"Documentary" filmmaker Michael Moore has a new movie coming out: "Capitalism: A Love Story". I can only guess that it's 90 minutes of MM complaining about how terrible capitalism is, and I won't be wasting my $10 to go see it.
He's free to say whatever he wants (however libelous it may be), but what really made me laugh is when he recently said:
"Capitalism did nothing for me."
Surely he had to be joking, right? He went on to say, "You know, I had to pretty much beg, borrow and steal. The system is not set up to help somebody from the working class make a movie like this and get the truth out there."
Let me see if I have the story straight - this poor little boy, who came from nothing, had to work hard to amass his $50 million fortune?
Sounds like a page straight out of the capitalism success book.
"We have a moral obligation to give health care to everyone."
I've been getting this line (or similar ones) a lot lately. Liberals like to use it to secure a little moral superiority and attempt to make conservatives look like selfish animals.
Since when does the left support making laws that force people to do what one group thinks is morally right?
Seems to me that the crux of many liberal arguments (abortion, gay marriage, etc) is that one group shouldn't have the ability to force their system of morals on the entire population - especially through laws.
With the whole health care debate going on right now, I frequently hear liberals cite the World Health Organization’s rankings for which country has the “best” health care (the US is ranked 37th, by the way).
I've never met a person who decided to travel to Oman for their cancer treatment. I've never read a story about a person flying to Saudi Arabia for their eye surgery, just like I've never heard of anybody going to Colombia for their fertility treatments. Yet I have heard hundreds of accounts of people coming to the US for procedures. Strange that so many people around the world would pay out of their own pocket to receive the 37th best health care.
Of course the liberals don’t understand that the WHO isn't measuring quality of care.
One of their problems is measuring the life expectancy, but there are lots of things that cause premature death that have nothing to do with the quality of health care a person receives. If you remove the deaths from murder and car accidents, the US life expectancy is one of the highest.
Another flaw in the WHO rankings it that they reward countries based on how "fairly" they distribute their health care. That has little to do with the quality of health care they are receiving. As long as everybody in the country receives a fair amount of crappy health care - they will rank higher on the list than the US (not to mention this way of judging a system is completely subjective).
The US also falls short because of the number of uninsured we have. Of the 45 million uninsured, 17 million make more than $50,000 per year, 9 million make more than $75,000 per year, 10 million are here illegally and 15 million are eligible for existing government programs but have chosen not to enroll.
Basically, the WHO rewards socialized systems so it's no wonder we rank so low, but it's a poor indicator of the quality of health care we are receiving. But seriously, please let me know if you’re planning on traveling to Morocco for your medical treatments.
Here are a few highlights from the bill that is being pushed through congress. Obama better act quick before more people (maybe even a few of the congressmen) actually read it.
Page 16: You can keep your current insurance (Obama keeps repeating this half-truth), but the catch is - after this bill passes, insurance companies will no longer be able to create new plans or sign up new people. If you ever decide you want to switch insurance companies (or change jobs or whatever), then congratulations - you are now enrolled in Obamacare!
Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments/benefits a person will receive (Wait, I thought we were trying to avoid rationing treatments)
Page 42: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your health care benefits for you. You will have no choice.
Page 50: Health care will be provided to illegals.
Page 58 and 59: Government will have access to your bank accounts and finances (Yay! More government involvement in my personal life)
Page 124: No company can sue government on price fixing and there can be no judicial review against government monopoly (yikes, I thought this was going to increase competition, Mr. President).
Page 149: Any employer with payroll above $400,000 who does not provide health care will be fined 8% (Goodbye personal freedoms. Sorry small business owners).
Page 167: Any individual who doesn't have acceptable health insurance by government standards will be taxed 2.5% (That's right, if you choose not to be on any plan, you're going to be punished).
Page 170: To add to the above, if you are an illegal, you won't be subject to that fine (Make sure the illegals know they are more important than citizens).
Page 272: Rationing of treatments to cancer patients (Oops, I thought Obama said there would be no rationing).
Page 317-318: Government will mandate that hospitals cannot expand (Gotta love government telling us what private businesses can do).
Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of special needs people (Sorry guys, apparently you aren't important enough for adequate health care coverage).
Page 429: Advanced care consultation. May include an order for ending someone's life (That's right - the government will be able to order to end your life if your treatments are too expensive - sorry granny).
And I know I posted this on my other blog, but I can't resist the urge to post it again:
I frequently hear people say, "The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer."
It's pretty obvious that the rich are getting richer. We live in a country that makes that possible (maybe that will change in the next few years). But are the poor really getting poorer?
Hmm...the bottom quintile has averaged 3.9% growth. Not exactly getting poorer.
According to the US Census Bureau, the number of households making $25,000 to $75,000 has decreased from 48.2% to 44.3%. The number of households making less than $25,000 decreased from 28.7% to 25.2% while the number of households making more than $75,000 increased from 23.2% to 30.4%.
Sounds a lot like the poor are actually getting richer.
Yesterday, Obama hosted a National Discussion on Health Care Reform where he was supposed to address questions that Americans had about his upcoming health care reform policies.
Of the 7 questions asked, 4 were hand picked by the White House and the other 3 were from liberal groups that proudly and openly support Obama (Healthcare for America Now, Organizing for America, and Service Employees International Union).
Even Helen Thomas, a liberal White House reporter who has been through several administrations said, "The point is the control from here. We have never had that in the White House. And we have had some control but not this control. I mean I'm amazed, I'm amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency...It's very shocking."
Why is Obama hand picking softball questions? What happened to transparency? Why won't Obama answer tough questions and real concerns that people have instead of controlling everything that gets asked?
Obama is mastering the art of talking out of both sides of his mouth.
When Obama was interviewed by the San Fransisco Chronicle in January of 2008, he said:
“You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know, under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it -- whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”
He also said, "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just thatit will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."
So he's already admitted that electricity rates are going to skyrocket under his plan and it will cause loss of jobs, and yet now that he's trying to pass this terrible policy he's saying, "Don't believe the misinformation out there that suggests there is somehow a contradiction between investing in clean energy and economic growth."
Hmm...you mean that misinformation that came out of your mouth last year?
Luckily, only people who make more than $250,000 per year use electricity so they're the only ones who will be paying for this. Oh wait...
I have a few quick thoughts on Obama's proposed health care overhaul.
1. The current proposal is supposed to cost somewhere between $1 trillion and $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years (yeah, right) and will take the currently 50 million uninsured Americans down to 37 million uninsured Americans (um, that's not insuring every American, Obamateur). That math would mean every person they insure will cost the government $123,000 over the next 10 years. Are we putting these people in gold plated hospital beds and hiring Britney Spears to be their personal nurse?
2. Part of the plan to pay for the health care overhaul is to make cuts to medicaid and medicare. Does this sound completely idiotic to anybody else? The government can't afford the entitlement programs that they already have, but they are going to start taking away money (and therefore, benefits) from the programs already designed to help the elderly and poor receive health care.
3. But the thing that really gets my leg tingling is the part of the plan where Obama says we might start taxing employer provided benefits. Hmm...why does that plan sound familiar? Oh yeah, that's the plan McCain proposed during the campaign that Obama mocked.
I recently had a conversation with a couple of liberal friends and the hypocrisy of the discussion was staggering.
The conversation started with illegal immigration and, of course, quickly progressed to them claiming that, “Americans won’t do the jobs that illegals will,” (apparently exploiting the poor is tolerable if they are here illegally).
I told them that the employers should be raising their wage until Americans are willing to do those jobs and we would have to deal with the subsequent rise in prices for that good or service (liberals have a hard time grasping the concept of supply and demand, but that’s a whole other discussion).
They kept saying that people wouldn’t be willing to pay higher prices, so I brought up outsourcing.
American companies outsource to raise their profit margins and provide cheaper prices for us, the consumers.But according to my liberal friends, outsourcing = pure evil.
So it’s unethical for businesses to legally ship American jobs overseas so that we can enjoy Walmart prices, but it is perfectly acceptable for businesses to illegally hire immigrants and pay them a pittance because we want to save a couple bucks on oranges?
You guys are going to have to pick one or the other, though I don’t expect that you will. Liberals tend to think they can have their cake and eat it, too.
Last month, the Obama administration proposed a plan to cut veteran’s health care benefits.The plan would ask that private insurance companies foot part of the bill for veterans who were wounded in combat.The plan was expected to save $540 million.
Out of the other side of his mouth, Obama goes on and on about how we need a universal health care plan and has already pledged a down payment of $634 billion towards the government mandated health insurance, which will surely include people who are here illegally.
Now, it should be noted that the veteran’s health care cut has been put on hold (if not completely eliminated) because people were so outraged by it.But am I the only one who sees something disturbingly wrong with Obama’s thinking?
Obama pretends to be fighting for health care coverage for all, but then turns around and tries to take away benefits from the people who arguably deserve health care more than any other group of Americans?Not to mention the amount he was trying to save by taking away coverage from our heroes was peanuts compared to the coverage he wants to provide to illegals.
Obama hasn't even been in office for 100 days, but he's already decided he has the power to fire America's CEOs.
When Katie Couric asked our fabulous tax cheat Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner if he would leave the option open to fire other CEOs, he replied, "Of course."
And here I thought Obama would try to ease into the dictatorship. I guess I was wrong.
To put things in perspective, there is about $800 billion in circulation around the country. There is another $800 billion already sitting in the vault, for a total monetary supply of approximately $1.6 trillion.
When congress voted to give banks the bailout money, most of the banks used the money to offset their losses on their balance sheets – instead of giving out loans (that’s what happens when you keep throwing money at problems with no strings attached). Banks have become very stingy with their loans right now so most of the bailout money is sitting in the Federal Reserve earning interest (for the banks), instead.
Now, when the economy inevitably starts to pick up, banks will start giving out loans, draining the Federal Reserve, and suddenly tons of money will be chasing the same amount of goods.
That $13 tax break Obama gave to the poor and middle class should go far when we see the double-digit inflation that ensues.
AIG, a company that recently received a $170 billion bailout from the tax payers, will be giving out $165 million in post-bailout bonuses to their executives.
First, Obama wanted to change their contracts to take away the bonuses but now they are discussing an emergency bill that would tax their bonus money at 100%.
In fact, Chris Dodd (D) has completely flip-flopped on the issue. He specifically put a clause in the $787 billion stimulus bill that provided an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009” and now he’s saying we should tax the bonuses at 100% to get the money back (by the way, Dodd was AIG’s largest single recipient of campaign donations - $103,100 – maybe he should give that money back to the tax payer as well).
So what should we do?
It is illegal for the government to go and change contracts like that. Retroactive taxes are also illegal – so if they try to do an emergency tax on the bonus money, they’ll be breaking the law as well.
The other option is to just let it go and let the executives keep their million dollar bonuses.
Another shining moment for the Obama administration.
Does anybody remember that guy John Walker Lindh? How about Tony West?
Tony West is now Obama's nominee for the assistant attorney general in charge of the US Justice Department's Civil Division, but before that, he was the lawyer that represented John Walker Lindh - terrorist.
For those keeping score, there are a plethora of tax cheating appointees, a pornography buff, lobbyists, those with ongoing investigations of corruption, and now a terrorist sympathizer. Did I leave someone out? That list took about 30 seconds to compile; I'm sure there's more.
Another interesting tidbit of information is Tony West raised $65 million for Obama's campaign. Fancy that!
What I'd like to know is: Is Obama appointing these losers on purpose, or is this all the Democrat party has to offer nowadays? Liars, swindlers, terrorist lovers and perverts.
For as long as I can remember, I’ve listened to the left whine that republicans and conservatives use scare tactics as a means of pushing their agenda. One of their go-to examples is their claim that Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to go to Iraq.
So what is it called when the Democrats use these same types of tactics to push their agenda?
Rahm Emanual (Obama’s Chief of Staff) recently told the New York Times, “Never allow a crisis to go to waste.” Not long after, Hillary Clinton told members of European Parliament, “Never waste a good crisis.” And Obama himself said last Saturday that there is great opportunity in the midst of the ‘great crisis’ befalling America.
Anybody else notice that everything is a crisis these days? The financial crisis, the education crisis, the housing crisis, the health care crisis and others are being used by the left to scare people into going along with their unprecedented levels of spending. If people don’t think there is some sort of crisis – they aren’t going to go along with multi-trillion dollar deficits.
The left spent years screaming that Bush was using a crisis for his partisan or ideological gain, and now we have Obama and his cronies boasting that they are using the pain of the American people to push their agenda – you’d think that the media would be all over that. But no.
It’s called courageous. It's called progress. It’s called leadership.
It has come to my attention that Obama’s newest cabinet pick, Ron Kirk, owes about $10,000 in back taxes.
I’m starting to lose count of all Obama’s cabinet picks who have unpaid taxes. There’s Timothy Geithner – who’s now the Treasury Secretary in charge of the IRS. There was Tom Daschle – who was supposed to be essential in reforming our health care system. Nancy Killefer – who was self-terminated when her past tax problems were discovered. Bill Richardson pulled out of Commerce because of federal pay-to-play probe. Hilda Solis’s husband had some tax liens going back 16 years.
I’m starting to wonder if Obama’s vetting questionnaire looks something like this:
“Do you owe back taxes? If yes – when can you start?”
Maybe he needs to send Biden in to let these people know that paying taxes is patriotic (remember that?). Does that make Obama’s cabinet a bunch of traitors?
No wonder democrats don't care if taxes are raised. It doesn't affect them.
If Obama continues this trend, we may get enough Obama appointees to make a real dent in these impressive upcoming deficits.
With all the recent news about Obama’s budget plans, I want to set the record straight about something.
I keep hearing liberals boast, “Well, when Clinton left office he had a surplus, and look what Bush did to it…”
Clinton didn’t have a surplus.
Slick Willy changed the rules of accounting while he was in office to make it look like he had a surplus.
Clinton decided to use the “cash” based accounting numbers, which look directly at cash that came in vs. cash that went out. This type of accounting is fine for very small businesses or personal checking. Federal law requires businesses with revenues over $1 million/year to use “accrual” based accounting. Accrual accounting measures income and expenses when they accrue. For example: if I borrow $10,000, cash accounting says that I have $10,000 on my books and doesn’t take into account that I owe someone that money. Accrual accounting says that I have $10,000 + -$10,000 in debt = $0.
During the final 4 years of Clinton’s budget, they reported a $559 billion surplus. When the government audited the numbers (using accrual accounting), there was actually a $484 billion deficit. http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-08-02-deficit-usat_x.htm
I’ve put off making a post about Obama’s spending bill because I am just so absolutely disgusted by it. I could go on for hours about how unbelievably stupid it is, but I’ll be brief.
It’s not a stimulus package. I wish people would stop calling it that. I’ve heard estimates from 7-10% of the bill being spent in 2009. If this is supposed to stimulate our crappy economy, why are we waiting to spend 90% of it? It’s actually just a giant bill of pork to pay off Obama’s buddies who helped get him elected. I love how Obama keeps saying, “There are no earmarks in this bill.” Yeah, not if you redefine the definition of ‘earmark’ to suit your agenda. Earth to Obama: the entire bill is pork.
During Obama’s campaign, he told the American people repeatedly that he would be able to pay for every dime of his plans, so where is the $800 billion cut in the budget?
Democrats like to pretend that republicans are into ‘scare tactics’ so I’m curious what they think of Nancy Pelosi’s recent comments. “If we do not pass this economic recovery package, 500 million Americans will lose their jobs every month.” For those of you who aren’t good at math, there are approximately 300 million Americans. Every one of us will lose multiple jobs every month until Obama’s spending bill is passed. Sounds a lot like a scare tactic to me.
So why the rush to pass the bill, Ms. Pelosi? If only 7-10% of the bill is going to be spent this year, why are the democrats pushing for it to be passed so quickly and thoughtlessly?
As I watched B. Hussein Obama sworn in as the president of the United States yesterday, I couldn't help but giggle when the oath became a mangled mess. That's it...just a giggle. I hadn't planned on giving it a second thought.
Until I turned on the radio and hear some liberal commentators and callers complaining about how John Roberts had messed things up and was to blame for the gaffe. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.
First, we are already making excuses for B. Hussein? He's going to have to put on his big-boy pants at some point and start taking some responsibility.
Second, if Mr. Roberts messed up on the oath, shouldn't our new President be a quick enough thinker that he can repeat after someone, or is that too much to ask? I mean, we all know he can read off a teleprompter like nobody's business, but ask that man to repeat after you and the crap hits the fan.
But I must admit that I'm not surprised. The next 4 years will be an endless string of excuses for B. Hussein. Anything that goes wrong the next 4 years will be blamed on Bush or someone else, and Obama will get the credit for anything that goes right.
Luckily, I won't have much time to sit around listening to the liberal media fawn over their messiah. I'll be too busy waiting in line for health care...
