Monday, November 9, 2009
The constitution is dead.
West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller declared the constitution dead. Totally ignoring the 10th amendment, in a recent Commerce Committee hearing, when the constitutionality and principle of federalism were raised, Jay Rockefeller, chair of the committee, proclaimed “I don’t really give a hoot about states’ rights or federal rights on this one. I care about results.” Rockefeller is proposing federal legislation to ban “texting” while driving. Aren’t there laws that allow civil suits and criminal prosecutions of persons who cause accidents while driving negligently?
PC is Killing us
Political correctness and a failure to accept the fact that not ideologies are equal will destroy this country. Some cultures and beliefs are better than others.
Socialist ideology is a prime example; whether Marxist, Maoist, Fascist, Communist, or pure Socialism. The Fact is that last century the world witnessed the deaths of well over 100 million people because of these ideas put into practice. From starvation to genocide, millions of people died implementing socialist ideas. It is a failed idea and model for society. Even in the US, implementation of socialist ideas has failed miserably. Johnson’s Great Society, rather than helping the poor out of poverty, has kept them in poverty and made things worse. It’s drained the economy of trillions of dollars resulting in the poor being worse off than before the program was started.
Like it or not religion drives our social systems, be it Secular Humanism (aka Darwinism), Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Paganism, Judaism, or Christianity. From all these religions the ideas from the Judeo-Christian ethos, seem to be the best overall system for people to live and thrive. From this ethos we get ideas like: separation of church and state, all people are equal, the rule of law, freedom of choice, just punishment, individual responsibility, private property rights, and even our work ethic. Those ideas don’t come from other religious ethos.
Modern western culture based on a Judeo-Christian ethos, stressing individual liberty and individual responsibility, and individuals giving charitably as they see fit, has produced the highest overall standard of living, security, and freedom for the individuals in that system. From religions like Hinduism we end up with a cast system where the poor are poor, they stay poor and can’t do anything about it. From the secular humanists we get socialism which resulted in more deaths in the last century than all the wars in all of history, and except for the ruling elite everybody is poor. From Islam we get oppression of women, and non-believers, acceptance of slavery, unjust punishment, and constant war. Islam leaves only three choices; convert and become a Muslim, become subservient or slave to Muslims, or be killed for you infidelity.
The results of the relatively recent liberal notion of accepting all ideas, faiths, etc. as equal, called political correctness, were evident over the weekend. Major Hasan followed his religion over modern western education, his psychiatric training, his military discipline — his entire American identity. In the name of his Allah he murdered 13 soldiers at Ft. Hood. Faleh Hassan Almaleki of Glendale, Ariz., was arrested last week after fatally running over his “too Westernized” daughter Noor in an American honor killing. Then we can include the two U.S. residents, one American, one Canadian, who were arrested a few days earlier for plotting to fly to Denmark for the purposes of murdering the editor who commissioned the famous Mohammed cartoons. Not all Muslims conspire to kill cartoonists or murder their daughters or shoot dozens of their fellow soldiers, enough do to make it clear that Islamic culture is not equal to modern western culture. It produces suicide bombers, oppresses women and non-believers, and is the basis for most of the current violent conflicts on the planet. The problem is Islam.
We have let political correctness run amuck. The murder and injury to our soldiers at Fort Hood is symbolic: A Muslim who said wild things, was not taken seriously, but was advanced and allowed to continue in our armed services, all because to question his beliefs would not be politically correct. This is diversity run amok. Until we are willing to address the fact that not all cultures are equal, that yes some cultures and ideas are superior to others, and continue to accept and not denounce ideas which lead to death and destruction, we will have more Islamic murders, more starvation and suffering, and less freedom and liberty.
Obviously we cannot and should not stop people from believing what they want. But we cannot let political correctness stop us from talking about and exposing the evils that other systems of beliefs create. Immigrates from the past were expected to learn the language, and adopt the ideas of this country, that all people are created equal and have unalienable rights. The results were the greatest nation this world has ever known. After the Korean War and Vietnam, the idea of American Exceptionalism seems to have waned. For some reason we’ve began to accept the fact that immigrates do not need to become American and part of our society, but we actually encourage them not to become American and remain separate. This is counterproductive to both immigrates and our society.
The price of liberty is vigilance and blood. We will have more Ft. Hoods, in some ways there is nothing we can do about it short of sacrificing the very freedom and liberty that made this country; the very freedom and liberty that is why Islamists want to destroy this country. As long as others are willing to die to end liberty and freedom, we must accept the fact that Liberty is not something that can be had, acquired or kept without blood. We cannot be vigilant nor protect ourselves, if we maintain this PC attitude that all cultures and beliefs have equal value. They don’t. Traditional American culture is superior to others, that’s why people from oppressed cultures around the world flock to the USA. We see less of that now than in the past, because of PC ideas, allowing liberals and others to spread the false idea that all cultures are equal and to be valued equally.
Be thankful that there are Americans who still believe that liberty, freedom and the American idea are valuable. Some think it is so valuable that they volunteer to defend it. They volunteer to fight and die to protect our liberty. This PC liberal notion of diversity, that all cultures are equally valuable is a spit in the face of every American service man and woman, who fights and dies to defend our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Socialist ideology is a prime example; whether Marxist, Maoist, Fascist, Communist, or pure Socialism. The Fact is that last century the world witnessed the deaths of well over 100 million people because of these ideas put into practice. From starvation to genocide, millions of people died implementing socialist ideas. It is a failed idea and model for society. Even in the US, implementation of socialist ideas has failed miserably. Johnson’s Great Society, rather than helping the poor out of poverty, has kept them in poverty and made things worse. It’s drained the economy of trillions of dollars resulting in the poor being worse off than before the program was started.
Like it or not religion drives our social systems, be it Secular Humanism (aka Darwinism), Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Paganism, Judaism, or Christianity. From all these religions the ideas from the Judeo-Christian ethos, seem to be the best overall system for people to live and thrive. From this ethos we get ideas like: separation of church and state, all people are equal, the rule of law, freedom of choice, just punishment, individual responsibility, private property rights, and even our work ethic. Those ideas don’t come from other religious ethos.
Modern western culture based on a Judeo-Christian ethos, stressing individual liberty and individual responsibility, and individuals giving charitably as they see fit, has produced the highest overall standard of living, security, and freedom for the individuals in that system. From religions like Hinduism we end up with a cast system where the poor are poor, they stay poor and can’t do anything about it. From the secular humanists we get socialism which resulted in more deaths in the last century than all the wars in all of history, and except for the ruling elite everybody is poor. From Islam we get oppression of women, and non-believers, acceptance of slavery, unjust punishment, and constant war. Islam leaves only three choices; convert and become a Muslim, become subservient or slave to Muslims, or be killed for you infidelity.
The results of the relatively recent liberal notion of accepting all ideas, faiths, etc. as equal, called political correctness, were evident over the weekend. Major Hasan followed his religion over modern western education, his psychiatric training, his military discipline — his entire American identity. In the name of his Allah he murdered 13 soldiers at Ft. Hood. Faleh Hassan Almaleki of Glendale, Ariz., was arrested last week after fatally running over his “too Westernized” daughter Noor in an American honor killing. Then we can include the two U.S. residents, one American, one Canadian, who were arrested a few days earlier for plotting to fly to Denmark for the purposes of murdering the editor who commissioned the famous Mohammed cartoons. Not all Muslims conspire to kill cartoonists or murder their daughters or shoot dozens of their fellow soldiers, enough do to make it clear that Islamic culture is not equal to modern western culture. It produces suicide bombers, oppresses women and non-believers, and is the basis for most of the current violent conflicts on the planet. The problem is Islam.
We have let political correctness run amuck. The murder and injury to our soldiers at Fort Hood is symbolic: A Muslim who said wild things, was not taken seriously, but was advanced and allowed to continue in our armed services, all because to question his beliefs would not be politically correct. This is diversity run amok. Until we are willing to address the fact that not all cultures are equal, that yes some cultures and ideas are superior to others, and continue to accept and not denounce ideas which lead to death and destruction, we will have more Islamic murders, more starvation and suffering, and less freedom and liberty.
Obviously we cannot and should not stop people from believing what they want. But we cannot let political correctness stop us from talking about and exposing the evils that other systems of beliefs create. Immigrates from the past were expected to learn the language, and adopt the ideas of this country, that all people are created equal and have unalienable rights. The results were the greatest nation this world has ever known. After the Korean War and Vietnam, the idea of American Exceptionalism seems to have waned. For some reason we’ve began to accept the fact that immigrates do not need to become American and part of our society, but we actually encourage them not to become American and remain separate. This is counterproductive to both immigrates and our society.
The price of liberty is vigilance and blood. We will have more Ft. Hoods, in some ways there is nothing we can do about it short of sacrificing the very freedom and liberty that made this country; the very freedom and liberty that is why Islamists want to destroy this country. As long as others are willing to die to end liberty and freedom, we must accept the fact that Liberty is not something that can be had, acquired or kept without blood. We cannot be vigilant nor protect ourselves, if we maintain this PC attitude that all cultures and beliefs have equal value. They don’t. Traditional American culture is superior to others, that’s why people from oppressed cultures around the world flock to the USA. We see less of that now than in the past, because of PC ideas, allowing liberals and others to spread the false idea that all cultures are equal and to be valued equally.
Be thankful that there are Americans who still believe that liberty, freedom and the American idea are valuable. Some think it is so valuable that they volunteer to defend it. They volunteer to fight and die to protect our liberty. This PC liberal notion of diversity, that all cultures are equally valuable is a spit in the face of every American service man and woman, who fights and dies to defend our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Fundamental Questions
I started out with this morning wanting to post a quick status to my FB wall. “….wonders why liberals won't answer the question. What is the purpose of government?” This lead to me to contemplate other questions liberals avoid, and how they actually respond to fundamental questions.
Although asked several times over the past year or so, both on line and in person, these questions are like poison to a liberal: Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him? They are simple yes or no questions but the answers have powerful implications. Liberals are evasive usually say that it all depends.
Liberals also don't want to answer basic questions of morality.
Do individuals have private property rights? Does an individual own himself/herself or does the government own some portion of that individual? More simply, is there such a thing as self-ownership? If we accept the idea of self ownership the determining acts as moral or immoral is simple. Rape, murder, assault are all immoral because they violate my private property rights, just as vandalism or theft of my stuff violates my property rights.
So why won't liberals answer morality questions, or fundamental questions about liberty, the government, or the constitution? Most often the liberal replies with an ad hominid attack, tries to deflect to another subject, or sarcastic comment trying to dismiss discussion of fundamentals.
I’d asked lots of other questions that liberals deflect or won’t answer like: Are rights unalienable and natural, or are they gifts from government? Do groups have rights that supersede individual’s rights? If so, then what is the basis of those rights and what part of the constitution instructs the government to make no laws violating those rights? and Do you have a right to force somebody else to fund a charity which you believe and are passionate about?
Questions like these are not complicated; answers can and should be short and direct. I believe liberals do not like to answer these kinds of questions because it leads to voicing ideas that are contradictory to what they would like to have others believe.
I’ll leave you with some fundamental questions of moral and political beliefs that are good for discussion, but I believe liberals will avoid (and most right wing conservatives):
Although asked several times over the past year or so, both on line and in person, these questions are like poison to a liberal: Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him? They are simple yes or no questions but the answers have powerful implications. Liberals are evasive usually say that it all depends.
Liberals also don't want to answer basic questions of morality.
Do individuals have private property rights? Does an individual own himself/herself or does the government own some portion of that individual? More simply, is there such a thing as self-ownership? If we accept the idea of self ownership the determining acts as moral or immoral is simple. Rape, murder, assault are all immoral because they violate my private property rights, just as vandalism or theft of my stuff violates my property rights.
So why won't liberals answer morality questions, or fundamental questions about liberty, the government, or the constitution? Most often the liberal replies with an ad hominid attack, tries to deflect to another subject, or sarcastic comment trying to dismiss discussion of fundamentals.
I’d asked lots of other questions that liberals deflect or won’t answer like: Are rights unalienable and natural, or are they gifts from government? Do groups have rights that supersede individual’s rights? If so, then what is the basis of those rights and what part of the constitution instructs the government to make no laws violating those rights? and Do you have a right to force somebody else to fund a charity which you believe and are passionate about?
Questions like these are not complicated; answers can and should be short and direct. I believe liberals do not like to answer these kinds of questions because it leads to voicing ideas that are contradictory to what they would like to have others believe.
I’ll leave you with some fundamental questions of moral and political beliefs that are good for discussion, but I believe liberals will avoid (and most right wing conservatives):
What is the purpose of government? Does the government have limited or unlimited powers? and where does it get those powers? Is there such a thing as self-ownership? Do individuals have private property rights? So long as the use of your private property doesn’t infringe on the rights of another, should you be able do with your private property as you see fit? Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him? Where do rights come from? Do groups have rights that supersede individual’s rights? If so, then what is the basis of those rights and what part of the constitution instructs the government to make no laws violating those rights? Where do rights end? Does society have rights? If so what are society’s rights, and what part of the constitution instructs the government to make no laws violating those rights? Do you have a right to force somebody else to fund a charity which you believe and are passionate about? Do you have a right to self defense?
Monday, November 2, 2009
Economics 101
Obama ’s idea is to provide more health care to more people and have it cost less.
At its core Health care is a service, it depends directly on labor of doctors, nurses, lab techs, clerks, administrators, and so on. To provide it at less cost you must either service more people in the same time, or pay the labor less. Insurance companies make between 2 and 5% so they are not taking huge parts of health care money as profits.
If we pay doctors and nurses any less they will (and do) leave the profession. The stress and work to dollar ratio is such that you cannot get quality doctors and nurses for any less money. They are also already seeing more patients per hour than they should. Lab techs, LPNs, Nurses aids, and other less skilled labor at hospitals are already paid so little cutting their wages makes no sense, having them process more paperwork/hr or samples/hr etc. is going to take either capital investment in faster better tools for them to use, or somehow getting them to be more productive. Good luck getting them to do more work for what they get paid.
Clerks, now here is an interesting place to save money. We have and need a large number of clerks in the medical field, not just transposing doctor’s orders but processing insurance company and government mandated paper work. When I was a kid the doctor we went to had 2 nurses, our insurance didn't pay for routine visits it only kicked in if you needed surgery etc, one of the nurses took care of scheduling and colleting office visit fees. Last week I took my kid to the doctor there are 2 nurses, and at least 6 people running around doing paperwork, and when you look into the office area 3 or 4 are always on the phone to insurance/government offices doing or fixing paperwork. I asked about this to the young lady taking my co-pay ($25). She loved the new computer system as it now only took around 15 min to process all the paper work associated with a patients visit. I only saw the doctor and nurse for a little less than 10 min. (he sees an average of 6 people per hour). Since I've been seeing him for a while I asked him about this, and he said that for every hour seeing a patient there is a little over two hours of paperwork, of which 90 min is for government and insurance paperwork and 30 min doing charting. He said if he didn't have to do all the government paperwork and insurance paperwork for routine visits he could charge the $35 a visit, and would only need 1 office person instead of 6. He said he could also provide better service as the rules insurance and government force him to do unnecessary tests, and don't allow him the flexibility to treat people, he has to treat symptoms. He didn't let his son become a doctor, because engineering can provide a higher quality of life.
So how is having more government going to reduce the cost of health care? If they force lower wages (reduce what they pay doctors and hospitals) they will lose doctors and we will have service shortages (long lines and wait times like in UK and Canada). What has the same government who's been known to buy $1000 toilet seats and $600 hammers, done to be trusted with doing the impossible? The only way they can provide health care to more people at lower cost is to not allow people to reduce services. Your 80 years old and need a new hip, today if you have the insurance or the cash, you get a new hip. Under the government, in order to reduce overall costs, they will say, too bad, the cost/benefit to offering this service to somebody of your age isn't there, here's a wheelchair and some pain meds. This is what is going to happen, restrictions on available services for specific groups/classes of people. The rich will still be able to pay cash for what they want, but regular people depending on insurance will have their services limited. It will be in the details of the health care bill, how else do you explain the government exempting itself for the law, and not allowing the people to see what they are doing until after it’s already passed.
You cannot cut $500 billion from Medicare spending over the next 10 years without anyone getting less of anything. If there is that much “fraud, waste, and abuse” in the system then a lot of civil servants should be going to jail, that much “fraud, waste, and abuse” cannot be an accident. That big a cut will have to result in reduction of services.
The reasoning for having the government takeover of health care is a lie in the first place. Right now, uninsured can and do walk into any emergency room and get care, no they don't get the best oncology treatment if they don't have insurance but they don't go without basic health care. The cost of this is passed on to the rest of us; it's not that much and doesn't add significantly to our current health care costs. George Mason University economist Jack Hadley and three co-authors, in a 2008 Health Affairs article calculated that "uncompensated care represents 2.2 percent of health spending in 2008." Why would we want a total restructuring of health care to save a mere 2.2% to cover the uncompensated expenses?
If you look at the health care "crisis" critically it's clearly a government caused crisis. They don't allow insurance companies to sell across state lines (limiting competition and protecting big business). They add large amounts of admin costs thru huge amounts of regulation to both insurance and health providers (again because of economy of scale this protects big business). The government doesn't allow health providers to advertise prices except is small niche markets like eye care (again protecting established businesses and making it harder for competition). They know tort reform will reduce health care costs, but because most politicians are lawyers, who make their living from law suits, they continue the stupid system which has caused malpractice insurance and health care costs to skyrocket. Here’s an easy fix that won’t cost taxpayers a dime, get rid of regulations for licensing and prescription drugs they add layers of un-necessary doctors visits, paperwork, and artificially reduce the labor pool adding to health care costs.
I can't think of anything that doesn't get worse and cost more with additional government involvement. Cars are a great example, In India for around $2500 you can buy a car that gets 60mpg. That car will never be available in the USA as configured at that cost; it cannot meet our regulatory requirements. They are trying to make it meet our regulations but expect it to cost an additional $1500 if they can modify the car enough (and it will less than 50mpg configured for US). Shouldn’t individuals be able to judge safety, comfort, economy, quality for themselves and purchase what they think is best for their circumstances, and exactly how does the purchase of a car for private transport effect interstate commerce.
Massachusetts has already done what the president and congress are now proposing. Since 2006 it has mandatory insurance requirements, resulting in their health care rising disproportionately to the rest of the country. We have a model of what the Obama is trying to force everybody to do, Massachusetts; it does exactly the opposite of what he claims it will accomplish. Simple observation and understanding basic economics shows that more government involvement always leads to higher costs. There is not one regulatory requirement that doesn't add to the cost of what is being regulated.
At its core Health care is a service, it depends directly on labor of doctors, nurses, lab techs, clerks, administrators, and so on. To provide it at less cost you must either service more people in the same time, or pay the labor less. Insurance companies make between 2 and 5% so they are not taking huge parts of health care money as profits.
If we pay doctors and nurses any less they will (and do) leave the profession. The stress and work to dollar ratio is such that you cannot get quality doctors and nurses for any less money. They are also already seeing more patients per hour than they should. Lab techs, LPNs, Nurses aids, and other less skilled labor at hospitals are already paid so little cutting their wages makes no sense, having them process more paperwork/hr or samples/hr etc. is going to take either capital investment in faster better tools for them to use, or somehow getting them to be more productive. Good luck getting them to do more work for what they get paid.
Clerks, now here is an interesting place to save money. We have and need a large number of clerks in the medical field, not just transposing doctor’s orders but processing insurance company and government mandated paper work. When I was a kid the doctor we went to had 2 nurses, our insurance didn't pay for routine visits it only kicked in if you needed surgery etc, one of the nurses took care of scheduling and colleting office visit fees. Last week I took my kid to the doctor there are 2 nurses, and at least 6 people running around doing paperwork, and when you look into the office area 3 or 4 are always on the phone to insurance/government offices doing or fixing paperwork. I asked about this to the young lady taking my co-pay ($25). She loved the new computer system as it now only took around 15 min to process all the paper work associated with a patients visit. I only saw the doctor and nurse for a little less than 10 min. (he sees an average of 6 people per hour). Since I've been seeing him for a while I asked him about this, and he said that for every hour seeing a patient there is a little over two hours of paperwork, of which 90 min is for government and insurance paperwork and 30 min doing charting. He said if he didn't have to do all the government paperwork and insurance paperwork for routine visits he could charge the $35 a visit, and would only need 1 office person instead of 6. He said he could also provide better service as the rules insurance and government force him to do unnecessary tests, and don't allow him the flexibility to treat people, he has to treat symptoms. He didn't let his son become a doctor, because engineering can provide a higher quality of life.
So how is having more government going to reduce the cost of health care? If they force lower wages (reduce what they pay doctors and hospitals) they will lose doctors and we will have service shortages (long lines and wait times like in UK and Canada). What has the same government who's been known to buy $1000 toilet seats and $600 hammers, done to be trusted with doing the impossible? The only way they can provide health care to more people at lower cost is to not allow people to reduce services. Your 80 years old and need a new hip, today if you have the insurance or the cash, you get a new hip. Under the government, in order to reduce overall costs, they will say, too bad, the cost/benefit to offering this service to somebody of your age isn't there, here's a wheelchair and some pain meds. This is what is going to happen, restrictions on available services for specific groups/classes of people. The rich will still be able to pay cash for what they want, but regular people depending on insurance will have their services limited. It will be in the details of the health care bill, how else do you explain the government exempting itself for the law, and not allowing the people to see what they are doing until after it’s already passed.
You cannot cut $500 billion from Medicare spending over the next 10 years without anyone getting less of anything. If there is that much “fraud, waste, and abuse” in the system then a lot of civil servants should be going to jail, that much “fraud, waste, and abuse” cannot be an accident. That big a cut will have to result in reduction of services.
The reasoning for having the government takeover of health care is a lie in the first place. Right now, uninsured can and do walk into any emergency room and get care, no they don't get the best oncology treatment if they don't have insurance but they don't go without basic health care. The cost of this is passed on to the rest of us; it's not that much and doesn't add significantly to our current health care costs. George Mason University economist Jack Hadley and three co-authors, in a 2008 Health Affairs article calculated that "uncompensated care represents 2.2 percent of health spending in 2008." Why would we want a total restructuring of health care to save a mere 2.2% to cover the uncompensated expenses?
If you look at the health care "crisis" critically it's clearly a government caused crisis. They don't allow insurance companies to sell across state lines (limiting competition and protecting big business). They add large amounts of admin costs thru huge amounts of regulation to both insurance and health providers (again because of economy of scale this protects big business). The government doesn't allow health providers to advertise prices except is small niche markets like eye care (again protecting established businesses and making it harder for competition). They know tort reform will reduce health care costs, but because most politicians are lawyers, who make their living from law suits, they continue the stupid system which has caused malpractice insurance and health care costs to skyrocket. Here’s an easy fix that won’t cost taxpayers a dime, get rid of regulations for licensing and prescription drugs they add layers of un-necessary doctors visits, paperwork, and artificially reduce the labor pool adding to health care costs.
I can't think of anything that doesn't get worse and cost more with additional government involvement. Cars are a great example, In India for around $2500 you can buy a car that gets 60mpg. That car will never be available in the USA as configured at that cost; it cannot meet our regulatory requirements. They are trying to make it meet our regulations but expect it to cost an additional $1500 if they can modify the car enough (and it will less than 50mpg configured for US). Shouldn’t individuals be able to judge safety, comfort, economy, quality for themselves and purchase what they think is best for their circumstances, and exactly how does the purchase of a car for private transport effect interstate commerce.
Massachusetts has already done what the president and congress are now proposing. Since 2006 it has mandatory insurance requirements, resulting in their health care rising disproportionately to the rest of the country. We have a model of what the Obama is trying to force everybody to do, Massachusetts; it does exactly the opposite of what he claims it will accomplish. Simple observation and understanding basic economics shows that more government involvement always leads to higher costs. There is not one regulatory requirement that doesn't add to the cost of what is being regulated.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Government Performance
Let's see, the current version H1N1 (swine flu), was detected over a year ago and the government promised us that hundreds of millions of vaccinations would be available. Over the summer they promised 40 million by today. September they dropped that down to 28 million, and actually there was less than 12 million vaccinations produced.
The government is promising us that they can reform health care and deliver more people with service for less money?
I don't know. They promised to reduce poverty with the Great Society. It failed. They promised the Patriot act would only be used to track terrorists. FBI and IRS use it to spy on US citizens. Obama promised "When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as the president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I sign it". Stimulus package was signed in less than 5 hours. Obama said "I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House." White house is filled with around 24 exceptions to this rule. To top the cake, we were promised open and honest debate on health care to be televised on CSPAN. Instead we are presented a the newest Democrat only creation a 1990 page bill created behind closed doors, with lots of back door deals.
I don't trust the government; they have repeatedly proven they are untrustworthy. Their performance on implementing programs to actually help people is dismal. The adherence to what they say they will do is worse.
On its face this sounds impossible to provide 50 million people with insurance without spending “one more dime”. Could we add 50 million students to our education system and not spend one more dime?
How can anybody believe that it will actually improve health care, and not do for all of the USA what the Great Society did for inner city minorities?
The government is promising us that they can reform health care and deliver more people with service for less money?
I don't know. They promised to reduce poverty with the Great Society. It failed. They promised the Patriot act would only be used to track terrorists. FBI and IRS use it to spy on US citizens. Obama promised "When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as the president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I sign it". Stimulus package was signed in less than 5 hours. Obama said "I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House." White house is filled with around 24 exceptions to this rule. To top the cake, we were promised open and honest debate on health care to be televised on CSPAN. Instead we are presented a the newest Democrat only creation a 1990 page bill created behind closed doors, with lots of back door deals.
I don't trust the government; they have repeatedly proven they are untrustworthy. Their performance on implementing programs to actually help people is dismal. The adherence to what they say they will do is worse.
On its face this sounds impossible to provide 50 million people with insurance without spending “one more dime”. Could we add 50 million students to our education system and not spend one more dime?
How can anybody believe that it will actually improve health care, and not do for all of the USA what the Great Society did for inner city minorities?
Friday, October 30, 2009
The Purpose of Government.
This country is in a epic struggle, probably much more severe than any of us is willing to admit. It has not yet come to blows, but I fear that it may. There are two competing ideas on the purpose of government.
One the French idea as in their 1789 Rights of Man. “The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation,” it states. “Law is the expression of the general will.”
An extension of this principal is the belief that liberals espouse. The purpose of the government is to make laws benefiting society.
The other idea came from the same era and was the founding idea of the formation of this country. John Adams said it best in the Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, ratified in 1780. "All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."
The extension of this principal is the belief that libertarians (and some conservatives) espouse. The purpose of the government is to secure these individual rights.
I believe if we continue to allow or government to make rules that benefit society at the expense of individual rights, we will have neither the benefit to society nor individual rights. The "great society" program of LBJ is a perfect example, instead of less poverty and better living conditions, we have more poverty, more broken families, and have had to throw billions more dollars then ever projected.
Look at all the state bills, resolutions, and laws that have been introduced in the past year, to support thier 10th amendment rights. Google search the news, CLICK HERE, and there are pages and pages of links to current references.
The States are starting to push back; the people are starting to push back. If rights are unalienable and people are free to pursue happiness and secure their own safety, where does the government get the right to force individuals to pay for the security of those who have chosen not to pursue their own safety and security?
The rule of law is applied equally to every individual, and all individuals have the right to better themselves to the best of their ability. Because everybody doesn’t have the same natural talents, abilities, circumstances the outcome of exercising liberty and freedom will not be equal. It’s not fair that I, a 5’7” 180# out of shape white guy and can’t get a job as a professional football player. Why should Warrick Dunn, who is a 5’8” 180# black guy, extremely athletic, and worked very hard every day to make himself one of the best at what he does, worked hard at marketing himself, worked hard at entertaining millions of people, be allowed to have a career I could never have? Why is it fair that he has better insurance, cars, housing, access to better education for his kids, than I do. Should Warrick Dunn have to give me his car, his house, pay for my sons to go to college? Of course that’s a stupid idea; what right do I or anybody else have to his property. Warrick Dunn has the riches, fame, and security that he earned for himself and his family in the pursuit of his own happiness by being allowed freedom and liberty.
He should be free to use the fruits of his labor the way he chooses. Like all liberty loving people who have been successful, Mr. Dunn knows and understands that the voluntary help and hard work of his mother, and of others who know it is best to voluntarily help their neighbors. Ask any of the single mothers who now have a fully furnished house because of Warrick Dunn if they would rather live in government housing. He personally does more to help society without government force than the government could ever do if they took his money and redistributed it. Warrick Dunn foundation
Every person should be free to pursue happiness, it is the choices people make in their lives that determine where they end up. If you don’t know Warrick Dunn’s story find it and read about it. His growing up and circumstances weren’t fair, but the choices he made, benefited himself, and through the pursuit of what he thought would make him happy has benefited all of society.
A government that secures individual rights will produce of Warrick Dunn’s, Bill Gates’, Henry Ford’s, Carnegie’s, and other successful people who will offer jobs, charity, and support for those less fortunate. There are hundreds of individuals in this country whose stories of generosity are world famous. Maybe it’s just my American naivety, but I can’t think of a French entrepreneur in recent history whose know for his generosity, nor a Cuban for that matter. Over and over again the people of this country have and do show their generosity, voluntarily, to those less fortunate. The private response after Katrina, the Tsunami, etc. shows that the people of this country will take care of those who through no fault of their own are in trouble.
A government whose purpose is to make laws that benefit society, socialism, like France, China, and Cuba results in death and suffering for all of society. France had tens thousands of people die from a heat wave, similar heat waves in the USA do not produce such death. China purposefully starved tens of millions of its people to benefit society. Cuba went from being one of the wealthiest islands in the Caribbean to being a poor, third world hole, whose people routinely try to escape.
I leave you with two fundamental questions. What do you believe is the purpose of government? and Do individuals have the right to protect their unalienable rights?
One the French idea as in their 1789 Rights of Man. “The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation,” it states. “Law is the expression of the general will.”
An extension of this principal is the belief that liberals espouse. The purpose of the government is to make laws benefiting society.
The other idea came from the same era and was the founding idea of the formation of this country. John Adams said it best in the Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, ratified in 1780. "All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."
The extension of this principal is the belief that libertarians (and some conservatives) espouse. The purpose of the government is to secure these individual rights.
I believe if we continue to allow or government to make rules that benefit society at the expense of individual rights, we will have neither the benefit to society nor individual rights. The "great society" program of LBJ is a perfect example, instead of less poverty and better living conditions, we have more poverty, more broken families, and have had to throw billions more dollars then ever projected.
Look at all the state bills, resolutions, and laws that have been introduced in the past year, to support thier 10th amendment rights. Google search the news, CLICK HERE, and there are pages and pages of links to current references.
The States are starting to push back; the people are starting to push back. If rights are unalienable and people are free to pursue happiness and secure their own safety, where does the government get the right to force individuals to pay for the security of those who have chosen not to pursue their own safety and security?
“Life isn't fair, get over it.” ~ Bill Gates
The rule of law is applied equally to every individual, and all individuals have the right to better themselves to the best of their ability. Because everybody doesn’t have the same natural talents, abilities, circumstances the outcome of exercising liberty and freedom will not be equal. It’s not fair that I, a 5’7” 180# out of shape white guy and can’t get a job as a professional football player. Why should Warrick Dunn, who is a 5’8” 180# black guy, extremely athletic, and worked very hard every day to make himself one of the best at what he does, worked hard at marketing himself, worked hard at entertaining millions of people, be allowed to have a career I could never have? Why is it fair that he has better insurance, cars, housing, access to better education for his kids, than I do. Should Warrick Dunn have to give me his car, his house, pay for my sons to go to college? Of course that’s a stupid idea; what right do I or anybody else have to his property. Warrick Dunn has the riches, fame, and security that he earned for himself and his family in the pursuit of his own happiness by being allowed freedom and liberty.
He should be free to use the fruits of his labor the way he chooses. Like all liberty loving people who have been successful, Mr. Dunn knows and understands that the voluntary help and hard work of his mother, and of others who know it is best to voluntarily help their neighbors. Ask any of the single mothers who now have a fully furnished house because of Warrick Dunn if they would rather live in government housing. He personally does more to help society without government force than the government could ever do if they took his money and redistributed it. Warrick Dunn foundation
Every person should be free to pursue happiness, it is the choices people make in their lives that determine where they end up. If you don’t know Warrick Dunn’s story find it and read about it. His growing up and circumstances weren’t fair, but the choices he made, benefited himself, and through the pursuit of what he thought would make him happy has benefited all of society.
A government that secures individual rights will produce of Warrick Dunn’s, Bill Gates’, Henry Ford’s, Carnegie’s, and other successful people who will offer jobs, charity, and support for those less fortunate. There are hundreds of individuals in this country whose stories of generosity are world famous. Maybe it’s just my American naivety, but I can’t think of a French entrepreneur in recent history whose know for his generosity, nor a Cuban for that matter. Over and over again the people of this country have and do show their generosity, voluntarily, to those less fortunate. The private response after Katrina, the Tsunami, etc. shows that the people of this country will take care of those who through no fault of their own are in trouble.
A government whose purpose is to make laws that benefit society, socialism, like France, China, and Cuba results in death and suffering for all of society. France had tens thousands of people die from a heat wave, similar heat waves in the USA do not produce such death. China purposefully starved tens of millions of its people to benefit society. Cuba went from being one of the wealthiest islands in the Caribbean to being a poor, third world hole, whose people routinely try to escape.
I leave you with two fundamental questions. What do you believe is the purpose of government? and Do individuals have the right to protect their unalienable rights?
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Liberals are not Rational
I'm trying to understand why liberals don’t think rationally and why they just want to do things that "feel" good rather than work. How can a rational person look at the facts and think that the government taking over 1/6th of the US economy is good much less necessary.
Fact: Current US run health care systems, Medicare and Medicaid, are economic failures near collapse.
Fact: When heath care markets are free and open to competition prices go down and quality and service go up (look at plastic surgery, Lasik, etc.).
Fact: Every social program enacted by the federal government has exceeded its initial cost estimates by huge amounts.
Fact: Significant numbers of Doctors have said that will change careers if the government takes over health care, which will result in a shortage.
Fact: Government's own estimates show that we will still have 10 million people uninsured when health care reforms are enacted.
Fact: Citizens are up in arms over closed door meetings where the liberal leaders are trying to force government health care upon them.
Fact: Current Democrat leaders will not allow the citizens ,or for that matter members of congress, to have time to read the proposed healthcare legislation before it is voted on. (Please would somebody explain to me how allowing time for both congress and the people to review proposed legislation is a bad thing, and why the Democrats won’t allow changes to rules/bills to insure that both congress and the people understand the details of such a huge change in the way we do health care before it becomes law?)
Fact: The Government exempts itself from the proposed health care legislation.
We all would like to hope our government would do what’s best for its citizens, but no place has it shown any evidence that it will change its ways and become trustworthy. We have the same lies during campaigning followed by more and bigger government and less liberty and freedom for the citizens regardless of whether a democrat or republican wins.
Why isn’t Obama insisting on CSPAN coverage of the health care bills in committees? Pelosi said the house would be the most honest and transparent in history. How can any person Libertarian, Conservative, Independent, or even Liberal support our federal government’s current proposals for health care reform, under the circumstances that the government will not let us see or know the details until after it has become law? What are they hiding in the details that they don’t want the people to know? Obama is lying right to our faces, yet liberals for some reason trust him and the Democrats to be honest and transparent about health care reform.
Do we trust the government not to torture captives in the war on terror? Do we trust the government to protect individuals over protecting big businesses? Do we trust the government to not violate our civil rights? Do we trust the government to fairly collect taxes? Do we trust the government to be honest with us? I don’t care if the government is run by Bush, Clinton, Regan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, Lincoln, or Obama it has proven itself over and over again not to be trusted. Our forefathers divided the government’s powers, put limits on the government not the people, created a bill of rights, and warned us not to trust government, even the one they created.
The fact that the Democrat leaders don’t want either the congress and senate to be able to review the entirety of health care reform, nor to allow the people to see what they are doing, should be enough for every person to be up in arms. What has the government ever done to deserve such trust that we should let them just take over everybody in the nation’s health care? How can any rational thinking person examining the facts and then trust the same government that purchases $600 hammers to oversee the entirety of health care in the US?
Fact: Current US run health care systems, Medicare and Medicaid, are economic failures near collapse.
Fact: When heath care markets are free and open to competition prices go down and quality and service go up (look at plastic surgery, Lasik, etc.).
Fact: Every social program enacted by the federal government has exceeded its initial cost estimates by huge amounts.
Fact: Significant numbers of Doctors have said that will change careers if the government takes over health care, which will result in a shortage.
Fact: Government's own estimates show that we will still have 10 million people uninsured when health care reforms are enacted.
Fact: Citizens are up in arms over closed door meetings where the liberal leaders are trying to force government health care upon them.
Fact: Current Democrat leaders will not allow the citizens ,or for that matter members of congress, to have time to read the proposed healthcare legislation before it is voted on. (Please would somebody explain to me how allowing time for both congress and the people to review proposed legislation is a bad thing, and why the Democrats won’t allow changes to rules/bills to insure that both congress and the people understand the details of such a huge change in the way we do health care before it becomes law?)
Fact: The Government exempts itself from the proposed health care legislation.
We all would like to hope our government would do what’s best for its citizens, but no place has it shown any evidence that it will change its ways and become trustworthy. We have the same lies during campaigning followed by more and bigger government and less liberty and freedom for the citizens regardless of whether a democrat or republican wins.
Why isn’t Obama insisting on CSPAN coverage of the health care bills in committees? Pelosi said the house would be the most honest and transparent in history. How can any person Libertarian, Conservative, Independent, or even Liberal support our federal government’s current proposals for health care reform, under the circumstances that the government will not let us see or know the details until after it has become law? What are they hiding in the details that they don’t want the people to know? Obama is lying right to our faces, yet liberals for some reason trust him and the Democrats to be honest and transparent about health care reform.
Do we trust the government not to torture captives in the war on terror? Do we trust the government to protect individuals over protecting big businesses? Do we trust the government to not violate our civil rights? Do we trust the government to fairly collect taxes? Do we trust the government to be honest with us? I don’t care if the government is run by Bush, Clinton, Regan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, Lincoln, or Obama it has proven itself over and over again not to be trusted. Our forefathers divided the government’s powers, put limits on the government not the people, created a bill of rights, and warned us not to trust government, even the one they created.
The fact that the Democrat leaders don’t want either the congress and senate to be able to review the entirety of health care reform, nor to allow the people to see what they are doing, should be enough for every person to be up in arms. What has the government ever done to deserve such trust that we should let them just take over everybody in the nation’s health care? How can any rational thinking person examining the facts and then trust the same government that purchases $600 hammers to oversee the entirety of health care in the US?
The Ant and the Grasshopper
Consider Æsop’s timeless fable.
Like all Æsop’s fables this one as a timeless lesson that used to be taught to our children routinely. In terms of modern liberal philosophy, how does this fable compare? How does this fable compare to traditional American values? Here are some moral and ethical questions that can be applied to the Ant and the Grasshopper.
Is the ant being greedy?
Is it “fair” that the grasshopper didn’t have a share of the corn?
Is there a moral obligation for the ant to feed the grasshopper?
Should the ant be punished for having such wealth?
Should the grasshopper have been forced to work?
Who is responsible for taking care of the grasshopper?
Whose fault is it that the grasshopper starves?
Is it morally acceptable to use force to redistribute the ant family wealth regardless of the wishes of the ants?
How does Æsop’s fable compare to today’s healthcare debate? Should the 97% of citizens who have health care or can be taken care of through existing government means, have to provide health care to the 3% who don’t.
Æsop. (Sixth century B.C.) Fables.
The Harvard Classics. 1909–14.
“The ant and the grasshopper”
In a field one summer’s day a Grasshopper was hopping about, chirping and singing to its heart’s content. An Ant passed by, bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the nest.
“Why not come and chat with me,” said the Grasshopper, “instead of toiling and moiling in that way?”
“I am helping to lay up food for the winter,” said the Ant, “and recommend you to do the same.”
“Why bother about winter?” said the Grasshopper; “we have got plenty of food at present.” But the Ant went on its way and continued its toil. When the winter came the Grasshopper had no food, and found itself dying of hunger, while it saw the ants distributing every day corn and grain from the stores they had collected in the summer. Then the Grasshopper knew:
“It is best to prepare for the days of necessity."
Like all Æsop’s fables this one as a timeless lesson that used to be taught to our children routinely. In terms of modern liberal philosophy, how does this fable compare? How does this fable compare to traditional American values? Here are some moral and ethical questions that can be applied to the Ant and the Grasshopper.
How does Æsop’s fable compare to today’s healthcare debate? Should the 97% of citizens who have health care or can be taken care of through existing government means, have to provide health care to the 3% who don’t.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Publicly Legitimate Ideas
The left clearly sees that using civil discourse to debating their ideas is not working. They no longer want to allow individuals to use logic, reason, history, nor their own personal experience, life goals, and dreams to judge the ideas. They find when having to debate their ideas openly and honestly, they are not garnering enough support. It seems people actually want to be able to advance themselves in voluntary exchange of goods and services, and don't really want the government to do more than keep a fair playing field for everybody. The people threw out the corporatism of the Republicans (they certainly aren't conservative), because rather than a level playing field the Republicans have been working towards offering big corporation unfair advantages in the free market.
The pesky constitution keeps getting in the way of liberals. Although he can't outright jail or imprison those who don't agree with him, Obama both directly and through his administration is attacking anybody who doesn't agree with him. This is hardly the open and honest debate he promised, but then lying and obfuscation has been his pattern since long before he was elected.
Members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) beat senseless protestors because they didn't follow the liberal line, and what did the health care chairman of the SEIU do about it? He denounced conservative "terrorist tactics" aimed at derailing debate on healthcare. What the Hell! It’s OK for SEIU members to beat people who don’t agree with them because being a peaceful protestor, if you’re not liberal, is now defined as a terrorist.
Rush who is decidedly not a libertarian, and definitely not a liberal, has on occasion been critical of the ideas of those who may be considered left of center. He is also somewhat critical of the Obama administration. Rush has a little 3 hour radio show in the afternoons where he exercises his first amendment right and expresses his ideas. He's been doing so for around 20 years and I hear has been able to sell commercials for his broadcasts and done fairly well. His success is based on people freely choosing to listen to his ideas. Liberals don’t like his ideas so in communist authoritarian style, they have attacked him with made up quotes and lies about what he said, and using those to defame him, and have succeeded in denying him the right to purchase partial ownership in a private business. So you are no longer allowed to purchase a part of a business if you express your opinion and the left doesn't agree with it.
Harvard business school professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter justifies the depiction of tea partiers as racist buffoons because they are enemies of America. Kanter in Politico writes, "President Obama is marginalizing not just his enemies but those of the American people. He is attacking organizations standing in the way of progress toward reforming health care or cleaning up the conditions that led to the financial crisis. He is putting on notice advocates of greed - instead of the greater good - that they no longer have public legitimacy."
Aren’t America's enemies Islamofascists, people who would force Islamic law on everybody, who have called for the destruction of America? Aren’t our enemies those people who would silence free speech, and take away our unalienable rights? According to liberals American citizens who disagree with the president or the government elite are now the enemies of America. The ideas of the left can't win in reasoned debate and civil discourse so they simply declare any idea that is contrary to their agenda as not having "public legitimacy". Just try and ask Nancy Pelosi to constitutionally justify the Democrat’s health care legislation, “are you serious”. You see questions like that are not legitimate.
The liberal agenda appears to be ending free enterprise and individual achievement and consolidate power in the hands of elite leaders. So to further their agenda, they are now working as hard as they can at silencing opposition, attacking the individuals and groups who don't agree with them, rather than debate the merits of their agenda. Liberals have found that they cannot honestly debate and compete based on ideas. Violence is OK, dismissing and degrading those who don't agree is OK, denying people there rights is OK, as long as the violence, and attacks and violated rights are not liberal. If you’re a libertarian your really in trouble, as the ideas expressed by libertarians, ideas for liberty, and personal responsibility, are ideas liberals cannot tolerate and liberal leaders will not debate and if possible will not even allow others to hear. You see libertarians believe that in a free society, as long as an individual’s choice doesn’t infringe upon the rights of another, individuals are free to choose what’s best for them, and if an individual chooses poorly others are not forced to pay for that poor choice. That is an idea that the left has worked decades to silence, and cannot tolerate or allow to re-ignite, as it would put power pack to the states and the people, which is antithetical to their obvious goals.
The pesky constitution keeps getting in the way of liberals. Although he can't outright jail or imprison those who don't agree with him, Obama both directly and through his administration is attacking anybody who doesn't agree with him. This is hardly the open and honest debate he promised, but then lying and obfuscation has been his pattern since long before he was elected.
Members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) beat senseless protestors because they didn't follow the liberal line, and what did the health care chairman of the SEIU do about it? He denounced conservative "terrorist tactics" aimed at derailing debate on healthcare. What the Hell! It’s OK for SEIU members to beat people who don’t agree with them because being a peaceful protestor, if you’re not liberal, is now defined as a terrorist.
Rush who is decidedly not a libertarian, and definitely not a liberal, has on occasion been critical of the ideas of those who may be considered left of center. He is also somewhat critical of the Obama administration. Rush has a little 3 hour radio show in the afternoons where he exercises his first amendment right and expresses his ideas. He's been doing so for around 20 years and I hear has been able to sell commercials for his broadcasts and done fairly well. His success is based on people freely choosing to listen to his ideas. Liberals don’t like his ideas so in communist authoritarian style, they have attacked him with made up quotes and lies about what he said, and using those to defame him, and have succeeded in denying him the right to purchase partial ownership in a private business. So you are no longer allowed to purchase a part of a business if you express your opinion and the left doesn't agree with it.
Harvard business school professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter justifies the depiction of tea partiers as racist buffoons because they are enemies of America. Kanter in Politico writes, "President Obama is marginalizing not just his enemies but those of the American people. He is attacking organizations standing in the way of progress toward reforming health care or cleaning up the conditions that led to the financial crisis. He is putting on notice advocates of greed - instead of the greater good - that they no longer have public legitimacy."
Aren’t America's enemies Islamofascists, people who would force Islamic law on everybody, who have called for the destruction of America? Aren’t our enemies those people who would silence free speech, and take away our unalienable rights? According to liberals American citizens who disagree with the president or the government elite are now the enemies of America. The ideas of the left can't win in reasoned debate and civil discourse so they simply declare any idea that is contrary to their agenda as not having "public legitimacy". Just try and ask Nancy Pelosi to constitutionally justify the Democrat’s health care legislation, “are you serious”. You see questions like that are not legitimate.
The liberal agenda appears to be ending free enterprise and individual achievement and consolidate power in the hands of elite leaders. So to further their agenda, they are now working as hard as they can at silencing opposition, attacking the individuals and groups who don't agree with them, rather than debate the merits of their agenda. Liberals have found that they cannot honestly debate and compete based on ideas. Violence is OK, dismissing and degrading those who don't agree is OK, denying people there rights is OK, as long as the violence, and attacks and violated rights are not liberal. If you’re a libertarian your really in trouble, as the ideas expressed by libertarians, ideas for liberty, and personal responsibility, are ideas liberals cannot tolerate and liberal leaders will not debate and if possible will not even allow others to hear. You see libertarians believe that in a free society, as long as an individual’s choice doesn’t infringe upon the rights of another, individuals are free to choose what’s best for them, and if an individual chooses poorly others are not forced to pay for that poor choice. That is an idea that the left has worked decades to silence, and cannot tolerate or allow to re-ignite, as it would put power pack to the states and the people, which is antithetical to their obvious goals.
Obama Administration Caught in Another Lie
The Obama administration is verify ably lying to us.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis has determined that the GDP for the first three quarters was a negative (Q1 -1.1%, Q2 -3.3%, Q4 -3.9%) Economic growth was non existent and the economy has contracted for the first three quarters this year.
President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, headed by Christina Romer,on Oct 22, said Thursday that the $194 billion already spent from the $787 billion economic stimulus gave a jolt to the economy. Noting that it contributed to growth in the second and third quarters of the year.
How does a decrease of over 3% in GDP in the second and third quarters translate into economic growth or a "Jolt" to the economy?
Romer also said that so far spending has saved or created 600,000 to 1.5 million jobs. Tell that to the 15 million workers unemployed. Unemployment has climbed to 9.8%, the bureau of Labor Statistics reports show that 2.7 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus was passed. No matter how you slice it there is no way the administration can say the spending has saved or created a million jobs. Again Obama lies.
Anybody who still has faith or trust in Obama and his administration, is blind to reality.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis has determined that the GDP for the first three quarters was a negative (Q1 -1.1%, Q2 -3.3%, Q4 -3.9%) Economic growth was non existent and the economy has contracted for the first three quarters this year.
President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, headed by Christina Romer,on Oct 22, said Thursday that the $194 billion already spent from the $787 billion economic stimulus gave a jolt to the economy. Noting that it contributed to growth in the second and third quarters of the year.
How does a decrease of over 3% in GDP in the second and third quarters translate into economic growth or a "Jolt" to the economy?
Romer also said that so far spending has saved or created 600,000 to 1.5 million jobs. Tell that to the 15 million workers unemployed. Unemployment has climbed to 9.8%, the bureau of Labor Statistics reports show that 2.7 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus was passed. No matter how you slice it there is no way the administration can say the spending has saved or created a million jobs. Again Obama lies.
Anybody who still has faith or trust in Obama and his administration, is blind to reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
