Big payoffs to unions, free healthcare to illegal aliens, death panels for Americans, limits and rationing to Americans… it’s ALL in the bill (HR 3200).
And remember, folks. We get taxed immediately but none of these wonderful “benefits” actually kick in for FOUR YEARS! So even if you liked this communist paradise you won’t get it for almost half the decade. It makes you wonder… how many dead people will Democrats be responsible for since this bill doesn’t kick in for so long, eh?
These are the things that Democrats want in a nationalized healthcare bill. These are the things that WILL end up passed if ANY part of Obamacare is passed.
This will materially alter the relationship between citizen and government and will put a tombstone over what was the United States of America. If Obamcare passes, the U.S.A. is dead.
The U.S. and the U.K. have moved “substantially” closer to losing their AAA credit ratings as the cost of servicing their debt rose, according to Moody’s Investors Service.
The governments of the two economies must balance bringing down their debt burdens without damaging growth by removing fiscal stimulus too quickly, Pierre Cailleteau, managing director of sovereign risk at Moody’s in London, said in a telephone interview.
Under the ratings company’s so-called baseline scenario, the U.S. will spend more on debt service as a percentage of revenue this year than any other top-rated country except the U.K., and will be the biggest spender from 2011 to 2013, Moody’s said today in a report.
“We expect the situation to further deteriorate in terms of the key ratings metrics before they start stabilizing,” Cailleteau said. “This story is not going to stop at the end of the year. There is inertia in the deterioration of credit metrics.”
… Under its adverse scenario, which assumes 0.5 percent lower growth each year, less fiscal adjustment and a stronger interest-rate shock, the U.S. will be paying about 15 percent of revenue in interest payments, more than the 14 percent limit that would lead to a downgrade to AA, Moody’s said.
This has caused stocks to drop as fears about the US economy continue to grow. Right now, our debt loads are stretched to the max. If our rating drops, it will become more expensive for us to borrow money. We aren’t the only country with this problem — stocks are dropping in the UK and in China as well — but it certainly doesn’t make the matter any better to know we aren’t alone.
Our deficit is over $1.5 trillion right now. Considering our lackluster economy, and the way our government is spending like there’s no tomorrow, it’s not surprising that Moody’s isn’t all that confident about our credit. And the economic geniuses in Washington right now have no plan besides exactly what Obama campaigned on: hope and change. They hope that we’ll see rapid GDP growth, which will change the amount of money in our treasury.
For now, our credit rating is safe. But if things keep going the way they’re going, we’ll no longer be one of the seventeen countries with a AAA credit rating. But look at this graph, and tell me how optimistic you are about us getting our debt and spending under control:
If things keep going the way they are going, we will lose our AAA credit rating. Stocks will continue to drop. The unemployment rate will rise. And yet, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are working to take over 1/6th of the US economy. Clearly, this isn’t the best time to be taking on more government expansion. Right now, politicians should be working on getting our deficit and our spending under control, not taking over health care.
What will it take for Obama to get that message??
Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!
Brace yourself. If President Obama rams through health care with tactics that circumvent the Constitution, obliterates checks and balances and ignores the will of the majority of the American people, be prepared for the same bully tactics to be used in other critical upcoming legislation. If voters think the health care debacle is ugly, expect it to get uglier based on the President’s planned agenda. Health care reform is not the ultimate objective. Devising “the formula” needed to get it passed is. Unlocking the formula to open the floodgates to enact whatever future legislation Obama wants, is the goal. Once the formula is in place, then the Obama administration has the key to do to America and Americans whatever it wants. It won’t matter how Americans vote in the mid-term.
Senate leader Harry Reid revealed that legislative checks and balances were neutered when he said the reason he is pushing so hard for Obamacare is because, “the President wants it.” Democrats supporting a Democrat President is expected, but to do so to the point of rewriting rules and ignoring Constitutional guidelines in order for the President to get his way, eviscerates the legislative branch and empowers the executive branch with unchecked powers. It is dangerous. Our founding fathers warned of its dangers.
The President desperately needs to ram through health care to allow him to use the same tactics to ram through Cap-and-Trade, nationalizing illegal immigrants, education reform, takeover of the airwaves, and more, in a blitzkrieg of legislation. The President’s plan has been laid-out in his own words or in the words and actions by his administration.
Trial balloons were first sent up to gauge the sentiment of the American people so Obama’s team could refine its strategy. Upon receiving negative blowback after demeaning Town Hall attendees, describing returning military as a danger to society, suggesting Americans spy on their neighbors and report “fishy speech,” attacking conservative media, seeking to separate Americans on issues of “clinging to their guns and religion” (implying that doing either was a negative), devaluing the unborn and seniors as dispensable, team Obama stopped wasting their time with an unsupportive public and decided to play hard ball.
President Obama said that he believes the U.S. Constitution, that protects Americans from government tyranny “is fundamentally flawed,” and essentially said in a 2001 Chicago NPR interview that the Constitution should not so much “protect” people, but “provide” for them, thereby turning it into a wealth redistribution welfare document. Obama created a vast shadow-government of Czars, reporting only to him, effectively diminishing the relevance of both the Cabinet and Congress. Media Czar Mark Lloyd opted out of the Fairness Doctrine for the more effective idea of “a 100% tax on operating cost” that could, if implemented, tax private conservative and religious radio out of existence. President Obama diminishes the nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage as laws are passed to legislate God out of society. The President is adamant that he wants control of the Internet during crisis and plans to establish a civilian militia as well funded and powerful as the U.S. military under the oversight of the White House. Some see it as an enforcement arm of the Presidency at the will of Obama to assure compliance to all of the above. Obama’s own words and actions have spurred the mistrust welling up in America.
The amount of damage that can be done to the country by executive order and “reformulated legislation” between now and the November elections may be insurmountable. Is that why Obama has said so cavalierly that the matter can be taken up at the ballot box — after the fact? Conscience is required for Congress to understand the ire of the American people and the cost of standing against this great nation. In this period of our nation’s history with leaders who have demonstrated a willingness to sell-out — the buck, this time, stops with the American people. The time is now, not tomorrow, to let Washington know there will be consequences for their actions.
Sharon Sebastian (DarwinsRacists.com) is an author, writer and contributor for various forms of media including broadcast, print and online websites. Her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, addresses the global “evolution vs. creation” debate highlighting both the impact of Social Darwinism on America’s culture today and its influence on current policy coming out of Washington. Website: DarwinsRacists.com
Pajamas Media is capitalizing on its earlier coverage of the Tea Party movement and has launched Tea Party TV. As the PR release says, “Expanding on its coverage of the National Tea Party Convention last week, PJTV announced its launch of Tea Party TV, offering comprehensive coverage of the Tea Party movement. The cornerstone of the Tea Party TV coverage will be a twice-a-week Internet TV show hosted by Glenn Reynolds and AlfonZo Rachel, well-known commentators on PJTV. ” Since the original PR release, they’ve also added Dana Loesch to Reynolds and Rachel. It’s “the best way to stay informed about the Tea Party movement,” they claim.
So, what is it all, anyway? To answer that I chatted with Glenn Reynolds and we talked about all things Tea Party. Coming down from the stomach flu as he was, we still had a lively talk.
I asked Glenn what sort of future he saw for the tea parties and he said that he was an early booster of the movement even when folks like Roger Simon thought it was all a flash in the pan and would go nowhere. “I think it is the most genuine outbreak of popular grassroots political activism in my lifetime,” Reynolds said, “and so that’s a pretty big deal and I think it’s coming to a crucial time for the country as well.”
Reynolds told me that PJTV wanted to cover the Tea Party movement because the Old Media was doing its best to ignore the whole thing. He praised PJTV as being one of the few to “put eyes on what is the biggest thing politically that’s been going on” in the nation.
One of my worries about the Tea Party movement is that it just might suffer from being too widely diffused. I asked Glenn if he thought it might suffer from not having a few central figures that can be focused upon.
Reynolds:The thing I’ve learned from the internet is that you can accomplish a huge amount with searches of popular entries and you can get more from the Internet in a period of a few weeks to a few months with people who just sort of drop whatever they’re doing and get involved, than you can do in years or decades of professional organization, but I’ve also learned if you want somebody to stick on something and keep plugging, it helps to have somebody who’s paid to deliver it. And that obviously is something you aren’t going to have in a grassroots organization very much.
Keeping with the question of long-term effectiveness, I asked Reynolds how long he felt the movement would remain potent?
Reynolds: I think that it’s going to last through the next election and probably through the election after and what’s going to happen after that is, you know, a lot of the grassroots enthusiasm will fade but it’s going [to] fade and some people [will] just find something else to do which may be political or not. And on the other side of it, it’s going – people are going to leave the Tea Party movement and they’re going to run for office themselves, become cabinets themselves, become precinct chairman or county chairman or members of the state or national party committees and things like that. And you know, that’s what normally happens with grassroots movement if they’re successful, which is, that they become part of the mainstream.
But what of the supposed extremists in the Tea Party movement, I asked. Won’t that just introduce the wackos, as the left and the Old Media claims?
Reynolds: The New Left took the Democrats further away from the mainstream of the American public, its true. But I think the Tea Party is moving the Republicans more in line with the mainstream to the American Public, so it’s more likely to have productive effects.
There is no political movement that doesn’t [have] fringes, but compared to the new Black Panther Party which is getting kissy face from Eric Holder, compared with Bill Ayers, compared with Bernadine Dohrn, compared with Van Jones these are people at the core of the administration Democratic party today, the Tea Party has got no fringe at all.
I pointed out that the Old Media focuses on what they portray as the Tea Party extremists, but it ignores all the extremists always in attendance at the left’s protests. There are actual communists, anarchists, radical abortionists, even animal rights and enviro terrorists but you never see these whack-jobs in the news.
Reynolds: Well, when we had the anti-war protest in 2003, 2004 with the almost sole exception of David Korn at the nation, nobody was willing to point out that those movements were organized by people who are literally, not pejoratively, literally communists. David Korn was we talked about Answer and the Workers World Party and the people who are providing the organizational infrastructure for those big marches on Washington and he wrote about in the nation and in L.A. weekly but places like Washington Post and the New York Times pretended that these are just ordinary mom-and-pop types of middle America coming down. When they don’t give that kind of a treatment to the Tea Party, but that is because they are fundamentally dishonest in their reporting.
I brought up another one of my worries for the candidates that try to rely on Tea Party groups and that is money. The sad fact is that politics means spending money. I asked Glenn if he thought that the Tea Party groups could raise the money necessary to help a candidate they are supporting win an election?
Reynolds: There are three angles to the money front. Angle number one is that in many ways Tea Party activism is the substitute for cash, that is to say, you don’t have to pay people to go out and do yourself because Tea Party people will do it for free.
I read over 6000 people traveled in from out of state to work as volunteers for Scott Brown and you know, and so that’s as good as money and indeed a lot of the publicity, a lot of the support of the Tea Party people produce is far more valuable than paid political ads.
The second thing is that yes, they do raise money as you’ve seen, for example, in the Scott Brown money bombs and for that matter with some of the other fundraising efforts.
The third part is that the real impact of the Tea Party rule on money has in some sense been a dog who didn’t bark which is say since 2005, 2006 Republicans have had a hard time raising money from the grassroots. And those are, I think, the same Tea Party people who decided to quit giving to the Republican Party when they felt it wasn’t living up to it’s principles.
My next question was about candidates claiming to be “the Tea Party candidate.” I think it is a mistake for a candidate to claim this mantle because there are so many groups, no national organization, and therefore it is a bit disingenuous for a candidate to say “I am the Tea Party candidate.” Plus it seems that this could actually work cross-ways and make Tea Party groups mad at the candidate that makes the claim without really having the solid support to back it up.
Reynolds: Well, the problem with that is there is no Tea Party to give you the nomination. The Tea Party is a movement it’s not party. If you support Tea Party principles and Tea Party people back here, then you are [a] Tea Party candidate but you can’t become one by calling yourself one and I suspect people [are] really pretty good at spotting the phony.
Well, it was a very good interview and I was glad Mr. Reynolds took the time with me. I asked him if he had anything to close with about PJTV Tea Party TV and here is what he said…
Reynolds: I think the Tea Party is going to be fun. Dana Loesch has come on board to Spearhead and she’s terrific for a number of reasons, one is she’s just terrific. She’s a really smart, savvy person. She’s very good on radio and TV, and you know does a fair amount of it. I mean she was one of the real movers and shakers in the St. Louis Tea Party movement which is one of the more successful Tea Party movements around the country. So she’s really a great person to have involved and the goal is going to be to really get out there and put the spotlight on people who are actually doing stuff. You know, the stars of Tea Party TV will be the Tea Party activists who are out there doing things and that’s something I’ve done to some degree to my own show on PJTV and will continue to do. But Tea Party TV is just a way of throwing more focus on that and more organized in the same way.
So, once again, thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the time. Please do check out Tea Party TV, folks.
The general public isn’t especially well informed. (They did elect Obama, after all.) And most people want to increase spending.
Liberals are in charge of New York, and it has an $8 billion deficit. Nothing surprising, of course.
The New York Times must know about that deficit–in fact they have even mentioned it in their pages every now and then–so it is funny that they would publish an article in their news section assailing budget cuts for senior centers, which are apparently not utilized by a large segment of the population, anyway.
(Note to the Times: If you have a budget deficit of $8 billion, it means that you are spending $8 billion too much. And it’s kind of hard to keep senior centers open in the first place if you have no money.)
With deficits in more than 40 states and the federal government, the taxpayers inexplicably want to increase spending everywhere. What other explanation is there for the fact that senior center cuts were protested in New York, union employment cuts protested in California, and education cuts protested everywhere?
Last week in the National Day of Action, communist groups nationwide–and a few student groups here and there–protested against rising tuition costs by asking their school administrators to pay teachers more.
I realize that those riots only represent a small portion of the American population, but there is more widespread anti-balanced budget sentiments elsewhere. According to a poll by Pew Research services (and similar polls by Gallup and elsewhere), 67 percent of people want to increase government spending and only 6 percent want to cut it.
67 percent said they wanted to increase education spending, 61 percent want to increase healthcare spending (which is already one-sixth of the economy), 53 percent think that Medicare should be increased so that it can go bankrupt before 2019, and on and on. Even the Republicans have been making political hay out of the Democrats’ attempts to cut Medicare spending.
(The Democrats are only trying to use Medicare cuts to increase entitlements for all, but the point remains that it’s most voters are against Medicare cuts and reacting as such to the healthcare debate.)
In a 2007 New York Times poll, a majority of respondents said that the government should guarantee healthcare for all. Obviously the caveat is that it’s a New York Times poll, but there are other polls with similar results of insane people saying that healthcare should be a right, even as 80% of the people, even in the Times poll, said that they were satisfied with their healthcare. (As a side note, the government already guarantees healthcare for all.)
I’d also like to ask the 67 percent who want to increase education spending how exactly they think increasing education spending will actually educate more people. Perhaps they could look at the Los Angeles Unified School District and see how well their $25,000 per pupil* is working out for them?
Moreover, can someone tell me how increasing school funding will make single parents teach their kids to attend school and value learning?
Whenever there’s a problem, everyone will rush to funding to fix the problem and no one will ever let go of their own government money.
A whole lot of people who support more taxes and spending–or, more likely, less taxes and more spending–would be better off with less spending. Maybe some people get a little bit of benefits from wherever, but most people don’t need much in benefits, and they’d have more left over with less taxes and less spending. Benefits are mostly paid out to people who don’t pay taxes. When did America become a nation that values failure, a nation where people actually try to be dependent and take pride in it?
Looking at government’s purpose as improving a nation, why does government pay out welfare and “social programs” to people who don’t contribute to the success of the nation? Shouldn’t we do what is best for the nation?
Everyone knows we’re at a $14 billion national debt. Everyone knows Medicare and Social Security put the debt at over $50 billion. Why does everyone want to keep spending? What do these people actually think is going to happen? Why does everyone think that you don’t need to spend money to buy stuff? What’s the solution?
If the trends keep going this way, here’s one solution:
Learn Chinese.
Mitchell Blatt writes a weekly political column at MitchBlatt.com that you can subscribe to by email and receive every Monday in your inbox.
So, what is it all, anyway? To answer that I chatted with Glenn Reynolds and we talked about all things Tea Party. Coming down from the stomach flu as he was, we still had a lively talk.