A Healthy Reminder

The Healthcare Debate right now is not new. Reagan talked about this during his time as well. The year is 1961, when another nationalized healthcare bill was being put forth. Like today, the call went out becuase of a trumped up "Great emergency." And if you dare to doubt the need for this Federal Government oversight, supporters will challenge you on an emotional basis.

Reagan quotes one of our Founding Fathers when he talks about the introduction and success of Socialism as a "gradual and silent encroachment instead of through violent means." Reagan did not support intrusive government. He talks about how we have "the right and the ability" to make our own choices. Abdicating this responsibility to our governemtn means we are no longer free.

Hear more of the speech below:

My favorite quote:

"Governments don't tax to get the money they need. Governments will always find a need for the money they get."

Hat Tip - Hot Air

Can We Opt Out of Socialism, Please?

What is Socialsim? A short answer can be found in Wikipedia, where they define Socialism as "Any one of various economic theories of economic organization advocating state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of good." So, in Socialism, the State controls businesses, either in part or in whole.

Keep this in mind as you think about how Obama's Federal government tries to get its hands in everything. Government tries to manipulate the economy, with questionable effects. Government intervenes in previously private businesses and banks that are "too big to fail."

Now, even though Obama's budget deficit will be historically high, Obama wants to step in, spend even more money and muddle about with our private health care system. An aside: How does government interference help restore or rebuild our economy? Answer: It doesn't.

This scares me more than most of the other systems, since it has the potential to do several things, none of them good. I've listed some of the effects below.

First, it will INCREASE the cost of care, not decrease it. We would have to fund the system twice, both as patients and as taxpayers. When we go to the doctor, most Americans would still have to pay money out of pocket for service. In addition, taxpayer money would have to go into paying for the administration of this system. And we all know how efficient government administered programs are.

Second, there will be fewer doctors and fewer specialists to treat everyone. Don't believe me? Then quickly review this New York Times article about how the current government run healthcare system, Medicare, is working.

The recommendation from the article seems to be that individuals should find "Concierge Medicine" in their area. The anecdote provided at the end illustrates how coverage in concierge medicine, coverage for services not covered by government funding, saved a person's life. Would a government paid doctor answer the phone after business hours to offer life-saving services? As mentioned above, even with "Government Healthcare," individual spending for appropriate, necessary, life saving care is necessary.

Finally, we would have face a shortage of service. This is the really scary effect, one that will kill people. With fewer doctors and specialists, rationed health care is garunteed. Look at the evidence provided by this video.



With all of these effects of Socialism, why is Obama pushing us further in that direction?

Gangster Government on the Rise

The United States is supposed to be a Republic. Our nation was founded on the rule of law, to help protect smaller and less popular ideas from being snuffed out by the rule of the mob, which we would see in a Democracy. In a Republic, laws and contracts apply to all individuals equally. However, our new Federal government seems to be changing that.

This article outlines how Obama's leadership is "undermining the legal and financial stability of the United States." And it's not the only article to notice our President's disdain for the rule of law. The articles touch on some major ways in which Obama's organized labor friends are receiving preferential treatment, instead of being treated equally under the law. Of course, influence pedaling and corruption is the Chicago way.

In addition to issues relating to Unions and other cronies , the Obama administration is interfering in our open banking system. This includes forcing certain private banks and financial organizations, such as Citibank, to take TARP money. This, in turn, gives the Federal Government a say in how these companies are run. This is not open business.

So far, with Obama's administration, we've seen bigger government being more intrusive in our businesses and everyday lives. Couple this with some of the losses of freedoms from Bush's push against terrorism with the misnamed Patriot Act and it's a dangerous mix. This is not how we made this nation great.

The recent tea parties, far from being partisan protests, show more that people are ready for the Federal government to step back out of our lives. If we are to succeed as individuals and as a nation, we need the Federal Government to get out of our way instead of laying down road blocks.

I believe it was Thoreau who said, "That government is best which governs least." On that note, I think we need a better government.

Hat Tip - Hot Air

Santelli Telling It Like It Is

This video is AWESOME!!

Every American should be enraged, outraged and severely PO'd by the Bailouts and the BS package. The bonuses aren't really the issue. The real issue is that we put any money into these businesses at all.



Something to remember, the way our system should work is that businesses should be allowed to fail if they are not profitable. Business bankruptcy is there to allow businesses to liquidate their assets to people who have been better money managers, not to the Federal government.

What More People Should Read

This article really hammers the Obama administration on their handling of the economic crisis so far. They really point out some major flaws in how the current administration is handling things.

The part I like best:

"Indeed we should do something—but, as usual, it’s exactly the opposite of what the federal government intends to do. We should cut the government’s budget as drastically as possible, thereby releasing resources for use by the productive sector. (That worked pretty well in stopping the terrible depression of 1920–21.) We should stop the Fed from interfering in the recovery process. We should let the private economy sort out which activities undertaken during the artificial Greenspan boom are genuine wealth-generating activities and which are wealth-destroying bubble activities. The latter should be promptly liquidated so their resources can be better employed by the former.

Meanwhile, we still have some conservatives, frozen in the 1980s, calling for reductions in marginal income tax rates, among other feckless suggestions. Tax reductions are desirable, to be sure, but the crisis we are facing is a systemic one that is not going to be fixed by marginal changes here and there. We need to start talking big changes. We need to open up questions the regime has long since considered closed. We need to talk about the monetary system, the Fed, entitlements, and much else.

In other words, if the Left can advocate $1 trillion-plus annual deficits as far as the eye can see, why can’t supporters of the free market be equally bold in the opposite direction?"

It's worth reading the whole thing, so go read the whole article.

The Wall Street Journal's Take on Obama

After reading this article and this article from the Wall Street Journal, it seems our fears about the Obama BS package are justified.

The first article notes that the economy has continued to slip, and even accelerated its slide, with the announcement of the new BS economic plan. Maybe that's because investors read the Congressional Budget Office report stating the stimulus doesn't spend the money fast enough to make a difference and may stunt future growth. It's enough to scare me off from buying anything new, and I live in a 2 income household.

The second article appears to be rather dry, giving statistic after statistic about how the crashing stock market means we have a 20% chance of a depression. However, the last paragraph is very telling. The author reports he believes the economy will recover "despite" the spending past, not because of it.

My big question is, who are the Democrats in Washington listening to? It's certainly not the expert economists and it's not their constituents. I'll say before what I've said in the past, the Democrats used the recession as an excuse to push through a HUGE amount of earmarked spending they know wouldn't have gotten through otherwise.

I'm so mad, I want to cuss.

Well, Here's Hoping

I've done verything I can think to do, including calling my Representative and my Senators. Now, we just have to wait for their vote. My hope is that someone grows a brain, especially the three defectors.

This BS spending has little to do with actually improving the lives of Americans. If it did, then it would be good over the long haul, not harmful to our economy. Instead, the BS package is stuffed with all sorts of goodies that have nothing to do with stimulating the economy and everything to do with spending money where Democrats want it to go.

Way to put one over on the American people, Democrats.

Lunch Hour Reading

Go read this article right now. Call your Senator and your Congressional Representative and tell this is the stimulus you want, not the BS package that went through the House and is Currently being debated in the Senate.

This bill is a real stimulus package. It doesn't have the immense amounts of pork in the current Senate bill. It also includes language that points to a temporary solution for a temporary problem.

One thing that's nice to note, at least not all Democrats are crazy.

NASA's Climatologists Now Against Anthropogenic Global Warming

If we really listen to climatologists, instead of ex-politicians parading as celebrities, we will see more and more scientists speaking out about the fallacy of CO2 and the failed climate models used to predict dire consequences.

Instead, these climatologists point to cooling global temperatures and a slowing of the "dramatic rise" of ocean levels. In fact, more climate scientists signed on as anthropogenic global warming skeptics than those authors supporting the IPCC report.

It looks more and more like the debate about global warming, far from being over, is just now starting to get going.

See also this article detailing dissent from the IPCC models used to predict global warming.

Hat Tip - Crossfit - Breaking the 'dumb jock' stereotype.

Not Learning from History, Hope We Don’t Repeat It

Obama is all rhetoric and no substance. He talks a good game, mentioning words like "bipartisanship" and "job creation." Unfortunately, his actions don't follow his words. He constantly ignores history when it does not agree with his point of view.

Now he's trying to push through a bloated spending bill disguised as a stimulus package, with almost HALF of the spending happening 2 years from now or more. Spending that far out CANNOT jump start the budget. Even John McCain, who supported the first failed bailout, learned that this spending bill will not be able to dig America out. In addition, everyone knows that the new "temporary" programs put in place by this bill would become another piece of the entrenched Federal bureaucracy.

Now, if we look at what Obama wants to do to help “create jobs” in America, we will realize his policies sound very familiar. These policies include public works and more big government spending, to the tune of over $800 BILLION. In addition, it includes such stupid measures as requirements to “buy American” requirements that have caused more problems in the past than they helped.

As anyone who is a student of history can see, this didn’t work then and it won’t work now. Let's hope Obama and lawmakers realize this before it's too late.

Stand By Your Guns

I'm glad to see the Republicans in the House standing firm and not giving ANY support to the "stimulus package" that was grunted out of the House. This package is more like a flaming pile of poo flung on the American tax payers front door than a real attempt to help fix things now.

Economists agree that for the stimulus to work, it needs to take effect immediately and start pushing things through sooner rather than later. However, reading the text shows that only 20% of the stimulus would be spent this year! What? So why load up the bill with a bunch of crap?

Now we just need to see whether the Republicans in the Senate will fold. I'm thinking no, although I don't see a filibuster on the way.

Are you kidding me?

So apparently the first bail-out wasn't good enough. Now the banks want even more money. Yeah, this makes lots of sense, because the first one worked SO well.

Remember, Albert Einstein's definition of insanity "is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." Maybe it's time to do something different, like stopping the bailout madness and helping the little guys, the individual taxpayers. They could do this by lowering taxes for the middle class (those of us that actually make money and pay taxes) and small businesses, not giving rebate checks to "95% of Americans". In addition, they could refrain from raising the capital gains taxes. After all, tax revenue actually goes UP when you keep the capital gains tax low. Isn't the point of having a tax to actually bring in more revenue? Taxation should have nothing to do with "fairness." If we wanted everything to be fair, we'd have a flat tax.

Now, should we do something that actually brings in more revenue, and push for less government spending, or should we increase taxes and raise government spending? I know which one I'd vote for.

Reasons We Don't Need Universal Healthcare

Universal Health Care seems to be in vogue again, even though the Democrats tried this before and it failed to pass. Part of this may be because the President Elect stated health care was a "right" of all Americans. However, I have to disagree with the constitutional scholar. No where in the Bill of Rights or Constitution do the Founding Fathers indicate that access to the best medical treatment without regard to cost is a fundamental right of all Americans.

In Mr. Obama's argument, he even qualifies the right because we live in a "rich" nation. How does he think we got rich? It's because we had free enterprise and freedom of choice.

There are three major problems with any Universal Healthcare System we may implement. It would increase overall healthcare costs, it would degrade the quality of service, and it would take away our freedom and limit choice.

Contrary to popular belief, a government run health care system would not be any less expensive than our current private payer insurance system. When the need for a universal healthcare system is put forth, usually there is an anecdote of someones mother or grandmother having a hard time paying for something. However, anecdotal evidence does not mean the conditions are universal.

Instead of having privately run institutions with limited boards, we would instead have to develop a large bueracracy at the Federal, state and local level to manage our hospitals and clinics. The higher taxes needed to fund this additional bueracracy would come from our taxes, which are already stretched to pay for current government projects. With both the out-of-pocket expenses we would have to pay and the higher taxes needed to fund the the bueracracy, the American public would indeed end up paying more.

Another consequence of moving to a universal healthcare system would be a degradation in service. Other countries with universal healthcare have slow ambulance response times and long waiting periods for treatment. Now why would we degrade a life saving system just to save a portion of the US population a little money?

Finally, have the Federal Government involved in making decisions about our healthcare and lifestyle will take away choices from Americans. According to 2006 numbers (some of the most recent), 38% of America's uninsured population earn $50,000 or more. That's almost 18 million people who have decided, on their own, that they want to spend their money elsewhere. How can the Federal Government suddenly decide that these people can't make that choice for themselves any longer?

Taken to it's absurd limit, the American public would lose lifestyle choices because of perceived problems from some lifestyles. This means that, even though McDonalds may still offer french fries, you may not be able to eat them. Of course, managing these 'waistline cops' would simply add to the cost of the healthcare budget.

All three of these problems relate to the fact that, in the United States, government was not meant to take the place of businesses. Government should have a limited role in our daily lives.

Hat Tip to Carpe Diem for the uninsured statistics.

The Federal Government Needs to Tighten Uncle Sam's Belt

This article at the National Review Online clearly highlights the financial problems hanging over the heads of the US. We need to tighten our belts and start reducing the deficit. We should have been doing this during the "good times" of economic abundance. We need it more than ever during these times of financial stress.

One of the big things to do to keep the budget in check is to stop giving bailouts to failing businesses. The American people have to live with a limited budget and manage their money well. Why shouldn't businesses be the same?

Like Walker, I also think Obama is on the right track. Limiting earmarks projects or "pork" in the federal budget will do more to help limit spending than most people know. I, for one, would like to see less government spending and less government intrusion in my life.

Opposite Day in Global Economics

I never thought I'd see the day where China makes the right decision for fostering a better business environment and the United States makes the exact opposite (and wrong) decision. The article from the Straits Times details how China is reacting to the global economic slowdown. They're doing the intelligent thing by lowering the tax burden on businesses.

And what is the US response to the economic slowdown? How about trying to nationalize industries and creating public works projects (funded with tax payer money). And if you think FDR's plan worked out well for the US, you should think again. This doesn't sound very capitalistic. In fact, it's quite far from it.

Hey Barry!! Wake up and face reality. Taxes don't work, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise. Try relieving the tax burden of your businesses and lower the threshold for new companies to get started.

(Hat Tip to Hot Air)

Another Goverment Bailout? Please, NO!!

I can't believe the Congress is thinking about another bailout, when the last one worked so well.



This might be one of the reasons why this congress has a lower approval rating than even the late President.

Look, capitalism is simple. Those businesses that aren't able to develop a winning business plan can declare bankruptcy. This isn't the end of the world; far from it. Instead, it is an opportunity to restructure and fix what's broken. If the Big Three get a bailout now, they're just postponing the inevitable time when they HAVE to restructure and fix the problems.

Wow! I couldn't have said it better myself

So I won't even try. Take a look at this very comprehensive listing at Hot Air about why Obama is a dangerous choice for America.

This is a very well researched piece. Notice the writers never try to put words in Obama's mouth. Instead, they simply show video of what Obama stated about specific issues. Where their comments are particularly useful is dissecting what Obama says and why it is important.

And remember, these are simply Obama's own words about how he really feels and what he really plans to do. The definition of gaffe comes to mind. "Gaffe - When a politician tells the truth. "

Let's have more truth.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help - again.

Wow!!

After reading this Wall Street Journal article, I'm more afraid than ever for my country. If the polls hold true, the Democrats will have even more control of the Federal Government. And, as history acknowledges, when the Democrats are in the majority, they push vast government expansions. Expansions that actually encroach on the rights of individuals and limit the freedom of businesses.

If you think I'm wrong, just review the side bar of items that passed the House and were blocked by a Republican filibuster in the Senate. The listed items are all examples of government controls on your life, including prescription drug price controls and "windfall profit" taxes on the oil industry. These examples demonstrate how the Liberal Left is attempting to implement more Socialist policies.

And honestly, does anyone think any of these policies are really good for our country? Price controls on the drug industry? How will this help the drug companies that invent most of the worlds drugs? And we all know taxes on the oil industry would simply lead to HIGHER gas prices for you and I. How does this really help anything?

Please, we need more intelligent individuals in the Legislature and as President to help ensure these types of Socialist laws are not passed.