Mass SNAFU

An Orwellian approach to health care?

I received an email today with a summary someone did of the first 500 pages of the ObamaCare bill and it was so scary and un-American, it inspired me to make this:

 

For those who may not know, the pic above is in reference to the book 1984 by George Orwell, in which the government tramples on individual liberties and inserts itself into every aspect of its citizens lives.  Very similar to what appears to be developing before our eyes today.  Of course, Obama wasn't in that book, but if he was, his big government, control everything philosophy would have fit in nicely.

I'll post the details of that summary soon but believe me, it's some scary, 1984-like stuff.

Pssst...Obama. Tax cuts work.

Charismatic, brilliant, a great communicator, etc.  The man is a legend amongst most Americans and is often referred to as one of the best Presidents ever in many political circles.  No Obots, I'm not talking about Obama.  JFK actually, and I'm calling on all Obama economic plan supporters to please view the video below and tell me why JFK's approach then would not work today (via No Looking Backwards):

Granted, it was a different time then and unemployment was only around 6%, but if I remember correctly, JFK's plan was similar to the one Reagan used very successfully in the early 80's, as well as Bush in 2001.  So there is a recent track record of success in which to model one's approach to economic recovery.  And please don't tell me how the $10/wk Obama made available to the middle class in tax cuts was effective.  It wasn't.  Oh, and stimulus hasn't stimulated as promised either.  Not at all actually.

Nowhere have I seen a successful blueprint for economic recovery that includes record deficit spending and tax hikes on business and the rich.  No. Where.  The wealthy create growth and permanent jobs; taxing them exponentially is economic suicide.

But if someone can set aside their blind loyalty to Obama, and show me statistically where that blueprint has been successful, I'd really appreciate it.

ObamaCare is tanking...fast

It appears as if people are not all that optimistic about having the same entity that runs the post office making decisions about their medical care.  A new WSJ/NBC poll has the gory details:

In mid-June, respondents were evenly divided when asked whether they thought Mr. Obama's health plan was a good or bad idea. In the new poll, conducted July 24-27, 42% called it a bad idea while 36% said it was a good idea.

Among those with private insurance, the proportion calling the plan a bad idea rose to 47% from 37%.  [...]

In the Journal poll, only two in 10 people said the quality of their own care would improve under the Obama plan; just 15% of those with private insurance thought it would. Twice as many overall, and three times as many with private coverage, predicted their own care would get worse.

The poll also suggests that people are concerned about the cost of this bureaucratic monstrosity.  Obama wants us all to believe that dumping 50 million uninsured people into the system at a cost of a cool trillion is going to save us money.  That math doesn't add up anyway you slice it, even more so when the CBO exposed the shell game Obama is playing:

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf said the plans already released by the House and Senate would keep costs rising at an unsustainable pace, fueling criticism from Republicans and some conservative Democrats that the overhaul will bankrupt the country.

A bankrupt country, poor quality health care plans, and bureaucrats denying medical treatment...what's not to like?

Hillary in 2012?

There was an article in the NY Daily News today hinting that Hillary Clinton might be planning a run of some sort due to maintaining eight staff on her political team and having a large stash in the campaign coffers:

Clinton's failed presidential bid is now $1 million in the black, and her old Senate campaign committee has $2.1 million in the bank, much of it transferred in from the presidential account.

Of course she denies any plans of running and, if she did, it would make more sense to do so in the 2016 presidential election.  But what if she was planning a run in 2012 as an independent?  I have speculated on this possibility in the past, completely based on circumstantial evidence and a personal hunch.  Speculatively speaking, her disdain for Obama during the primary was obvious, being Secretary of State is beneath her lofty expectations, she has witnessed his inexperience first hand, and if, just if, Obama’s poll numbers continue to slide and the economy continues its downward spiral, who’s to say she won’t be an opportunist and try to get the democratic party closer to center? 

It might be a nice selling point if we continue to head to the radical left, and you just know she thinks she can do a better job than Barry. This might be a great thing for Republicans because the winner of a three party race doesn't need much to win, just the highest majority of the three.  Hypothetically speaking, Clinton and Obama could split the democratic vote and, if my math is correct, a Republican could walk away victorious with as little as 34% of the electorate.  Just saying.

What is this "reading" you speak of, peasant?

In a recent speech at a National Health Club luncheon, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) questioned his very own job responsibility of actually reading a bill before voting on it:

If it takes two days and two lawyers to read a bill, as Conyers suggests, then he needs to give himself two days and get two lawyers to break it down for him so that he can vote accordingly, otherwise he shouldn't vote.  Period.    More importantly though, when did it become the status quo to vote on bills without reading them?  That's what happened in large part with the near trillion dollar stimulus and look how well that's working out.

These people were elected by the people, for the people, and are expected to make rational decisions based on facts and substance, WHICH MIGHT REQUIRE READING A BILL FROM TIME TO TIME BEFORE YOU VOTE ON IT!

Cambridge Police Union most likely not backing Obama in 2012

Maybe it's just me, but is seems as if a reverse racist picked the wrong cop to pull the race card on...

Economics 101 is down the hall to the left, Mr. President

When looking at this economy and the head shaking moves the Obama administration has made, one has to wonder if POTUS 1) has any economic clue and/or 2) is doing this on purpose to drag this recession out.  Exhibit A:

At his press conference, Obama endorsed a surtax on families earning more than $1 million a year to pay for his health care initiative. This is no way to get the country out of a recession. Like them or not, millionaires are the folks whose investments create growth and jobs--which are, after all, exactly what the president is hoping for. Another tax hike--especially on top of the increased taxes on individual income, capital gains, dividends, and inheritances that Obama intends to go into effect in 2011--is sure to impede investment. It's an anti-growth measure, as those with even a sketchy grasp of economics know. But Obama doesn't appear to.

The blueprint for economic stability has been created and proven to work – just look at what Reagan did in the early 80’s – but for some reason this administration refuses to learn from history’s successes and failures.  Obama has been clear that he’s against large profits and is anti-big business in many of his statements and actions to date, and that approach isn’t going to help the economy.  From the same article (emphasis mine):

Obama has proudly proclaimed an economically counterproductive approach to overseas profits. In his address to Congress in February, he announced: "We will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas." Profits earned abroad would be taxed at 35 percent. This makes no economic sense. Untaxed foreign profits allow companies to keep many jobs at home. Taxing those profits weakens global competitiveness. And the beneficiaries would be foreign firms that replace American companies and reap the profits Obama is eager to tax. The Obama policy means the profits go away and tax revenues vanish. Does Obama understand this? There's no evidence he does. 

Reagan’s approach of adding tax cuts and investment incentives to his “stimulus plan” worked and lead to 25 years of unprecedented economic growth.  Obama is doing the opposite and one has to wonder… why isn’t any of what Reagan did even being considered at this point by this administration?