothing to sell - yet people got all the stuff at home.
People got all the stuff at home - yet everyone is complaining.
Everyone is complaining - yet the voting is always unanimous.
.
It reads like a poem - only instead of the rhythm of syllables and rhyming sounds, it's the rhythm of logic and rhyming meanings. If I could replicate it, I might start a whole new genre of "contradictory six-liners." It would be extremely difficult to keep it real and funny at the same time, but I'll try anyway.
.
Dialectical contradictions are one of the pillars in Marxist philosophy, which states that contradictions eventually lead to a unity of opposites as the result of a struggle. This gave a convenient "scientific" excuse for the existence of contradictions in a socialist society, where opposites were nice and agreeable - unlike the wild and crazy opposites of capitalism that could never be reconciled. Hence the joke.
.
Then I moved to America, where wild and crazy opposites of capitalism were supposedly at their worst. Until recently, however, the only contradictions that struck me as irreconcilable were these:
.
Economic justice:
America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.
Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.
They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government.
Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer.
The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.
They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries.
.
Hollywood clichés:
Without capitalism there'd be no Hollywood - yet Hollywood dislikes capitalism.
Hollywood dislikes capitalism - yet they sue for unauthorized copying of movies.
They sue for unauthorized copying - yet on screen they teach us to share.
On screen they teach us to share - yet they keep their millions to themselves.
They keep their millions to themselves - yet they revel in stories of American misery and depravity.
They revel in stories of American misery and depravity - yet they blame the resulting anti-American sentiment on capitalism.
They blame the anti-American sentiment on capitalism - yet capitalism ensures the continuation of a system that makes Hollywood possible.
.
I never thought I would see socialist contradictions in America, let alone write about them. But somehow all attempts to organize life according to "progressive" principles always result in such contradictions. And in the areas where "progressives" have assumed positions of leadership - education, news media, or the entertainment industry - contradictions become "historically inevitable."
.
If one were accidentally to open his eyes and compare the "progressive" narrative with facts on the ground, one might start asking questions. Why, for instance, if the war on terror breeds more terrorists, haven't there been attacks on the U.S. soil since 2001? Why would anyone who supports free speech want to silence talk radio? And why is silencing the opposition called the "Fairness Doctrine"?
.
After the number of "caring," bleeding-heart politicians in Washington reached a critical mass, it was only a matter of time before the government started ordering banks to help the poor by giving them risky home loans through community organizers:
Which resulted in a bigger demand,
which resulted in rising prices,
which resulted in slimmer chances of repaying the loans,
which resulted in more pressure on the banks,
which resulted in repackaging of bad loans,
which resulted in a collapse of the banks,
which resulted in a recession,
which resulted in many borrowers losing their jobs,
which resulted in no further mortgage payments,
which resulted in a financial disaster,
which resulted in a worldwide crisis, with billions of poor people overseas - who had never seen a community organizer, nor applied for a bad loan - becoming even poorer than they had been before the "progressives" in the U.S. government decided to help the poor.
.
As if that were not enough, the same bleeding hearts are now trying to fix this by nationalizing the banks so that they can keep issuing risky loans through community organizers. In other words, to prevent the toast from landing buttered side down, they're planning to butter the toast on both sides and hope that it will hover in mid-air. Which also seems like a sensible alternative energy initiative.
.
Years ago, moving to America made me feel as though I had traveled in a time machine from the past. But after the recent "revolutionary" changes have turned reality on its head - which is what "revolution" literally means - I'm getting an uneasy feeling I had come from your future.
As your comrade from the future, I also feel a social obligation to help my less advanced comrades in the American community, and prepare them for the transition to the glorious world of underground literature, half-whispered jokes, and the useful habit of looking over your shoulder. Don't become a nation of cowards - but watch who might be listening.
Let's start with these few.
People's power:
Liberals believe they're advancing people's power - yet they don't believe people can do anything right without government guidance.
People can't do anything right - yet the government bureaucracy can do everything right.
The government bureaucracy can do everything - yet liberals don't like it when the government takes control of their lives.
Liberals don't like it when the government takes control of their lives - yet they vote for programs that increase people's dependency on the government.
They vote for programs that increase people's dependency on the government - yet they believe they're advancing people's power.
Public education:
Liberals have been in charge of education for 50 years - yet education is out of control.
Education is out of control - yet liberal teaching methods prevail.
Liberal teaching methods prevail - yet public schools are failing.
Public schools are failing - yet their funding keeps growing.
Their funding keeps growing - yet public schools are always underfunded.
Public schools are always underfunded - yet private schools yield better results for less.
Private schools yield better results for less - yet public education is the only way out of the crisis.
One has to believe this author hit the proverbial nail squarely on its head! Amen!
jaq~
Sunday, March 29, 2009
"Why I No Longer Support the War" (Guest Opinion)
A GUEST ARTICLE by Jocelyn Blease
.
(Jocelyn is an Internet friend of mine going back several years. She resides in New England and loves it!
In this article she speaks from her heart in a clear, articulate manner. No teleprompters were required.)
.
Over the course of the last 60 plus days, we have been treated to quite a show out of Washington, D.C. and none of it pretty and encouraging but most of it enlightening. We have buffoons and their jesters in charge of our government and try as the people might, these same buffoons and jesters have blinders on and no longer see the outrage of the American people.
That they salivate and slip on their own detritus clamoring to squeeze the very last breath out of common sense and common decency is becoming more than just a side show, it is the main event. That's too bad for the people, it's too bad for our form of government and it's too bad for the Nation as a whole.
Oh, yes, we've heard, false as it is, about how the poor the vast unwashed poor have suffered over the centuries of our Nation's existence and it's time to right the wrongs and set the records straight taking the ill gotten gains of hard working Americans who succeed and produce and give those rewards to the vast unwashed poor who have suffered over the centuries of our Nation's existence. That the exercise would be laudable if the circumstances were true is just a side show.
So, what we are treated to of late is the disassembling of not only the character of who we are as a Nation but the very fiber of what we as a Nation are made of, what we believe and how we get to where we want to go as a person, as a people and as a Nation.
The success of our Nation and the producers and the earners who create that success is being called into question world wide. That we have become a Nation of ideologues with no direction to succeed but to destroy is very clear to even the most blinded in our country and especially world wide. Because our success as a Nation is being called into question, we are about to lose our status as a solid investment for the future, our dollar which once was the currency the world used as a basis for valuing commodities world wide is being called into question and could very well change. Our banks are ridiculed and demoralized and 'scapegoated'.
And who suffers? The people and that includes the fake poor, the vast unwashed poor who have suffered over the centuries of our Nation's existence, that this government intends to raise up, not because they have earned the merit to be raised up by their own hard work and tenacity but on the backs of earners and producers. Unfortunately for this government those earners and producers aren't earning and producing.
What I've just rendered is the template for the insanity coming out of Washington, D.C. and this government. Now, lets expand on that insanity for just a bit.
So far, we've been talking about rights and monetary inconsistencies and a philosophy permeating Washington that is bogus, ridiculous and useful only in expanding government and nothing more. But underneath it all and hidden far away from sight is a War on Terror that we have been engaged in and the name of which we shall not be permitted to mention ever again.
That which we shall not be permitted to mention ever again involves the lives of our sons and daughters and fathers and mothers who answer the call of a Nation to serve.
If this government is so cavalier in its handling of the future of our children not born yet by saddling them with a debt they could never pay within their lifetimes, we should not expect an attitude and ideological mindset that is different for our children and our husbands and wives living and currently serving in our Military.
We no longer refer to the War on Terror as a war but some "Man made gibberish" according to the dictates of Napolitano, the Homeland Security Czar. We no longer refer to the enemy we are fighting as enemy combatants. We no longer have a clear and defining mission in Afghanistan but we are accelerating troop deployment. We are told that the same philosophy and tactics used in Iraq to win that war will be used in Afghanistan without taking into account that we are talking about two different types of countries, governments and people.
We are releasing prisoners from Guantanamo and relocating them to the United States and providing them shelter instead of repatriating them back to where they came from before they took up arms against our Military and against this Nation.
In less than three months in office, Obama has not become Jimmy Carter by using the same economic thinking he used. He has reached back even further to Lyndon B. Johnson and his template for redistributing wealth by tweaking the "Great Society" and "War on Poverty." Most importantly, however, Obama has reached back to Johnson's escalation of troops in Viet Nam with no mission philosophy behind them except the title of "advisor." Obama has Viet Namized the unnamed and unmentionable War on Terror. We are not going back to pre 9/10/1. We are going all the way back to 1965.
Therefore, I can no longer support the unnamed. That I will continue to support the men and women assigned to the nebulous task of advisor and training in Afghanistan during an unnamed exercise is without question. But I aggressively support their return home immediately.
The blood, sweat, tears and the very lives of our sons and daughters and husbands and wives are far too valuable for this government to squander as if they are nothing more than the pieces of silver already being thrown away.
.
(Jocelyn is an Internet friend of mine going back several years. She resides in New England and loves it!
In this article she speaks from her heart in a clear, articulate manner. No teleprompters were required.)
.
Over the course of the last 60 plus days, we have been treated to quite a show out of Washington, D.C. and none of it pretty and encouraging but most of it enlightening. We have buffoons and their jesters in charge of our government and try as the people might, these same buffoons and jesters have blinders on and no longer see the outrage of the American people.
That they salivate and slip on their own detritus clamoring to squeeze the very last breath out of common sense and common decency is becoming more than just a side show, it is the main event. That's too bad for the people, it's too bad for our form of government and it's too bad for the Nation as a whole.
Oh, yes, we've heard, false as it is, about how the poor the vast unwashed poor have suffered over the centuries of our Nation's existence and it's time to right the wrongs and set the records straight taking the ill gotten gains of hard working Americans who succeed and produce and give those rewards to the vast unwashed poor who have suffered over the centuries of our Nation's existence. That the exercise would be laudable if the circumstances were true is just a side show.
So, what we are treated to of late is the disassembling of not only the character of who we are as a Nation but the very fiber of what we as a Nation are made of, what we believe and how we get to where we want to go as a person, as a people and as a Nation.
The success of our Nation and the producers and the earners who create that success is being called into question world wide. That we have become a Nation of ideologues with no direction to succeed but to destroy is very clear to even the most blinded in our country and especially world wide. Because our success as a Nation is being called into question, we are about to lose our status as a solid investment for the future, our dollar which once was the currency the world used as a basis for valuing commodities world wide is being called into question and could very well change. Our banks are ridiculed and demoralized and 'scapegoated'.
And who suffers? The people and that includes the fake poor, the vast unwashed poor who have suffered over the centuries of our Nation's existence, that this government intends to raise up, not because they have earned the merit to be raised up by their own hard work and tenacity but on the backs of earners and producers. Unfortunately for this government those earners and producers aren't earning and producing.
What I've just rendered is the template for the insanity coming out of Washington, D.C. and this government. Now, lets expand on that insanity for just a bit.
So far, we've been talking about rights and monetary inconsistencies and a philosophy permeating Washington that is bogus, ridiculous and useful only in expanding government and nothing more. But underneath it all and hidden far away from sight is a War on Terror that we have been engaged in and the name of which we shall not be permitted to mention ever again.
That which we shall not be permitted to mention ever again involves the lives of our sons and daughters and fathers and mothers who answer the call of a Nation to serve.
If this government is so cavalier in its handling of the future of our children not born yet by saddling them with a debt they could never pay within their lifetimes, we should not expect an attitude and ideological mindset that is different for our children and our husbands and wives living and currently serving in our Military.
We no longer refer to the War on Terror as a war but some "Man made gibberish" according to the dictates of Napolitano, the Homeland Security Czar. We no longer refer to the enemy we are fighting as enemy combatants. We no longer have a clear and defining mission in Afghanistan but we are accelerating troop deployment. We are told that the same philosophy and tactics used in Iraq to win that war will be used in Afghanistan without taking into account that we are talking about two different types of countries, governments and people.
We are releasing prisoners from Guantanamo and relocating them to the United States and providing them shelter instead of repatriating them back to where they came from before they took up arms against our Military and against this Nation.
In less than three months in office, Obama has not become Jimmy Carter by using the same economic thinking he used. He has reached back even further to Lyndon B. Johnson and his template for redistributing wealth by tweaking the "Great Society" and "War on Poverty." Most importantly, however, Obama has reached back to Johnson's escalation of troops in Viet Nam with no mission philosophy behind them except the title of "advisor." Obama has Viet Namized the unnamed and unmentionable War on Terror. We are not going back to pre 9/10/1. We are going all the way back to 1965.
Therefore, I can no longer support the unnamed. That I will continue to support the men and women assigned to the nebulous task of advisor and training in Afghanistan during an unnamed exercise is without question. But I aggressively support their return home immediately.
The blood, sweat, tears and the very lives of our sons and daughters and husbands and wives are far too valuable for this government to squander as if they are nothing more than the pieces of silver already being thrown away.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
More Discussion on the Henrietta Hughes Poverty Hoax
by jwright
My friend Tom Jobson wrote in today's Cadillac News chiding me and asking in essence if the source (theliepolitic.com) I posted for the Henrietta Hughes poverty hoax was verifiable.
.
Henrietta you may remember was the elderly black woman, allegedly poor and unemployed, who was sitting front center at a Fort Myers Florida town hall meeting that hosted President Obama. Henrietta gave a sterling performance in front of our president and live TV cameras as she pleaded for her own home so she could have a kitchen and a bathroom because she and her son were living in a pick-up truck.
.
Front row center was also where several supporters of Candidate Obama were seated at various campaign stops where they either fainted or swooned during his recitations from the teleprompters and were "rescued" by the alert candidate who just happened to have some bottled water handy enough to toss it down to them. All coincidences happening in real life, of that I'm certain.
But I digress. Moving along, I’d invite Tom Jobson to visit theliepolitic.com or any Internet search engine and read what they have to say beyond what I previously wrote and posted here on blogspot. Apparently Henrietta was or has been a successful real estate investor who became “homeless” when she quit claimed her property over to her son Corey. That information was also picked up by redcounty.com, another Internet web source in an article written by Rus Thompson on February 23 stating: “Just as I and so many others suspected, this poor woman was a plant. Either that or she is the dumbest real estate investor on the planet, but at the same time she blew all that cash? Shifted it all into her poor sons name.”
Thompson’s article furnishes recent property transactions of Henrietta. According to Lee County, Florida property records she signed a quit claim deed in 2006, giving total ownership of a $124,000 valued residential property to her son Corey Lamont. Redcounty Journalist Rus Thompson went on to say, “I would guess this is because the value of the property would affect SSDI benefits along with Medicare/Medicaid.”
Further research of property records found that Henrietta Hughes owned as many as three homes in recent years. Was she a plant; a shill? Was I being disengenious as my friend Tom suggested? Decide for yourself.
Henrietta Hughes was the story the Obama staffers wanted out in the public eye in order to push more social engineering legislation. The Mainstream Media bought Henrietta hook, line and sinker, UNTIL the truth came out. Then she became a non-story. How typical of the MSM and their intense task of carrying this administration's water. My post took on the media for being complicit in deceit.
Later...
jaq~
Rus Thompson, Redcounty.com source: http://redcounty.com/sarasota/2009/02/obamas-homeless-fort-myers-wom
My friend Tom Jobson wrote in today's Cadillac News chiding me and asking in essence if the source (theliepolitic.com) I posted for the Henrietta Hughes poverty hoax was verifiable.
.
Henrietta you may remember was the elderly black woman, allegedly poor and unemployed, who was sitting front center at a Fort Myers Florida town hall meeting that hosted President Obama. Henrietta gave a sterling performance in front of our president and live TV cameras as she pleaded for her own home so she could have a kitchen and a bathroom because she and her son were living in a pick-up truck.
.
Front row center was also where several supporters of Candidate Obama were seated at various campaign stops where they either fainted or swooned during his recitations from the teleprompters and were "rescued" by the alert candidate who just happened to have some bottled water handy enough to toss it down to them. All coincidences happening in real life, of that I'm certain.
But I digress. Moving along, I’d invite Tom Jobson to visit theliepolitic.com or any Internet search engine and read what they have to say beyond what I previously wrote and posted here on blogspot. Apparently Henrietta was or has been a successful real estate investor who became “homeless” when she quit claimed her property over to her son Corey. That information was also picked up by redcounty.com, another Internet web source in an article written by Rus Thompson on February 23 stating: “Just as I and so many others suspected, this poor woman was a plant. Either that or she is the dumbest real estate investor on the planet, but at the same time she blew all that cash? Shifted it all into her poor sons name.”
Thompson’s article furnishes recent property transactions of Henrietta. According to Lee County, Florida property records she signed a quit claim deed in 2006, giving total ownership of a $124,000 valued residential property to her son Corey Lamont. Redcounty Journalist Rus Thompson went on to say, “I would guess this is because the value of the property would affect SSDI benefits along with Medicare/Medicaid.”
Further research of property records found that Henrietta Hughes owned as many as three homes in recent years. Was she a plant; a shill? Was I being disengenious as my friend Tom suggested? Decide for yourself.
Henrietta Hughes was the story the Obama staffers wanted out in the public eye in order to push more social engineering legislation. The Mainstream Media bought Henrietta hook, line and sinker, UNTIL the truth came out. Then she became a non-story. How typical of the MSM and their intense task of carrying this administration's water. My post took on the media for being complicit in deceit.
Later...
jaq~
Rus Thompson, Redcounty.com source: http://redcounty.com/sarasota/2009/02/obamas-homeless-fort-myers-wom
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Voter Outrage Has Its Place, Ignoring the Constitution? Never!
by jwright
American International Group, known familiarly as AIG, has generated some great headlines lately along with much self-rightous braggadocio emitting from many of our elected politicians in Washington, D.C. including our new president, Barack Obama. The latest brouhaha involving AIG stems from its paying out of $165 million in executive bonuses; bonuses that purportedly were part of previous contract agreements between AIG and some of their top level employees.
Politicians of all stripes in Washington, including many ordinary taxpayers who get their news spoon fed via the “main stream media,” became outraged. Sadly the outrage coming from Washington is a theatrical sham: the politicians knew about AIG’s proposed bonus payments weeks ago because it was written quite plainly in the “stimulus bill” signed earlier by nearly every elected Democrat in both legislative houses and enacted with President Obama’s signature.
Some of the politicians screaming the loudest are those who previously received huge sums of campaign cash from AIG before the economic collapse began, namely Senator Chris Dodd, D-CN. Now they are "outraged" at the behavior of one that has fed them.
.
Beyond that, others of the outraged legislators have proposed ill-considered legislation (Read: Illegal) seeking to force AIG employees who received the taxpayer bonus dollars to return it. I’d suggest the legislators read the U.S. Constitution first, beginning with this: A Bill of Attainder is an act of legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial. Bills of Attainder are forbidden by Article I, section 9, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
Yet an outstate New York Democrat member of the U.S. House of Representatives is hell-bent on defying the Constitution. "I think its legal," she said. "Contracts get broken and rewritten all the time." Good grief! I have two questions: where do these people come from? Who elects them?
Voter outrage certainly has its place. Ignoring the Constituion is never acceptable.
jaq~
PS- for more interesting info regarding AIG's generous contribution to candidate Obama's presidential campaign, visit the following link:
http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-Politics-Examiner~y2009m3d17-Obama-Received-a-101332-Bonus-from-AIG
American International Group, known familiarly as AIG, has generated some great headlines lately along with much self-rightous braggadocio emitting from many of our elected politicians in Washington, D.C. including our new president, Barack Obama. The latest brouhaha involving AIG stems from its paying out of $165 million in executive bonuses; bonuses that purportedly were part of previous contract agreements between AIG and some of their top level employees.
Politicians of all stripes in Washington, including many ordinary taxpayers who get their news spoon fed via the “main stream media,” became outraged. Sadly the outrage coming from Washington is a theatrical sham: the politicians knew about AIG’s proposed bonus payments weeks ago because it was written quite plainly in the “stimulus bill” signed earlier by nearly every elected Democrat in both legislative houses and enacted with President Obama’s signature.
Some of the politicians screaming the loudest are those who previously received huge sums of campaign cash from AIG before the economic collapse began, namely Senator Chris Dodd, D-CN. Now they are "outraged" at the behavior of one that has fed them.
.
Beyond that, others of the outraged legislators have proposed ill-considered legislation (Read: Illegal) seeking to force AIG employees who received the taxpayer bonus dollars to return it. I’d suggest the legislators read the U.S. Constitution first, beginning with this: A Bill of Attainder is an act of legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial. Bills of Attainder are forbidden by Article I, section 9, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
Yet an outstate New York Democrat member of the U.S. House of Representatives is hell-bent on defying the Constitution. "I think its legal," she said. "Contracts get broken and rewritten all the time." Good grief! I have two questions: where do these people come from? Who elects them?
Voter outrage certainly has its place. Ignoring the Constituion is never acceptable.
jaq~
PS- for more interesting info regarding AIG's generous contribution to candidate Obama's presidential campaign, visit the following link:
http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-Politics-Examiner~y2009m3d17-Obama-Received-a-101332-Bonus-from-AIG
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
