Posted With Humorous Concern -- Generalizations Are Usually Taken from Truth

I just wanted to point out that even though I look like that, I did not produce this short video... I only bring this stuff to you! Keep in mind I have cousin's who are "more black" than the gal in this humorous video, if that dissuades any fears. Take note that I did not attach the "humor" tag to this video -- not because this thinking is universal in the black community, but a good portion of the Democratic left within the black community thinks like this in some fashion. By good portion I bet more people believe this way in the black community than the white community think Obama was born in Africa.

BROLIATH h/t

"We don’t know what ObamaCare costs will be" ~ Kathleen Sebelius

(HotAir h/t)

NRCC "Pop-Up Democrats"

HotAir h/t

Obama's Spending Habits

Wall Street Journal (January 2010)

WSJ – Mr. Axelrod wrote that no one is entitled to his own facts, even as he argued that George W. Bush is responsible for Barack Obama’s deficits. He argued that Mr. Bush forced the hand of this administration by leaving office in the midst of a sharp recession.

That argument won’t fly for two reasons. First, at some point this administration has to take responsibility for itself. It’s also not even close to accurate. Consider that from Jan. 20, 2001, to Jan. 20, 2009, the debt held by the public grew $3 trillion under Mr. Bush—to $6.3 trillion from $3.3 trillion at a time when the national economy grew as well.

By comparison, from the day Mr. Obama took office last year to the end of the current fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and Budget, the debt held by the public will grow by $3.3 trillion. In 20 months, Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in eight years.

Mr. Obama’s spending plan approved by Congress last February calls for doubling the national debt in five years and nearly tripling it in 10.

Mr. Bush’s deficits ran an average of 3.2% of GDP, slightly above the post World War II average of 2.7%. Mr. Obama’s plan calls for deficits that will average 4.2% over the next decade.

Team Obama has been on history’s biggest spending spree, which has included a $787 billion stimulus, a $30 billion expansion of a child health-care program, and a $410 billion federal spending bill that increased nondefense discretionary spending 10% for the last half of fiscal year 2009. Mr. Obama also hiked nondefense discretionary spending another 12% for fiscal year 2010.

Mr. Bush did move to give voters more control over their tax dollars. Both his Social Security reform ideas and the drug program he created offered templates for driving federal spending curves in the right direction, counter to what Democrats wanted to do.

Democrats, for example, proposed creating a prescription drug program as an alternative to the one Mr. Bush proposed that would have cost a projected $800 billion over 10 years. The Bush drug benefit was originally expected to cost half that amount and today costs a third less than what it was initially expected to cost because it uses market forces to drive prices down.

Mr. Axelrod claims the pork-laden stimulus package has been a success. But Mr. Obama told Americans that if it were passed, unemployment wouldn’t rise above 8%. It is now 10%. The president also said it would create 3.7 million jobs, 90% of which would be in the private sector. By Mr. Obama’s standards, the stimulus failed miserably.

Mr. Bush did sign the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) into law and loaned $240 billion to banks. But those loans are being returned at a profit to the Treasury. Rather than using those funds to pay down the deficit, Mr. Obama wants to use them for new spending. What’s more, he has lavished some $320 billion from TARP on car companies, union allies, and pet causes that will never be fully returned.

Mr. Axelrod boasts Mr. Obama’s proposed health reforms will “not add to the federal deficit.” But if that turns out to be true, it will only be because Massachusetts voters just elected a senator who promises to vote against those reforms.

In going after Mr. Bush’s fiscal record, Mr. Axelrod unwittingly revealed why Democrats are losing. Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats have made a mess of the nation’s finances and are desperate to pin the blame on someone else. It’s not likely to work.

 (Source)

1. Obama’s One Big Accomplishment: Shatters Spending Record for First-Year Presidents
2. CBO: Obama Budget To Generate $10 Trillion In Budget Deficits
3. Karl Rove Sets the Record Straight
4. Obama racked up a record-high monthly budget deficit of $220.9 billion in February
5. CBO Paints Grim Picture: U.S. Budget Deficit 1.2 Trillion Higher Than Predicted

Washington Examiner (Feb of 2009!)

Back in 2006, when Democrats were hoping to win control of the House and Senate, party leaders worked themselves into a righteous outrage over the issue of out-of-control federal spending. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called the Republican budget “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” because it increased the amount of U.S. debt held by foreign countries. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., accused Republicans of going on “an unprecedented and dangerous borrowing spree” and declared GOP leadership “the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of our country … no other president or Congress even comes close.”

You won’t find too many defenders of George W. Bush’s record on spending these days, even among Republicans. But a check of historical tables compiled by the Office of Management and Budget shows that the spending that so distressed Pelosi and Reid seems downright modest today. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.

The current administration would kill to have such small numbers. President Barack Obama is unveiling his budget this week, and, in addition to the inherited Bush deficit, he’s adding his own spending at an astonishing pace, projecting annual deficits well beyond $1 trillion in the near future, and, in the rosiest possible scenario, a $533 billion deficit in fiscal year 2013, the last year of Obama’s first term.

And what about the national debt? It increased from $5 trillion to $10 trillion in the Bush years, leading to dramatically higher interest costs. “We pay in interest four times more than we spend on education and four times what it will cost to cover 10 million children with health insurance for five years,” Pelosi said in 2007. “That’s fiscal irresponsibility.”

Now, under Obama, the national debt — and the interest payments — will increase at a far faster rate than during the Bush years.

“We thought the Bush deficits were big at the time,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, told me this week as he prepared to attend Obama’s Fiscal Responsibility Summit. “But this is going to make the previous administration look like rank amateurs. We could be adding multiple trillions to the national debt in the first year.”

At some point last week, the sheer velocity of Obama’s spending proposals began to overwhelm even experienced Washington hands. In the span of four days, we saw the signing of the $787 billion stimulus bill, the rollout of a $275 billion housing proposal, discussion of Congress’s remaining appropriations bills (about $400 billion) and word of a vaguely-defined financial stabilization plan that could ultimately cost $2 trillion. When representatives of GM and Chrysler said they might need $21 billion more to survive, it seemed like small beer.

The numbers are so dizzying that McConnell and his fellow Republicans are trying to “connect the dots” — that is, to explain to the public how all of those discrete spending initiatives add up to a previously unthinkable total. Obama’s current spending proposals, Republicans point out, will cost more than the United States spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the general war on terror and Hurricane Katrina in the last seven years. And that’s before you throw in the $2 trillion fiscal stabilization plan.

“This is big government, man,” McConnell exclaimed, his matter-of-fact manner giving way to sheer amazement. “It makes previous attempts at big government pale in comparison — they’re going to go beyond the New Deal and the Great Society by far.”

The new spending guarantees that the problems that so disturbed Pelosi and Reid just a couple of years ago — high interest payments and an increasing number of foreign debt-holders — will get worse. Yet so far, the Democratic leaders have refrained from using words like unpatriotic, irresponsible and dangerous to describe Obama’s budget.

Of course, they would never use such phrases to attack their own team. But the most important thing to understand about Pelosi and Reid is that while their rhetoric has changed, their substance hasn’t. Back in the Bush days, when they were denouncing Republican over-spending, they were also pushing the congressional leadership to spend more, not less, on just about everything. Now, returned to power, they’re doing the same thing. Only bigger.

HealthCare Emporium

Obama, Econ Professor, and Tests

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class.  That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A...

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.  The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.  As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D!  No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on)

Remember, there is a test coming up.  The mid-term election in 2010!

Judge Andrew Napolitano Discusses The Constitutional Implications Of The Congressional Proposal To Force Individuals To Purchase Health Insurance (An Oldie But Goodie)

How Many People Are Uninsured? 50-Million? 47-Million? 37-Million?

Who Are the Uninsured?

(CATO)

No single topic drives the health care reform debate like the number of uninsured Americans, variously numbered in speeches and ads at 45 million, 46 million, 47 million, or even 50 million. Unfortunately, most of what we think we know about the un insured is wrong.

For the record, according to the latest figures from the Census Bureau, 45.6 million Americans currently lack health insurance. This is actually down slightly from the 47 million that were uninsured in 2006. However, those numbers don't tell the whole story.

For example, roughly one quarter of those counted as uninsured — 12 million people — are eligible for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), but haven't enrolled. This includes 64 percent of all uninsured children, and 29 percent of parents with children. Since these people would be enrolled in those programs automatically if they went to the hospital for care, calling them uninsured is really a smokescreen.

Another 10 million uninsured "Americans" are, at least technically, not Americans. Approximately 5.6 million are illegal immigrants, and another 4.4 million are legal immigrants but not citizens.

The reality is that most people without health insurance are uninsured for a relatively short period of time.

Nor are the uninsured necessarily poor. A new study by June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that 43 percent of the uninsured have incomes higher than 250 percent of the poverty level ($55,125 for a family of four). And slightly more than a third have incomes in excess of $66,000. A second study, by Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania and Kate Bundorf of Stanford, concluded that nearly three-quarters of the uninsured could afford coverage but chose not to purchase it.

And most of the uninsured are young and in good health. According to the CBO, roughly 60 percent are under the age of 35, and fully 86 percent report that they are in good or excellent health.

Finally, when we hear about 45 million Americans without health insurance, it conjures up the notion that all of those are born without health insurance, die without health insurance, and are never insured in between. The reality is that most people without health insurance are uninsured for a relatively short period of time.

Only about 30 percent of the uninsured remain so for more than a year, approximately 16 percent for two years, and less than 2.5 percent for three years or longer. About half are uninsured for six months or less. Notably, because health insurance is too often tied to employment, the working poor who cycle in and out of the job market also cycle in and out of health insurance....

Are There Really 47 Million Americans Who Can’t Afford Health Insurance?

 (ROCKWELL)

An editorial in the July-August 2009 AARP Bulletin repeats the same bromide heard almost nightly on the MSM news: That there are currently 47 million Americans without health insurance. The AARP editorial goes on to argue that this situation is disgraceful; that all Americans should have "affordable health care choices"; and that in terms of reform, "the time to act is now."

The sad tale of the 47 million uninsured is, perhaps, the most emotionally persuasive argument put forth for national health care reform. But is the alleged number of uninsured reasonably accurate? Or is it, instead, a purposely misleading statistic designed to advance a specific reform agenda?

The 47 million uninsured number is generated by an annual U.S. Census Bureau report. However, that report also states that the 47 million uninsured includes roughly 10 million illegal aliens without health insurance. Thus, if we subtract out the illegals, the number of uninsured American citizens without health insurance declines by more than 20%...to roughly 37 million.

But is it accurate to assume that even 37 million Americans cannot afford health insurance? Absolutely NOT. Even Hillary Clinton during her presidential campaign once admitted that 25% of the uninsured could afford health insurance but chose not to purchase it. The Census Bureau reports that there are roughly 17 million people who make more than $50,000 per year and who, for whatever reason, decide not to carry health insurance.

In short, with two reasonable adjustments, the number of Americans who cannot afford health insurance has been reduced from 47 million to approximately 20 million.

But is the 20 million figure itself reasonably accurate? Probably not. Individuals moving between jobs lose their (employer provided) health insurance and when they do the Census Bureau counts them as "uninsured." Technically true. Yet during normal times, roughly half of these individuals will have re-acquired (in about 4 months) health insurance coverage with a new employer.

Finally, there are millions of adult Americans and children who have (nearly free) access to medical care benefits through Medicaid and other government programs who don't really need the direct cost of "insurance" and who don’t carry any.

Thus, with reasonable adjustments, there are in fact less than 10 million individuals who are so-called "chronically uninsured." (The Kaiser Family Foundation says the number could be as low as 8 million). These are individuals who have been unemployed for over 2 years and/or people from households that are too poor to afford non-employer health insurance premiums and who, for whatever reason, have limited access to taxpayer-supported health services.

So let’s grant that there are between 8 to 10 million Americans (total population: 307 million) who cannot afford health insurance and that this situation may require a marginal public policy adjustment. (Most states mandate expensive benefit coverage; curtailing those mandates would lower the cost of health insurance.) But whether that situation requires some massive, Washington D.C. health care reform – with new regulations and mandates on health care providers, insurance companies, and drug manufacturers – is entirely problematic.

Politicians and interest groups, eager to remake your medical world over to their liking, would do well to respect the Hippocratic oath administered to physicians: “First, do no harm.”

 

Excerpted from a small debate I was in elsewhere on the web:

...the stat you quoted (Obama and others) are 46-million uninsured. This number has been debunked by a few sources. Census date and other studies. 18.3 million of this number, for instance, are under 34 and voluntarily opt out of health care because they believe themselves to be young and healthy. BlueCross did a study that show in actuality only 8.2 million people are actually uninsured that want insurance but cannot pay for it. A number that Republican plans deal with by-the-by. But when you have no Republicans voting for a bill like this and 34 Democrats voting against it with Republicans, there is a unanimity (bipartisanship), just not the way Democrats wished to highlite. These numbers remind me of the stats used by Clinton and then later Kerry that said a woman makes 70-cents and 73-cents (respectively) to every man's dollar, or Michael Moore stating that 44-million Americans are illiterate -- Respectively:

• http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/2006/11/political-myths-and-misquotes-okay-few.html
• http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/2010/03/same-old-lies-michael-moore-never.html

Matradee Cartoons

Answer the Question Congressman Hare (Illinois Democratic)

NewsBusters h/t

The Real Costs of Obama-Care Becoming More Apparent Day-By-Day

Welcome to ObamaCare, Part II

.... In 2003, when President Bush expanded federal coverage for elderly Americans’ prescription drugs, he also included a subsidy so businesses would keep retirees in their private drug benefit plans. The payout was about $665 per employee each year they were kept on private coverage. The goal was to keep employers from dumping retirees into the newly expanded government plan.

Last week, Obama and the Democrats in Congress removed the subsidy’s tax-free status. Because of how the Securities and Exchange Commission regulates large companies, this change in the long-term tax outlook for the businesses is sending shockwaves through their ledgers. Here's what a few companies are saying:

• AT&T announced the change would cost them $1 billion.
• Caterpillar said it would cost them $100 million.
• Prudential also said they will feel a $100 million impact.
• AK Steel put the loss at $31 million.
• Verizon warned its employees ObamaCare “may have significant implications for both retirees and employers.”
• Illinois Tool Works announced a $22 million hit.

All told, companies are reporting a new $14 billion tax liability under ObamaCare, and we’re only a week out from the signing ceremony.

Never one to let a political opportunity slip by, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) is summoning the afflicted companies to a hearing on Capitol Hill. Apparently, Waxman is shocked that the health care takeover bill he just voted for is having real-life implications for businesses. Waxman is demanding internal company documents on how the companies arrived at their figures. It should provide uproarious political theater as the Beverly Hills politician tries to blame the private sector for the impacts of bad policy he just implemented.

Of course the companies could always avoid the new tax by kicking retirees off the private drug plan; I’m sure ObamaCare would be all too happy to take them in. The Employee Benefit Research Institute projects this would save employers $2,800 in future costs per beneficiary. Who could blame them for trying to avoid the huge hit to their books?...

...(read more)...

 

Armstrong Williams On Crippling Effect of Obama-Care on States

Tea Partier Schools Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Florida) -- Rick Sanchez Backs Off After Realizing His Rhetoric Won't Work Here (He Even Bites His Lip)

Jordan Marks holds his own and makes a sitting Congressman look silly. "Apologize to my 5-year old son" -- What?! Rep. Alan Grayson puts a death sentence on his kid? Weird. You can see this Democrats elitist mentality as he scold a U.S. Citizen/voter as if he is a child..."You need to apologize!" (NewsBusters h/t)

 

  Tea Partier Schools CNN’s Rick Sanchez and Rep. Alan Grayson

- Watch more Politics Videos at Vodpod.

Big Companies Take Hit Over ObamaCare

Mattera vs. Sen. Tom Harkin

(HotAir h/t)

This Ball Is Flat!

(Click Out)

More Hidden Agendas... This Cost Small Companies Lots of Money To Do

(click for story source and more)

Nancy Pelosi told the public that we’d have to pass ObamaCare to find out all of the surprises Democrats had loaded into it.  Since its passage, we’ve discovered a number of them, including the elimination of a tax credit that kept seniors on private medication coverage that has forced publicly-held corporations like AT&T, Caterpillar, John Deere, and Verizon to take massive charges against this year’s earnings.  Earlier this week, the Associated Press discovered a new mandate, this time on chain restaurants, that is at once petty, paternalistic, and anti-growth:

A requirement tucked into the nation’s massive health care bill will make calorie counts impossible for thousands of restaurants to hide and difficult for consumers to ignore. More than 200,000 fast food and other chain restaurants will have to include calorie counts on menus, menu boards and even drive-throughs.

Swine Flu... The George Orwell Kind (click out)

Debt Level Will Rise To 90% Of GDP In Nine Years

John Stossel Talks To Youth and Elderly About Obama-Care and Costs