Obama: How do we scorn you? Let me count the ways......

Summing up the essential Sad Sack-ness of the Obamanation so far.

Noteworthy:

"....Obama seems to believe that saying one thing, while doing another, somehow makes it so. His first budget was titled 'A New Era of Fiscal Responsibility,' even as his own projections showed a decade's worth of historically high deficits. He vowed no new taxes on 95 percent of Americans, then jacked up cigarette taxes and indicated a willingness to consider new health-care taxes as part of his reform package. He said he didn't want to take over General Motors on the day that he took over General Motors.

Such is the extent of Obama's magical realism that he can promise to post all bills on the Internet five days before signing them, serially break that promise and then, when announcing that he wouldn't even try anymore, have a spokesman present the move as yet another example of 'providing the American people more transparency in government.'

What the new president has not quite grasped is that the American people understand both irony and cognitive dissonance. Instead, Obama has mistaken his personal popularity for a national predilection toward emergency-driven central planning. He doesn't get that Americans prefer the slower process of building political consensus based on reality, and at least a semblance of rational deliberation rather than one sky-is-falling legislative session after another."

And, as already established, that "personal popularity" is an illusion.

(Hat tip: Instapundit.)

Related: Obama's Summer of Discontent.

Key point:

"In sorting through all of this, it would be silly and wishful thinking on the part of Republicans to pretend that Obama is in free-fall. But it would be equally silly and demonstrative of wishful thinking on the part of Democrats to ignore the warning signs. Barack Obama is no longer sailing on a summer sea. A public that was strongly supportive of Obama has, in six months, become increasingly wary of and resistant to his policies. He is governing in a manner that is different, and more liberal, than they were led to expect. Obama's soothing words are beginning to fall a bit flat, as is his effort to blame everything on his predecessor. That worked for a season, but that season has come to an end. And Obama is increasingly beginning to sound (and spin) like a conventional politician.

Worst of all, in my estimation, Obama is prescribing exactly the wrong antidote for our ailing economy. I may be mistaken; if so, and if Obamaism is sound economics, he could turn out to be a political Colossus. But if I, along with others far more knowledgeable about economics than I am, are right, then the ripples we are seeing will soon become large breakers, ones that may well begin to wash away recent Democratic gains and, in the process, do enormous, and perhaps irreparable, damage to modern liberalism."

Wehner is being charitable here.

Obama is in over his head, and the public is starting to figure it out.

#

I wonder when the NEXT 'official revision' on the 'Stimulus' will be forthcoming?

Perhaps just as we get ready for "Stimulus" II?

Also, can we make sure Slow Joe STAYS asleep?

Minor little details about the costs of Obamacare that 'progressives' don't want you to know about

When we consider the hidden costs of entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security, it's clear the true costs of Obamacare are FAR more than what the program's pimps are telling you.

The Hidden Cost of ObamaCare

By Robert Romano

"It is now projected that through 2080, more than $104 trillion will be owed in unfunded liabilities to Medicare and Social Security—or $89 trillion and $15.1 trillion, respectively.

It's an absurd figure to look at, let alone to begin planning to somehow pay for. Yet, such is the hidden cost of entitlements—at least the cost that the Board of Trustees for Medicare and Social Security is now willing to admit to.

And make no mistake about it: It is a cost that will bury the public treasury—along with the taxpayers expected to foot the astronomical, insurmountable bill.

The basic lesson here is that when something—whether it be health care or retirement funds—is guaranteed to everybody, it goes ever deeper into the red.

Far, far into the red. That is why entitlements are not—and never can or will be—deficit "neutral." The total cost is not how much money is allocated by Congress, but how much money Congress promises to continue paying out through the entitlement for decades and decades to come.

The irony is that the $104 trillion price tag, horrendous as it is, may actually be small in comparison to what Americans will really be forced to pay once the new government-run health care plan is implemented.

Consider this: Under the House version of the so-called public "option," individuals up to 400 percent of the poverty level, or making approximately $43,320 or less annually, will be eligible for some level of health coverage under the plan whether through the public "option," Medicaid, or otherwise.

There's a small problem. As of 2006, there were approximately 91.5 million people aged 25-65 who fall into that income bracket, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Factor in the nearly 35 million who were 65 and older at that time, and the total figure comes to over 125.8 million who will be eligible for government-administered health care.

And once the new so-called public "option" crowds out and eliminates all other private health options (as the program's sponsors fully expect it to do according to page 16 of the bill), sooner or later the total entitlement will extend to all 125.8 million.

The cost to taxpayers? Far, far more than we can possibly bear.

Presently, the average premium for single coverage is $4,700, according to the National Coalition on Health Care. If all 125.8 million of those eligible received fully-funded "average" health plans, the total burden to taxpayers would rise to a staggering $591.26 billion annually.

But let's just deal with the 91.5 million aged 25-65. They alone would cost the taxpayers $430.05 billion annually. This means that if nothing else changed—the population, inflation, the average cost of premiums, etc.—by 2080, the unfunded liabilities would rise to $30.1 trillion above the Board of Trustees' current $104 trillion estimate. But, of course, that's a low-ball figure, since the population will rise, inflation will increase, and undoubtedly so, too, will the cost of the average premium.

Of course, Barack Obama is ever-optimistic. Or, perhaps, simply duplicitous. Just a week ago, he said, "I've said that it's got to be budget neutral, it's got to be deficit neutral, and so whatever bill is produced has to be paid for, and that creates some difficulties because people would like to get the good stuff without paying for it."

Well, that's one way of putting it. The fact is, once the hidden costs of these entitlements—Social Security, Medicare, and the public "option—are fully realized over the next century, the American people will not be getting anything good at all—including the most basic health care we now take for granted. A country that has been plunged into decade after decade of half-trillion dollar annual deficits won't have a plug nickel left for adequate health care—and barely enough left for funeral expenses."

Are you sure Biden didn't say this?

From Cato@Liberty:

"Reacting to a statement by former GAO comptroller general David Walker that 'you can’t reduce costs by expanding coverage,' [White House National Economic Council Director Lawrence] Summers said President Obama rejects that view. 'We won’t make progress in costs without addressing access,' Summers said."

Yet another example of the "we-had-to-save-the-patient-by-killing-him" School of Logic, as exemplified by Obamacare and "progressives" in general.

'Next?'

(hat tip: Carpe Diem)

Today's edition of 'Every Picture Tells a Story, Don't It?'

Actually, the label would be more accurate if it said "Wrong v. Right".

(hat tip: Patriot Post US)

#

They've got this one already produced and reading to run when needed

Telling the truth about Obamacare

Don't expect Obama Magnus and the Blue Bozo Brigades to stop lying about Obamacare. They figure they'll get it rushed through into law before you figure out just how bad it actually is.

Noteworthy:

"Many extravagant claims have been made on behalf of the various health care "reforms" now emerging from Congress and the White House. But on closer inspection, virtually all prove to be false.

Yet even as many Americans start to have second thoughts about our government's possible takeover of the health care system, Congress is rushing to make it happen."

Read the rest for the truthful counter to the "Progressive" propaganda.

#

Knock Knock: 'Open up! It's the Obamacare Health Care Police, and we're here for an intervention....'

It's just one more thing to look forward to from Obamacare.

Excerpt:

'We are from the government,' says the man, 'and we’re here to help.'

Is this a scene from the over-heated imagination of an addlepated conspiracy theorist? Or is it something akin to what is actually envisioned by the health-care reform bill approved this week by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee.

The committee’s official summary of the bill says: 'Authorizes a demonstration program to improve immunization coverage. Under this program, CDC will provide grants to states to improve immunization coverage of children, adolescents, and adults through the use of evidence-based interventions. States may use funds to implement interventions that are recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force, such as reminders or recalls for patients or providers, or home visits.'

Home visits? What exactly is the state going to do when it sends people to 'implement interventions' in private homes designed 'to improve immunization coverage of children'?"

Perhaps they'll use the "intervention" to find out if there are any undeclared tobacco users who underpay their Obamacare premiums in the household:

Noteworthy:

"In other words, a person could have been admitted to hospitals three times for heroin overdoses, or been pregnant five times out of wedlock, or been treated for venereal diseases at least once per year for the past five years, but none of these factors could be used to charge that person a higher insurance premium.

If they smoked a pipe it would be a different story—depending, of course, on what was in the pipe. They could be charged a higher premium if it was tobacco—but apparently not if it was marijuana, hashish or crack cocaine.

'Health status underwriting and the imposition of pre-existing condition exclusions are prohibited in all individual and group employer markets,' says the committee’s summary. ' Rates within a geographic region may only vary by family composition, the value of the benefits package, tobacco use, and age by a factor of not more than two to one. Guaranteed issue will be required for all insurers operating in the individual and group health insurance markets.' "

And then, of course, we have the mechanism by which coverage for abortion will be mandated under Obamacare:



After that, it won't be any big deal to morph "mandatory abortion coverage" into just plain old "mandatory abortion", will it?

#

Pat McCrory: Where's Our Stimulus $$??

NC Mayor: Where's Our Stimulus $$??

Shared via AddThis

Libthink at its worst: 'Why We Must Ration Healthcare'

Here's the early rationale and excuse for what's surely on the way with Obamacare:"Healthcare rationing is good for you. And you will like it!"

How offensive is this?

"Rationing health care means getting value for the billions we are spending by setting limits on which treatments should be paid for from the public purse. If we ration we won’t be writing blank checks to pharmaceutical companies for their patented drugs, nor paying for whatever procedures doctors choose to recommend. When public funds subsidize health care or provide it directly, it is crazy not to try to get value for money. The debate over health care reform in the United States should start from the premise that some form of health care rationing is both inescapable and desirable."

Or this?

"Governments implicitly place a dollar value on a human life when they decide how much is to be spent on health care programs and how much on other public goods that are not directed toward saving lives. The task of health care bureaucrats is then to get the best value for the resources they have been allocated. It is the familiar comparative exercise of getting the most bang for your buck."

And this:

"As a first take, we might say that the good achieved by health care is the number of lives saved. But that is too crude. The death of a teenager is a greater tragedy than the death of an 85-year-old, and this should be reflected in our priorities. We can accommodate that difference by calculating the number of life-years saved, rather than simply the number of lives saved. If a teenager can be expected to live another 70 years, saving her life counts as a gain of 70 life-years, whereas if a person of 85 can be expected to live another 5 years, then saving the 85-year-old will count as a gain of only 5 life-years."

We all know the low value roch-et scientist Usual Suspects place on life from their attitudes on completely unfettered abortion rights, but what singer advocates is one step away from a Final Solution mentality toward the elderly, disabled, and others who just don't measure up to some quality of life excuse for rationing.

More on Singer's value system that rejects sanctity of life for his spurious "quality of life" standards:

"The new tradition that Singer welcomes is founded on a 'quality-of-life' ethic. It allegedly replaces the outgoing morality that is based on the 'sanctity-of-life.'

Wesley J. Smith states that Rethinking Life and Death can fairly be called the Mein Kampf of the euthanasia movement, in that it drops many of the euphemisms common to pro-euthanasia writing and acknowledges euthanasia for what it is: killing.

A disability advocacy group that calls itself 'Not Dead Yet' has fiercely objected to Singer's views on euthanasia. Some refer to him as 'Professor Death.' Others have gone as far as to liken him to Josef Mengele. Troy McClure, an advocate for the disabled, calls him 'the most dangerous man in the world today.' "

Sorry, Mr. McClure. I'm afraid that title now belongs to Barack Obama.

There's more:

"He finds notions of 'sanctity-of-life,' 'dignity,' 'created in the image of God,' and so on to be spurious.

'Fine phrases,' he says, 'are the last resource of those who have run out of argument.' He also sees no moral or philosophical significance to traditional teens such as 'being,' 'nature' and 'essence.' He takes pride in being a modern philosopher who has cast off such 'metaphysical and religious shackles.' "

And finally, the absolute worst:

"According to this avant garde thinker, unborn babies or neonates, lacking the requisite consciousness to qualify as persons, have less right to continue to live than an adult gorilla. By the same token, a suffering or disabled child would have a weaker claim not to be killed than a mature pig. Singer writes, in Rethinking Life and Death:

Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.

And writing specifically about Down syndrome babies, he advocates trading a disabled or defective child (one who is apparently doomed to too much suffering) for one who has better prospects for happiness:

'We may not want a child to start on life's uncertain voyage if the prospects arc clouded. When this can be known at a very early stage in the voyage, we may still have a chance to make a fresh start. This means detaching ourselves from the infant who has been born, cutting ourselves free before the ties that have already begun to bind us to our child have become irresistible. Instead of going forward and putting all our effort into making the best of the situation, we can still say no, and start again from the beginning.' "

And THAT is the sort of thing that passes for "mainstream thought" among "progressives", and in the Obamanation these days.

May God have mercy upon us for allowing these things to come to pass!

#

Today's Obamacare "We had to kill the patient to save him" moment

Brought to you by none other than Joe "Hey, I'm Only A Heartbeat Away From Being President" Biden:

“ 'And folks look, AARP knows and the people working here today know, the president knows, and I know, that the status quo is simply not acceptable,' Biden said at the event on Thursday in Alexandria, Va. 'It’s totally unacceptable. And it’s completely unsustainable. Even if we wanted to keep it the way we have it. It can’t do it financially.'

'We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,' Biden said.

'Well, people when I say that look at me and say, "What are you talking about? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?" Biden said. 'The answer is yes, I’m telling you.' "

Who preps this guy for public appearances?

Professor Irwin Corey?

What the reality of Obamacare's 'public option' will ultimately mean to you

And, as we well know, the "public option" means that eventually there will be NO option BUT the "public option", despite what the Obamanation and their Useful Idiot gang wants you to believe.

'Thinking Clearly about Income Equality'

Cato's Will Wilkinson has produced a well thought out monograph that deals with the faulty logic "progressives" use to justify their wrong headed solutions represented by their "Share the Wealth" meme.

Executive Summary:

"Recent discussions of economic inequality,marked by a lack of clarity and care, have confused the public about the meaning and moral significance of rising income inequality. Income statistics paint a misleading picture of real standards of living and real economic inequality.

Several strands of evidence about real standards of living suggest a very different picture of the trends in economic inequality. In any case, the dispersion of incomes at any given time has, at best, a tenuous connection to human welfare or social justice. The pattern of incomes is affected by both morally desirable and undesirable mechanisms. When injustice or wrongdoing increases income inequality, the problem is the original malign cause, not the resulting inequality.

Many thinkers mistake national populations for 'society' and thereby obscure the real story about the effects of trade and immigration on welfare,equality, and justice. There is little evidence that high levels of income inequality lead down a slippery slope to the destruction of democracy and rule by the rich.The unequal political voice of the poor can be addressed only through policies that actually work to fight poverty and improve education.

Income inequality is a dangerous distraction from the real problems: poverty, lack of economic opportunity, and systemic injustice."

Other excerpts:

"If we care about the welfare of the least privileged members of our society, a focus on equality of 'voice' may actually be counterproductive."

"Our goal is to make sure that people have meaningful opportunities to make the most of their lives. At best, income inequality is a distraction."

"It is not okay for intellectuals and policymakers to waste time and energy worrying that some people have done too well. It doesn’t help.

Nor does it help to encourage people to concentrate on differences in income, or to resent them. Demoralization and resentment are not what people need. "

Indeed.

#

Based on her Senate testimony, which cartoon character does Sotomayor most resemble?

John Hinderaker:

"Thus, Sotomayor's characterization of the context of her 'wise Latina' remark is the opposite of the truth. She wasn't 'agreeing with the sentiment that Justice O'Connor was attempting to convey,' as she told Senator Leahy. Rather, she staked out a position in opposition to O'Connor's. In her speech she expressly disagreed with O'Connor's view, as Sotomayor put it, 'that both men and women were equally capable of being wise and fair judges.'

I've been on the fence as to whether Senators should vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor, but this rather breathtaking dishonesty provides strong grounds to vote against her confirmation."

#

Glenn Reynolds, on how Obamacare will stifle medical progress

From the Washington Examiner, via WSJ:

"The normal critique of socialized medicine is to point out that people have to wait a long time for . . . treatments in places like Britain. And that's certainly a valid critique . . . .

The key point, though, is that these treatments didn't just come out of the blue. They were developed by drug companies and device makers who thought they had a good market for things that would make people feel better.

But under a national healthcare plan, the "market" will consist of whatever the bureaucrats are willing to buy. That means treatment for politically stylish diseases will get some money, but otherwise the main concern will be cost-control. More treatments, to bureaucrats, mean more costs . . . .

It's ironic that the same Democrats who were pushing the medical prospects for stem-cell research during the last election are now pushing a program that will make such progress far less likely."

I wouldn't necessarily term it ironic, Professor. I think it may be typical "progressive" short-sightedness in pursuit of a cherished agenda item.

Or maybe it's just flat-out ignorance.

Either way, it would not be out of character for these types, would it?

#

Patrick Leahy: Partisan hack, and still a jerk

Remember Miguel Estrada? Remember what the partisan hack jerk/jerk Dems, led by Leahy, did to him?

Here's what this execrable clown had the nerve to say today, in response to Lindsay Graham's statement that Republican concerns over Sotomayor are based on judicial philosophy, not her ethnicity:

"I'd just note, just so we make sure we're all dealing with the same facts, Mr. Estrada was nominated when the Republicans were in charge of the Senate, was not given a hearing by the Republicans. He was given a hearing when the Democrats took back the majority in the Senate …."

Let's examine the facts of the matter.

Conclusion:

"It is outrageous of Leahy to give his grossly misleading account of the Estrada nomination in a context that vilely insinuates that Republican opposition to Sotomayor is based on her Hispanic ethnicity."

But it's standard operating procedure from the creeps who control our national government.

#

Obama releases terrorists who murdered HUNDREDS of American troops

And yet the Iranian regime who spawned these murdering thugs continues to facilitate terrorist operations in Iraq:

"....Obama’s decision to release the five terror-masters comes while the Iranian regime (a) is still conducting operations against Americans in Iraq, even as we are in the process of withdrawing, and (b) is clearly working to replicate its Lebanon model in Iraq: establishing a Shiite terror network, loyal to Iran, as added pressure on the pliant Maliki to understand who is boss once the Americans leave. As the New York Times reports, Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, put it this way less than two weeks ago:

'Iran is still supporting, funding, training surrogates who operate inside of Iraq — flat out. . . . They have not stopped. And I don’t think they will stop. I think they will continue to do that because they are also concerned, in my opinion, [about] where Iraq is headed. They want to try to gain influence here, and they will continue to do that. I think many of the attacks in Baghdad are from individuals that have been, in fact, funded or trained by the Iranians.' "

Conclusion:

"So Obama is pouring it on while his trusty media idles. When they are not looking the other way from the carnage in Iran’s streets, they are dutifully reporting — as the AP did — that the Irbil Five are mere 'diplomats.'

Obama frees a terrorist with the blood of American troops on his hands, and the press yawns. Senators Jeff Sessions and Jon Kyl press for answers about the release of the terrorist and Obama’s abandonment of a decades-old American policy against trading terrorists for hostages, and the silence is deafening

Except in Tehran, where the mullahs are hearing exactly what they’ve banked on hearing."

Just business as usual, just another day in the Obamanation.

WHEN will we put a stop to this?

#

New Dem tactic to prop up Sotomayor: Smear Frank Ricci

The obnoxious "progressive" group whose name is a lie, the People for the American Way, has decided to personally attack New Haven firefighter Frank Ricci in an effort to deflect attention away from the defective Obamanation SCOTUS nominee. They're joined by opportunistic toadies in several other media venues in slinging slime.

"Supporters of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor are quietly targeting the Connecticut firefighter who's at the center of Sotomayor's most controversial ruling. . . .

On Friday, citing in an e-mail "Frank Ricci's troubled and litigious work history," the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way drew reporters' attention to Ricci's past. Other advocates for Sotomayor have discreetly urged journalists to pursue similar story lines.

Specifically, the advocates have zeroed in on an earlier 1995 lawsuit Ricci filed claiming the city of New Haven discriminated against him because he's dyslexic. The advocates cite other Hartford Courant stories from the same era recounting how Ricci was fired by a fire department in Middletown, Conn., allegedly, Ricci said at the time, because of safety concerns he raised.

Last night, Slate posted "Fire Proof," an article by Dahlia Lithwick detailing Frank Ricci's litigious past."

Smearing people who stand in the way of cherished "progressive" agendas and agenda items is nothing new for these scum sucking slimeball lefty media, groups, and individuals.

We have only to examine the treatment of Sarah Palin to validate those certainties.

#