Democrats 2009: Dissent is manufactured!
As Congress enjoys its summer recess, the details of the healthcare overhaul are being hashed out among the political class and the electorate. Passions are erupting on both sides, with many on the Right going after congressmen in, not only their districts, but others as well. On the Left, the sentiment they cherished throughout the Bush years, dissent, is being dismissed as manufactured by special interests, content with the status quo. Although throughout the buildup and the Iraqi campaign, liberals' talking points were very close to rooting for the enemy, they still had the right to dissent and disagree and those of us who critiqued their talking points made sure we stressed that fact. Unlike six years later, when Obama is pushing a healthcare bill designed to modify about 15% of the US economy, without allowing Congress time to debate it, liberals are calling the same sentiment they cherished so much during the Bush years, as "unpatriotic." Don't sit there confused, you knew it was going to happen...it should be no surprise that liberals often project their feelings on to innocent bystanders.
Throughout President Bush's term, especially after 9/11, liberals were whipped into a frenzy at the thought that he was going to take away their right to disagree. The Obamedia made sure to portray these dissenters as everyday men and women, who were upset at the way President Bush was "destroying this country." They gave them authenticity, even as evidence was uncovered that Hungarian billionaire, George Soros, was funding the entire thing. The contempt shown by the Obamedia and their friends on the Left, towards the protesters at town halls, exposes a recurring theme that has been evident since January 20, 2009, the inability to effectively use the screen to take pressure off the quarterback. One can only imagine the foaming of the mouths of liberals if the Right engaged in this type behavior.
I got the email from the White House that warned me about misinformation during the congressional recess, using one of the president's favorite plays, the strawman. A portion of the email said, "...[o]ver the next month there is going to be an avalanche of misinformation and scare tactics from those seeking to perpetuate the status quo. But we know the cost of doing nothing is too high..." I've said it before, and I'll say it again, no one...and I mean NO ONE, is perpetuating the status quo...at least in the United States. The thought that people who are not only satisfied with their care, are open to reform, but believe that this bill will degrade their care, is not perpetuating the status quo. They don't want what the government is selling right now, especially after Barry-O wanted very little debate on the bills, which currently sit in Congress...and after it was clear the president was talking out of his ass.
Debra Saunders from the San Francisco Chronicle, notes how one Senator, who isn't ashamed at reminding people who she is, went after former Secretary of State Condi Rice for not having any children serving in the Iraqi Conflict, and dismissed criticism of her remarks as "speaking truth to power." Fast forward to 2009, the same senator feels uncomfortable when others "speak truth to power." Even Speaker Mimi has joined the chorus of Democrats, who are being reminded of who their employers are, who claim these protests are not authentic, calling it "astroturfing," (leaving the rest of us wondering "what the hell is in the water in California?). Obviously, these people need to be reminded that this nation was founded on protests that were "organized."
Anti-war protesters beat their chests to show their bravado, and proclaimed they had no fear of BushCo. Their bravery led to some of the most irresponsible rhetoric we've heard from them, and their friends in Congress (I'm sure we all remember Pete Stark's famous speech...and the support it got among the nutroots.). In an op-ed for USA Today, Speaker Mimi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, call out the hanging of effigies, the tombstones, and shouting down members of Congress as "unpatriotic," and "un-American" (funny how none of this mattered when it happened to President Bush and Republican members of Congress...). Paul Krugman claims that no one hounded Republican congressmen during President Bush's push for Social Security privatization in 2005, and Jon Henke wants to remind you how wrong Krugman is.
Jake Tapper of ABC News, reports that the hated Congressional Budget Office has released a report that will continue to absurdify (I made a word!) the rhetoric coming from the White House about ObamaCare cutting costs. The response from Democrats in Congress and at the White House was predictable, upset the CBO never gives their proposals any credit. Liberals continue to berate ObamaCare opponents, but they never say a word about its proposed costs, and the fact that the president didn't want debate on this legislation...kinda like Porkulus, which still hasn't worked.
They're continuing to show nervousness as the underbelly of their agenda is exposed...
Have a great day...
Showing posts with label CBO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CBO. Show all posts
10 August 2009
20 July 2009
Obama: I don't believe I've ever served in Congress...
...because I insist that I inherited this mess upon my first day in office...
Boy, the healthcare reform debate is heating up. The rhetoric is becoming nasty and the strawmen are in endless supply. Opponents to Obama's agenda, or "powergrab," depending on how you look at it, are being cast as satisfied with the status quo. It seems to me those who are quick to smear opponents of ObamaCare and a host of other disastrous programs of his, are unsure whether these policies will work. Obama has had a few pieces of major legislation designed to "fix" the problems that he wants to believe he "inherited." Instead of fixing the problems, they're making them worse, and proponents of ObamaCare continue to believe the shiite coming from his piehole about this legislation saving costs, and even drawing a surplus.
Coming under fire from ObamaAid drinkers is the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Doug Elmendorf, because of a report from Speaker Mimi's office, which claims that the ObamaCare bill, HR 3200, is budget neutral, and produces a Medicare and Medicaid savings of $550B, and a $6B surplus to boot! I am sure you're asking yourself about the discrepencies between what the CBO report claimed last week and what you've read on San Fran Nan's blog. The answer lies in a charge that was made against Enron and Arthur Andersen in 2002...cooking the books. According to Ed Morrissey and Patrick O'Connor, Democrats plan to introduce new accounting rules to take away the constant headaches they suffer from the CBO's reports.
As I have said before, none of these issues deter the most ardent ObamaAid drinker. Michael J. W. Stickings and Zandar and Zandar again, are upset at Blue Dog Democrats and the GOP for having the gall to oppose ObamaCare, on the merits. Zandar is particularly apopletic because of a report by Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly, who claimed that Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, warned the GOP in 1993 to stall HillaryCare because they did not want Billy Jeff to get credit for reforming the healthcare system and lead to an everlasting Democratic majority in Washington(not that HillaryCare was a disaster, much like ObamaCare and that Obama himself didn't want to repeat the HillaryCare debacle...nah, couldn't be that...). But are the memos as horrific as Steve Benen and Zandar claim? Hell nah, it's plainly another episode of Democrat insecurities and fear-mongering (a concept they preached against on 12 September 2001).
The memos stated that Republicans didn't need to compromise on HillaryCare because public support for it had declined, which was true at the time these memos were crafted. The memos discussed how Billy Jeff had planned to use the same strategy used by the current president, to paint his program as rosy as possible, despite public opinion at the time being satisfied with their healthcare coverage. Many opponents of HillaryCare were concerned about its provisions degrading their current coverage, much like ObamaCare would. Like Clinton in the 1993 healthcare debate, Obama is pointing to the vulnerabilities in our own and magnifying them, when only marginal reform is needed. No one is claiming that our healthcare system is perfect, which is the strawman most oft used by this president, Republicans, "ConservaDems," and other conservatives alike, believe, that our system does need reform.
Both Benen and Zandar, and I would presume all those who have used Kristol's memos as some proof that the GOP is opposing ObamaCare, not on its merits, but for political reasons, aren't aware that the same clouds are forming amongst the electorate as they did in 1993. They aren't too keen on what they've heard about ObamaCare and Obama's approval ratings are slipping as a result. But Obama wants us to believe that he hasn't had a hand in our current state, because he wants the electorate to believe that he hasn't been in Congress since 2004...
The president always invoked Dr. Martin Luther King's familiar phrase, "the fierce urgency of now," but he spent that on shoving Porkulus down our throats, does he, and his acolytes believe that he gets a do-over? Perhaps, as McQ (not the John Wayne movie) said, it's not that the opponents of ObamaCare don't have anything to bring to the table, they just don't buy into the fearmongering coming from President Obama and his allies in Congress. The more sunlight shone on this bill, the less of the public approves it. The White House knows it, Democrats in Congress know it...somebody else tell Zandar and Steve Benen.
Have a great day...
Boy, the healthcare reform debate is heating up. The rhetoric is becoming nasty and the strawmen are in endless supply. Opponents to Obama's agenda, or "powergrab," depending on how you look at it, are being cast as satisfied with the status quo. It seems to me those who are quick to smear opponents of ObamaCare and a host of other disastrous programs of his, are unsure whether these policies will work. Obama has had a few pieces of major legislation designed to "fix" the problems that he wants to believe he "inherited." Instead of fixing the problems, they're making them worse, and proponents of ObamaCare continue to believe the shiite coming from his piehole about this legislation saving costs, and even drawing a surplus.
Coming under fire from ObamaAid drinkers is the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Doug Elmendorf, because of a report from Speaker Mimi's office, which claims that the ObamaCare bill, HR 3200, is budget neutral, and produces a Medicare and Medicaid savings of $550B, and a $6B surplus to boot! I am sure you're asking yourself about the discrepencies between what the CBO report claimed last week and what you've read on San Fran Nan's blog. The answer lies in a charge that was made against Enron and Arthur Andersen in 2002...cooking the books. According to Ed Morrissey and Patrick O'Connor, Democrats plan to introduce new accounting rules to take away the constant headaches they suffer from the CBO's reports.
As I have said before, none of these issues deter the most ardent ObamaAid drinker. Michael J. W. Stickings and Zandar and Zandar again, are upset at Blue Dog Democrats and the GOP for having the gall to oppose ObamaCare, on the merits. Zandar is particularly apopletic because of a report by Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly, who claimed that Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, warned the GOP in 1993 to stall HillaryCare because they did not want Billy Jeff to get credit for reforming the healthcare system and lead to an everlasting Democratic majority in Washington(not that HillaryCare was a disaster, much like ObamaCare and that Obama himself didn't want to repeat the HillaryCare debacle...nah, couldn't be that...). But are the memos as horrific as Steve Benen and Zandar claim? Hell nah, it's plainly another episode of Democrat insecurities and fear-mongering (a concept they preached against on 12 September 2001).
The memos stated that Republicans didn't need to compromise on HillaryCare because public support for it had declined, which was true at the time these memos were crafted. The memos discussed how Billy Jeff had planned to use the same strategy used by the current president, to paint his program as rosy as possible, despite public opinion at the time being satisfied with their healthcare coverage. Many opponents of HillaryCare were concerned about its provisions degrading their current coverage, much like ObamaCare would. Like Clinton in the 1993 healthcare debate, Obama is pointing to the vulnerabilities in our own and magnifying them, when only marginal reform is needed. No one is claiming that our healthcare system is perfect, which is the strawman most oft used by this president, Republicans, "ConservaDems," and other conservatives alike, believe, that our system does need reform.
Both Benen and Zandar, and I would presume all those who have used Kristol's memos as some proof that the GOP is opposing ObamaCare, not on its merits, but for political reasons, aren't aware that the same clouds are forming amongst the electorate as they did in 1993. They aren't too keen on what they've heard about ObamaCare and Obama's approval ratings are slipping as a result. But Obama wants us to believe that he hasn't had a hand in our current state, because he wants the electorate to believe that he hasn't been in Congress since 2004...
First, the same folks who controlled the White House and Congress for the past eight years as we ran up record deficits will argue – believe it or not – that health reform will lead to record deficits.
The president always invoked Dr. Martin Luther King's familiar phrase, "the fierce urgency of now," but he spent that on shoving Porkulus down our throats, does he, and his acolytes believe that he gets a do-over? Perhaps, as McQ (not the John Wayne movie) said, it's not that the opponents of ObamaCare don't have anything to bring to the table, they just don't buy into the fearmongering coming from President Obama and his allies in Congress. The more sunlight shone on this bill, the less of the public approves it. The White House knows it, Democrats in Congress know it...somebody else tell Zandar and Steve Benen.
Have a great day...
16 July 2009
Zandar Versus The Stupid: Wingers can't read...
...and neither can I...
There is much buzz around the blogosphere about the 1,000 page bill outlining ObamaCare. Investor's Business Daily, reported that there was at least one "uh oh" provision in the bill that prohibits citizens, who have had private insurance in the past, from applying for private care if they lose it due to job losses or if they decide to become self-employed. If a person is currently insured by a private insurance company, they will be allowed to keep their coverage. Under ObamaCare, a citizen will only be allowed the option of private insurance coverage if, and only if, the public option is available. In an effort to prove that "wingers" are stupid, the Zandar at Zandar Versus The Stupid decides to go off on a tirade against those who are calling ObamaCare a blatant attempt at damaging the private sector. And a side note, if I am reading the text of the bill correctly, those who are covered by private insurance companies before this bill goes into effect, or Y1, the private insurance company has five years to comply with those plans created after Y1.
I guess none of this gives Zandar pause, he views it as Obama Derangement Syndrome (ain't it funny how the Left is stealing ideas from the so-called dumbasses on the Right?). The Congressional Budget Office is predicting that unlike the delirious projections coming from the White House, ObamaCare will not save the federal government any money, and will increase the deficit, as Doug Elmendorf, the director of the CBO, told a senatorial committee. Blue Dog Democrats, who are feeling the heel of San Fran Nan's shoe in their collective chests, believe that ObamaCare will do nothing to insure that healthcare will remain affordable and in the long run, may cost people their jobs. Commenters at Media Matters see no problem with the deficit increasing with this bill, they claim it's all for a good cause (even though no one who read the bill sees it that way)...unlike the Global War on Terror, which as of February 2008, cost roughly $700B, or about $100B a year. ObamaCare, according to the CBO has a price tag of about $1T and climbing.
Allahpundit reminds us that it's been exactly a month since Mr. Elmendorf testified that ObamaCare, with all it's promises of unicorns and gooey gooey gumdrops, will still leave a large number of Amuricans uninsured, not to mention waste even more taxpayer money. Can I just say something here? When the "Spendulus" bill was forced down our throats, we were told that this money would shore up the economy and we'd be well on our way to economic solvency. We were promised transparency and a full accounting of the money spent. "Our money," we were told, "would be spent responsibly." Now, once Obama's felt the heat from the wasteful spending of Porkulus, he claims that the $787B was to be spent over the course of two years. Apparently, this "crisis" wasn't one atall. He wants to do the same with our healthcare system, calling the number of uninsured, a "crisis," and we must do something about it NOW.
But at what costs, Mr. President?
Have a great day...
There is much buzz around the blogosphere about the 1,000 page bill outlining ObamaCare. Investor's Business Daily, reported that there was at least one "uh oh" provision in the bill that prohibits citizens, who have had private insurance in the past, from applying for private care if they lose it due to job losses or if they decide to become self-employed. If a person is currently insured by a private insurance company, they will be allowed to keep their coverage. Under ObamaCare, a citizen will only be allowed the option of private insurance coverage if, and only if, the public option is available. In an effort to prove that "wingers" are stupid, the Zandar at Zandar Versus The Stupid decides to go off on a tirade against those who are calling ObamaCare a blatant attempt at damaging the private sector. And a side note, if I am reading the text of the bill correctly, those who are covered by private insurance companies before this bill goes into effect, or Y1, the private insurance company has five years to comply with those plans created after Y1.
I guess none of this gives Zandar pause, he views it as Obama Derangement Syndrome (ain't it funny how the Left is stealing ideas from the so-called dumbasses on the Right?). The Congressional Budget Office is predicting that unlike the delirious projections coming from the White House, ObamaCare will not save the federal government any money, and will increase the deficit, as Doug Elmendorf, the director of the CBO, told a senatorial committee. Blue Dog Democrats, who are feeling the heel of San Fran Nan's shoe in their collective chests, believe that ObamaCare will do nothing to insure that healthcare will remain affordable and in the long run, may cost people their jobs. Commenters at Media Matters see no problem with the deficit increasing with this bill, they claim it's all for a good cause (even though no one who read the bill sees it that way)...unlike the Global War on Terror, which as of February 2008, cost roughly $700B, or about $100B a year. ObamaCare, according to the CBO has a price tag of about $1T and climbing.
Allahpundit reminds us that it's been exactly a month since Mr. Elmendorf testified that ObamaCare, with all it's promises of unicorns and gooey gooey gumdrops, will still leave a large number of Amuricans uninsured, not to mention waste even more taxpayer money. Can I just say something here? When the "Spendulus" bill was forced down our throats, we were told that this money would shore up the economy and we'd be well on our way to economic solvency. We were promised transparency and a full accounting of the money spent. "Our money," we were told, "would be spent responsibly." Now, once Obama's felt the heat from the wasteful spending of Porkulus, he claims that the $787B was to be spent over the course of two years. Apparently, this "crisis" wasn't one atall. He wants to do the same with our healthcare system, calling the number of uninsured, a "crisis," and we must do something about it NOW.
But at what costs, Mr. President?
Have a great day...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)