headerphoto


Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts

Leave Me Alones vs Make It Betters

Daniel Greenfield has come up with an interesting, fresh new take on American politics on Sultan Knish, viewing the conflicting stream as "Leave Me Alonve" Vs. "Make It Better", rather than Liberal Vs. Conservative (with Republicans and Democrats offering various degrees of the two philosophies). It is an article filled with profound truths, presented in an earnest, direct way, and so I'd like to recommend it to all our readers.


The two streams in American politics are not liberal vs conservative, they can be roughly defined as "Leave Me Alone" vs "Make It Better". Leave Me Alone seeks personal independence, self-reliance and freedom from interference. Make It Better believes in the progressive betterment of society through regulation, intervention and education.

Most people associate the "Leave Me Alones" with conservatism and the "Make It Betters" with liberalism. That's partly true, but not entirely. The hijacking of liberalism and the Democratic party by the radical left has them into the standard bearers of a ruthless "Make It Better" agenda. But "Make It Better" is found often on the right as well. The loss of the cultural war to the left has pushed conservatives into a defensive position. And the ascension of the left has moved it into a state of permanent aggression.

"Leave Me Alone" is defensive. It creates boundaries and asks that they be respected. "Make It Better" is offensive, it pushes through individual boundaries in the name of the greater good. Neither of these are purely moral positions. Rather they are preferential positions. "Leave Me Alone" can turn a blind eye to evil with long term consequences. "Make It Better" sometimes brings positive change. But like any course of positive action, "Make It Better" is more likely to be associated with negative consequences.

The difference between "Leave Me Alone" and "Make It Better" is cultural. It's in the way we prefer to live and how we see other people. To "Leave Me Alones", other people are either good or bad. But to the "Make It Betters", everyone is in a gray area and in need to enlightenment. "Leave Me Alones" trust people more as individuals, while being suspicious of groups. "Make It Betters" think of groups as more moral than individuals.

"Make It Betters" judge people by their web of interconnections. The interconnectedness is their way of morality. The more involved with others someone is, the better of a person they are. By contributing to the whole, they demonstrate selflessness. Their understanding of morality is purely external, as shown by interaction with others. It is why "Make It Betters" are often unable to process how one of them could possibly be guilty of a crime, when he is so involved in helping others. They derive their sense of moral worth from group participation, which makes self-examination difficult for them. Dissatisfied with the group, they often search for happiness and pursue self-improvement, but lack the internal moral code that makes either one truly possible.

"Leave Me Alones" see morality as internal. A matter of character. Public interactions can reveal character, but are also dominated by social pressures. "Leave Me Alones" distrust those who make a show of their social morality. To them external morality is often a cover for private sin. They are prone to self-examination and have a keen awareness of their failings. And suspect that everyone else also has a similar mismatch between their outer and inner selves.

The "Make It Betters" are hierarchical, as all social movements must be. Their movements promote equality through brotherhood, but as in any movement, function defines status. Inequality is the impetus for their movements, and by pledging to remedy this inequality, they also acknowledge it and enshrine it. By taking on the role as the uplifters, they elevate themselves to a higher status, and unconsciously seek to maintain their superior role in relation to those they wish to uplift. If actual equality occurs, they feel lost for equality removes their status as the uplifters.

Moral "Make It Better" movements typically assign blame for the inequality to the unequal, and political "MIB" movements assign it to those in power. Moral movements call on the unequal to improve themselves. Political movements call on those in power to stop oppressing them. Both approaches are incomplete and opportunistic. But in both cases the "Make It Betters" take on the role of intercessors for a portion of their community, their country or the world...
[Click here for the full article]

The Lying Left? Really? When do they tell the truth, ever?

Yes, the left is raising lying, subversion, duplicity, coercion, bribery, thuggery and secrecy to an entirely new level on a daily basis. Whether it is Conservatives at a tea party rally 'spitting' on politicians or calling them 'racist' names, to carrying legal weapons in public you would think it is us Conservatives guilty of the above. Maybe at times on rare occasions but the libtards are re-writing the book on this stuff. Read on for a great article to back all this up.


Lying left can’t hide from the truth…
by John Allison III

America, You Asked For It! …even with the mainstream media as a willing accomplice in their attempt to mislead the American people.

The Democrat party has long claimed to represent the “common man” while painting conservatives as being “in-the-pockets” of big business, or Wall Street. Liberals and their Jackass party claim to stand for constitutional freedoms. You know, like freedom of the press and free speech. All the while, they claim conservatives constrict the rights guaranteed by our founding documents. And the loony left loves to paint conservatives as rabid, violent, hatemongers filled with rage and always looking for an opportunity to gang up on a smaller, weaker opponent.

Partnering with the mainstream press, liberal Democrats have often been able to convince large blocks of voters to believe all of these things. But recent events are illuminating the absolute hypocrisy of these self-proclaimed peace-loving protectors of American freedom for the little guy. The lack of mainstream media coverage of these happenings shines an even brighter light on the obvious bias of the “4th branch” of government.

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) recently introduced a bill to reform America’s entire financial system. He and his Democrat colleagues have often blamed the entire financial crisis on a lack of regulation spawned by big business’ ties with President Bush and other Republicans. Goldman Sachs took billions in bailout bucks from the American taxpayer in 2008. You know…one of those firms that was just too big to fail. But it wasn’t Republicans who benefited from the generous political donations of Goldman’s people. It was President Obama who received nearly $1 million as the company crumbled.

You might expect that to make the news. Something along the lines of “Obama Coffers Filled by Bailed Out Financial Giant.” But don’t hold your breath. Lachlan Markay at Newsbusters points out that Time and Newsweek were quick to tie President Bush to the failed energy company Enron when it failed. Bush’s ~$150,000 in contributions paled in comparison to Obama’s Goldman take. Obama hauled in nearly 7 times as much from Goldman as Bush took from Enron.

Liberals screamed as if their fingernails were being pulled out when they learned the Bush administration was (gasp!) listening in on phone calls between overseas terrorists and their contacts in the US. They acted as if the former President had dropped the US Constitution in the shredder when he set up a prison camp for captured terrorists on a remote base in Cuba.

But Democrats and conservatives usually agree the 1st Amendment protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are essential and must be preserved. At least, that’s what they all say.

So when the TEA Party started gaining momentum, and Democrat politicians began labeling us un-American, we conservatives were somewhat taken aback. But even Obama’s own backers were upset this week when, not once but twice, the President appeared upset by gay rights activists protesting his failure to drop the US military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

Obama challenged the hecklers who want the policy changed immediately. Apparently quite perturbed by their protest, the President yelled, “Barbara and I are supportive of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. So I don’t know why you’re hollering!” Only a few days later, gay rights activists dressed in military uniforms chained themselves to the fence in front of the White House to draw attention to the President’s unkept promise to end the policy. When reporters approached to interview the protesters and cover the story, they were forced to retreat by police officers. Continue reading America, You Asked For It!

Hat tip: America, You Asked For It!

Environazis score a big win in New York. So how about 30% LESS electricity for New Yorkers?

So if the Indian Point Power plant gets shut down or even goes off line for updating, where will New York make up that 30% loss of electricity? Wind power, No. Solar energy, No. Hydroelectric, No. Wave energy, No. Raise rates and buy from out of state or Canada? Most likely. Welcome to the real Obama future for energy in America. "We will shut down our exisitng power plants whether they be nuclear, coal or natural gas, charge the rate payers more and then figure out what we will do to generate more energy." Can't you just hear Obama saying those words in some closed door meeting? So much for dope, change and a transparent administration. It is all about the lies!




New York Denies Indian Point a Water Permit

NYT, In a major victory for environmental advocates, New York State has ruled that outmoded cooling technology at the Indian Point nuclear power plant kills so many Hudson River fish, and consumes and contaminates so much water, that it violates the federal Clean Water Act.

The decision is a blow to the plant’s owner, the Entergy Corporation, which now faces the prospect of having to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build stadium-size cooling towers, or risk that Indian Point’s two operating reactors — which supply 30 percent of the electricity used by New York City and Westchester County — could be forced to shut down.

Entergy officials said that they were “disappointed” in the ruling and that they might fight it in court. The original federal licenses for the two 1970s-era reactors expire in 2013 and 2015, and a water quality certificate is a prerequisite for a 20-year renewal by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But a prolonged appeal in New York could delay a shutdown, Diane Screnci, a spokeswoman for the commission, said late Saturday.

An Entergy spokesman said that converting Indian Point’s cooling system would cost $1.1 billion and would require shutting both reactors down entirely for 42 weeks.

The ruling in New York comes after President Obama pressed for the construction of new nuclear plants in his State of the Union address. But it is the second instance since of a state asserting its power to threaten an existing nuclear plant. In Vermont, the State Senate voted overwhelmingly in February to block operation of Entergy’s Vermont Yankee plant after 2012, citing leaks of radioactive tritium, inaccurate testimony by company officials and other problems.

Nuclear proponents said they hoped that the federal government would determine that the nation’s energy needs should take precedence over such state-level actions. “The N.R.C. may decide this is not a policy they’re going to give credence to,” said Arthur J. Kremer, chairman of the New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance, of which Entergy is a member. “It’s bad news for investors in new power facilities and in upgrading old ones.”

The battle over Indian Point, which is in Buchanan, about 35 miles north of Midtown Manhattan, has been raging for decades, and the latest decision will not soon end that fight. Continue reading

Hat tip: Astute Bloggers

Obama and Democrats taking heat for slamming Israel about settlement building in the Israeli capital.

As Prime Minister Netanyahu stated that the building will go on(Excellent!), Republicans went on the attack about how the Obama administration is so willing to throw Israel over a cliff to curry favor with the Islamic world. Israel has nothing to apologize for and it Obama and his racist administration that really needs to apologize now. Democrats geting worried? Good and I hope this erodes their base even faster and deeper. I suggest Obama take his family and all his anti-semtic friends and move to to Gazastan, they would fit right in.



GOP Leads Backlash against Obama; Democrats Uneasy
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

Israel National News, Republican Party leaders attacked the Obama administration Monday with unusually harsh language, charging it with an "irresponsible” position against an ally. "In an effort to ingratiate our country with the Arab world, this administration has shown a troubling eagerness to undercut our allies and friends,” said the GOP’s only Jewish Republican Congressman, Eric Cantor of Virginia.

He went so far as to say that the dispute "jeopardizes America's national security."

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has taken the heat for the current crisis that erupted when a government minister announced the approval of the fourth of seven stages for building new homes for Jews in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood. Totally Jewish, it is located in a part of Jerusalem that was restored to Israel in the Six Day War when Jerusalem was reunited, but not recognized as such by the United States.

The initial media and political blows were delivered to Prime Minister Netanyahu, who apologized to visiting U.S. Vice President Joe Biden for the timing of the announcement with his arrival that was aimed at promoting American-mediated talks between the Palestinian Authority and Israel for a new PA state.

However, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton followed up with an unprecedented and scathing public attack on the Prime Minister. Republican legislators did not miss a beat as most political commentators stated that Clinton ”over-reacted.”

Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the leading Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, charged that the Obama government’s condemnations of "an indispensable ally and friend of the United States…undermine both our allies and the peace process, while encouraging the enemies of America and Israel alike.

She noted that President Obama has taken "softer approaches" towards the Palestinian Authority, Syria and Iran.

Senator Sam Brownback’s office stated, “It' is hard to see how spending a weekend condemning Israel for a zoning decision in its capital city amounts to a positive step towards peace."

Democrats also are uneasy over the crisis, which comes only eight months before Congressional elections. Polls have shown that President Obama’s political stature is sinking.

Laura Rozen of Politico.com wrote on Monday that Democratic legislators are looking for some kind of political leadership from U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell, who is a former senator and is President Obama’s ”make-or-break” representative in the PA-Israeli struggle.


She quoted a senior Democratic foreign policy leader as saying that the failure of top Obama officials and Mitchell to make contact with Congressman is the “the same exact mistake of the first two Clinton years with majorities in both Houses. You'd think they would have learned the lesson of 'never take your allies for granted' at least after this year."

Veteran Middle East peace negotiator Aaron David Miller told Rozen, "The tree they're up on this one is very tall. Paradoxically, it may be up to Bibi [Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu] to help them climb down."

The Tea party is for real. Let the liberals and RINOS keep laughing.

The Tea Party movement has been interesting and great to be part of. I have participated in two local rallies and am thinking about becoming more involved. We are at a time and place in our country's history that such a group can, will and is having a profound effect on the political landscape. Here is a great article found at Texas Fred's. The left, MSM and many RINOS are mocking and slamming the Tea Party. Their ignorance and arrogance will be answered this November. I am pretty sure this will be a 'shot heard around the world.'


The Rise of The TEA Party
By David M. Huntwork

In less than a year well over a thousand independent groups have sprung up around the nation to organize and demonstrate against the attempted government takeover of entire industries, high taxes, crippling debt, and the agenda of President Barack Obama. While many have ridiculed and guffawed about the “teabaggers,” these motivated and angry voters have very quickly shown the ability to raise millions of dollars, target specific political races, grab headlines and media exposure, stage large rallies, and mobilize volunteers.

The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) movement has been defined as populist, conservative, and libertarian in tone. It is a movement diverse in leadership and organization but united in its defense of liberty and the constitution. Its members are technologically savvy and able to mobilize in a moments notice. It is anti-elitist, anti-big government, and anti-big business. It is a revulsion and revolt against perceived corruption and politics as usual. And it the most recent public face of the Liberty Movement that resides on the right side of the ideological spectrum.

It is the winning combination of the common sense principles of less government, fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, state’s rights, and strong national security that is uniting the Tea Party into an effective force to be reckoned with. The mad as hell Teaparticans are the modern-day serfs smashing down the castle gate in an attempt to overthrow their feudal overlords. It is a popular uprising against the political establishment.

The members of the Tea Party first came to national attention when they crashed townhall meetings and held spontaneous rallies and protests around the nation. Couched in terms like “the second Revolution” and “the uprising,” while touting the imagery of the American Revolution, the Tea Party movement is really just a vast amalgamation of factions and independent groups acting outside the old party establishments and organized everywhere from facebook to the fellowship hall in the basement of the church on the corner. But they are mad as hell, and history shows that righteous indignation and the howling mob can definitely threaten entrenched interests and the ruling elite. Whether that energy and drive can be wielded effectively and wisely still remains to be seen.

Those who jeered and poked fun at the 9-12 and Tea party groups just a few months ago now greatly worry about these shock troops of an aroused and angry conservative movement that has dedicated itself to practicing “guerilla conservatism” and challenge the progressive ideology that seeks to regulate, tax, and control nearly every aspect of your daily life. The fainting, worshipful Obamanite crowds of a year ago have been replaced in the street by those who have had enough of a government, and governing party, that is out of control.

With their sea of signs and Revolutionary War flags this particular face of the larger Liberty Movement descended onto Washington D.C. in the hundreds of thousands this past summer (the Million Mob March). It was the announcement to a corrupt establishment that a movement, not a party, was here to contest the agenda, power, and business as usual of the entrenched rich and corrupt that infest both Wall Street and Capitol Hill. It is a movement equally disgusted with corporate bail outs and the socialization of medicine. And in many ways it is not just the Right against the Left, but the little guy against the big guy, the average American against the elite, and the lover of liberty against those who seek to replace it with authoritarian regulation.

The real influence of the Tea Party movement, despite all the media coverage, is yet to be seen. There is a major and nation wide effort to prepare to mount a conservative takeover of the Republican primary and caucus process. Few show up to these important but often neglected grassroots meetings and the fired up and angry rank and file are not just here to oppose the Democratic Party but to make serious inroads into the Republican Party. A third political party is not seen as a viable option at this particular point in time but the takeover of one of the existing ones is seen as possible.

The country club elite and RINO (Republicans In Name Only) who have held sway in the GOP and controlled much of the party apparatus and candidate selection process has no idea how to harness, control, or otherwise exert much pressure on this grassroots uprising against politics as usual. The conservative resurgence is happening despite the GOP, not because of it. Hopefully a rising tide will lift all boats. It was not the conservative movement that lost in November but perceived Bush Republicanism with its poor prosecution of two wars and own policies of big government and big spending. And the Republican presidential nominee was no conservative but in fact the embodiment of traditional party politics and seen as the poster boy of those who sacrifice principle for the sake of expediency and political power.

It will be interesting to see if the momentum fueled by the Tea Party has already peaked or if we are seeing the birth of a long-standing, broad-based, and truly influential phenomenon in the American political process or just a short-lived outburst of frustration with Barack Obama.

The 9-12 Project and Tea Party groups are still in their political infancy but have shown they do have some staying power, the ability to raise millions of dollars to target specific races, and now the attention of both political parties. Not bad for just some ordinary citizens using the internet to organize some rallies and “crash” some townhall meetings on health care. Good for them. I’m glad someone, anyone, is standing up and saying the kind of things that need to be said. One can continue to wallow in ignorance and blind faith in the agenda of the government or one can boldly stand in opposition and declare such things unacceptable for a free people.

There have been complaints that the members of the Tea Party movement are mostly white. Does it matter? Is perceived “diversity” now the only benchmark by which we measure legitimacy of a cause? The movement is an uprising of the ignored middle class. They are the ones who have the most to lose under Obama. All races are welcome in the Liberty movement. You just have to be willing to detach yourself from the teat of government handouts and dependency to be a member.

If anything, the Tea Party rebellion is more about class, not race. In the Great Recession it was the middle class that took a huge hit with severe job losses and foreclosures in the millions. The middle class is the heart and soul of the nation and when it feels ignored and betrayed it will strike out at those who it sees as having abandoned it. It is they who are feeling the greatest effects of both the recession and government policies. The rich will always be rich, and the poor will be poor, (but not too much poorer due to the wide social safety net we have constructed), but it is the middle class who have watched big government bail out big business with their money even as they lost their jobs, their savings, their retirement, and their homes. At the same time they see a massive grab for power by a government who sees them as little more than someone to be taxed and controlled. And occupying the oval office is the most leftist and radical president to every hold the office. It is upon such fertile ground that the message of the Tea Party and 9-12 groups has fallen with amazing results. Their anger at Washington, big business, and big government has provided a third force in politics, at least for the time being, that scares the Left and challenges the political class and politics as usual. Continue reading

Hat tip: Texas Fred

This article was written by David M. Huntwork.

Obama and the Democrats: Health care summit, more smoke and mirrors.

This is from the Patriot Post. I  reommend the Patriot Post to anyone who is a Constitutionalist and true Conservative. I have subscribed to the Post for years, and it is free.The words speak for themselves and the fallacies that this administration is built upon.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Vodoo in the emergency? Is this the future?

Patriot Post Digest

The Foundation

"[T]he Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution." --Alexander Hamilton


Government & Politics

ObamaCare in the Emergency Room
There are no two ways about it -- the health care summit that took place Thursday in Washington was a sham and a farce. But it's a fitting chapter for the bill being debated.

Barack Obama invited various congressmen to join him for a "discussion" about his latest health care takeover plot, which looks an awful lot like last year's Senate proposal, only more expensive. Obama released his "new" plan Monday to great fanfare, though there was precious little new about it.

About one new feature, the Associated Press editorialized, the proposal "would allow the government to deny or roll back egregious insurance premium increases that infuriated consumers" via a seven-member panel of all-knowing insurance premium gurus. Funny thing is that all 50 states already require insurance companies to justify premium increases. Obama's proposal amounts to little more than federal price controls. Yet with his best Wizard of Oz impression (pay no attention to the stuff behind the curtain), Obama asserted, "Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, I am an ardent believer in the free market." Sure -- if you say so.

CNN actually came closer to the mark: "If enacted, the president's sweeping compromise plan would constitute the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid more than four decades ago." The key words are "biggest expansion."

Another part of Obama's proposal is the supposed elimination of the "Cornhusker Kickback," the $100 million in Medicaid relief for Nebraska that bought Sen. Ben Nelson's vote. When reading the fine print, however, we see that the kickback has simply been extended to every state by transferring all new Medicaid spending through 2017 directly to the federal ledger.

Obama is trying mightily to win over "obstructionist" Republicans -- or so his media minions tell us. More likely, however, it's the 38 House Democrats who voted against ObamaCare in November that are his target. Since the House passed its trillion-dollar version by a not-so-comfortable majority of five votes (220-215), Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has lost three votes with the retirements of Reps. Robert Wexler (D-FL) and Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), and the death of Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA). Also, Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA), the lone Republican in either chamber to vote for the bill, says he will not support it again, and pro-life Democrats -- whose leader, Michigan's Bart Stupak, wasn't invited to Thursday's photo-op -- continue to vow opposition if abortion funding is included. Pelosi conceded Wednesday that she doesn't yet have the votes for passage. That's, of course, if you believe anything she says.

The administration pushed the idea of using the reconciliation process to ram the bill through the Senate if Republicans don't heel. Reconciliation, which is a procedure contrived in 1974 to circumvent filibustering on budget bills, would allow Senate Democrats to pass ObamaCare with only 51 votes. Doing so would greatly enhance Republicans' election prospects in November, though enough Democrats may calculate the price is worth paying.

The White House isn't without Plan B. If the complete takeover fails, Democrats will just grab smaller pieces of the pie. The alternative would be to extend insurance coverage to about 15 million Americans by requiring insurance providers to allow people to remain on their parents' plans until age 26, and by expanding Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. (Most Democrats do behave like children, so these proposals certainly make sense to them.)

Perhaps the tone and purpose of the summit can be encapsulated by an exchange between Obama and Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), the number-two House Republican: The president chastised Cantor for using "props" that "prevent us from having a conversation." The prop? Cantor was sitting behind a copy of the current 2,400-page Senate bill. Heaven forbid Republicans bring the actual bill to a summit about the bill. Next time, though, Eric, bring the Constitution.

Patriot Post

Fiat on the verge of going under in Italy. Italian gov't incentives are running dry.

Fiat is in big trouble in Italy. They are struggling to turn a profit at their Sicilian Termini Imerese plant as gov't funding and assistance is drying up. Hmmm.. Look and sound familiar. Remember, Fiat is the car company that scooped up Chrysler from the U.S. bailout for next to nothhing. This may be our future with Obanmacare, Medicare, Medicaid, Oregon Health Plan and so many other quasi-socialist run programs.







________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Fiat’s Dances With Governments Goes Bad

The Truth About Cars

Fiats's Sergio Marchionne looked like a pretty shrewd operator when he was able to snag a bailed-out Chrysler from the US government without paying a penny. Between that and the booming European sales on the back of government-funded scrappage schemes, Fiat pretty much spent 2009 proving that automakers should cater to governments almost as much as consumers. But as 2009 wound down, Fiat’s government affairs winning streak came to a halt as the Italian government started asking for a little quid for its quo, and it’s been going downhill from there. Now that Fiat wants to shut down its Sicilian Termini Imerese plant, and right-size Italian production, the love affair is officially over. “We are examining the possibility of renewing [consumer incentives],” Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told reporters from Automotive News [sub]. “But Fiat does not seem interested in them.”


Of course Fiat is interested in the incentives that it has admitted its addiction to. Berlusconi’s paternal pronunciation merely indicates that Fiat isn’t ready to guarantee jobs at the money-losing Imerese plant, which is the Italian government’s political price. “We have to have the courage to say that there have been enough government handouts if they do not safeguard jobs and industrial sites,” explains Italian Senate Speaker Renato Schifani.

And it’s not just the government. Workers staged strikes last weekend and yesterday, and even the Pope has condemned Marchionne’s decision to shut down Termini Imerese. But Fiat is stuck between short-term profit goals and long-term capacity adjustments, as the Termini plant is a perpetual profit-sucker, but Fiat acknowledges that it likely won’t reach profitability this year without Italy’s consumer incentives. The company projects that Italian sales would slide 20 percent if the incentives aren’t renewed.

Marchionne claims to want any decision more than the current uncertainty, telling the WSJ that:

The government has to make a decision and we will accept it without making a scene. But we need a decision soon to get out of this uncertainty, then we will be able to manage the market and the situation whatever the outcome.

Which means that Fiat had better be planning on an incentive pullback at some point, as artificially stimulated demand always crashes eventually. For someone who heaps scorn on other automakers for their dependence on captive-finance and dealer incentives, Sergio has quite the little incentive addiction problem himself. And feigned nonchalance aside, withdrawals are never easy.

Hat tip: The Force of Reason

Truth about cars

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/fiats-dances-with-governments-goes-bad/

More news on Obama youth movement. Funded by none other than ACORN

From the swamp.
The Senate effectively killed an amendment last week that would have 
stopped federal funding for the corrupt group, ACORN. This organization
has had numerous people arrested for fraudulent voter regsistrations which
includes dead people and convicts still serving time in prison. The democrats
have rallied to support ACORN as they hold it close and dear to their hearts
as one of the liberal building blocks of community activism and slippery
slope voter registrationand slippery slope funding.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
The amendment was offered to the National Service Act being considered by the chamber.


The bill is aimed at providing $5.7 billion to aid 250,000 volunteers across the country in the arenas of health care, energy, environment and education.

The U.S. Senate killed an amendment Thursday offered by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., that would have prohibited federal volunteer funds from going to the community group ACORN and its affiliates.
 
 


Vitter singled out the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a nationwide community organization of low- and moderate-income people. He laid emphasis on the fact that group members have been arrested for fraudulent voter registration.

Vitter contended that no charitable group with a political arm should receive the volunteer funding. “At the heart of this debate is whether this new federal bureaucracy would, in effect, politicize charitable activity around the country, which we certainly do not want,” Vitter said. Continue reading

Hat tip: Infidel Bloggers Alliance and Weasel Zippers

Democrats and liberals always get a free pass, a get out of jail free card. Harry Reid is no exception.

Just think if a moderate conservative or Republican had uttered such words.
The person would have been tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a
rail, as the saying goes. Reminds of Brer' Rabbit and the Tar Baby.




Harry Reid's Negro Problem

Ann Coulter

"The recently released book Game Change reports that Sen. Harry Reid said America would vote for Barack Obama because he was a "light-skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

The book also says Bill Clinton called Sen. Ted Kennedy to ask for his endorsement of Hillary over Obama, saying of Obama: "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee."

And we already knew that Obama's own vice president, Joe Biden, called Obama "articulate" and "clean" during the campaign. (So you can see why Biden got the vice presidential nod over Reid.)"


Democrats regularly say things that would end the career of any conservative who said them. And still, blacks give 90 percent of their votes to the Democrats.

Reid apologized to President Obama, and Obama accepted the apology using his "white voice." So now all is forgiven.















Continue reading

America Rising Video. YouTube has been taking this down





Send this one out to all you can.

Investors.com - No Substitute For Fossil Fuels

The current administration is deaf,
dumb and blind when it comes to
the realities of today and the prize
of green or renewable energy.


Old Growth,Where is my chain saw!


The state I live in is a fools paradise
overrun by earth muffins, tree huggers,
prairie fairies and enviro-terrorists.
Having been a victim of tree spiking
several times, all done with intent to
harm or even kill, to hell with these
moonbat moss suckers who think they
know what is best for all of us.Think
of the jobs that could be created in
relatively short time by expanding our
exploration and extraction of our known
fossil fuel reserves.

Investors.com - No Substitute For Fossil Fuels








Energy: Earlier this year, Congress approved a scheme to pour $80 billion — on top of the tens of billions already spent — into renewables. A government report released last week indicates the money will be wasted.


Renewable energy is the shiny gem that everyone wants but no one can have. Not even a president. Campaigning last year in Lansing, Mich., President Barack Obama said that it was his goal for the U.S. to generate 10% of its electric power from renewable sources by 2012 and 25% by 2025. But he cannot, by the force of will or executive order, change the laws of physics and economics.

America has long relied on fossil fuels to power its economy. Oil, natural gas and coal provide about 84% of the nation's energy.

And for good reason. They are plentiful and typically easy to retrieve, and, consequently, cheap.

At the other end of the spectrum are renewable sources such as solar, wind, biomass and geothermal. They supply only about 4% of our energy, the remainder coming from hydro and nuclear power.

An axis of environmentalists and Democrats want to change this ratio, because, according to the usual complaint, we depend too heavily on the fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide.

Trouble is, the market for renewables is poor. Few want to use the inefficient, unreliable and expensive sources. But that hasn't slowed the renewable energy campaign, which has succeeded in persuading the public that renewables are a sensible energy source and convincing Congress to fund supporters' daydreams.

The government can continue to "invest" in renewables, and the dreamers will keep using public money to find the magic formula. But little will change over the next 25 years.

The federal Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook says in 2035, demand for liquid fuels will increase by almost 10% over 2008 levels, natural gas by nearly 7% and coal by 12%.

While use of renewables will increase as well — by 81%, including hydropower — they will still be unable to unseat our dominant energy source. Fossil fuels' share of consumption will fall by only six percentage points, from 84% to 78% by 2035. Renewables will provide about 8%.

It's clear that renewables, which have benefited from government subsidies far in excess of what fossil fuels have received, can't compete in today's market and won't be faring much better a quarter century from now, according to the government's own reckoning.

It's just as clear that throwing taxpayers' dollars at renewables has produced little progress.

Spain provides perhaps the best lesson. The government there has spent $43 billion on solar energy projects, yet solar provides less than 1% of the country's electric power. It was a bad investment.

Chasing the wind is just as ineffective. When Congress temporarily eliminated wind power credits in 1999, 2001 and 2003, the number of new turbine projects fell sharply. The Texas Public Policy Foundation says that providing a modest level of wind power in that state would cost taxpayers at least $60 billion through 2025.

Biomass is also a poor substitute. It's both primitive — its sources are wood and trash — and an environmental nightmare, devouring in some cases as much as 10 times the land mass than needed to create a wind farm. And wind farms themselves are big land eaters.

Geothermal energy, considered "free" energy from the earth, is also a space eater that requires heavy capital investment, which is often hard to recoup. In California earlier this month, a geothermal project was abandoned, despite a $6 million grant from the Energy Department and roughly $30 million in venture capital.

Geothermal has, as well, some environmental drawbacks. The day before the California project was closed, Swiss government officials permanently shut down a geothermal project in Basel because, the New York Times reports, "of the damaging earthquakes it produced in 2006 and 2007."

Maybe some of these renewables will one day be cheap and reliable. Technological advances will help. But today they are neither cheap nor reliable, and, based on the government's report, won't be for another generation.

Until they can compete, the country has to rely on proven sources: fossil fuels and nuclear power. To force cutbacks on these so that renewables can get a bigger market share, and to continue to fund projects with public money, is foolish and irresponsible.


Investors.com

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=516042

Nelson caves in on health care bill. Nebraska will benefit only in the short term. Then they will suffer like the rest of us.

Remember Ben Nelson, Nebraska. Remember
he sold out this country on a horrible health
care bill for short term gains for your state.
2010 is coming and millions of us will NOT
forget what Obama, the Democrats have
done to this country in such a short time. What
the Democrats have brought us to the brink of
will make the Bush years look like a walk in the
park. If this bill gets passed and signed into law
we will have stepped off the edge of the cliff and
be in a free fall on our way to becoming a
socialist continent modeled on the sick example
of Europe.

How many dead babies will be on the Democrat's
hands, their blood on Nelson's hands and
conscience? A complete and total cave in.
The Democrats should be ashamed of
themselves. They have no remorse at all.

Remember. 2010 is coming and we will not forget!


Ben Nelson as himself on both sides of the picture




Hot Air » Blog Archive » Breaking: Nelson will vote for cloture

Breaking: Nelson will vote for clotureposted at 9:47 am on December 19, 2009 by Ed Morrissey


printer-friendly Every man has his price, apparently, and Harry Reid found Ben Nelson’s price for a cloture vote on ObamaCare. Nelson announced this morning that the language in the manager’s amendment on aborti0n will be enough to secure his support for Reid’s compromise bill, but Think Progress reports on what really sold Nelson — or bought Nelson, depending on your perspective. First, the Washington Post:

Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), the final Democratic holdout on health care, was prepared to announce to his caucus Saturday morning that he would support the Senate reform bill, clearing the way for final passage by Christmas.

“We’re there,” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), as he headed into a special meeting to announce the deal.

Democratic leaders spent days trying to hammer out a deal with Nelson, and worked late Friday night with Nelson on abortion coverage language that had proved the major stumbling block. But Nelson also secured other favors for his home state.

A few favors? Try a boatload of federal cash:

Under the current merged legislation (the version unveiled on November 18th), the federal government fully finances care for the expanded population for two years and increases its matching funds (known as FMAP) thereafter. Page 98 of the managers amendment specifically identifies Nebraska for higher federal matching funds, fully funding its expansion for an additional year:

‘‘(3) Notwithstanding subsection (b) and paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, the Federal medical assistance percentage otherwise determined under subsection (b) with respect to all or any portion of a fiscal year that begins on or after January 1, 2017, for the State of Nebraska, with respect to amounts expended for newly eligible individuals described in subclause (VIII) of section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i), shall be determined as provided for under subsection (y)(1) (A) (notwithstanding the period provided for in such paragraph)

Subsection (y)(1)(A) refers to page 399 of the original merged Senate legislation which fully funds state Mediciad expansions for the first two years. The manager’s amendment also provides 2.2% increase in FMAP to help states finance their existing Medicaid programs.

That will be worth at least hundreds of millions of dollars in federal cash for Nebraska … for the first three years. After that, Nebraskans get as screwed as the rest of the country.

And what about that abortion coverage? Nelson caved, as one can read in the published version, via Patriot Room:

Much more here:
Managers Amendment
Hotair

Nobody should be surprised about this. ACORN should be shut down, for good.

The judge that blocked this order is a liberal troll
who was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1995. Go ahead
and look her up. Check out most of her rullings, stays
etc. and you will see what a leftarded, Kool Aid
addict she is. Totally not a surprise that this took
place, and by this judge. ACORN is another
demosocialistacrat group that believes in the
Obama way of life.Take from those who have more
and give it to those who have NOT earned it, nor do
they deserve it.


American Thinker Blog: Judge blocks ACORN funding ban

Judge blocks ACORN funding ban


Rick Moran




Calling the federal government's action in defunding ACORN "punitive," a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order that restores federal funding to the group.

Nomaan Merchant writing in the Wall Street Journal:

U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon in New York issued a temporary injunction late Friday. Her ruling is expected to stand until the current restrictions on Acorn expire next Friday as part of a temporary spending bill. A permanent ban, the Defund Acorn Act, has passed the House and is pending in the Senate.

Acorn's lawyers argued in part that Congress had violated the Constitution's ban on bills of attainder, legislation that punishes a specific person or group without the rights that courts provide. In making its argument, the Acorn lawyers included quotes from several Republicans accusing Acorn of being a criminal organization that deserved to be punished.

In her decision, the judge wrote that those statements "underline the punitive nature of the government's purportedly non-punitive reason" for banning Acorn.

The Justice Department said it was reviewing the decision.

Herein lies the problem; not all community organizing groups are criminal outfits like ACORN. Many are faith based organizations that do substantial good in the inner cities and for poor folk. Ideally, you would want private contributions funding these outfits but given the neighborhoods and regions these groups operate in, that simply isn't possible. There is no economic base to draw sustenance from.

The best solution would be local taxes going to fund local groups. But powerful organizations like ACORN who can hire their own lobbyists - and who help the Democrats come election time - have parlayed that into an ability to soak all of us to fund their schemes.

Excising ACORN funding from the federal budget will be a difficult task. It will be impossible unless a full blown investigation into ACORN activities - especially their "non-partisan" political activities - is undertaken and they are revealed to be the danger to the republic that they truly are.

American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/judge_blocks_acorn_funding_ban.html

Jobs Summit Class 201 at the Swamp. Not even any beer let alone ideas that create jobs.

Obama has held yet another summit, group hug, whatever
you want to call it on the employment problem. Of course
the blame on the last administration was tossed out. How
short is the Democsocialistacrtats memory on who
was really in power since 2006? Very short as they keep
blaming Bush for their problems. Mr. Alexander offers
some excellent suggestions for creating jobs in this
country. But as he mentions, no one in the current
administration will be listening to anyone from the
private sector.


Job Creation for Dummies

By Mark Alexander · Thursday, December 10, 2009




"Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread." --Thomas Jefferson

Barack Obama outlined his Recovery.gov version 2.0 on Tuesday of this week, saying, "My economic team has been considering a full range of additional ideas to help accelerate the pace of private sector hiring. We held a jobs forum at the White House..."



Indeed, Obama held a much-publicized "jobs" confab last week, ostensibly to obtain ideas about how to create (and save?) more of them. This exercise in futility was fodder so he could feign having sought advice from some people who actually create jobs.



However, most of the 135 invitees were from federal, state and local government, academic institutions, labor unions and not-for-profits. Alas, he did toss in a few folks from the private sector where job creation actually occurs. He told them, "I'm confident that people like you ... can come up with some additional good ideas on how to create jobs."



Additional good ideas?



I suspect Obama was suggesting that some of his proposals thus far have been good ideas. Unfortunately, despite all the jobs Obama claims to have saved or created with his $787 billion "stimulus" package, unemployment has increased from 7.6 percent when he took office, to 10 percent.



Setting aside the absurdity of his pet "saved or created" construction, it seems to me that if he had actually created jobs, unemployment would be somewhere under 7.6 percent. But Democrat math never ads up. Fact is, there has been a net loss of at least 3.4 million jobs under the "Obama recovery."



"We're not going to get anything useful out of [this summit]," concluded Peter Morici, from the University of Maryland's Smith School of Business. Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner "really don't know what to do."



What an understatement.



Investor's Business Daily analyzed cabinet posts of administrations over the last century and determined that prior to Obama, Kennedy and Carter had the lowest number of appointees from the private sector, about 30 percent in each administration.



As only 8 percent of Obama's key appointees are from the private sector, precious few of them have actually created or understand how to create non-government jobs.



Needless to say, there was widespread skepticism about this jobs summit, so Obama sent out his senior White House adviser, Valerie Jarrett, to do some pre-emptive Bush-blaming.



"We inherited an economic meltdown 10 months ago," claimed Jarrett. "[Obama] moved boldly to get us back on track with a variety of measures."



Oh really? Fact is, then-Senator Obama and his Democrat colleagues went to great lengths to undermine the U.S. economy for political expedience.



As for critics of Obama's socialist economic philosophy, Jarrett issued this challenge: "I would say to those critics, we welcome your ideas. We embrace all good ideas and I think critics should stop saying what won't work and come forward with what will work."



Well, OK! As the owner of an Internet publishing company, and manager of several other business ventures, here are some good ideas that will work -- in fact, ideas that have proven to work.



First: Let's clear up a misconception: Government does not create jobs because it does not create wealth. Government is a consumer of wealth, not a producer.



As my colleague and noted economist Thomas Sowell writes: "What does it take to create a job? It takes wealth to pay someone who is hired, not to mention additional wealth to buy the material that person will use. But government creates no wealth. Ignoring that plain and simple fact enables politicians to claim to be able to do all sorts of miraculous things that they cannot do in fact. Without creating wealth, how can they create jobs? By taking wealth from others, whether through taxation, selling bonds or imposing mandates. However it is done, transferring wealth is not creating wealth. When government uses transferred wealth to hire people, it is essentially transferring jobs from the private sector, not adding to the net number of jobs in the economy."



As Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll notes, "every dollar Congress 'injects' into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy."



And, to add insult to injury, government is an extremely inefficient consumer of wealth, with up to 70 percent of income-transfer program (a.k.a., welfare program) budgets going to bureaucratic overhead.



Second: Taxes do not create jobs. Taxes eliminate jobs.



Higher income taxes to pay for more government spending and debt, higher business taxes associated with CO2 production, and higher individual taxes to pay for ObamaCare will push the nation from recession to depression.



Take all of these tax-and-spend proposals off the table.



Ronald Reagan inherited a deep recession from the Carter administration. President Reagan cut taxes, and the resulting 25-year economic growth cycle produced 35 million new jobs and increased government revenues by almost 30 percent -- the largest peacetime economic expansion in history.



Third: Regulations do not create jobs. Regulations eliminate jobs by choking productivity and stemming wealth production, thus disabling job creation.



There is no corner of the U.S. economy that isn't currently regulated by the central government, and consequently, the cost to business and consumers is staggering.



This week, as Obama administration officials were in Copenhagen selling out the U.S. economy to the cap-n-tax crowd, his EPA director, Lisa Jackson, declared back home that carbon dioxide -- the stuff we humans exhale when we breathe -- poses a danger to the environment. This means that new regulations on business and industry are on the way, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by consumers.



The CO2 regulations, as I have argued previously, have everything to do with centralizing economic control and nothing to do with climate change, and Obama should be more concerned about the U.S. economic climate than bogus global climate change predictions.



To supplement economic recovery by deregulation, a thoughtful president might also push for tort reform. While all those dollars spent defending frivolous lawsuits might create more trial lawyers, they cost real Americans real jobs.



Fourth: Government spending does not create jobs. Government spending eliminates jobs.



According to Obama, "There are those who claim we have to choose between paying down our deficits on the one hand, and investing in job creation and economic growth on the other -- but this is a false choice." He then went on to say, that we must "spend our way out of this recession."



Horse pucky.



Unprecedented deficit spending for unsustainable entitlements, and accumulation of national debt, now at more than $12 trillion, poses an enormous threat to our economic future. Obama's proposals will add $13 trillion in deficit spending over the next 10 years.



There are only three ways to cut that debt: Raise taxes, inflate the dollar or cut government spending.



The first two will destroy any semblance of economic recovery. Only the latter will strengthen the U.S. economy and create jobs.



The president should hold the line on discretionary spending and enact spending caps enforced by a balanced budget amendment, as first proposed by Reagan and blocked by Democrats every time it comes up.



Fifth: Protectionism does not create jobs. Protectionism hinders job growth.



Start by approving stalled trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea, and Panama. After all, 95 percent of consumers on our planet live outside the U.S. We need unfettered access to those markets. Even the Obama administration acknowledges that every percentage point increase in exports creates more than 250,000 jobs in the U.S.



In summary, what Obama can do to help me, and all private-sector employers, create new jobs is this: Get out of our way.



Of course, Obama and his ilk will consider none of my proposals because they think government is the solution, not the problem.



Meanwhile, Joe Biden, Obama's point man for jobs, has been making the rounds and spinning yarns about what his grandfather had to say about recessions and depressions.



"My grandpop used to have an expression. We're from Scranton. He said, 'Joey, when the guy in Dixon City' -- a small town above Scranton -- 'is out of work, it's an economic slowdown. When your brother-in-law is out of work, it's a recession. When you're out of work, it's a depression.'"



Biden's grandfather must've been Harry Truman. "When your neighbor is out of work, it is a recession. When you are out of work, it is a depression," said Truman back in 1958. In 1980, Reagan shrewdly amended that chestnut: "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. A recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his."



So, maybe Obama was smart for not inviting me to his jobs summit, because I would have been screaming from the rooftop that a recovery is when Barak Obama loses his job. For that, in all likelihood, is the only proposal that will result in true job creation.



Footnote: On Obama's recovery.gov website, there is a link to "report fraud, waste and abuse." When understood in the proper context of our Constitution, all of Obama's proposals constitute fraud, waste and abuse, so I recommend you report it!



Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!



Mark Alexander

Publisher, Patriot Post.US

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2009/12/10/job-creation-for-dummies/

Nice showing at Tea party for Nancy Pelosi.

There was a great crowd of
'Tea Party' folks to protest against
Nancy Pelosi. I have just posted a
bit here and you can find the rest at:

American Power

Saturday, December 5, 2009


'Patriots Against Pelosi' -- Hundreds Protest House Speaker at Orange County Tea Party!

Well, good thing I'm not on deadline! But it's worth the wait!

As promised, here's my report on today's anti-PelosiCare protest at the Irvine Hilton/Orange County Airport. The background information is at my earlier entry, "Orange County Tea Party Patriots to Protest Nancy Pelosi at Democrats' 15th Annual Harry S. Truman Awards Dinner!"

Okay, here's the scene along MacArthur Boulevard when I arrived a little after 4:00pm. Just a few tea partiers are lined up along the east side of the street, and I'm facing north. That first sign on the right captures the spirit of the day:







You can see the geography of the tea party at the protest map event organizers sent me. Early in the evening, the main protest is taking place at the little red-lined elbow at left -- at the intersection of MacArthur and Douglas. Later on, some of the more intense demonstrations took place at the driveway entrance to the hotel parking lot, just left of the service entrance marked below. Lots of police units were on hand:




I walked over by the hotel driveway and Planned Parenthood activists were setting up. I'll have more on these folks below. Just hidden behind the folks with the "Health Care Reform Now" sign is Pauline Merry, the former provost of the Pacific Coast Campus at my school, Long Beach City College. Pauline retired in 2007. She asked me, "what are you doing here"? I pointed back over to MacArthur and said, "I'm with the tea partiers." And she looked at me and said, "you're with them? Why?" And I told her: "I'm not happy with the Democrats." She said, well you're in political science, right? That explains it." Actually, President Hussein "Infanticide" Obama and his PelosiCare monsrosity explain it, but I said my farewells, in any case:






Read the rest, more pictures at American Power.

I am sure Ms. Pelosi felt encouraged by all those
who showed up to protest her, and the democrats
policies.


American Power
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/patriots-against-pelosi-hundreds.html

An open letter to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. From Voice In The Wilderness.

From Voice in the Wilderness.
This will be my last post for today
and tomorrow. I will be taking the day
off to be with family. Hope you like
this from RJ Moeller! Here is a teaser
from the the article.

Hope you all have a very grand
THANKSGIVING.

A Huge thanks to all the troops who are
fighting to keep us free. Remember,
FREEDOM IS NEVER FREE!
















An Open Letter Teaching Liberal Democrats How to be Thankful (even in a world with Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Dick Cheney still living in it)


by:R.J. Moeller



Dear Madame Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid,

First of all, let me say right off the bat that I am a huge fan of you both. For the sake of full disclosure though I must admit that last year at this time, I was dismayed and disheartened at the prospects of your Party having further solidified its control of my Congress. While I should have known better than to worry about your capabilities (or lack thereof), it has been a not-so-pleasant “surprise” to watch each of you run your respective houses of government into the proverbial ground.

Therefore, I wanted to begin this potentially friendly letter by thanking you both for exhibiting the lack-of-courageous-leadership required to land your approval ratings in the “teens” (the lowest ever recorded and almost exactly half of what President Bush’s were when he left office). Both you Mrs. Pelosi in the House, and you Mr. Reid in the Senate, are that rare blend of political leader who can combine support for wildly unpopular pieces of legislation with an utter indifference to corruption, and still shows up to any and every press conference ready to deflect all pertinent questions with an other-worldly, Botox-induced “smile.”




The only thing he has given the American people!



You can read the rest by following the
link here:
http://rjmoeller.com/2009/11/a-public-service-announcement-for-harry-reid-and-nancy-pelosi/

Democrats pass Obamacare to 'open' debate. Yeah, sure they will.

American Thinker Blog: Healthcare disaster looms


The trolls in D.C. passed
Obamacare yesterday. We
should be weeping with
anger at our elected officials
who will continue to be hooked
into voting for such a horrendous
bill as this health care bill.



Dear Leader of the the back stabbers from
the left.





November 21, 2009


Healthcare disaster looms

James Simpson



This Congress is beneath contempt. What they are poised to pass today -- yes I know this is just a procedural vote, but everything turns on it -- is an abomination. Since Lincoln and Landrieu have been bought off it is now sure to pass. Landrieu's vote will cost the taxpayers $100 million. I wonder what we paid Lincoln to betray us? This bill will not merely ruin our healthcare system; it will impose economy-crushing taxes, pushing our already tottering economy ever closer to the abyss.

No surprise there. Candidate Obama said that since we are only 4 percent of the world population, we couldn't go on consuming 25 percent of the world's resources. It's not fair. In his worldview we should only be consuming, what, 4 percent? In his mind we are confiscating resources and need to give them back.

How stupid can a person be? It is not a zero sum game! We don't consume 25 percent of the world's resources; we trade 25 percent of the world's resources, (if that figure is even correct. I suspect it is high. But some on the left claim 40, 50, even 75 percent - they are delusional.) In any event, the world should be glad we are here, for we are the world's consumer market. We support the world economy. Without that support the world will plunge into a depression that will make 1933 look like a walk in the park! A good, brief explanation of why that is, here.

As it is, taxes proposed to pay for this bill will be onerous, but at $849 billion over ten years, the bill radically underestimates cost. The Senate Budget Committee estimated the true cost at $2.5 trillion. But even this is a vast underestimate because they implicitly assume the legislation will remain unchanged. This will not happen. It has never, ever happened! After the bill passes, Congress will add all kinds of bells and whistles, and will add more "fixes" as the problems created by the new programs begin to manifest themselves. So think of the Senate Budget Committee's $2.5 trillion 10 year cost as a bare bones, no further changes, minimum.

Medicare provides a good example. From a modest $16 billion spending in its first year, Medicare increased 231% over the next nine years, an average annual program growth of 12.72%. This is after correcting for inflation! I do not believe this new bill even factors in inflation over the 10-year period. If you look at Medicare from its first year to the tenth w/o correcting for inflation, it grew 434% or 18.24% per year! These data are derived from program outlay figures provided by the White House Office of Management and Budget - unassailable.

Here is another way to look at it. Medicare and Medicaid together cost $656 billion in 2008, the last year for which actual data are available. The total number of people enrolled in these two programs is about 88 million people -- yes that's right folks we are paying medical bills for approximately thirty percent of the population already! This comes out to about $7,500 per enrollee per year.

This bill is going to generously allow us to pay for 47 million more. Forget about denying illegals, they will be covered in this legislation. Don't believe a word about "cost savings." It is not going to happen, even if they do start euthanizing granny. Medicare and Medicaid currently squeeze everything they can out of the medical profession and their cost cutting measures are already creating supply shortages. So consider $7,500 a reasonable estimate of per capita cost. Assuming this same average cost for all these new folks gets us an annual price tag of about $350 billion, ($7,500 x 47 million) or a ten year cost of $3.5 trillion.

Now, Congress has never in the history of major legislation, ever left it alone once passed. It will explode just like Medicare and Medicaid have throughout their entire existence - and Congress gave us the exact same phony promises back when these programs were first proposed. So take the $3.5 trillion and multiply it by a factor of 3, i.e. $10 trillion, or an average annual cost of $1 trillion, and you are probably closer to a realistic minimum cost figure.

This bill is a five-alarm fire that will consume our nation if it passes

There are two traitors: Landriue
and Lincoln. This paves the way to
debate the bill. We have seen how the
demosocialistacrats debate bills. They
lock out those who disagree or dissent
against such highway robbery as this
bill is, and will be.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/healthcare_disaster_looms.html




No, this will hurt the American people
alot. But how would this asshat
pinko understand