Posts Tagged ‘Democrats’

There has been a massive amount of chatter concerning health care coverage over the past few months. President Obama, and most of the Democratically controlled Congress, believes the solution to health care coverage is to nationalize the system. Nationalizing health insurance itself would be one thing, however they feel the need to nationalize the entire health system, 17% of our economy. Combined with the current increase in government’s size, that would place the Democrats in control of about 40 cents out of every dollar produced.

We know this is impossible to sustain. It is actually impossible to even attempt. Any part of the health care system in this country would do irreparable harm to all those involved, most importantly the patients who depend upon the finest system in the world. It therefore cannot be allowed.

The “problem” the government is attempting to solve, is the claimed 47 million Americans without health insurance. It is not that they are getting poor care, or no care, but that they have to spend their own money on insurance. As someone who has been in that position before, I don’t really see a problem. I have had to go to a “Doc-in-a-box” and shell out $75 for the visit and another $50 for my prescription. I’m a reasonably healthy guy, so no big deal. Now, when I was hospitalized for what seemed like a heart attack, that is where health insurance came in handy.

A “best of both worlds” solution is the type of health insurance I have now. For just about $225 per month (and I’m a smoker with a pre-existing condition), I have $5 million in coverage from a very well known company. Preventative care, like checkups, is completely free, however there is a $5,000 deductible. The deductible is taken care of through the $75 per month added into my Health Savings Account (HSA). The HSA is administered through a debit card that I can use on any health related expense, even aspirin bought at my local grocery store. I can use it for glasses, or to have my teeth cleaned. I have excellent coverage, for right at $300 per month. I can use any doctor, and, the best part is, my rates are guaranteed not to go up for three years.

So, if we gave the assumed 47 million Americans the same health care insurance plan I have, which costs $3,600 per year, the total hit for the taxpayers to cover is $169.2 Billion dollars. That’s it. While expensive, it is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the trillions Obama would need to spend for national health care. And since I’m sure the number is inflated, the cost will only go down. And if the government pays my health insurance company directly each month for the rates, I’m sure a “group discount” would also apply.

We do not need to spend trillions of dollars. We do not need to have our entire health care system ruined in an attempt to provide coverage to 47 million people. All we need is $169 billion or less. Would my plan work? Absolutely. Would Obama accept this plan? Never. The reason is simple, they want power and control over the entire system. They are not looking to solve a problem.

So the next time you overhear some random, Obama bumper sticker wielding Liberal talk about how we need to nationalize the health system, hit him with this number $169 billion.


Read Full Post »


Our story begins as a nice, suburban couple, the Petersons, enter a UAW Motors Dealership to purchase a new mini-van for their growing family. Let’s listen in.


–under his breath– Oh crap, here comes another couple…probably got some rugrats to haul around.
Uh, yeah, hi, welcome to UAW Motors, ummm, let me guess, needing a new car? The name’s Jake by the way.

Mr. Peterson
Yes sir, I’m Mr. Peterson and this is my wife Susan. We’re in the market for a minivan. Our sedan has reached it’s limit with our two children, and as you can see, we have anoth-

Well, that’s just great, not enough screamin’ kids in the world, huh? Oh well. Let me show you what we got.

Mr. Peterson
We have already decided on the Town and Country Touring model, and we’d li-

Ain’t got them.

Mr. Peterson
No? Why not?

Been off the market since Tuesday.

Mrs. Peterson
Ok, then what about the LX?

Ain’t got it neither. That’s been gone since last Wedneday. Had to cut back on models.

Mr. Peterson
Well, then what do you have?

Thought you’d never ask. [walks them to a van that looks like a mad scientist spliced a minivan and a PT Cruiser together…like a Ponitac Aztec, but smaller and uglier]
This here is the new Obama, Centennial Edition. Ain’t she a beaut?

Mrs. Peterson
Ummm…it’s a bit small, how am I going to fi-

Oh, don’t worry, it’s got lots of room inside. [leading the couple back inside] Now, I’d show it to you, but we have some paperwork to fill out first. I’m going to get Sam here [points at the obviously miffed Sam], to fill out your E-90 forms so we can let you see the inside. I’ll see ya in 15 – got to take a coffee break now.


Read Full Post »

Senator Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Budget Committee Chairman, announced this evening that Congressional Democrats and Obama have reached an agreement on the budget.

The budget plan, which takes effect on October 1st, is still a ridiculous $3.5 Trillion dollars, it still has tax increases for those earning more than $200,000 per year (and $250,000 per couple), however, Obama’s oft lauded tax cuts for 95% of working families will evaporate next year.

The reason for the early withdrawal of promised tax cuts is obvious, there is just not enough money to pay for everything by only taxing “the rich.” Even with “unrealistic” cuts to the war and defense budgets, on top of a $10 billion per year cut to Obama’s desired $50 billion increase in domestic programs (and capped the rate of increase to only 2.9% per year – which is unlikely to hold), there is still just not enough wealth to spread around. Conrad said

I think this is a good budget, but much more will have to be done to get us on a more sustainable course, including slowing the growth of benefit programs like Medicare and overhauling the tax code.

The Democrats are confident the budget will pass both Houses by Wednesday. However the more dangerous part of the agreement is that the budget plan would prevent Senate Republicans from stopping, or delaying, Obama’s plan to vastly expand taxpayer funded health care when it advances this fall.

We’ll have to keep our eyes on this one. Perhaps the T-Day protest on July 4th will cause some more Blue-Dog Democrats to side with the American People.

Read Full Post »

California, I wish I could just slap you for electing this pitiful excuse for a House Speaker. Nancy is absolutely delusional in this interview. Is she projecting? Did she get into some model airplane glue? I don’t know, but one thing I do know is almost every word out of this woman’s mouth is an outright lie.

I was one of a handful of volunteers that helped to put the Birmingham, AL Tea Party together. I believe our overall budget was about $200. At no point did some “wealthy Republican” give us a dime. We did not receive any marching orders from Carl Rove, nor did we get talking-points from the Fox News Channel. If there ever was a grass-roots movement – this is it.

So, the only remaining questions is, why did she lie? I think she, and the severely Left-leaning media, is a bit spooked by more than half-a-million protesters. Yes, you read correctly, half-a-million. That is a movement. And this is only the beginning. The liberals are scared. They know they have severely pissed of the majority of Americans. If they lose control of Congress in 2010, they will be hard pressed to advance their agenda and the Utopia they believe they are ushering in will vaporize.

It is obvious the news media is incapable of reporting objectively anymore. One local broadcast Thursday morning so badly understated the Tea Party event it was ridiculous. “Dozens” of protests were attended by “hundreds” of protesters? I don’t think so. With that kind of math, one could say that Obama was elected by only “thousands” of voters.

Our local rag, The Birmingham News, sent a staff writer who proved himself to be no journalist. Jeremy Gray, opened with a fair, although understated line,

Across Alabama and throughout the nation, tens of thousands of people staged “tea parties” Wednesday to voice their disapproval of government spending and economic bailouts.

Jeremy, hundreds of thousands (and perhaps a million, the numbers are still coming in) of people staged the largest single day protest in American history. We were voicing disapproval of government spending, and the economic bailouts…which are part of the government spending, but also the government’s intrusion into our lives.

He continues with this outright lie,

At Hoover’s Veterans Park, police directed traffic as several hundred people gathered for one of more than a dozen rallies in Alabama and more than 500 around the country.

What time did you stop by Jeremy? We had several hundred by 3:30 pm. The event didn’t start until 6:30 pm. I have the pictures to prove it. We had about 6-7000 people there. Hoover’s Mayor had to write in and correct your numbers with his own estimate of over 5000. And “more than 500 (protests) around the country?” Yes, over 2300 is more than 500 so it’s not technically a lie, just stupid.

Here is another idiotic statement you made Jeremy,

The tea parties were promoted by FreedomWorks, a conservative nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington and led by former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas.

Hundreds of Conservative websites and blogs “promoted” the event. Thousands connected through Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter. But your statement would lead a reader to believe that FreedomWorks was responsible for the Tea Party movement – and that makes you an idiot.

What makes this a political hit piece is the final 2-1/2″ of article quoting a statement from the DNC.

What’s clear is that the overwhelming majority of folks support President Obama’s plan to get the economy back on track and provide 95% of working families with tax relief. It is interesting to note that the folks leading today’s activities are the very ones that promoted, and benefited by, the policies of the previous administration.

First, Jeremy, I want you to show me articles where you covered Left-Wing protests and ended with quotes from the RNC or some other Conservative think-tank such as the Heritage Foundation. Secondly, there is absolutely no proof of the highly suspect statements made by the DNC spokesperson, Hari Sevugan. These protests, on the contrary, prove that the majority of people do not support Obama’s plan. Nor do we believe one word of the “95%…tax cut” crap. And finally, you benefited from the previous administration’s tax cuts as well, and if you were working during the Reagan administration – which I doubt – you would have breathed a heavy sigh of relief when he put the economy back on track.

Jeremy, you are no reporter, just another political hack like that brainless, rude tart Susan Roesgen on CNN masquerading as a reporter. You, her, and almost everyone in your profession have proven themselves to be untrustworthy and unethical. And then you wonder why your viewership is down. Hmmm…

If you would like to see just how widespread this movement is, take a look at Malkin’s site.

And speaking of the rude Susan Roesgen, here is the complete video clip. Thank you Founding Bloggers.

Read Full Post »

This speech was so good, I just had to post the transcript.

Americans have serious concerns about this budget and the massive amount of spending, taxing, and borrowing that it calls for in the middle of a recession. And they are also increasingly concerned that Democrat leaders in Washington seem to be less and less straightforward about what they’re doing these days on Capitol Hill.

Americans were upset to learn that a provision was quietly dropped from the stimulus bill that would have kept taxpayer dollars from going to executives at failed financial firms, but they were equally upset at how those bonuses came about. The language blocking them was quietly stripped from the bill in a closed conference room somewhere in the Capitol, without anybody looking. A few days after that, openness took another holiday on Capitol Hill when Democrat leaders announced new budget gimmicks that had the effect of concealing the true long-term cost of the administration’s $3.6 trillion budget.

And now the questions about diminishing transparency relate to the budget itself, a budget that almost makes the trillion dollar stimulus bill look fiscally responsible by comparison. Everyone knows that the national debt is already too high, and that this budget would cause that debt to balloon even more, doubling it in five years and tripling it in 10.

Yet even with all that borrowing, the administration still won’t have enough money to pay for the massive expansion of government outlined in its budget. In order to cover the cost, they propose two things: a tax on income that hits small businesses hard, and a new national energy tax that would hit every American household and business. But the Democrat budget writers had a problem, this new energy tax is deeply unpopular, and it’s a serious job killer.

According to some estimates, this tax could cost every American household up to $3,100 a year just for doing the same things people have always done, like turning on the lights and doing laundry. It’s also a tax on all economic activity, from factory floors to front offices. This tax won’t just hit American households, it will cost us jobs.

Another problem was that virtually all Republicans and a lot of Democrats agree with most Americans that this new national energy tax is a terrible idea – that we can’t afford it. And yet, without this tax, there is just no other way for Democrat leaders to pay for all of thenew government programs that the administration wants.

The solution to the problem was this – Democrat budget writers decided to use a rule that allows them to fast-track legislation down the road, including potentially the new energy tax, without any input from Democrats and Republicans who either have serious concerns about this tax, or who oppose it alltogether. The Chairman of the Budget Committee argues that his version of the budget resolution doesn’t allow this avenue for fast-tracking legislation on an energy tax, and that may be so. But we also know two things: first, that the language House budget writers have used in their budget resolution leaves the door wide open to include the energy tax, and that Democrats need this tax as a slush fund to pay for all the new programs this budget crates.

Americans don’t need another $3,100 added onto their tax bill. But just as worrisome is the method that is being used to ram this tax through Congress. Lay the groundwork, keep it quiet, then rush it through with as little transparency and as little debate as possible. If there is anything we have learned over the last few weeks, it’s that the American people want more people watching the store, not less.

If the bonuses taught us anything at all, it’s that Americans think we should take more time, not less, when considering how to spend their money. If Democrat leaders intend to pay for all the administration’s programs with a new energy tax, they should say so now, bring it to the full Senate, and let the people decide. Anything less on a policy shift of this magnitude betrays a troubling lack of straightforwardness about Democrats’ plans for imposing a massive new tax on the American people and American businesses.

Read Full Post »