Supreme Court upholds Obumblecare

The Supremes just handed down their decision on Obamacare, and it says we’re screwed.

280 Comments

  1. I hold these truths to be self-evident:

    Government among men is a necessary evil and must be effectively limited, or over time or it will expand to enslave the individuals whose rights it was instituted to protect. The government that governs least is the government that governs free men best.

    The US Constitution was ratified by the several States to limit the size and scope of the federal government in order to protect the individual rights of free men. An amendment process was included to ensure that our Constitution remains as a shield against government erosion of individual freedom and liberty.

    Any expansion of government beyond the absolute minimum specified in the Constitution comes only at the expense of the individual rights of the people and must be rejected if freedom is to endure.

    Anyone who seeks to expand the power of government outside the constraints of the Constitution is an enemy of the people.

    Barack Obama is an enemy of the people.

  2. “WSJ Chief Economist: 75% of Obamacare Costs Will Fall on Backs of Those Making $120K or Less”

    Well duh!

    Of course, about 98% of Americans earn less than $120k.

    Although unintended by any one on message for Fox News, this statement illustrates the huge income and wealth disparity which has come to characterize our country, promoted by Republican policies!

    Duh!

  3. Kudos to Wagonwheel. I agree with all your points (except the nonsense about unions protecting ” employees against exploitive employers, private or public” ). Unions in the private sector are fine, they have to negotiate with the owners. Unions in the public sector are an abomination, they “negotiate” with politicians, not We the People who are the actual employer. And BTW, if the public sector is “Exploitive” then I’m a virgin.

    So now that we agree on the poor record of Big Government, should I expect you to switch to Republican? After all, dictator Obama just levied a huge tax on all us “middle” Americans. You know, the guy who only wants to tax the rich. I assume that now you know Obama is a liar and a fraud you must be ready to switch party.

    And yes, the Republican Party is just as much “big government” as the Democratic Party. That’s why we need to get rid of them all. Hey, we’re making progress, we agree on something; Big Governmant sucks!

  4. Ropelight concludes:

    “Barack Obama is an enemy of the people.”

    Ropelight, if you are going to criticize President Obama and the Dems, to be honest about it, isn’t it time for you to also criticize President Bush and your own party, to this very day, since it is the policy of your Republican Party to favor big governemnt as well? Of course it is! Look at the evidence!!

  5. “… this statement illustrates the huge income and wealth disparity which has come to characterize our country, promoted by Republican policies!”

    Just when I thought you were finally getting it you go and blow it all with a stupid statement. Republican policies do not promote “wealth disparity”, they promote wealth creation. Just because some create more wealth than others does not make it wrong. You’re an odd one Wagonwheel. You’ve lived 77 years in a nation that has created more wealth and a better life for more people than any other nation or people in the history of the world and all you see is “disparity”. Go live in Somalia and see how bad capitalism is.

  6. I intended to post the comment at 09:35, the earlier version was a draft and was posted inadvertently. Would someone with access please delete it? Thank you.

    Into the ether world it went quietly, no screaming, Ys

  7. “Kudos to Wagonwheel. I agree with all your points (except the nonsense about unions protecting ” employees against exploitive employers, private or public” ). “

    Well I’m glad we’ve found some common ground, Hoagie.

    Regarding the actual tax on middle Americans, according to Chief Justice Roberts, the tax is the penalty which individuals and businesses would pay to the IRS for not signing on to the Health Insurance, estimated to be about 1% of Americans.

    I’m sure you are thinking about the amount individuals and businesses will pay for their and their employees insurance premiums. They are of course insurance premiums mandated by the government, but not taxes.

    This is a good thing, because it will insure tens of millions of more people, with the potential for reducing premiums from what they would have been otherwise, because there would be more healthy people in the pool. Moreover, we would have fewer people showing up at hospital emergency facilities @ ten times more than the cost of treatment by a single medical doctor. Finally, the preventative care aspects of the PPACA will improve the health of all Americans, thus lowering costs.

    I am convinced that when we look back at the PPACA in say ten years, as we have looked back at social security and medicare, most Americans will have a favorable view of this historic advance in health care. During the start up and phase in period, it will have rough edges as we discover mistakes in the original bill needing correction. We should expect that and not be too surprised.

  8. Wagonwheel, I still can’t figure out why you critisize president Bush “to this very day” considering he is a damn liberal. Oh that’s right, he’s a Republican which makes him evil to the core even as a liberal Republican. It amuses me that you so dispise Bush that the guy who created Medicair Part D (which at 77 I’m sure you use) and No Child Left Behind, both leftist, unfunded, perpetual liabilities PLUS went into an unprovoked war in Iraq (kinda like Clinton did in Bosnia), all liberal policies. Has to be the (R) after his name, cause he was a liberal, just like you. Therefore I must conclude you have a pathological hatred for (R)’s just because they’re (R)’s. I guess in your little world there’s no room for opposing opinions.

  9. Let’s get back to the meat and bones on this Act: I have to buy health insurance now for myself and my son. When I was employed it cost a total of $600 per month for a high deductible plan split 50/50 between myself and my employer. So in total (including the $6000 deductible) the insurance company received $13,200 per year to insure myself and my son before a dime of insurance was even paid out. Trust me – we never got close to meeting any deductibles (thank the Lord!)

    Now, the insurance companies have to accept everyone, cannot restrict or deny based on anything health-related or otherwise (such as when you decide to purchase – you could just take the tax hit until you get sick and really need insurance), have to insure children up to 26 years, etc. What in the world will the premiums/deductibles be for me and my son now?? Unaffordable for sure! And most likely the very minimal of coverages for an “affordable” plan!

    Another question I have is related to the premise that those who are uninsured primarily use the ER to get their health care and this is part of the problem as to why costs are so high. Well, that may be true, but I’ll bet it’s mostly illegals doing this. Will they also now be required to buy health insurance? Since they don’t file taxes they can’t be fined for not having it so we’re back to square one again with people still circumventing the system and causing health care costs to go up even with this Unaffordable Act.

    To me the bottom line is that the poor in this country already were receiving free health-care in the form of Medicaid. The elderly receive Medicare. The rich don’t have to worry either way – they could purchase insurance or self-insure. The working middle-class are the ones who, once again, are getting screwed. Thank you so much oh wise and powerful Congress. Thank you ever so much!

    I really hope I’m wrong and this ends up helping the hard working middle-class who literally live paycheck to paycheck to keep a roof over their families’ heads and food on the table. But I’ve never witnessed a government program that didn’t start off well-intentioned and balloon into a blob of waste, fraud and abuse. Where these families are going to find an extra $1000 (or more) a month to insure their family is beyond me.

  10. “Republican policies do not promote “wealth disparity”, they promote wealth creation. Just because some create more wealth than others does not make it wrong. You’re an odd one Wagonwheel. You’ve lived 77 years in a nation that has created more wealth and a better life for more people than any other nation or people in the history of the world and all you see is “disparity”.”

    True, however, our sense of fair compensation has become out of whack for several decades, where the middle class employee has not been fairly compensated for his productivity compared to the top executives and many business owners. This must be corrected, and it is up to corporate executives and business owners to do so on their own.

    I feel very fortunate that my 77 years spanned a period of time when I was fairly compensated for my productivity, enabling my wife to be a stay-at-home mom as long as our daughters’ upbringing required a parent at home, enabling us to college educate both of our daughters, with both contributing too, through getting their masters degrees, enabling us to give each one a really nice wedding ceremony, and enabling retirement now in independence and comfort.

    My life has been the American Dream. Sadly, younger people educated and qualified similar to me, do not have that same dream to envision.

    And you know what? The Mitt Romney types are accountable for contributing greatly to the demise of the American Dream. I view this with great sadness.

    I think President Obama understands this very well, but has come into this game in the fourth quarter, trying almost single-handedly to turn the game around, against ferocious headwinds many of which are not in his control.

  11. Wagonwheel, you should be prepared to be in a perpetual state of denial as the onion of Obamataxcare is peeled back revealing all the taxes, all the costs and all the failures of the state. I noticed the IRS added thousands of new employees to deal with what you deny is a tax. Last time I looked the IRS only deals with taxes, not insurance.

    BTW, do you have Medigap insurance? I’m sure you do. You know why you have Medigap insurance? Because the government can’t provide it under Medicaire. Too expensive. So what makes you think they can mandate coverage for everyone and “reduce” the costs? Do you actually understand how insurance works? The sole job of an insurance company is to asess risk. If there’s a mandate to accept all risks (prexisting condition) it’s like mandating your car insurance company to insure your car after an accident. Insurers don’t buy claims. You can’t buy life insurance after you’re dead, you can’t insure your car after the accident and you can’t buy homeowners insurance after your house burns down. Similarly, you can’t buy health insurance after you develope cancer.

    Now, there are ways to deal with bad risks and preexisting conditions. The car insurance industry uses a “high risk” pool. IOW, if you have ten speeding tickets a DUI and two accidents you can get insurance…at a price. As it should be. If you’re a race car driver or sky diver you can buy life insurance….at a price. As it should be. We as a nation could create a “high risk” pool for pre existing conditions at much lower cost and much greater freedom to the individual than Obamataxcare. But that would require the government giving up making another 30 million voters dependants. Gotta have everyone on some form of the Dole to keep’em voting for more dole. Ask Greece how well that works out.

  12. “What in the world will the premiums/deductibles be for me and my son now?? Unaffordable for sure! And most likely the very minimal of coverages for an “affordable” plan!”

    NosyNeighbor, you are raising very important questions. On this one, your premiums will be lower than they would otherwise be, for three reasons: 1) More healthy people will be insured, 2) streamling of health care provision will lower medical costs, and 3), more competition due to the state exchanges to be set up. The problem is that we have waited way too long to improve our system, so that our costs per capita are almost two times the nearest competitor. Over time, premium costs should continue to drop. Unfortunately, for you and many others, it is not happening quickly enough.

    Your second question about illegals overusing emergency rooms for care. I’m sure they do, but the proportion would not very great. Consider that we have about 50% of our citizen population at or under 133% of the poverty line (about $15,000 income), these (and more!) are the folks who would use the emergency rooms of hospitals. There are about 10,000 illegal immigrants, so there would be fewer using emergency rooms.

    “The working middle-class are the ones who, once again, are getting screwed. Thank you so much oh wise and powerful Congress. Thank you ever so much!”

    You are absolutely right about that! The PPACA (ObamaCare) is targeted directly at the neglected middle class. Presidents Nixon, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and now Obama have tried to address this issue, so finally we have a start on this lapse which is now the law; things are finally going to get better for the middle class, and those who have had to use the emergancy rooms, will be able to go to the doctor’s office instead.

  13. Like rabid dogs in the street tyranny copulated with evil and brought forth entitlements, labor unions, collectivists, and the dark stain of dependant whelps.

    You can see their parasitic descendants today feeding on those they hate.

  14. Wagonwheel stated: “True, however, our sense of fair compensation has become out of whack for several decades, where the middle class employee has not been fairly compensated for his productivity compared to the top executives and many business owners. This must be corrected, and it is up to corporate executives and business owners to do so on their own.”

    You see Wagonwheel, there you go again. What makes you the decider of what “fair compensation” is? How do you hold yourself up as an expert as to who has been “fairly comensated for his productivity”? How many people do you employ? And if you were to employ someone, how would you compensate them? I’ve had managers who worked for me who thought they were worth more than I thought they were worth. You know what they did? They quit and went for a higher paying job. They are after all employees, not slaves or indentured servants and as “middle class employees” are free to come and go as they wish. No owner, no businessmsn worth a grain of salt pays an employee more than he’s worth. By the same token no smart businessmsn pays an employee less than he’s worth or he’ll loose that employee. So in reality you are totally unqualified to decide the value of any employee unless he works for you. So you can spout off about how unfair everything is but untill you are the one writing the paycheck you really don’t count.

  15. “I noticed the IRS added thousands of new employees to deal with what you deny is a tax. Last time I looked the IRS only deals with taxes, not insurance.”

    Hoagie, I already pointed out your error about the “tax”, being the penalty for non-compliance. The rest is folks paying their insurance premiums. This is not a tax. Only the penalty part of the mandate is a tax. The IRS is not involved in the premiums, which are between you and your choice of health insurance company, or your employer’s choice if your insurance is provided by your employer.

    “So what makes you think they can mandate coverage for everyone and “reduce” the costs? Do you actually understand how insurance works? The sole job of an insurance company is to asess risk. If there’s a mandate to accept all risks (prexisting condition) it’s like mandating your car insurance company to insure your car after an accident. Insurers don’t buy claims. You can’t buy life insurance after you’re dead, you can’t insure your car after the accident and you can’t buy homeowners insurance after your house burns down. Similarly, you can’t buy health insurance after you develope cancer.”

    In your argument here you are only including insurance companies having to cover those with preexisting conditions, including being a woman, btw. These folks drive up premium costs. But you are forgetting the infusion of millions of younger folks who are healthy. These folks drive down premium costs. The claim is that the latter, reducing premium costs, predominates over the former.

    I understand your point about the alternative of having high risk pools. I don’t think this is applicable for medical insurance, because the premiums would be much higher than the situation with car insurance due to the extremely high cost of caring for those with preexisting conditions. Preexisting conditions require more hospitalizations, surgeries, specialized treatments and drugs. You know that the costs for these folks can be astronomical. Traditionally health insurance companies have used their in-house “death panels” to decide who do and do not get the coverage required.

    There are no easy solutions, but I think the PPACA is a good start, finally!

  16. “… your premiums will be lower than they would otherwise be…”

    Ah, there it is! I knew it was only a matter of time before the liberals would say “well, yeah. Your premiums are going UP but they would have gone UP MORE had it not been for Obamataxcare”.

  17. ” But you are forgetting the infusion of millions of younger folks who are healthy. These folks drive down premium costs. The claim is that the latter, reducing premium costs, predominates over the former.”

    Oh no, I’m not forgetting that. I just don’t believe it. Premiums for “younger folks” are far too low to counteract the costs of the sick. BTW, forcing “millions of younger folks” to buy something they may not want or buy on their own to provide ” more hospitalizations, surgeries, specialized treatments and drugs” for some old fart is despotic.

    I didn’t know being a woman is a preexisting condition. I’ll have to inform June she is now an official victim.

  18. WW – I don’t understand your premise that its the poor who are using the ER for their primary care – if they are making $15,000 or less per year then they qualify for Medicaid (and with children the income threshold is even higher to qualify) and can use regular doctors and pharmacies for free (or a very small co-pay). So if they are still going to the ER than its simply out of ignorance or laziness or both. And no law can fix stupid! They will still be able to go to the ER instead of making an appt. with a doctor even with this law if they really wanted to – yes? According to your theory they already are since they obviously qualify for government health insurance yet are still using ERs.

    Also I question your assertion that there will be more healthy people in the pool of insured. I’m sure there will be healthy people coming in but you don’t know how many more unhealthy people will also be brought in so you just don’t know what the end result will be.

    And my most important question – where are these working, struggling, middle-class families supposed to find $1,000 a month to insure their families? What makes you think they won’t take the $700 tax hit instead and keep their young(ish), healthy(ier) bodies out of the pool?

    What exactly do you mean when you say “streamlining health care provision will lower medical costs”? Explain this please.

  19. * Is it big government to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies? Of course!

    When you abort a baby, you are killing another person’s body. You claim to be pro-life, so why do you always support the pro-aborts?

  20. NN asked WW:

    What exactly do you mean when you say “streamlining health care provision will lower medical costs”? Explain this please.

    Our Democrat from Delaware is telling us that the federal government is going to make something more efficient and less expensive. The Democrats can always explain how it is supposedly going to work, but can never seem to point out examples where this has actually been done in the past.

  21. “You see Wagonwheel, there you go again. What makes you the decider of what “fair compensation” is? How do you hold yourself up as an expert as to who has been “fairly comensated for his productivity”? How many people do you employ? And if you were to employ someone, how would you compensate them? I’ve had managers who worked for me who thought they were worth more than I thought they were worth. You know what they did? They quit and went for a higher paying job. They are after all employees, not slaves or indentured servants and as “middle class employees” are free to come and go as they wish. No owner, no businessmsn worth a grain of salt pays an employee more than he’s worth. By the same token no smart businessmsn pays an employee less than he’s worth or he’ll loose that employee. So in reality you are totally unqualified to decide the value of any employee unless he works for you. So you can spout off about how unfair everything is but untill you are the one writing the paycheck you really don’t count.” (my bold)

    Pay attention, Hoagie. Here is what I said: “This must be corrected, and it is up to corporate executives and business owners to do so on their own.”

    In times like these, employees are constrained regarding job availability. I contend that employers have been taking advantage of this situation, which is why middle income wages have been stagnant, and employers compensation continues to increase relatively speaking, in multiple proportion for those in the upper couple of percent.

    Their poor decisions, probably motivated by undue greed, are responsible for middle income decline. It is not that people are not working hard; in fact, they are working harder, as measured by their productivity.

    You see, Hoagie, it may not be the best policy to drill wages down to the lowest possible. But I understand well that either you don’t understand, or don’t care, probably the latter.

    Compared to my American Dream lived, today’s middle are seeing their pensions cut or eliminated, their health care cut or eliminated, their overtime cut or eliminated. Now I never got paid for overtime, because I was a so-called professional and manager, but I worked plenty of it over the course of my career, by willingly volunteering. We had a job to do, and there were important deadlines. I guess you would call my employer enlightened, because they rewarded hard work and productive outcomes very well, not to mention my company paid $300 deductible health insurance including major medical coverage, and wellness programs, and non-contributory pension. Actually, in those days, most corporate employers offered similar salary and benefits packages.

    Those days are gone, is my point, and you and Mitt Romney, and all others with your attitude, have contributed to this demise, in my view. Shame on you all for downgrading the American workers who are more productive than ever before in our history.

  22. “Oh no, I’m not forgetting that. I just don’t believe it. Premiums for “younger folks” are far too low to counteract the costs of the sick. BTW, forcing “millions of younger folks” to buy something they may not want or buy on their own to provide ” more hospitalizations, surgeries, specialized treatments and drugs” for some old fart is despotic.

    I didn’t know being a woman is a preexisting condition. I’ll have to inform June she is now an official victim.”

    First of all, your second sentence contradicted your first, so you are very confused, Hoagie.

    Secondly, premium costs are lowered by mandating that lower risk folks, younger ones, carry health insurance. Same exactly with auto insurance, which all of us are mandated to carry.

    You have not yet absorbed the point that uninsured folks who show up at the emergency room cost ten times more than their going to the doctor. We pay that cost with higher insurance premiums and higher hospital bills, while they are treated free. And you are trying to defend this, Hoagie. You have turned your logic/intelligence motor off!

    Therefore, in your ignorance, you have made yourself into a despot.

  23. Unions in the public sector are an abomination, they “negotiate” with politicians, not We the People who are the actual employer.

    Agreed. Government employee unions automatically pit the union against the taxpayers they are supposedly serving. It turns the two sides into enemies, with the politicians playing the role of camp prostitutes.

  24. You have not yet absorbed the point that uninsured folks who show up at the emergency room cost ten times more than their going to the doctor.

    Do you have any proof to back up that statement, or is it just more Obama propaganda?

  25. And you know what? The Mitt Romney types are accountable for contributing greatly to the demise of the American Dream. I view this with great sadness.

    More lies. Mitt Romney has created tens of thousands of jobs. Give him credit where due!

  26. Go live in Somalia and see how bad capitalism is.

    No, send him to North Korea, home of Big Government. Perry should LOVE it, after all, they even have government run health care!

  27. In your argument here you are only including insurance companies having to cover those with preexisting conditions, including being a woman, btw. These folks drive up premium costs. But you are forgetting the infusion of millions of younger folks who are healthy. These folks drive down premium costs. The claim is that the latter, reducing premium costs, predominates over the former.

    If you believe this, then you also believe in fairies and unicorns. Why will a forced mandate lower costs? If everyone is forced to buy health insurance (a totally un-American concept) then the insurance companies can charge you whatever they want, and you will have to pay for it. Dana made this point recently with the example that, if car ownership was mandatory, the car companies could charge an extra $5,000 per car, and get away with it.

    Economics is clearly not your strong suit!

  28. Hoagie, I already pointed out your error about the “tax”, being the penalty for non-compliance. The rest is folks paying their insurance premiums. This is not a tax. Only the penalty part of the mandate is a tax. The IRS is not involved in the premiums, which are between you and your choice of health insurance company

    And that’s another thing. Obamacare greatly reduces the choices you have in health insurance by mandading coverage for things you might not need or want. That’s what part of the stink about forcing insurance companies to cover birth control is all about.

  29. NosyNeighbor responded:

    “WW – I don’t understand your premise that its the poor who are using the ER for their primary care – if they are making $15,000 or less per year then they qualify for Medicaid (and with children the income threshold is even higher to qualify) and can use regular doctors and pharmacies for free (or a very small co-pay). So if they are still going to the ER than its simply out of ignorance or laziness or both. And no law can fix stupid! They will still be able to go to the ER instead of making an appt. with a doctor even with this law if they really wanted to – yes? According to your theory they already are since they obviously qualify for government health insurance yet are still using ERs. (my bold)”

    Good point, NN. But I think you hit on the key point. Why bother with the medicaid bureaucracy when all you have to do is walk into an emergency room and get treated, no questions asked?

    Also I question your assertion that there will be more healthy people in the pool of insured. I’m sure there will be healthy people coming in but you don’t know how many more unhealthy people will also be brought in so you just don’t know what the end result will be.

    Another good point. I refer you to this study, which says on pages 8-10: “Given this significant reduction in the number of the uninsured, it is not surprising that the individual mandate will also significantly reduce the cost of uncompensated care. With the mandate, the Affordable Care Act will reduce the cost of uncompensated care by $39 billion, compared a reduction of only $19 billion with the Affordable Care Act structure without a mandate.
    This indicates that the uninsured do shift costs to taxpayers, health care providers, and private health insurance—and that a reduction in this cost shifting will save taxpayers money, increase provider
    revenue, and lower private health insurance premiums. Moreover, estimates indicate that the individual mandate will work as intended to counter adverse selection. The CBO concluded that the mandate will “encourage a broad range of people to take up coverage in the exchanges.”

    As a result, the CBO estimates that the influx of healthier enrollees will reduce average premiums by up to 10 percent in the direct-purchase market. Conversely, eliminating the mandate
    would result in adverse selection, increasing premiums by up to 20 percent in the direct-purchase market. This is consistent with other estimates.”

    And my most important question – where are these working, struggling, middle-class families supposed to find $1,000 a month to insure their families? What makes you think they won’t take the $700 tax hit instead and keep their young(ish), healthy(ier) bodies out of the pool?

    Good question! I don’t know that anyone knows the answer until we see what happens. If too many opt out and pay the fine, perhaps the fine will be raised. Moreover, these are the people who will show up in the emergency room, thus raising costs for us all. Yet we have to treat them, don’t we?

    What exactly do you mean when you say “streamlining health care provision will lower medical costs”? Explain this please.”

    This refers to centralized record keeping across health care providers, making use of the latest in digital technologies.

    It is a pleasure to find you on here attempting to dig in and understand, in contrast to most of the others on here who respond only to their ideologies, who are short on detailed factual information, or even questions, but are long on assumptions.

  30. “And that’s another thing. Obamacare greatly reduces the choices you have in health insurance by mandading coverage for things you might not need or want. That’s what part of the stink about forcing insurance companies to cover birth control is all about.”

    I don’t think you are correct, Eric, therefore citation please!

  31. “If you believe this, then you also believe in fairies and unicorns. Why will a forced mandate lower costs? If everyone is forced to buy health insurance (a totally un-American concept) then the insurance companies can charge you whatever they want, and you will have to pay for it. Dana made this point recently with the example that, if car ownership was mandatory, the car companies could charge an extra $5,000 per car, and get away with it.

    Economics is clearly not your strong suit!”

    I refer you to my post to NoisyNeighbor and the cite therein, for your edification.

    Moreover, Dana’s point is incorrect, because in the PPACA, the exchanges, for those in states which opt in, will provide competition. And you do not understand, Eric, this PPACA is not government insurance, it remains to be provided by private insurance companies! When will you learn that you have to comment from knowledge, not slipping into your usual mode of assuming things?

  32. WW:
    I feel very fortunate that my 77 years spanned a period of time when I was fairly compensated for my productivity, enabling my wife to be a stay-at-home mom as long as our daughters’ upbringing required a parent at home, enabling us to college educate both of our daughters, with both contributing too, through getting their masters degrees, enabling us to give each one a really nice wedding ceremony, and enabling retirement now in independence and comfort.

    My life has been the American Dream. Sadly, younger people educated and qualified similar to me, do not have that same dream to envision.

    When you started to work, it wasn’t too far into the work year that you earned enough money to pay all the taxes you would pay that year. But now, it takes almost to the end of May to earn enough money to pay your taxes to the end of the year. Which meant, you had more disposable income as a percentage of your pay to buy things people may not be able to do now. With less spending, comes less hiring because of demand for goods is LOW, as it is for those who make things. That’s Economics 001. The more the Gummint takes from you, the less you have to spend. DUH!

  33. Wagonwheel says:
    July 2, 2012 at 11:24

    “I noticed the IRS added thousands of new employees to deal with what you deny is a tax. Last time I looked the IRS only deals with taxes, not insurance.”

    Hoagie, I already pointed out your error about the “tax”, being the penalty for non-compliance. The rest is folks paying their insurance premiums. This is not a tax. Only the penalty part of the mandate is a tax. The IRS is not involved in the premiums, which are between you and your choice of health insurance company, or your employer’s choice if your insurance is provided by your employer.

    Then explain why the gummint by this bill are hiring MORE IRS AGENTS if it’s not a tax? And while you are at that, the money spent on the IRS Agents does NOT do a thing for the quality of care. Now if they hired Doctors instead of IRS AGENTS, you might have something there.

  34. I don’t think you are correct, Eric, therefore citation please!

    “I don’t think” is not an adequate response, especially when I gave you an example of mandated coverage in the form of birth control. In a true free market, you could buy the kind of insurance coverage YOU want, not what the government demands. That alone drives up costs.

  35. Moreover, Dana’s point is incorrect, because in the PPACA, the exchanges, for those in states which opt in, will provide competition

    If the government is forcing everyone to buy health insurance, then mandates the kind of coverage they must get, costs will naturally go up. One Republican plan is to allow competition across state lines, which will greatly increase competition overall. Even better, on top of that, place no restrictions on what insurance companies must cover, and costs will come down even further. And it maximizes individual freedom in the process. If you are a freedom loving American, that’s what you would favor, but if you’re a left wing big government loving ideologue (is that you?), you will be opposed.

  36. Eric says:
    July 2, 2012 at 14:53

    PS Perry, I notice you ducked my question about why you always support the pro-aborts.

    Pro-Choice always stumped me since the other side was always pro-life. So, in reality, wouldn’t it be pro-life, and pro-death? My thinking is if you are pro-choice, you really are non-committal and don’t care, but if choice for the baby to live or die, you’re covered. There were some twits about a year ago saying you should really have a choice after birth up to about a year whether the kid lives or dies.

  37. “Pay attention, Hoagie. Here is what I said: “This must be corrected, and it is up to corporate executives and business owners to do so on their own.”

    Wrong again Wagonwheel. It is you who needs to pay attention to what you’re writing. You stated “This must be corrected”. “This” being “the middle class employee has not been fairly compensated for his productivity”. If you believe something “must be corrected” then it follows that you believe something is wrong. In this case it would follow that you believe employees ar not being fairly compensated. Now I contend, as a person who has had thousands of employees in my career, that employees are paid exactly what they’re worth, no more no less. Therefore you have somehow decided that employers are underpaying their employees and yet you are neither an employer nor one of said underpaid employees. You have no direct knoweldge nor direct participation in what you percieve needs correcting.

    How much should a restaurant manager be paid Wagonwheel? How about an electrician, a pharmacist, an auto mechanic? You have no idea any more than I do, therefore you can’t say anyone is under paid or over paid. You’re making the classic error of the left by believing if the owwner or employer makes more money than the employee he must be doing it out of “greed” as you put it. And that’s why liberals should be kept out of government and the economy. You guys make broad accusations and sweeping decisions based on…..thin air. Or hot air if you like.

  38. “Wrong again Wagonwheel. It is you who needs to pay attention to what you’re writing. You stated “This must be corrected”. “This” being “the middle class employee has not been fairly compensated for his productivity”. If you believe something “must be corrected” then it follows that you believe something is wrong. In this case it would follow that you believe employees ar not being fairly compensated. Now I contend, as a person who has had thousands of employees in my career, that employees are paid exactly what they’re worth, no more no less. Therefore you have somehow decided that employers are underpaying their employees and yet you are neither an employer nor one of said underpaid employees. You have no direct knoweldge nor direct participation in what you percieve needs correcting.

    No, Hoagie, you’re not paying attention at all. My direct knowledge: 1) My own experience, which I discussed, being much better for me that the prospect for young people today. Did you read that part? 2) The continuous skewing of income toward the upper couple of percent. I also wrote that before.

    “How much should a restaurant manager be paid Wagonwheel? How about an electrician, a pharmacist, an auto mechanic? You have no idea any more than I do, therefore you can’t say anyone is under paid or over paid. You’re making the classic error of the left by believing if the owwner or employer makes more money than the employee he must be doing it out of “greed” as you put it. And that’s why liberals should be kept out of government and the economy. You guys make broad accusations and sweeping decisions based on…..thin air. Or hot air if you like.”

    Your answer is you pay the least that you can get away with, I understand that. As a businessman, if you want to attract quality employees, you will pay a bit above the competition, including benefits. My company had that philosophy, and we were the best company in our field for many decades, still are. We did have a downturn in the ’80′s, for a number of specific reasons both within and outside the company, which I won’t detail now. But over the next few years, we shifted our objectives, the economy imporved, so our marketing, our manufacturing, our solutions and have been back on track since, the best, a reliable, steady growth stock highly valued.

    And by the way, show me where I have ever said that the owner should receive the same income as their employees. No wonder you are so far off, you don’t remember what I have written, which is OK because we all do that, but then you make up stuff that I never said, which is not OK.

    You have this crazy idea, Hoagie, that since you have had thousands of employees, that the rest of us should just shut up, because you know it all. I do not respect that attitude.

  39. On the topic of Obama’s so-called Insurance Exchanges:

    Exchanges may provide the appearance of competition to the intentionally ignorant, but appearance isn’t reliable, far from it, appearance is often the result of carefully calculated deception.

    Actually, the manufactured appearance of competition in ObamaCare’s insurance exchanges is nothing less than proof of price-fixing. And, that’s a crime, or a tax, or a penalty, or a contribution to Democrat campaign coffers. Which is it?

    Well, it all depends on who is compelled to pay-up under pain of official entanglements and who gets fat on extortion money squeezed from the sick and the elderly who have little choice but to pay the equivalent of bribes to Democrat death panels or die from neglect. Don’t feel cheated, Democrats are only skimming a little off the top for expenses, don’t ya know.

    If anyone seeks real competition then the doors of interstate commerce must be opened wide and health insurers from every corner of the nation allowed to openly display their products for public inspection, without the heavy thumb of federal government influence on the scales. It work for every other sector of the economy, why does ObamaCare deny competition for health care insurance?

    The unfettered free market is the one and only mechanism for ensuring true competition. Anything else is Democrat Party corruption, attempting to exchange the illusion of value, for the pretense of compassion.

  40. Regarding the actual tax on middle Americans, according to Chief Justice Roberts, the tax is the penalty which individuals and businesses would pay to the IRS for not signing on to the Health Insurance, estimated to be about 1% of Americans.

    Just remember, PAP lied to us when he stated that the term “tax” was explicitly in the healthcare bill. And Obama and his surrogates continue to deny the penalty is a tax.

    Why do these radicals continue to feed their falsehoods to the American people?

  41. WW wrote:

    Moreover, Dana’s point is incorrect, because in the PPACA, the exchanges, for those in states which opt in, will provide competition.

    Why should they?

    In businesses where you have a choice to not buy at all, the competitors must not only compete in price with each other, but keep their prices low enough so that there will be enough people who want their products more than they want the number of dollars it will cost them. With health insurance mandatory, that part has been removed from the equation: the health insurance companies know that virtually everyone has to buy, so they can raise prices. They don’t need to collude on this: one company taking the initiative will be followed by the next, and the next, and so forth, and that is perfectly legal.

    You even recognize this economic reality, in the things you have supported in the past. You want the price of petroleum fuel to be increased to the point at which alternative energy sources become competitive, so that people will have a “choice” of buying from the alternative sources as well as the petroleum-based ones. The alternatives keep the price of petroleum down a bit, because the petroleum companies don’t want to admit more competition into the mix. Everyone has to buy energy in some form.

  42. “PS Perry, I notice you ducked my question about why you always support the pro-aborts.”

    “Pro-Choice always stumped me since the other side was always pro-life. So, in reality, wouldn’t it be pro-life, and pro-death? My thinking is if you are pro-choice, you really are non-committal and don’t care, but if choice for the baby to live or die, you’re covered.”

    Geeze, Eric, you’ve been on here how long? Longer than I. But since you are well on to 50 years old, your memory is beginning to fade a little. You should by now know my view on this.

    I am pro-choice/anti-abortion, meaning that I don’t approve of your big government wish to invade a woman’s prerogative or her body. This is not my choice, this should not be your choice, this choice is reserved for a woman, in which she has until the beginning of the second trimester to make her choice. What is it about this which confounds you, Eric?

    And Yorkshire, you are misusing the American language wrt the strict definition of a baby: a newborn organism. Referring to a fetus as a baby is loading the meaning for inflammatory purposes, although I do notice that modern dictionaries give fetus = baby as the second meaning of the word. I don’t think anyone would call a newborn baby a fetus, thus these meanings are not interchangeable. So fetus = baby is OK, but baby = fetus is not OK. Have you ever said to your wife: “Let’s go over to daughters house so we can play with her fetus?” :) Please, let us use our language correctly.

  43. “Just remember, PAP lied to us when he stated that the term “tax” was explicitly in the healthcare bill. And Obama and his surrogates continue to deny the penalty is a tax.

    Why do these radicals continue to feed their falsehoods to the American people?”

    I made a mistake, not permitted in koolo’s fantasy world.

    What did Mitt Romney call the penalty when he was MA Governor? He called it a penalty or a fee. I guess that’s OK for Romney in koolo’s limited partisan world!

  44. I made a mistake, not permitted in koolo’s fantasy world.

    Oh, it’s permitted, all right. But it just took you several days to do this after being called on it time and time again. Y’know, the ‘ol “citation please!” which went continually went unanswered while you made excuse after excuse for the administration!

  45. “Why should they [compete]?”

    Isn’t the answer rather elementary, to get more business?

    “You even recognize this economic reality, in the things you have supported in the past. You want the price of petroleum fuel to be increased to the point at which alternative energy sources become competitive, so that people will have a “choice” of buying from the alternative sources as well as the petroleum-based ones. “

    Well yes, that’s true, but gradually, along the lines that the Europeans and Japanese did years ago. Now both countries have well developed transportation infra-structure. I know, I’ve been there done that in both places, even to the point where we plied the network of canals for a week in the UK with a converted 70 foot long boat converted from commerce use into a house boat, diesel engine and all. Great fun! In fact it was this same time of year in 1985, Wimbledon tennis time, so we took a train ride from London to spend a day at the quarterfinals on a Friday, at the same stage of the tournament that tomorrow will be, the quarterfinals. Seems like yesterday…wonderful!

  46. “Oh, it’s permitted, all right. But it just took you several days to do this after being called on it time and time again. Y’know, the ‘ol “citation please!” which went continually went unanswered while you made excuse after excuse for the administration!”

    Probably untrue and surely trivial. Is that all you have today, koolo?

  47. “The unfettered free market is the one and only mechanism for ensuring true competition. Anything else is Democrat Party corruption, attempting to exchange the illusion of value, for the pretense of compassion.”

    Looks like ropelight forgot all about our Great Recession. That’s fine, I just feel sorry for you! :(

  48. WW wrote:

    “Why should they [compete]?”

    Isn’t the answer rather elementary, to get more business?

    But ObumbleCare means that the insurance companies will have all of the business available; there will no longer be any unserved customers. And anyone who has been through MBA school can tell you that price is usually the strongest single component of profit. If they all raise their prices about the same amount, they all maintain roughly the same market share, by percentage, plus the 30% — or whatever% — increase in the number of customers forced in by ObumbleCare, most of which is paid for by government subsidies.

  49. You have this crazy idea, Hoagie, that since you have had thousands of employees, that the rest of us should just shut up, because you know it all. I do not respect that attitude.

    Well, you SHOULD respect his experience, which, when it comes to being an employer, greatly exceeds your own.

  50. Editor says:
    July 2, 2012 at 19:56

    WW wrote:
    “Why should they [compete]?”

    Isn’t the answer rather elementary, to get more business?

    But ObumbleCare means that the insurance companies will have all of the business available; there will no longer be any unserved customers. And anyone who has been through MBA school can tell you that price is usually the strongest single component of profit. If they all raise their prices about the same amount, they all maintain roughly the same market share, by percentage, plus the 30% — or whatever% — increase in the number of customers forced in by ObumbleCare, most of which is paid for by government subsidies

    If this abomination turns out like The Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program, Which I have been in for over 33 years, there will be competition. What I have seen in that time is one company offers a plan that would cover your needs, and the price would be low. Well the herd mentality said save money, go there. The next year that same policy doubled or more, and the herd went to the next group.

    Me, with all my issues, said in one supplier so as not to get smacked with a pre-existing condition. But I would say if BO and his band of idiots play this as the FEHB where you can pick your coverage and company, it could work. If BO and idiots drive out competition becuase they have no understanding or concept of what the word means and does, we’re screwed. FEHB DID NOT have a one size fits all. Depending on your marital status, children, and the coverage you want, or need the price do compete. But I do not grant this level of intellectual thinking to this administration. The reason I say this, they are controll freaks. And control freaks usually (fornicate it up to the inth degree) it up.

  51. I am pro-choice/anti-abortion, meaning that I don’t approve of your big government wish to invade a woman’s prerogative or her body. This is not my choice, this should not be your choice, this choice is reserved for a woman, in which she has until the beginning of the second trimester to make her choice. What is it about this which confounds you, Eric?

    Your argument makes about as much sense as being a vegetarian hunter. You are opposed (you claim) to killing innocent unborn babies, and next you say it is perfectly OK.

    PS It’s not the body of the woman that is in question, but that of the baby. So quit spreading the “It’s her body”, lie, will you?

  52. Pro-Choice always stumped me since the other side was always pro-life. So, in reality, wouldn’t it be pro-life, and pro-death? My thinking is if you are pro-choice, you really are non-committal and don’t care, but if choice for the baby to live or die, you’re covered. There were some twits about a year ago saying you should really have a choice after birth up to about a year whether the kid lives or dies.

    Perry is the typical Man of Moral Mush. He wants points for sounding compassionate for unborn babies while at the same time pandering to the left wing Feminazis.

  53. Geeze, Eric, you’ve been on here how long? Longer than I. But since you are well on to 50 years old

    You have no idea how old I am, just as you have no idea what I do for a living.

  54. Probably untrue and surely trivial. Is that all you have today, koolo?

    LOL … “probably untrue.” Merely look back through this very thread. Duh.

    And it ain’t trivial when you perpetually demand citations and then — get this! — fail to provide them yourself! Who’da thought?

    Ah, the ever-entertaining PAP rocks on with his duplicitous hilarity.

    Just remember, PAP: Obama lies, taxes rise.

  55. You people ought to stop your hateful rhetoric and figure out what you need to do to win the next election.

    It is simply amazing to me how much out.and.out hatred is exhibited on this blog every day by you self-proclaimed Conservatives, with only occasional exceptions. You people need to take a deep breath! This is no way to win elections. Sure, your base will support you, regardless, but how about the other demographics you need to win? Right now, you folks are your own worst enemies.

    For example, Sunday on Fox and on abc, Chris Wallace and George Stephanolopous respectively asked your Senate leader Mitch McConnell repeatedly what he would do to replace PPACA and insure 30 million Americans. He said that is not the issue, but he would reject PPACA anyway. A very confused man he is!

    Aside from this hatred and rejection, you folks are going to have to get your candidate, Mitt Romney, onto a message which will move your agenda forward, and hatred will not do this. As it is turning out, Romney’s record as Governor and Bain Capitalist is not a winner, easily exploited by his opponents, for obvious reasons. His record as a savior of the Olympics is a winner. So would a replacement plan for PPACA, if he comes up with one, plus a solid education and job retraining plan. Most of all, Romney also needs a jobs plan, and a reasonable plan to begin to pay down the national debt, but not the Ryan austerity Plan which has already proven to be a non-starter.

    The SCOTUS decision on PPACA has gotten your party so discombobulated that you are making no sense whatsoever in piecing together a campaign to carry you on to a good election outcome for your side. Voters don’t respond to haters, but they do respond to proposed plans which are aimed at strengthening our weaknesses.

    Moreover, you Super PACs, if they continue the hate-attack, will turn too many people off.

    So far, I’m seeing only hatred and negativity from most of you people. At this rate there is no way that you are going to win.

    Why would I even care about what Republicans do in the campaign? Because I think that a good debate on the issues can strengthen our country and our unity, that’s why.

  56. So far, I’m seeing only hatred and negativity from most of you people.

    Gosh. There’s a surprise. I say we give this opinion about as much weight as a neutrino.

  57. Because I think that a good debate on the issues can strengthen our country and our unity, that’s why.

    Give us a royal break. What you really believe is that conservatives/the GOP surrendering to your point of view is what strengthens our country and our unity. You don’t fool anyone anymore … and neither does your hilariously named blog.

  58. I repeat:

    “It is simply amazing to me how much out.and.out hatred is exhibited on this blog every day by you self-proclaimed Conservatives, with only occasional exceptions. You people need to take a deep breath!”

    And the hatred continues. You are not one of the exceptions, koolo. Now take a deep breath! Your psyche needs a boost.

  59. And the hatred continues. You are not one of the exceptions, koolo. Now take a deep breath! Your psyche needs a boost.

    Oh sure! My previous two comments were SOOOO “hateful!” But it’s certainly not surprising that PAP believes such — after all, he believes that “bridging the gap” means one needs to cave in to his beliefs.

  60. ” But it’s certainly not surprising that PAP believes such — after all, he believes that “bridging the gap” means one needs to cave in to his beliefs.”

    Hardly, koolo, but with your typically unspecified attack like yours here, you might get a one word response, which you did get, deservedly so, for insufficient effort, from a school teacher no less. :)

  61. Hardly, koolo, but with your typically unspecified attack like yours here, you might get a one word response, which you did get, deservedly so, for insufficient effort, from a school teacher no less.

    Perhaps you might show us where on your blog you’ve attempted to “bridge gaps.” That’d sure go a long way to convincing not only me, but I’m fairly certain everyone else who frequents this site.

  62. Romney’s record as Governor and Bain Capitalist is not a winner,

    It IS a winner. I pointed out that he created tens of thousands of jobs, which you did not dispute, never mind the Democrats endless lies about him. Do you support LIARS, Perry?

    plus a solid education and job retraining plan. Most of all, Romney also needs a jobs plan

    Job retraining programs are a waste of money.

  63. Just remember, folks, when Perry talks about hatred, that it is Perry who is the absolutely most hateful person commenting on this site. Why, he has already declared any devout Christian and any devout Jew to be an abomination simply by their being devout.

    You are the abomination, Mr Hitchcock, for considering these words in the Bible, which has been written by men, to be some sort of a truth from god.

    That truly is all you need to know about Perry’s sick, twisted, immoral, hate-filled mind.

  64. “That truly is all you need to know about Perry’s sick, twisted, immoral, hate-filled mind.”

    For those who do not accept Mr Hitchcock’s version of religion, this statement is the result.

    And notice how carefully he has taken the quote out of context.

    You are one disturbed individual, John!

  65. “You don’t fool anyone anymore … and neither does your hilariously named blog.”

    Egoism continues with koolo, thinking that he can speak for everyone. This suggests that he has no confidence in his own statements standing alone, so he jumps on the “we”. You’ve got yourself figured out very well, koolo!

  66. Of course, the aptly named PAP pulled an MSNBC for I also said this:

    Perhaps you might show us where on your blog you’ve attempted to “bridge gaps.” That’d sure go a long way to convincing not only me, but I’m fairly certain everyone else who frequents this site.

    Also notice he’s not up to that challenge, for his blog’s title is a hilarious and total falsehood.

  67. Wagonwheel says:
    July 3, 2012 at 21:30 (Edit)

    “That truly is all you need to know about Perry’s sick, twisted, immoral, hate-filled mind.”

    For those who do not accept Mr Hitchcock’s version of religion, this statement is the result.

    And notice how carefully he has taken the quote out of context.

    You are one disturbed individual, John!

    That was in response to these words Perry previously said:

    You are the abomination, Mr Hitchcock, for considering these words in the Bible, which has been written by men, to be some sort of a truth from god.

    There is no more context needed than those exact words you said, Perry. You have declared that people who hold to the Bible and people who hold to the Torah are abominations. You have declared that you reject portions of the Bible straight out. In fact, you reject nearly all of the Bible (and ALL of the Torah), and that portion of the Bible that you hold out, you twist and dement completely out of shape and completely away from its meaning in order to put forth an anti-Christian, Tenth Commandment-violating Jesus that never existed except in the minds of anti-Christian atheist Socialists.

  68. WW wrote:

    For example, Sunday on Fox and on abc, Chris Wallace and George Stephanolopous respectively asked your Senate leader Mitch McConnell repeatedly what he would do to replace PPACA and insure 30 million Americans. He said that is not the issue, but he would reject PPACA anyway. A very confused man he is!

    Hardly confused, because that is exactly what I would do: repeal ObaminableCare, and replace it with nothing, but let the law revert to what it was before the incompetent from Illinois became President.

    You are framing your arguments based on the assumption that the government must do something to take care of the currently uninsured; you have completely failed to understand that some of us — your Editor, most certainly — do not believe that it is the government’s responsibility or duty to take care of people who don’t choose to buy or cannot afford health insurance.

  69. You are framing your arguments based on the assumption that the government must do something to take care of the currently uninsured; you have completely failed to understand that some of us — your Editor, most certainly — do not believe that it is the government’s responsibility or duty to take care of people who don’t choose to buy or cannot afford health insurance.

    The Texas Tenther fully agrees with the Editor.

  70. “You are framing your arguments based on the assumption that the government must do something to take care of the currently uninsured; you have completely failed to understand that some of us — your Editor, most certainly — do not believe that it is the government’s responsibility or duty to take care of people who don’t choose to buy or cannot afford health insurance.”

    Exactly, Mr Editor; you have articulately encapsulated your attitude and your extremism, extremism based on what all other developed nations have long since done to increase the wellness of their citizens, quite successfully I might add, when compared to the wellness statistics of our good old (thinking) USofA!

    Your retro thinking has long since proven to be out of date and incompatible with the needs of our American brothers and sisters.

    I’ll give you credit for being at least honest enough to admit to your hard-heartedness. Too bad and sad that you cannot be persuaded otherwise.

    We will see how far attitudes like yours will get you in the upcoming General. No wonder in desperation you people have actively ramped up voter suppression efforts, while simultaneously denying that you are doing so. But we’ve seen all this before, and will oppose it actively!

  71. Yeah, after John Roberts shredded the US Constitution in his ruling, the American Public soured on SCOTUS; its approval rating tumbled. In fact, the very day the US Constitution-killing ruling came out, the Romney campaign got over 20,000 contributions totaling over 2 million dollars! For those who cannot do the math, that’s an average of only 100 dollars per contributor.

    No, Perry, it isn’t we of the over 40 percent who are the extremists. It is you, who are in the Left half of the barely 20 percent, who are the extremists. And another top-to-bottom Conservative wave is coming in November. Republicans will gain seats in the US House, will gain a solid majority in the US Senate, will gain further majorities in more State legislatures, will gain more Governorships, will gain more Mayorships and majorities in City Councils, putting a further stop to the radical Leftist, anti-American agenda you espouse.

  72. I’ll give you credit for being at least honest enough to admit to your hard-heartedness. Too bad and sad that you cannot be persuaded otherwise.

    Spare us the sanctimonious bullshit, Perry. Anyone who says things as vicious as you said to John H merely for believing in the Bible has no decency in him at all! You should be ashamed of yourself.

  73. Your retro thinking has long since proven to be out of date and incompatible with the needs of our American brothers and sisters.

    There’s nothing retro about favoring freedom over Big Government.

  74. Perry, the real proof will be in the success, or failure, of liberal policies. Y’all touted a huge stimulus plan, which was going to rescue the economy, hold umemployment to a maximum of 8%, and have it down near 6% today; by its own markers, it has been an expensive, pathetic failure, and all that y’all are left with is whining, “Well, things would have been so much worse if we hadn’t,” a totally unprovable assumption,¹ and, “It’s all George Bush’s fault!” We now have a huge health care reform law which y’all touted, which has now, before it’s even fully implemented, seen its estimated costs double — as conservatives told you all along — and which will not produce anything close to what you all projected it would do and sold it as doing. You can save this comment, because it is an Official TFSJ Prediction. You have been telling us what a great safety net disability coverage is, but we’ve already seen the growth in disability to such a huge extent that it has to indicate fraud . . . as even you admitted.

    __________________________________
    ¹ – John Hitchcock noted that not a single one of seventy professional economists expected the Institute for the Supply Management’s factory index to show contraction, so your Editor would suggest that the opinion of prominent economists is not proof of anything.

  75. Obama’s Stimulus plan did 2 things, it stimulated more debt and it stimulated Obama’s campaign contributors to set-up phony green energy scams so they could get loan guarantees and loot the treasury.

    ObamaCare was sold as a cost saving health care reform, but it included $813 Billion in new taxes while Obama and his enablers lied to the public, they pretended no one making under $250k would see a tax increase knowing full well they were setting the stage for a Constitutional crisis.

    in addition to an unconstitutional mandate compelling the purchase of health insurance on pain of a coercive and escalating penalty.


  76. Your retro thinking has long since proven to be out of date and incompatible with the needs of our American brothers and sisters.

    I’ll give you credit for being at least honest enough to admit to your hard-heartedness …:

    Break out the violins.

    For a guy who rejects the idea of objective truth he sure likes to disgorge a lot of secular kumbayaist crap about brotherhood and “hard-heartedness” as if it all referred to some kind of objective moral standard or meaning.

    Well, obviously just more of that strategy of eliciting from others through cynical wheedling, duplicitous rhetoric, and moral misdirection, what it is not yet strong enough to take for itself and its allies through sheer and unapologetic force.

    When the organisms of the left finally do feel that they have reached that social tipping point, perhaps conservatives will finally wake up to what they have really been dealing with all along.

Comments are closed.