Socialism And ObamaPerfect TogetherIf Obama is not moving toward Socialism, then taking over the auto industry, nationalizing health care and spending our way into oblivion must mean I’m having a bad dream. However, I know that’s not the case, since the two foot putt I missed the other day and the loud expletive I emitted, were just too real. All of the Obama obsequious voters and sycophants are joyfully following him down this path toward our country’s financial, and maybe otherwise, destruction. Here’s a guy who enjoys hobnobbing with the world’s leading terrorists, thinking that by bowing to them (literally) they will somehow love us. How utterly naïve. YOUTUBE Meanwhile, I’m on the same side of the playing field as Rush Limbaugh. Not only am I hoping Obama fails, I’m praying he fails, so as not to be able to spread his Socialist, Utopian agenda. Long before I heard Rush voice his opinion, YOUTUBE I marveled at the moderate Republican brown nosers who publicly stated they “wanted to see him succeed.” At the top of the list was old “can’t we all get along” himself, John McCain. A Republican, wanting Obama to succeed, is tantamount to hearing Liberals say they’d like to see us win the Iraq War. Full article Archives of Barack Obama's Speeches For those not paying attention to what’s going on, it seems easy for the clueless to be duped by the Obama Administration. Like a half nation of zombies these voters just smile and go along with anything the chosen one says. It reminds me of the Jim Jones Cool Aid drinkers. Look and see if you find your alter ego in this film.YOUTUBE It is typical of liberals to accept things at face value. If a leader tells them guns are bad and no one should have them, fine. Not only does it sound right, but it also makes them feel good. Liberals never delve beneath the surface. But if you say, hey I’m a law abiding citizen who wants to protect my family, and the constitution provides me the right to gun ownership, you’ve lost them. Putting up that kind of common sense barrier means they might have to think, which is not something they’re equipped to do. Liberals never let facts stand in the way of their emotions. Perhaps you think I’m just trying to be humorous, and saying this out of partisanship. Well, how well informed do you think liberal Obama voters were? Take a look. YOUTUBE Now, moving on to the other half of the nation and more specifically, those who sympathized with us tea party types. Night after night I watched these arrogant buffoons on the liberal media treat us like a bunch of ignorant weirdo’s. Of course Obama was quick to move in and join the fray. There were over 2000 who attended in my city, and let me tell you, we were pissed. All that anger was directed toward the Obama Administration, and his radical policies. Personally, we all got along swimmingly and everyone was thrilled to see that some sanity still reigns in this country. These people were not all Republicans/Conservatives. They were from all political persuasions. The citizenry was made to believe these tea parties were planned by Fox News or other luminaries, but any fool who believes that doesn’t have eyes. You have never seen a liberal uprising that took place throughout the 50 states like this. Most of the lib demonstrations are created by unions or thug groups which by the way, using those two words together is an oxymoron. I’m sure the insulting comments and dismissive nature of the major networks (another oxymoron) CNN, MSNBC etc. over the tea parties only had the effect of further outraging the hundreds of thousands who attended. But take heed you elitist, effete, leftist snobs. This was just the tip of the iceberg. Get ready for more tea parties with thousands of new recruits. Obama’s reckless policies have awakened a sleeping giant. There are still enough people in America who aren’t the blithering weasels and wusses of France or even present day Great Britain. This country was made up from a core of hardscrabble individuals who defended themselves and their family’s by force, who spilled their blood for the freedoms we so jealously cherish. It is not going to be usurped by some terrorist loving, silver tongued, community organizer. We have had nations and despots try and take us over in the past, much to their regret. Take a look at what the British suffered when they mistakenly underrated us in the War of 1812. However, for any liberals who might be viewing this video, I want to issue a clear warning. It deals with a subject that is totally foreign to you…American History YOUTUBE Obama’s ultimate plan is to take wealth away from the movers and shakers and redistribute it to the non-productive among us. As with those who believe in Communism, he thinks it’s possible to make everyone equal by sharing the wealth. Sorry, but I never knew a poor person who gave someone a job. In his last address to the nation, Obama bragged how he created 150,000 jobs. Yo, Barack you forgot to mention the 600,000 jobs we’re losing each month. I think if you do the math, you’ll see you’ve got some catching up to do. And would someone tell me how the economy is going to rebound when over the last two months, 1.2000,000 taxpayers have been eliminated from the rolls. BRING ON THE NEXT ROUND OF TEA PARTY’s
National Review Online NRO Sunday, August 16, 2009 Obama’s Health-Care Mess Victor Davis Hanson Excerpts: Ironies abound in the health-care debate. Bush was pilloried by the Obamanians for (1) not planning for the postwar occupation of Iraq; and (2) not being able to articulate the ends and means of the administration’s war. Yet in the hubris of high ratings, Obama apparently felt that he neither had to present a comprehensive finished blueprint of health-care reform, nor that he or his associates should have to sum it up succinctly and clearly. The result is that most Americans not only do not know what the administration plan is, but sense that their president does not either. Health care is stalled and insidiously undermining the presidency of Obama precisely because the public senses he has not leveled with the American people. Of the uninsured, how many millions are young people who feel no need right now to buy insurance, how many million are illegal aliens, how many millions chose to use their optional income for things other than a low-cost catastrophic health plan, how many millions still find care outside the insurance system? Nor do most Americans feel their system is broken. They worry about redundant care, frivolous procedures, and lawsuits, but sense that all in all it can be improved rather than scrapped. They know that Americans with cancer and heart disease survive longer than anywhere else due to superior American care. And they know that longevity is influenced by factors well beyond medical care. The president just as easily could tackle the epidemic of homicides and youth violence, as well as automobile accidents, if his concern really were to ensure that Americans on average lived longer than any others. Full article Victor Davis Hanson National Review Online REAL CLEAR POLITICS August 15, 2009 Too Many Holes in Obama's Health Plan By Jonah Goldberg Excerpts: If I went to a Democratic town hall, I'd probably boo, too. Hence, according to various Democrats and supporters of ObamaCare, I'm paranoid and just a bit unpatriotic. Well, let me dilate on my paranoid treachery for a moment. Under the plan discussed at President Obama's infomercial-esqe town halls, America would cut costs and expand coverage while avoiding rationing. Apparently, it's paranoid to think that's too good to be true. Imagine you're in charge of bringing pie to a company picnic. You're planning to provide dessert for 100 people. Then, your boss says you need to hand out pie to 150. Fine, you say, I'll make more pies. But -- oh no! -- you can't because you've also been told costs must go down. OK, then you can cut slices of the existing pies smaller so everyone can have a piece. Wait! You can't do that either because you're not allowed to ration (i.e., give less to more). Full article Jonah Goldberg Real Clear Politics REAL CLEAR POLITICS August 14, 2009 More Health Care Nonsense By Charles Krauthammer WASHINGTON -- In the 48 hours of June 15-16, President Obama lost the health care debate. First, a letter from the Congressional Budget Office to Sen. Edward Kennedy reported that his health committee's reform bill would add $1 trillion in debt over the next decade. Then the CBO reported that the other Senate bill, being written by the Finance Committee, would add $1.6 trillion. The central contradiction of Obamacare was fatally exposed: From his first address to Congress, Obama insisted on the dire need for restructuring the health care system because out-of-control costs were bankrupting the Treasury and wrecking the U.S. economy -- yet the Democrats' plans would make the problem worse. Accordingly, Democrats have trotted out various tax proposals to close the gap. Obama's idea of limits on charitable and mortgage-interest deductions went nowhere. As did the House's income tax surcharge on millionaires. And Obama dare not tax employer-provided health insurance because of his campaign pledge of no middle-class tax hikes. Desperation time. What do you do? Sprinkle fairy dust on every health care plan, and present your deus ex machina: prevention. Charles Krauthammer Real Clear Politics CREATORS.COM Obama's Hoof-in-Mouth Disease It's hard to know why President Obama said what he said at Tuesday's health-care town hall in New Hampshire. He actually stated: "If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems." Oops. Freudian slip? Subliminally speaking, was the president inferring that private health insurers are doing just fine? Government insurance is what's in trouble today. Medicare is in the hole by about $40 trillion on a discounted present-value basis over the next 40 or 50 years. And if we're going to equate government care to government mail, according to Steve Hayes of The Weekly Standard, the U.S. Postal Service is going bankrupt with a $7 billion net loss this year. With 633,000 career employees, the Post Office won't be able to make $5.4 billion in retiree health-benefit payments. How many of these federal employees will populate the new government-backed insurance plan if it passes? Full article Larry Kudlow Creators.Com REAL CLEAR POLITICS Obama's healthcare horror Heads should roll -- beginning with Nancy Pelosi's! By Camille Paglia Read more: Camille Paglia, Politics, Opinion, Sarah Palin Aug. 12, 2009 Buyer's remorse? Not me. At the North American summit in Guadalajara this week, President Obama resumed the role he is best at -- representing the U.S. with dignity and authority abroad. This is why I, for one, voted for Obama and continue to support him. The damage done to U.S. prestige by the feckless, buffoonish George W. Bush will take years to repair. Obama has barely begun the crucial mission that he was elected to do. Having said that, I must confess my dismay bordering on horror at the amateurism of the White House apparatus for domestic policy. When will heads start to roll? I was glad to see the White House counsel booted, as well as Michelle Obama's chief of staff, and hope it's a harbinger of things to come. Except for that wily fox, David Axelrod, who could charm gold threads out of moonbeams, Obama seems to be surrounded by juvenile tinhorns, bumbling mediocrities and crass bully boys. Case in point: the administration's grotesque mishandling of healthcare reform, one of the most vital issues facing the nation. Ever since Hillary Clinton's megalomaniacal annihilation of our last best chance at reform in 1993 (all of which was suppressed by the mainstream media when she was running for president), Democrats have been longing for that happy day when this issue would once again be front and center. Full article Camille Paglia Salon.com Americans Ripping Up AARP Cards American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) Backing of ObamaCare Has Infuriated Members AmericanSeniors.Org A Better Organization For Seniors Is Offering Second Year Membership Free See Details New York Post O'S BROKEN PROMISES By BETSY MCCAUGHEY July 17, 2009 -- Excerpts: PRESIDENT Obama promises that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our health-care system. That's untrue. The bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests. Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time. And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17). When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168). Full article Betsy McCaughey New York Post July 27, 2009 Two in Three Doubt Congress’ Grasp of Healthcare IssuesAmericans perceive themselves as more knowledgeable than lawmakers by Frank Newport Excerpts: PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans view themselves as more knowledgeable than members of Congress regarding the current debate over healthcare reform. Nearly half (48%) say they personally have a good understanding of the issues involved, while only 27% say so about members of Congress. Full article GALLUP POLL 5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform If you read the fine print in the Congressional plans, you'll find that a lot of cherished aspects of the current system would disappear. CNNMoney.com By Shawn Tully, editor at large July 24, 2009: 10:17 AM ET Excerpts: NEW YORK (Fortune) -- In promoting his health-care agenda, President Obama has repeatedly reassured Americans that they can keep their existing health plans -- and that the benefits and access they prize will be enhanced through reform. A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy's Health committee, contradict the President's assurances. To be sure, it isn't easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language. But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage. If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution Full article CNNMONEY.Com SEE CHART CHART DEMOCRAT CONGRESS TRYING TO KEEP PUBLIC FROM SEEING NEW YORK POST 83 MILLION OF US WON'T KEEP OUR INSURANCE By ROBERT A. BOOK & ROBERT E. MOFFIT Obama: Breaking oft-repeated promises. July 22, 2009 AT tonight's press conference, someone should ask President Obama why he's endorsing, and not threatening to veto, the 1,018-page House health-care reform bill now being rushed to passage: It breaks nearly all his core promises about health-care reform. "If you have health insurance, then you don't have to do anything," Obama said on Oct. 15, 2008. "If you've got health insurance through your employer, you can keep your health insurance, keep your choice of doctor, keep your plan. . . And we estimate we can cut the average family's premium by about $2,500 per year." Both these solemn pledges, repeated often ever since and as recently as yesterday, are violated in the House bill. Its perverse incentives, plus the onerous regulations Congress plans to impose on employer-provided insurance, would cause more than half of those with employer-provided insurance to lose it -- 83.4 million Americans, according to The Lewin Group, a prominent, politically neutral health-care analysis firm. Full article ROBERT A. BOOK & ROBERT E. MOFFIT New York Post WALL STREET JOURNAL JULY 17, 2009 A Reckless Congress Democrats want to ram through one of the greatest raids on private income and business in American history. Excerpts: Say this about the 1,018-page health-care bill that House Democrats unveiled this week and that President Obama heartily endorsed: It finally reveals at least some of the price of the reckless ambitions of our current government. With huge majorities and a President in a rush to outrun the declining popularity of his agenda, Democrats are bidding to impose an unrepealable European-style welfare state in a matter of weeks. Mr. Obama's February budget provided the outline, but the House bill now fills in the details. To wit, tax increases that would take U.S. rates higher even than most of Europe. Yet even those increases aren't nearly enough to finance the $1 trillion in new spending, which itself is surely a low-ball estimate. Meanwhile, the bill would create a new government health entitlement that will kill private insurance and lead to a government-run system. Hyperbole? That's what people said when we warned about this last fall in "A Liberal Supermajority," but even we underestimated the ideological willfulness of today's national Democrats. Consider only a few of the details: Full article Wall Street Journal CQ POLITICS July 16, 2009 – 12:52 p.m. CBO Chief: Health Bills To Increase Federal Costs By David Clarke and Edward Epstein, CQ Staff Excerpts: The health care overhauls released to date would increase, not reduce, the burgeoning long-term health costs facing the government, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said Thursday. That is not a message likely to sit well with congressional Democrats or the Obama administration, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., said Thursday she thinks lawmakers can find ways to wring more costs out of the health system as they continue work on their bills.CQ Mobile - Request Free Trial The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Democrat Max Baucus of Montana, who has not yet released a bill, said his panel is acutely aware of the long-term cost concern. “Clearly our committee will do what it can,” he said. “We are very seriously concerned about that issue. We very much want to come up with a bill that bends the cost curve.” But Baucus suggested the White House is making the task difficult with opposition to one cost-cutting approach Elmendorf cited — limiting or even ending the tax exclusion for employer-provided health benefits. Full article CQ POLITICS New York Post TERRIFYING 57% TAX LOOMS FOR BIGGEST EARNERS CHARLES HURT IN DC and DAVID SEIFMAN AND JENNIFER FERMINO Last updated: 8:59 am July 16, 2009 Excerpts: Congressional plans to fund a massive health-care overhaul could have a job-killing effect on New York, creating a tax rate of nearly 60 percent for the state's top earners and possibly pressuring small-business owners to shed workers. New York's top income bracket could reach as high as 57 percent -- rates not seen in three decades -- to pay for the massive health coverage proposed by House Democrats this week. The top rate in New York City, home to many of the state's wealthiest people, would be 58.68 percent, the Washington-based Tax Foundation said in a report yesterday. Full article CHARLES HURT IN DC and DAVID SEIFMAN AND JENNIFER FERMINO New York Post By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT A Right That's Wrong Reform: Of the many objectionable provisions in the House's latest medical insurance bill, none is as destructive or morally offensive as the one that declares health care to be a "right." IBD Exclusive Series: Government-Run Healthcare: A Prescription For Failure Excerpts: A "right," as we all know, has one key characteristic: It can't be taken away. Ever. That's exactly what the new Democrat-sponsored bill would ensure. As the Associated Press put it, the legislation would "for the first time make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans." That second word — "responsibility" — is also key. The government will force you to take part in its plan, whether you want to or not. As it turns out, "responsibility" is code for "tax hikes" and "compulsory participation." The House plan calls for a 5.4% surcharge on those earning $1 million or more. But the tax will also reach down to families with incomes of $280,000. "Small businesses" will be excluded, we hear, but only those with payrolls under $400,000. Those with more will have to cover their workers or face a "fee" — another tax — equal to 8% of workers' wages. Health Care Hell CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director U.S. Congress Washington, DC 20515 July 14, 2009 Honorable Charles B. Rangel Chairman Committee on Ways and Means U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee onTaxation (JCT) have completed a preliminary analysis of the specificationsrelated to health insurance coverage that are reflected in draft legislation calledAmerica’s Affordable Health Choices Act, which was released by the House tricommitteemajority group on July 14, 2009. Health Care Hell 1 Among other things, thosespecifications would establish a mandate for most legal residents to obtaininsurance, significantly expand eligibility for Medicaid, and set up insurance“exchanges” through which certain individuals and families could receive federalsubsidies to substantially reduce the cost of purchasing that coverage. Theanalysis presented here does not take into account other parts of the proposal thatwould raise taxes or reduce other spending (particularly in the Medicare program)in an effort to offset the federal costs of implementing those coveragespecifications. Health Care Hell The attached tables summarize our preliminary assessment of the coveragespecifications’ budgetary effects and their likely impact on rates and sources ofinsurance coverage for the nonelderly population. According to that assessment,enacting legislation that embodied those specifications would result in a netincrease in federal budget deficits of $1,042 billion over the 2010–2019 period. Health Care Hell By 2019, CBO and the JCT staff estimate, the number of nonelderly peoplewithout health insurance would be reduced by about 37 million, leaving about17 million nonelderly residents uninsured (nearly half of whom would beunauthorized immigrants). It is important to note, however, that those estimatesare based on specifications provided by the tri-committee group rather than ananalysis of the language released today. For that reason and others outlined below,those figures do not represent a formal or complete cost estimate for the coverageprovisions of the draft legislation. 1 The House tri-committee group consists of the Committee on Ways and Means, the Committeeon Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on Education and Labor. Health Care Hell Honorable Charles B. Rangel Page 2 Key Specifications Related to Health Insurance Coverage The specifications provided by the tri-committee group would take several stepsto increase the number of legal U.S. residents who have health insurance. Startingin 2013, nonelderly people with income below 133 percent of the federal povertylevel (FPL) who were not already eligible for Medicaid would be made eligiblefor that program, and the federal government would pay all of the costs ofcovering people who became newly eligible. (States would also be required tomaintain their current eligibility levels for Medicaid indefinitely.) Health Care Hell In addition, thefederal government would establish insurance exchanges throughout the countryand, more importantly, would subsidize the purchase of health insurance throughthose exchanges for individuals and families with income between 133 percentand 400 percent of the federal poverty level, also starting in 2013. In that year, theproposal would also establish a requirement for legal residents to obtain insuranceand would impose a financial penalty on most people who did not do so (the sizeof which would generally vary with their income).The proposal would also impose a “play-or-pay” requirement on employers, whowould either have to offer qualifying insurance to their employees and contributea substantial share toward the premiums, or pay a fee to the federal governmentthat would generally equal 8 percent of their payroll. Small employers (those withan annual payroll of less than $250,000) would be exempt from thoserequirements. Health Care Hell As a rule, full-time employees with a qualifying offer of coveragefrom their employer would not be eligible to obtain subsidies via the exchanges,but an exception to that “firewall” would be allowed for workers who had to paymore than 11 percent of their income for their employer’s insurance. In that case,the employers would have to pay an amount equal to the per-worker fee due forfirms subject to the “play-or-pay” penalty. Firms with relatively few employeesand relatively low average wages would also be eligible for tax credits to cover upto half of their contributions toward health insurance premiums.The proposal would also establish a “public plan” available only through theinsurance exchanges. That plan would be set up and run by the Secretary ofHealth and Human Services (HHS). On average, it would pay Medicare rates plus5 percent to physicians and other practitioners (and those rates would not bedetermined by the sustainable growth rate formula that is used to set rates forphysicians in Medicare but instead would be increased over time using an indexof physicians’ input costs). On average, the public plan would pay Medicare ratesfor hospital and other services and supplies on fee schedules, and negotiated ratesfor drugs or other items or services not on a fee schedule. Providers would not berequired to participate in the public plan in order to participate in Medicare. (Amore detailed summary of the proposal’s key provisions is attached.) Yahoo News! Telegraph.co.uk Posted By: Toby Harnden at May 21, 2009 at 23:21:41 [General] Posted in: Foreign Correspondents Excerpts: The spectacle of two duelling speeches with a mile of each other in downtown Washington was extraordinary. I was at the Cheney event and watched Obama's address on a big screen beside the empty lectern that the former veep stepped behind barely two minutes after his adversary had finished. So who won the fight? (it's hard to use anything other than a martial or pugilistic metaphor). Well, most people are on either one side or the other of this issue and I doubt today will have prompted many to switch sides. But the very fact that Obama chose to schedule his speech (Cheney's was announced first) at exactly the same time as the former veep was a sign of some weakness. Full article Toby Harnden Daily Telegraph UK ### White House: Budget deficit to top $1.8 trillion, 4 times 2008's record Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer Excerpts: WASHINGTON (AP) -- With the economy performing worse than hoped, revised White House figures point to deepening budget deficits, with the government borrowing almost 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year. The deficit for the current budget year will rise by $89 billion to above $1.8 trillion -- about four times the record set just last year. The unprecedented red ink flows from the deep recession, the Wall Street bailout, the cost of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill, as well as a structural imbalance between what the government spends and what it takes in. As the economy performs worse than expected, the deficit for the 2010 budget year beginning in October will worsen by $87 billion to $1.3 trillion, the White House says. The deterioration reflects lower tax revenues and higher costs for bank failures, unemployment benefits and food stamps. Full article Andrew Taylor AP Townhall.Com GOVERNMENT DECEPTION April 8, 2008 Excerpts: Most Americans accept the continuing attack on tobacco companies and smokers, but how do they feel about the massive government deception? In 1998, 46 state attorneys general and major tobacco companies signed the Master Settlement Agreement. The major tobacco companies agreed, among other things, to give states $240 billion over 25 years to provide for smoking cessation programs and cover the health costs associated with using their product. In return state attorneys general promised tobacco companies that they wouldn't sue them and would use their lawmaking power to protect the major tobacco companies from competition from small tobacco companies. Of the $80 billion extorted so far, states have spent about 30 percent on health, not all tobacco-related, and less than 6 percent on smoking cessation programs. Instead, state legislatures spent the bulk of their tobacco money for items such as museum building, tax relief, rainy-day funds and other expenditures having nothing to do with tobacco or health. The U.S. Congress' deception was, and continues to be, a major player in our financial meltdown. In congressional hearings, before the meltdown, on the soundness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Rep. Maxine Waters said, "Through nearly a dozen hearings, we were frankly trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Franklin Raines." Rep. Barney Frank, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, said, "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Other congressmen gave similar assurances. Unfortunately for our nation, the forces pushing for "affordable" housing won the day and saddled us with today's unprecedented financial disaster. How stupid is it of us to ask those who brought us "affordable" housing to now turn their attention to bringing us "affordable" health care? Congressional deception about government finances means today's children will face a financial disaster that will make today's mess seem like a walk in the park. What's called the public debt stands at $11 trillion and growing. That pales in comparison to the federal government's unfunded liability -- obligations that are not covered by an asset of equal or greater value. Full article Walter E. Williams Townhall.Com Sunday, May 24th 2009, 4:00 AM It was a tale of two speeches. One was clear, direct and powerful. Barack Obama gave the other speech. It would have been heresy to write those words any other time, so commanding has President Obama been with the spoken word. But the real Mission Impossible was to imagine that wheezy old Dick Cheney would be the speaker to best Obama. Yet that happened last week, and I predict it won't be a fluke. From here on out, results will increasingly trump the sensation of Obama's high-toned lectures every time. Full article Michael Goodwin NY Daily News Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/05/24/2009-05-24_obama_gets_schooled_on_terror_cheney_bests_him_in_speech_duel__by_sticking_to_th.html#ixzz0GUrMD7V1&B WASHINGTON TIMES He's spending your future After the president taxes the rich, you're next By Mark Steyn (Contact) Monday, August 24, 2009 Excerpts: The other day, wending my way from Woodsville, N.H., 40 miles south to Plymouth, I came across several "stimulus" projects -- every few miles, and heralded by a two-tone sign, a hitherto rare sight on Granite State highways. The orange strip at the top said, "Putting America Back to Work" with a silhouette of a man with a shovel, and the green part underneath informed readers that what they were about to see was a "Project Funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act." There then followed a few yards of desolate, abandoned scarified pavement, followed by an "End of Road Works" sign, until the next "stimulus" project a couple of bends down a quiet rural blacktop. I don't know why one of the least fiscally debauched states in the union needs funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to repair random stretches of highway, especially stretches that were perfectly fine until someone came along to dig them up in order to access "stimulus" funding. I would have asked one of those men with a shovel, as depicted on the sign. But there were none to be found. Usually in New Hampshire, they dig up the road and regrade or repave it while flagmen stand guard until it's all done. But here a certain federal torpor seemed to hang in the eerie silence. Still, what do I know? Evidently, this has stimulated the sign-making industry, putting America back to work by putting up "Putting America Back to Work" signs every 200 yards across the land. At $300 a pop, the signage alone should be enough to launch an era of unparalleled prosperity, assuming America's gilded sign magnates don't spend their newfound wealth on Bahamian vacations and European imports. Full article Mark Steyn Washington Times
|
