We told you this was about controlling we the people. This is social engineering at it's worse. When did the government start controlling us instead of we the people controlling the government? This is the Democratic way. Now lets see how long it takes for the womens rights groups to get a hold of this. Just kidding we know the liberal hypocrisy's and its symptom's. Well at least the kids get their insurance right away. And the elderly get their cuts to Medicare right away too. How great is that? Oh, Crap don't tell me they lied about the kids getting covered right away. And they didn't even read the bill. That's the Democratic Party way.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
This Is About Controlling We The People said Dingell
We told you this was about controlling we the people. This is social engineering at it's worse. When did the government start controlling us instead of we the people controlling the government? This is the Democratic way. Now lets see how long it takes for the womens rights groups to get a hold of this. Just kidding we know the liberal hypocrisy's and its symptom's. Well at least the kids get their insurance right away. And the elderly get their cuts to Medicare right away too. How great is that? Oh, Crap don't tell me they lied about the kids getting covered right away. And they didn't even read the bill. That's the Democratic Party way.
Ben Stien Figured Out Obama
|
Obamacare: "The Bigger The Lie"
A Commentary By Howard Rich: Lost amid the partisan sniping and procedural jousting over the passage of “Obamacare” is a fundamental, unavoidable hypocrisy - one that’s worth unmasking as Washington politicians continue to ignore the will of the American people and plunge our nation deeper into full-blown socialism.
President Barack Obama and his Congressional allies are spending money that they know we don’t have on a program that they know isn’t going to work – all in an effort to expand government’s control over the private sector and its reach into the private lives of American citizens.
Sound a bit conspiratorial?
It’s not – at least not when you turn down the partisan rhetoric (on both sides of the debate) and start examining what this monstrosity actually does.
“ObamaCare is really about who commands the country's medical resources,” an editorial in The Wall Street Journal noted the day before the legislation was passed. “It vastly accelerates the march toward a totally state-driven system, in contrast to reforms that would fix today's distorted status quo by putting consumers in control.”
With government already purchasing nearly half of all health care services in America (a system that’s rampant with fraud and anti-competitive price-fixing), just who did you think was responsible for the “distorted status quo” that Obamacare ostensibly seeks to correct?
Here’s a hint – it’s not those "evil" insurance companies, which will be receiving nearly a half-trillion dollars in “Obamacare” subsidies.
Consistent with the core fallacy of other recent socialist misadventures (like former President George Bush’s TARP bailout or Obama’s so-called “stimulus”), Washington politicians are once again attempting to solve problems that have been exacerbated by excessive government interventionism with additional government interventionism. “Dumping buckets of water on the head of a drowning victim,” if you will.
Even though America can’t even begin to afford its current entitlement obligations, Washington’s answer is to create yet another new entitlement program – something that Republicans who voted in favor of Bush’s prescription drug benefit know all about. And even as Medicare and Medicaid have failed spectacularly (and expensively) to provide cost-effective health care, Obama and his allies are using this failure as an excuse to dramatically escalate their “government knows best” approach to include individual mandates and huge fines for families and small businesses who fail to comply.
It’s a power grab, pure and simple. And a money grab, which is why “Obamacare” spends $10 billion to hire 17,000 new tax collectors at the IRS to rake in billions of dollars from America’s newly-created class of “illegally uninsured” citizens.
That hardly sounds like a plan built around “expanding coverage,” does it?
Obviously “Obamacare” isn’t going to reduce the deficit either. In fact when the actual cost of just one of the variables ignored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is calculated into the legislation, its price tag soars by nearly $208 billion (putting it $59 billion in the red).
Even "Obamacare's" worst-case deficit projections are likely to prove overly-optimistic. In 1965, for example, government accountants predicted that the hospital insurance portion of Medicaid would cost $9 billion by 1990. It wound up costing $63 billion. Even after adjusting for inflation, that’s still twice as expensive as the government originally estimated.
Earlier this month The New York Times – ostensibly seeking to build momentum for universal coverage – published a story highlighting the un-sustainability of Medicaid. The story revealed that last year, while state governments were relying on bailout money to fund skyrocketing growth rates, the program added 3.3 million new members – raising its total enrollment to 47 million. It is going broke, clearly, although that didn’t stop Obama and his Congressional allies from raiding $202 billion from its coffers (as well as $53 billion from Social Security) to make their plan appear deficit neutral.
And that may be the ultimate irony of “Obamacare” – that it is funding tomorrow’s big government obligations with the failed promises of yesterday.
President Barack Obama and his Congressional allies are spending money that they know we don’t have on a program that they know isn’t going to work – all in an effort to expand government’s control over the private sector and its reach into the private lives of American citizens.
Sound a bit conspiratorial?
It’s not – at least not when you turn down the partisan rhetoric (on both sides of the debate) and start examining what this monstrosity actually does.
“ObamaCare is really about who commands the country's medical resources,” an editorial in The Wall Street Journal noted the day before the legislation was passed. “It vastly accelerates the march toward a totally state-driven system, in contrast to reforms that would fix today's distorted status quo by putting consumers in control.”
With government already purchasing nearly half of all health care services in America (a system that’s rampant with fraud and anti-competitive price-fixing), just who did you think was responsible for the “distorted status quo” that Obamacare ostensibly seeks to correct?
Here’s a hint – it’s not those "evil" insurance companies, which will be receiving nearly a half-trillion dollars in “Obamacare” subsidies.
Consistent with the core fallacy of other recent socialist misadventures (like former President George Bush’s TARP bailout or Obama’s so-called “stimulus”), Washington politicians are once again attempting to solve problems that have been exacerbated by excessive government interventionism with additional government interventionism. “Dumping buckets of water on the head of a drowning victim,” if you will.
Even though America can’t even begin to afford its current entitlement obligations, Washington’s answer is to create yet another new entitlement program – something that Republicans who voted in favor of Bush’s prescription drug benefit know all about. And even as Medicare and Medicaid have failed spectacularly (and expensively) to provide cost-effective health care, Obama and his allies are using this failure as an excuse to dramatically escalate their “government knows best” approach to include individual mandates and huge fines for families and small businesses who fail to comply.
It’s a power grab, pure and simple. And a money grab, which is why “Obamacare” spends $10 billion to hire 17,000 new tax collectors at the IRS to rake in billions of dollars from America’s newly-created class of “illegally uninsured” citizens.
That hardly sounds like a plan built around “expanding coverage,” does it?
Obviously “Obamacare” isn’t going to reduce the deficit either. In fact when the actual cost of just one of the variables ignored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is calculated into the legislation, its price tag soars by nearly $208 billion (putting it $59 billion in the red).
Even "Obamacare's" worst-case deficit projections are likely to prove overly-optimistic. In 1965, for example, government accountants predicted that the hospital insurance portion of Medicaid would cost $9 billion by 1990. It wound up costing $63 billion. Even after adjusting for inflation, that’s still twice as expensive as the government originally estimated.
Earlier this month The New York Times – ostensibly seeking to build momentum for universal coverage – published a story highlighting the un-sustainability of Medicaid. The story revealed that last year, while state governments were relying on bailout money to fund skyrocketing growth rates, the program added 3.3 million new members – raising its total enrollment to 47 million. It is going broke, clearly, although that didn’t stop Obama and his Congressional allies from raiding $202 billion from its coffers (as well as $53 billion from Social Security) to make their plan appear deficit neutral.
And that may be the ultimate irony of “Obamacare” – that it is funding tomorrow’s big government obligations with the failed promises of yesterday.
This Is The TEA Party Movement
David Frum vs. The Tea Party Movement: Comment & Share
| Memo to David Frum: It's the Spending, Stupid 13 minutes |
Lets Not Lose The Next One
Tea Party in Searchlight: Where will they all stay?
Page Last Updated: Tuesday March 23, 2010 6:46pm PDT
This weekend thousands of conservative Americans will descend on the tiny Nevada town of Searchlight for a Tea Party rally. Searchlight is home to only about 800 people. The town has one motel and an RV park. So where will the thousands of visitors stay?
There’s an unusual place just outside of town that is quickly filling up with people from across the country.
Just about 14 miles east of Searchlight, inside the Lake Mead National Park, lies the Cottonwood Cove Resort.
“It’s a hidden gem. The water is beautiful here. We have a lovely lake and a beautiful resort,” says resort manager Greg Carter.
Dan Ball: Typically, in March, do you see the numbers that you’re expecting this weekend?
“No, we don’t. We are actually staffed for winter time and we are having to pull people in on their days off. We, the managers, are gonna be working 24 hours around the clock to make this thing happen.”
Carter says over the past few days, people from across the country who are attending the rally have discovered the resort.
“This weekend, we are booked to the brim,” says Cottonwood employee Jon Foster.
“We are deferring people over to the houseboats because we have no rooms and no RV spaces left.”
Thanks to the volume of people filling up rooms in Searchlight, Laughlin, Nipton, and Boulder City, some rally-goers are renting houseboats.
“We weren’t ready to rent this many houseboats but we are getting them put back together from winter refurb,” says Carter. “We’re cleaning boats and using them as motel rooms.”
Rally attendees will pay $325 a night or more with a two night minimum and taxes. Some folks will shell out over $700 just for a bed close to the Tea Party actions.
Tea Party goers have also rented every vacant RV space and some are even expected to pitch tents at nearby campgrounds. U.S. Park Ranger Laura Anderson says the sleepy little community is ready for the large crowd.
“We are gonna have extra staff on hand as well as extra law enforcement and emergency services.”
Saturday’s Tea Party rally is set to begin at noon.
Lets Show Them How Dangerous We Are Using Our $$$$$
Democrat Congressman Bart Stupak was the sellout Congressman who caved in to vote for the socialistic, government-run health care bill in exchange for $700,000 in kickbacks.
He betrayed the American people. He betrayed the Constitution and his own Congressional Oath.
The Tea Party Express is now heading to Stupak's district to take him out of Congress. We'll not only hold tea party rallies in his district - but we'll also be launching a campaign to defeat him.
Since he sold us out for $700,000 in kickbacks, why don't we raise $700,000 and throw this bum out of Congress.
Contribute to the "Defeat Bart Stupak" campaign - HERE.
Socialist And Democrats Come Together: WTF
Mobilized in Motor City
How Detroit DSA works in the Democratic Party to effect change.
By Seth A. Maxon
Rep. David Bonior (D-Mich), the former Democratic Whip in the House, shares a stage with Detroit Democratic Socialists of America Chair David Green (right).(Photo courtesy of David Green )In 1998, thanks partly to the work of Detroit DSA, a living-wage ordinance passed on the ballot in Detroit with 80 percent support. Since then, the group has led other successful campaigns to establish a living wage in the cities of Warren, Eastpointe and Ferndale, and in the counties of Wayne and Macomb.
Their success has come from working with, instead of against, local Democrats.
“It starts out with relationships,” says David Green, the chair of the Detroit chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the organization that is a descendent of the Socialist Party of Eugene Victor Debs. He continues, “Mark Brewer, the chair of the Michigan Democratic Party, has a very good relationship with us. He’s spoken to our local several times. The chairs of the county parties, several of them are close friends as well.”
Since 1998, Detroit DSA, with about 250 members, has successfully partnered with local county chairs and other Democratic Party officials to promote and elect several progressive candidates to the Michigan state legislature. One of these candidates, State Rep. John Espinoza, was even elected in the heavily conservative “Thumb” region of the state. In 2004, with the backing of Detroit DSA, Espinoza became the first Democrat and the first Latino ever elected to represent Michigan’s 83rd District.
The secret to their success, says Green, is thinking strategically.
“As a small organization, how can we make a difference? We leverage our forces. We put our efforts towards a progressive Democrat challenging a Republican, or a progressive Democrat challenging a centrist Democrat [in a primary]. “
“We don’t pick symbolic victories,” Green says, “We pick things we can win.”
After deciding whom to support, Detroit DSA carefully chooses tactics that will have the greatest impact, all of which are based on the leftist tradition of on-the-ground, grassroots action.
Green holds initial fundraisers for progressive Democratic candidates in his own home, where he invites friends and allies to come meet the candidates and contribute to their campaigns. These fundraisers bring in several thousand dollars, which, according to Green, is more than enough to get a fledgling statehouse race off the ground, providing crucial support to underfunded progressive candidates entering politics for the first time.
To build on the initial fundraising push, a core of Detroit DSA goes door-to-door to distribute literature and answer questions about their candidates. These activists also participate in phone banking and email campaigns. As part of this effort, Green instructs his members not to identify themselves as DSA members, to avoid the knee-jerk reaction many still have toward people who self-identify as “socialists.”
Indeed, Detroit DSA has come under fire from Republicans and Democrats for being a “socialist” organization. Earlier this year, the pro-free-market, Michigan-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy asked the question, “Are socialists deciding close state house races?” In addition, in previous elections, Detroit DSA candidates have been “red-baited” by both Republican opponents and mainstream newspapers. Detroit DSA’s support became an issue in another statehouse race, in which the Republican candidate commissioned robo calls that accused her opponent, Democrat Vicki Barnett, of being a socialist.
Such red-baiting, though unsuccessful (both Barnett and Brown went on to win their elections, the former by a landslide), has prevented Detroit DSA from getting involved in higher profile races. The group offered to support progressive Democratic candidates in two congressional races in 2008: Gary Peters (9th district) and Mark Schauer (7th district), both of whom went on to victory. Green says that the candidates themselves were happy to have Detroit DSA’s involvement, but that “handlers” from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) refused the support, for fear that the candidates would be red-baited or branded as socialists.
Commitment to social movements
Despite the organization’s involvement in electoral politics, Detroit DSA has not given up on its commitment to social movements.Over the past decade, the group has successfully waged six local living-wage campaigns in southeastern Michigan, utilizing many of the same methods they use to get out the vote. In 1998, thanks partly to the work of Detroit DSA, a living-wage ordinance passed on the ballot in Detroit with 80 percent support. Since then, the group has led other successful campaigns to establish a living wage in the cities of Warren, Eastpointe and Ferndale, and in the counties of Wayne and Macomb.
In 2006, Detroit DSA also led a successful anti-sweatshop campaign at Wayne State University, which thanks to the group’s efforts, no longer sells merchandise made in sweatshops.
Green insists that the social movement activism is as important as Detroit DSA’s electoral work.
“If all we did was work on electing progressive Democrats, we’d be guilty of some of the accusations our opponents give us, that the DSA is just an appendage of the Democratic Party … that we’re political hacks. If all we do is movement work, that’s kind of naïve. The way change happens in this country is by winning elections. That’s how you gain power and make change. You have to have both.”
Looking to the future
Green is confident that the DNC’s rejection of his organization’s support will change. In the 2008 cycle, support from Detroit DSA helped to push progressive candidates over the top in close races, in traditionally Republican regions, and in races where their candidates were red-baited. They continue to lead living-wage campaigns and other social movements that mainstream Democrats can support without controversy.The upcoming 2010 elections are particularly important for Detroit DSA. Three-quarters of Michigan’s state senators are up for re-election, and the new census numbers will mean the legislature (where Republicans in the senate have a thin majority) has to redistrict the state. With Detroit DSA’s support, Green says, the Democrats can help avoid Republican dominance and gerrymandering.
Through it all, though, he says, the democratic socialists will stick to their guns and stay committed to long-term progressive change.
“We have to continue to be progressive so people will say, you know, it’s worth working with these people. And we can handle any flack that comes from the right wing. That takes a little backbone, a little experience … and it doesn’t happen overnight.”
Watch Out Grandma Is Dangerous Just Like The Left Wing Now.LOL
These people are just as dumb as you can get. They keep saying we will become violent like they always do. If thism isn't proof that the left are mentaly ill then what is? They have been predicting the right wing would riot and do the same violence as they always do. But instead we have been finding out that it is the left trying to set us up with their brand of violence. They have been waiting for one of our millions of protesters to screw up and loose it like they do. But what they have are bricks through a window and they treat it like we are the ones burning cars,throwing molatoff cocktails with masks on. I think it is Racheal Madcow and Olbertmen that are inciting the left wing extreemist to go out and do violence in the name of the TEA Party as to make it look like we are the ones that are dangerous. It is their MO. Don't forget the fact that our prisons are full of liberals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)