True cost of Obamacare

I know many things have been written on this, but this write up was very concise for those of you who are open to the facts but do not have time to watch or keep up with every new detail.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_true_cost_of_obamacare.html

Excerpts from the article(emphasis mine):

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the 10-year (2010-2019) cost of the House Democrats’ bill at $1.055 trillion. As usual, there is so much budget gimmickry in these estimates as to make them virtually meaningless.

The Democrats are dishonest on so many levels about this health care “reform” that it is almost impossible to untangle all of their lies. Let’s start by clarifying some basic truths.

First, who pays for health care right now? That’s right: the taxpayers, who foot the bill not only for their own health care, but for illegal immigrants, the poor, and seniors as well. (Some seniors continue to pay a premium for Medicare, but it still doesn’t cover all the costs).

Who is feeling the pain of the rapid annual growth in health care costs that Democrats claim they so desperately to want to fix? Right: these same taxpayers.

Some will argue that employers pick up most of the tab. That is true when employers offer health care policies to their employees, but it is an illusion. Businesses must make a profit to remain alive, so every cost they pick up is passed on to the consumer via higher prices. So in reality, we pay.

Others will remind us that actually, employers don’t pay the entire tab – that offering health care benefits is a big plus for employers because they get subsidies from the government. Since health care benefits become part of a “compensation package,” employers actually pay less (thanks to the government subsidy) than they would have to pay the employee otherwise.

True again. Employers don’t pay the full cost of health care benefits; the government subsidizes them. But where does the government get the funds to subsidize employer-provided health care? From taxes or borrowing (which will require more taxes in the future to retire the debt). So who pays? Again, we pay — now or in the future.

One of the primary causes of skyrocketing costs in health care is the low-cost or-no cost care available to low-income groups, including illegal immigrants. This creates an explosion in demand, not to mention immigration — both legal and illegal — by people who wish to take advantage of our low-cost, high-quality services. The government sometimes reimburses doctors and hospitals for the services they provide, but not always. Even when they do, the reimbursement is often and sometimes significantly below cost.

Who pays for all this? We pay! Twice!

We pay the taxes to cover the government reimbursements, and we pay in higher insurance premiums that result from doctors and hospitals trying to recoup their losses by passing them on in higher fees to private insurers. If this is not an option, they go out of business, reducing the availability of health care for everyone.

>>more excerpts:

The bill raises $700 billion in new taxes. That much, you can be sure, is real. In addition to the explicit taxes in the legislation, the 1,990-page House bill imposes all kinds of uncounted taxes on insurers that will dramatically increase private health insurance premiums. This is similar to the Baucus bill, which would cause health insurance premiums to go up for most individuals as much as 199 percent! The true cost of the Baucus bill, when these phony savings and other hidden costs are considered, is at least twice the CBO estimate.

But the biggest fraud of all is that in order to make this program “budget-neutral” — i.e., not add to the deficit on paper over the ten years estimated – tax collections and program cuts begin immediately but the new program itself does not start fully paying out until 2015. So they are covering five years of cost with ten years of tax collections! Going past 2019, the deficit will skyrocket.

This all assumes, of course, that the projections they have produced have some basis in reality. The analysis so far should belie that notion. But it gets much worse. As explained in an earlier article, such projections never include these programs’ huge ripple effects.

First, the market distortions created by such programs require the government to create yet more programs to deal with them, for example, enforcement. Beltway “think-tanks” get involved with all kinds of new ideas, and some of these proposals become law, which creates yet more bureaucracy. Politicians and beneficiaries get together to dream up new fixes and adds.

Second, they do not include the many changes and additions made after the bill becomes law. Such changes invariably and dramatically increase program costs.

Finally, they never account for the explosion in demand created by moral hazard — i.e., the tendency of people to demand more services when the perceived cost is minimal or zero.

For example, Medicare and Medicaid have grown 2,735 percent between 1967, the first year they paid benefits, and 2008, the last full year for which actual data is available, after correcting for inflation. Together Medicare and Medicaid are the largest expenditure in the federal budget. In inflation-adjusted dollars, Medicare paid out a modest $17 billion in its first year of operation. In 2008, that cost rose to $455 billion.

>>I cannot stress enough just how America, job creation, lifestyles, standard of living, medical drugs, procedures and care will change if govt healthcare is mandated and the Democrats are shoving it on the people:

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)

Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.

How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html

>>Senator Reid is buying another Senators vote for 100 million dollars. If this bill was actually good the Mary’s constituents, why is she having to be bought ?

As you know, govt. care is coming; and it is more likely inevitable.

But before you accept it, gladly or not; be sure to tell your wife, girlfriend, mom, daughter, co-worker or any other woman their risk of breast cancer being fatal for them is going up:

 “Yesterday, a federal panel decided that self-exams and some mammograms are no longer necessary for women in their forties and should only be administered every other year for those in their fifties and sixties. Despite being said to reduce cancer deaths by about 15% in women ages 39-59, the federal panel based their decision to change the guidelines because they concluded too much money was spent on “unnecessary tests.”

http://townhall.com/blog/page5

Now, be sure to tell the women this fact:

“Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).”

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649#_ednref1

And these:

“The US survival rate for prostate cancer is 91.9% vs. 57.1% for europe and 83.9% vs. 73% for breast cancer.”

“85% of US women have had a pap test and  84% had a mammogram in the past 2 years  vs. 58% and 63% for the UK.”

Also tell them the fact that in the UK, govt  has already pushed the minimum age of mammograms up, even denying those that do not meet the minimum age flatly on age and pushing family history and other concerns aside.

Also, be sure to tell them that pap smears are also now being considered to only be needed every other year.

For those of you who wish to support every measure to keep your women as healthy as possible, you need to start calling your reps.

For those of you that do not, be sure to tell all the women that you know that you knew this and you did not oppose any of it and favored it. As they say, hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Just thought i’d let you all know that the House GOP is fighting to the end.

I grant you that most likely no one who hasn’t decided about health care already would be flipping over to C-span at 11pm on a friday, but I’d like to give credit to Gohmert and King for being the last ones working and doing the right thing when nobody is watching.

Those are the type of people any employer wants working for them and certainly the representatives conservatives do wish to give their tax money to pay thier salaries.

My goal here is to put out information that might have been missed on the 3 day weekend. Agree or disagree, the following are all actual statements that deserve some statements from the white house, not a resignation at midnight of a 3 day weekend.

From http://www.foxnews.com/glennbeck/index.html - Thursday, September 3 – one thing. Start watching anywhere; this is from minute 12 on:

Van Jones, “from 1954-1968, you know complete revolution was on the table, uh, for this country and i think this green movement has to pursue those same steps, and stages. Right now we’re saying we want, uh, to move to some kind uh, eco-capitalism where, uh, you know, at least we’re not, you know fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Um, will that be enough ? No, it won’t be enough, we want to go beyond ex-systems of exploitation and oppression altogether but that’s a process, and I think what’s great about uh, the movement that’s beginning to change is that the crisis is so severe in terms of joblessness, violence and now ecological threats that people are willing to be both very pragmatic and very visionary an uh, so the green economy  will start off as a small subset and uh, we’re going to push it and push it and push it um, until it becomes the engine the engine for transforming the whole society.”(emphasis mine)

Now, I am not on the same tree limb that Glenn Beck is that the entire Obama administration is out to transform the entire country, but by his own statements, Van Jones is or was not too long ago.

Despite this, : http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/15/767198/-A-Conversation-with-Valerie-JarrettLiveblog

“JARRETT:. You guys know Van Jones? [Applause. Moderator injects: "This is his house apparently."]
JARRETT: Oooh. Van Jones, alright! So, Van Jones. We were so delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House. We were watching him, uh, really, he’s not that old, for as long as he’s been active out in Oakland. And all the creative ideas he has. And so now, we have captured that. And we have all that energy in the White House.”

I am still willing to give Obama a break as anyone that watches someone from a distance cannot know every word, thought or detail. It is quite possible that Obama  does not know those ideas and just sees him as a fellow greenie.

That stated, Van Jones is unappointed and unconfirmed by any congressional review and the White House does know about it now. Someone watched every second of Beck’s show.

At the very least, he needed to go; and Obama needs to again disavow someone who advises him.If he does not do that immediately; If  the white house lets Van Jones go gently into the night with no statement’s of a seperation of  ideas and some statement of misreading Van Jones; you at the very least have to wonder what else Beck might be on the right path on and be pretty concerned about it. 

Boehner was supposedly rumored to be reading the entire 300 page cap and trade amendment that was passed at 3am friday.

If he would have done that, the bill probably still passes, but the House GOP has again gone over the top to draw attention to those in the House that are mortgaging the future for political payback in many cases.

Taken further, if Boehner could have had the entire House GOP hold the line on “No”, a complete read would have ignited the GOP throughout the country.

Taken even further, if the democratic leadership would have taken measures to halt it and Boehner and other GOP members kept passing on the reading until every house GOP member was kicked out of the house chamber; the people of America would think the house GOP is someone that was looking out for them again.

That skimming of parts that interested him will garner less news than Savage’s Barry Obama shows.

Please, o’please leader Boehner; do this when the universal health care bill comes around. As you said, the cap and trade bill was not about energy but was about freedom. The people are losing their freedoms fast, please use yours to make a significant statement if given the chance.

That is how you fillibuster and this is what I would have done.

A D-Day vet was interviewed on Fox news today:

http://townhall.com/blog/g/e4d01dd0-ac5c-4b4f-95d9-826622914094

Says today’s group doesn’t appreciate the sacrafices the WW2 generation and vets made and the homefront then and today is totally different and I whole heartedly agree.

If you take time to think what those vets lived thru from D-Day, to Midway, to Iwo Jima; the toughest day you most likely will live through will amount to nothing by comparison.

I remember the line from Saving Private Ryan where Tom Hanks says, paraphrasing; this private Ryan better be worth the sacrafices we’re making to try and save his life, he better do something great for all we’re sacraficing for him.

Very many of us, the world all over; fall very short of what they have done.

The U.S. may forget what U.S. vets have done, i will not.

Don’t know if you caught it, but in Tuedsay’s WSJ, Page A21; they reprinted Obama’s Senate floor speech on why he voted against Roberts and it’s very telling as to why he picked Sotomayor. I have printed some excerpts that I thought were telling:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124390047073474499.html

“The problem I face — a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts — is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95% of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95% of the cases — what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5% of cases that are truly difficult.
 
In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.

In those 5% of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country, or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions, or whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled — in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.”
 
>>and then had these things to say about Roberts:
 
“I talked to Judge Roberts about this. Judge Roberts confessed that, unlike maybe professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and his deeper feelings. That is not how he is trained. He did say he doesn’t like bullies and has always viewed the law as a way of evening out the playing field between the strong and the weak.

I was impressed with that statement because I view the law in much the same way. The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts’ record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General’s Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.”
 
>>So, seems to me that Obama is unfortunately consistent in that he is calling on one’s experiences to make rulings in Sotomayor’s case. Looking to apply the law be damned, and further in Roberts case. If Obama perceives you as not in line with his philosophies, you’re just wrong.

If you think that her rulings overturned 60% of the time by the supreme court are reason enough to refuse her, Obama is quite clear he’s looking to decrease the percentage of those rulings being overturned by appointing her as her rulings would be most likely be his.

I need to know what kind of compettion I have. I mean, publicly standing for traditional marriage, her grandfather fought in WW2 and she still lives by his advice today.

She is awesome !

Move over to the side of the road Jennifer Anniston, Carrie Prejean is about to turn your attractiveness into road kill.

Harold Koh. He will be giving Hillary legal advice and Obama is likely to throw him right up the ladder to the big court.

Yes, he leans left; Obama would be going against his own ideas of what a judge should be to not pick him; so the question is are Koh’s ideas and opinions yours; because one day they may be and there will be nothing you can do then to stop it.

Some ideas and quotes from Koh:

He’s an advocate of what he calls “transnational legal process” and argues that the distinction between U.S. and international law should vanish.

Koh believes laws of places like Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka should carry equal weight with the laws of Virginia and South Dakota, and that it’s “appropriate for the Supreme Court to construe our Constitution in the light of foreign and international law” in its decisions.

He also values the opinions of the world’s imams. A New York lawyer, Steven Stein, says Koh in 2007 told the Yale Club of Greenwich that “in an appropriate case, he didn’t see any reason why Shariah law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States.”

Koh says the Supreme Court is now divided between “nationalist” judges who believe our Constitution is the only one that counts and “transnationalists” who believe “we the people” should be changed to “we are the world.”

Now, all of you who are A-Okay with the past 4 statements; please let us know right here if you have the guts as Koh’s view of America is not what America has been. This would be America by name only.

Yes, Dean of yale law, impressive; but considering his staements and opinions; he’s pretty sad to be heading yale law.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=323391460856338

For those of you who hadn’t had the pleasure, you really should meet Dawn Johnson. This person will be the door for legal policy in the white house, allowing to go in and out what she chooses. Yes, I know it’s hard to meet someone of that stature face to face; but you can often tell who they are by their own words.

So, some statements:

1. “The argument that women who become pregnant have in some sense consented to the pregnancy belies reality…and others who are the inevitable losers in the contraceptive lottery no more ‘consent’ to pregnancy than pedestrians ‘consent’ to being struck by drunk drivers.’” 

 Supreme Court amicus brief she authored in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services2. “The woman is constantly aware for nine months that her body is not wholly her own: the state has conscripted her body for its own ends. Thus, abortion restrictions ‘reduce pregnant women to no more than fetal containers.’”

Supreme Court amicus brief she authored in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

3. “Statutes that curtail her abortion choice are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest.”

Supreme Court amicus brief she authored in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

4. Pro-life supporters are comparable to the Ku Klux Klan

“The ‘terrorist’ behavior of petitioners is remarkably similar to the conspiracy of violence and intimidation carried out by the Ku Klux Klan…”

-Dawn Johnsen, in a Supreme Court amicus brief she authored in Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic

>Now. I know elections have consequences and freely admit the abortion horse is outta the barn and abortion is here to stay in this country. I also freely admit that Obama having a very pro-abortion person of legal counsel should be expected.

I can also hear the howls of those leaning left, saying – Oh, yeah ? well, we had to put up with John Ashcroft’s singing hymns and holding daily prayers; we’re do a little fairness; he certainly did not represent all of America. True, but I’ll take any bet that many, many more would have no issue with those actions or his actions supporting pro-life than the statements by Johnson and her support of partial birth abortion.

These statements are by someone who sees pregnancy and motherhood as a burden and enslavement and assigns no responsibility at all to the high majority of women that get pregnant without considering the consequences of having sex every time before they have sex. This woman is very radical in her words, her actions should follow that in the white house. How far do you let it go, because they’re not stopping at this point in the spectrum.

(Segue: Those railing at Obama now, but on his train before; could have seen his policies coming if they paid attention to his words)

From the tribune article:

Before its portfolio of bad loans helped trigger the current housing crisis, mortgage giant Freddie Mac was the focus of a major accounting scandal that led to a management shake-up, huge fines and scalding condemnation of passive directors by a top federal regulator.

One of those allegedly asleep-at-the-switch board members was Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel—now chief of staff to President Barack Obama—who made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint at Freddie Mac that required little effort.

He was named to the Freddie Mac board in February 2000 by Clinton, whom Emanuel had served as White House political director and vocal defender during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals.

The board met no more than six times a year. Unlike most fellow directors, Emanuel was not assigned to any of the board’s working committees, according to company proxy statements. Immediately upon joining the board, Emanuel and other new directors qualified for $380,000 in stock and options plus a $20,000 annual fee, records indicate.

On Emanuel’s watch, the board was told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits the government-chartered firm was then reaping from risky investments. The goal was to push earnings onto the books in future years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass.

The accounting scandal wasn’t the only one that brewed during Emanuel’s tenure.

During his brief time on the board, the company hatched a plan to enhance its political muscle. That scheme, also reviewed by the board, led to a record $3.8 million fine from the Federal Election Commission for illegally using corporate resources to host fundraisers for politicians. Emanuel was the beneficiary of one of those parties after he left the board and ran in 2002 for a seat in Congress from the North Side of Chicago.

The board was throttled for its acquiescence to the accounting manipulation in a 2003 report by Armando Falcon Jr., head of a federal oversight agency for Freddie Mac. The scandal forced Freddie Mac to restate $5 billion in earnings and pay $585 million in fines and legal settlements. It also foreshadowed even harder times at the firm.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-rahm-emanuel-profit-26-mar26,0,5682373.story

>>imagine if karl rove held that office before the GW presidency and oversaw the same, he never would have made it to the white house and would have taken GW down with him.

and you lefties wonder why we dont trust obama. he’s either naive as hell and is getting rolled by his party or he’s in as long as he gets whatever he wants(and i shudder to think what that is given what he’s done already).

In my first edition of Bite Me Wednesday, I would like to address Senator Dodd; but first credit the source of Bite Me Wednesdays; One on one sport’s Papa Joe Chevalier. Papa Joe was a long time sports talk host for One on One and assigned every Wednesday as “Bite Me” Wednesday.

It allowed for Papa and us to vent on those doing ill or acting shamelessly in the sports world. It was very well received and gained so much popularity they even started selling “Bite Me” t-shirts.

While, no longer the sportsworld; I do believe you cannot trip over yourself today without feeling the need to give at least one public official a “Bite Me”, so I have resurrected it and invite any of you to vent on my designated bitee or add one of your own.

For today, I hand out the initial bite me to senator Dodd. For him to actually think that we, the people; are so dense to not smell some sort of fish when he says he doesn’t know who stripped out his proposal to restrict bonuses as Dodd himself receives large sums of contributions from the very same company that’s on the Senate chopping block is quite disgusting.

You Senator Dodd, must think that the people are barely more functional than the family dog to actually swallow your explanations. When someone changes our work at our office, we notice; but apparently it’s a lot more complicated within the hallowed halls of Congress. No, Senator; your dismissal of people’s intelligence is so far beyond pathetic than I have nothing else to say except that you can Bite Me !

I know righties are war mongering, blood thirsty, imperialists; but they’re also one hell of a group to be in.

As eveidenced by the 30% more given to charity by conservatives, even though liberals make 6% more on average.

And further evidenced by the 10 reddest states of the 2004 election gave 3.5% to charity whilst the bluest of the blue gave 1.9%

Conservatives also donate more time and blood(of which I can speak personally as a 9 ½ gallon donor).

And, included in the article is that Gore donated 0.2% of his income in 2000. Kerry also gave much below the average conservative’s 3.5% and Obama was below that number until his first book increased his income severly. Obama and the misses were easily clearing his current definition of rich at 250,000 before the book but felt the need to keep that. It seems the rules are different now.

You know, actually; that’s not true. The officeholding left has always been hippocrites, they just get to make the rules now.

So, you know; maybe Obama is a good thing. Since lefties are keeping it for themselves, yet make 6% more on average; what you can’t pry from their wallets; Obama is just going to shake it out of them.

http://1070knth.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2008/03/27/conservatives_really_are_more_compassionate

I’m quite sure Obama would think it appropriate and worthy of his mettle. So, let see what Cicero said, facing the same tests of private and public ownership and personal responsibility:

“When politicians, enthusiastic to pose as the people’s friends, bring forward bills providing for the distribution of property, they intend that the existing owners shall be driven from their homes. Or they propose to excuse borrowers from paying back their debts.

“Men with those views undermine the very foundations on which our commonwealth depends. In the first place, they are shattering the harmony between one element in the State and another, a relationship which cannot possibly survive if debtors are excused from paying their creditor back the sums of money he is entitled to. Furthermore, all politicians who harbour such intentions are aiming a fatal blow at the whole principle of justice; for once rights of property are infringed, this principle is totally undermined.”

I can only sense that CNBC’s Santelli suggested the same in his rant on the trading floor.

So, what did Cicero suggest ?

“The real answer to the problem is that we must make absolutely certain that private debts do not ever reach proportions which will constitute a national peril. There are various ways of ensuring this. But just to take the money away from the rich creditors and give the debtors something that does not belong to them is no solution at all. For the firmest possible guarantee of a country’s security is sound credit…

So the men in charge of our national interests will do well to steer clear of the kind of liberality which involves robbing one man to give to another.”

Now, I fully concede GW was an accomplish in this; but it is the three headed hydra currently in Congress and the white house that have put the pedal to the medal and hit the nitrous button.

We’ll see if they slow down long enough to catch a clue and not throw the people in front of oncoming traffic, but for a guy that I’m sure has studied Cicero as steeped in academia as Obama is; I doubt it.

Yes, “my friends”; the revolution has started with Jindal refusing some of the stimulus,

“Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Friday that he will decline stimulus money specifically targeted at expanding state unemployment insurance coverage, becoming the first state executive to officially refuse any part of the federal government’s payout to states. ”

That’s awesome ! Refusing funds for some bridge that will barely be used is one thing, but to refuse unemployment insurance coverage when job loses are still increasing is taking it to straight to increasing government and increasing welfare.

If you live in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi or South Carolina; I would urge you to urge your governor to refuse the funds. If these states can refuse and recover faster; the conservative movement will take off and spread like wildfire and make 2010 a comeback year for GOP office seekers that stand by conservative principles.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090220/pl_politico/19092

This was so great, I replayed the audio file twice !

On the February 10^th show, Dave starts the show by going off on Obama’s speech on February 9^th for using fear to sell the stimulus and saying that only government can solve the economic crisis. It’s seems that Dave has a philosophy that a leader that uses fear to motivate action in people is not a very good leader and seemed pretty concerned of Obama’s use of fear as he believes fear is an effective tool to get people to give up their freedoms.

Now, you lefties will throw a wet blanket on that; but Paulson used exactly the same fear to get the Tarp done. It seems President Obama is pretty good at playing on fear also, I wonder just how many times he’ll play the fear card before the people do start thinking, this IS more of the same.

Dave also mentioned there is a new definition of bi-partisan meaning that you have to agree with me and do what I say. Now, we all know this. The GOP 3 make nothing bi-partisan. We’ll see how long CNN and MSNBC can cover this up.

Something that really got me was that Dave himself was scared because he thinks obama seems to believe that government is the only solution. I know that’s true and you know its true, and the inefficiencies of government is just going to make the recession longer than it has to be; but it still wasn’t something I expected Dave to say on his own national radio show inviting criticism from many people he would consider fans that did vote obama.

He also said obama looked like a little child throwing a hissy fit because he couldn’t get his way with the bill. Don’t we have two majority leaders that already do this ? Do we really need another branch of government taking it’s bill and going back home until everyone likes it.

Dave does believe obama has the ability to inspire but believes obama’s government is the only solution to fixing the economy philosophy will hinder real solutions.

My paraphrasing doesn’t do his monologue justice, but for a person that so many in America believe as a common sense and trustworthy person; he sure gave a healthy dose of what a President should not do and that he was a bit offended at how Obama has framed the need for a stimulus; and I am very proud of him for doing it.

Just one more example of how wrong obama has it. I don’t know if it’s still available, but you might be

able to listen to it free here: http://www.daveramsey.com - Tuesday, February, 10 show.

Taxes ! We all hate them, but most of us live with them and never get stirred up as you usually only take .

one glance per year at what you pay, when you pay the IRS.

Why ? That’s not how you keep your resolve.

Let’s take the summer gas price hysteria. Every week you filled up your tank and got more mad every week until your fuming drove you to call, email and fax Congress and the President to the point that offshore drilling became an issue D.C. had to resolve.

Why not apply the same here ? You are surely paying more in taxes than your weekly gas bill is today. Maybe, just maybe; you’ll be active enough to help reduce your taxes and help everyone else do the same.

Ok, let’s try.

Go here:

http://www.paycheckcity.com/netpaycalc/netpaycalculator.aspOr here:

http://www.payroll-taxes.com/calculators.htmNow, if you get paid $50,0000 per year; you’re paying $213.22 per week, $852.88 per month and $11087.44 per year !

So, let’s put that in perspective. That equates to being able to pay for the mortgage on a house selling for $142,000(nothing down, at 6%).

If you make $50,000 and have no dependents; you are giving up the mortgage payment on a $142,000 house every month because the government needs to put in high speed rail from LA to Las Vegas even though Amtrak cancelled its train on the same route due to lack of ridership, protecting the salt marsh mouse and honeybee insurance.

And given the size of the stimulus bill, that’s most likely to go up !

I would encourage you to make either of the above links a bookmark and visit it every time you get paid and just maybe it’ll help us all to work to lower them again in the future.

Now, that would be a real stimulus.

I know there are many here that agree, but don’t know why.

If you know history, economies run on cycles; and even the steal from us bill will only slow the US economy; it will not kill it.

You can be quite sure that obama will have a free pass in 2012 if the economy growing again and jobs are being created; and they will. And when the win in 2012, that’s an additional 4 years to convert to the US to socialism and silencing or limiting public dissent along the way to that goal.

So, while the economy is bad, all of Obama’s appointments stink and Obama is pulling levers to make it harder for the US(like re-installing the offshore drilling ban); you should be helping conservative candidates and help the people really get change. In 2010, congress can get more of the same or real change; and that road is being built now.

Give Obama 4 years, and he may block it off.

Just a refresher, or summary; for those who arent seeing the forest of just how bad the administration has done through the trees of the day to day shortcomings.

1. Hillary Clinton – need we say even one word. Ok, whitewater.
2. Rahm Emanuel – To date, has not paid any property taxes. As far as we know, he’s not a homeless person. Where do the people get deals like that ?
3. Tim Geithner – Managed to miss paying some of his taxes, even though he was specifically instructed of the why’s and how to’s. Again, where do the people get deals like that ?
4. Tom Daschle – strike that. More tax issues.
5. Bill Richardson – didn’t even make it out of the gate(and just think, he was running for president.) over a pay to play investigation.
6. Nancy Killefer – strike that. More tax issues.
7. William Lynn – lobbyist for military contractor Raytheon that that the number 2 position in the pentagon that somehow avoids Obama’s no lobbyist pledge.
8. Hilda Solis – Husband tax problems, her labor organization problems.
9. David Ogden – number 2 in the justice department filed against minors needing parental notice for abortion and litigated for playboy and penthouse.
10. Eric Holder - signed-off on the pardons of 16 FALN terrorists and that of Marc Rich.

And let’s not forget who in D.C. has the nation’s purse strings:

1. Charlie Rangel - chairing the powerful House Ways and Means Committee - failure to pay taxes on an offshore rental property, and his use of office letterhead to solicit donations for a public-policy school that would bear his name.
2. Chris Dodd - chairman of the Senate Banking Commission- VIP treatment by Countrywide over 2 mortgages ? I have 2 with B of A, where’s my VIP treatment ?
3. Harry Reid – Senate majority leader – On a 160 plot in Mohave County Ried paid $166, appraised value $2,144.
4. Nancy Pelosi – House majority leader –  In 2007, Pelosi directed over $90,000 from her PAC to her husband’s real estate, the same year she supported a bill that would have banned indirect compensation from PACs to such things as payments to companies that employ spouses.

Now, I am not Obama(naïve) enough to think there aren’t plenty of ethics issues with republicans as well, but for 2 years; the democrats have been preaching change and ethics reform and have not lived it. Now, the same can be said for Obama.

My question is, if the party in power now that was elected for change and in a need to have the government act more in the people’s interest now by being a party of ethics and trust is having problems reflecting that at the very beginning; just how far do you think they will go to act in their interests and how much of your interests and the people’s interests are never addressed ?

I shudder to think how far down the rabbit hole the people’s needs fall while the party in power keeps moving on its on accord.

I know the stimulus package is likely a done “Yes” for Collins, Snowe and Specter; but I’m taking one last chance and if you wish to as well; here’s a good how-to. Now, their voice mail is full; so you probably wont get any answer until Monday; but here are their email forms and fax number and the write up I sent. Feel free to fill their in boxes and fax machines. The House GOP held the line, the least I could do is make some phone calls; how about you ?

Collins: 202-224-2553, fax - (202) 224-2693

http://collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorCollins.Email&CFID=39113496&CFTOKEN=99427497Specter: 202-224-4254, fax - 202-228-1229

Form:

http://specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactFormSnowe: 202-224-5344, fax - (202) 224-1946

http://snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorSnowe.EmailI know that there is an ongoing debate over what continued government stimulus packages will do and you are thinking to vote for the current package. As a long time republican, taxpayer and future parent, I hope that you will not for my and your children’s sake.

I give you a short write up on what does work(tax cuts) and what the current Stimilus package will cause(Japan, 1990). I hope it will help you change your mind. Feel free to pass it on if you deem it worthy.

I’m just going to pass on a few facts here, so that everyone reading has some details on why tax cuts work and more spending will not.

Taking the spending of the great depression first:

“From 1930 to 1940, federal spending tripled in volume as new programs were created and old ones expanded in a costly effort to revive the collapsing economy. As a share of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal spending rose from 3.4 percent in 1930 to 9.8 percent in 1940.5 Yet, despite this unprecedented surge in spending, America’s GDP fell by 27 percent part way through the decade and by 1938 was less than two percent above its 1929 level.6″

“The number of unemployed more than doubled from 2.8 million at the beginning of the decade to 6.9 million in 1940.7″

So, as you can see; years of government spending accomplished little during the great depression. So far, government spending is 0 for 1 on causing a recovery.

Now, to the 1960’s and democratic president JFK’s tax cuts; results:

“Inheriting a sluggish economy when he took office in 1961, President Kennedy learned from these lessons and instead relied on a massive tax cut to get the economy going again. It worked; inflation-adjusted GDP grew by 50.5 percent during the 1960s, a postwar record for decade-over-decade growth rates.”

This makes tax cuts 1 for 1 on recoveries, and then the Reagan tax cuts:

“The 1981 tax cuts of President Reagan led to what then became the longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history.”

Now, tax cuts are 2 for 2. So, let’s add spending restraint to lower tax rates introduced by Reagan and those results ? More economic growth:

“The federal government’s share of GDP fell from 22.3 percent in 1991 during the brief recession that marked the beginning of the decade to 18.2 percent by 2000.8 Because of the restraint on federal spending, which allowed resources to shift to the more productive private sector, the economy boomed and a new American record was set for the duration of an expansion.”

So, tax cuts and decreasing spending have a perfect record for economic recovery. Now, what is the ongoing spending going to do for the US ? We need only look back 20 years to see as Japan implemented the same policies:

“Beginning in 1991-1992, Japan adopted the spending approach now advocated by many in the U.S. Congress when it embarked on a massive nationwide program of infrastructure investment. Between 1992 and 2000, Japan implemented 10 separate spending stimulus packages in which public infrastructure investment was a major component.9.

Between 1992 and 1999, industrial production in Japan increased by just 0.7 percent, while in the United States it increased by 39.6 percent.”

This is a time period of the US reigning in spending and Japan increasing spending which resulted in a decreased GDP for Japan and each individual citizen:

“Japan began gradually to close the GDP gap beginning in the late 1970s, when its standard of living was about 72 percent of that of the United States. By 1991, its standard of living had risen to nearly 90 percent of that of the United States.15 During this period, Japan’s level of government spending in proportion to its economy, while rising, was still the lowest of the major industrial countries.

Had Japan continued with this policy of fiscal restraint and low taxes, its per capita income (adjusted for PPP) would likely have overtaken America’s by the mid-1990s. But 1991 was also the beginning of the Japanese government’s spending spree and the country’s relative, and then absolute, decline.

After coming within 12 percentage points of matching U.S. per capita GDP, Japan’s relative performance began its inexorable decline and fell to a 78 percent share by 1999, a milestone it had surpassed–on the way up–only 12 years earlier. More important, the standard of living also fell in absolute terms. After reaching a per capita, PPP-adjusted GDP of $25,373 in 1997, that measure fell to $24,314 in 1998 and remained below $25,000 in 1999.”

It’s quite obvious that the current spending policies will only lengthen the recession further. You might pass this on or share it with those against and in favor of the stimulus as the recession will continue until the current leaders in Washington, D.C. change to what does work.

Based on Heritage article: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/BG1495.cfm