Category Archives: Political polemics

Posted on March 21, 2010 | Leave a comment

From Paul Ryan
President Obama said in December: “If we don’t pass [this health care legislation]…the federal government will go bankrupt, because Medicare and Medicaid are on a trajectory that are (sic) unsustainable….” On first hearing, this argument sounds ludicrous: We must stop the nation from going broke by enacting a program costing $800 billion or more in the first decade alone? On the other hand, if the president means what he says, there is only one way to achieve his stated goal under the new program: through deep and comprehensive rationing of health care.”

Leave a comment

Posted in Political polemics

Tagged , ,

ACORN, ALINSKY and OBAMA

Posted on March 20, 2010 | Leave a comment

ACORN is The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. It is the embodiment of the teachings of Saul Alinsky. A review of Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicalswill be published here at Random Thots early next week. In the video here, Barack Obama, once a community organizer himself, assures members of ACORN that his agenda as President will be shaped by their input.

The Obama Campaign Fund gave $800,000 to ACORN. This is money that came from a broad spectrum of contributors specifically to support the election of Barack Obama. A portion of these funds were then redistributed to the activist group ACORN. So spread-the-wealth actually started before the election.

Bob B

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Posted in Audio/Visual, Political polemics

Tagged , ,

Posted on March 19, 2010 | Leave a comment

How to earn over $50,000 and pay no income tax

Get married and have two kids. Just one more thing, be typical. That is all you have to do.

More than one third of all income tax filers paid no federal income tax for the year 2008. When the returns for 2009 come in, the number will surely be higher. We are not talking about no additional tax with the return, we are talking about no tax, period. That means if tax was withheld from your pay check, either you got it all back in a refund or you did not make the list.

A typical family of four making less than $51,000 paid no tax at all for 2009 according to a report by The Tax Foundation. Furthermore, some of those non-payers got a “rebate” ( see my post on propagandic). In other words, some of your money, if you pay taxes, was given directly to someone who paid no taxes. This kind of rebate occurs only in the government sector. You cannot get a rebate on an automobile purchase unless you purchase an automobile.

It has been said that Democracy will continue to exist only until the majority of voters realize they can vote largesse for themselves from the government. Aristotle warned “If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city.” We are witnessing Democracy at the crossroads.

Bob B

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Posted in Political philosophy, Political polemics

Tagged ,

DINO’s – DEMOCRATS IN NAME ONLY

Posted on March 19, 2010 | Leave a comment

Voting on a pig in a poke, with emphasis on the pig

A Rasmussen poll finds just 20% of likely voters believe most of our Representatives will understand what is in Pelosi’s health care bill before they sign it. How could they know?!  The crafty crafters are not releasing the contents. Even Obama revealed to Bret Baier that he does not know what is in the bill.

The Washington Times says “The Democrats are assaulting the very pillars of our democracy”. They are correct.

Obama promised to heal the divide. His “Change” has transformed the divide into a Grand Chasm not seen since the civil war.

Pelosi promised to clean the swamp of Republicans. Under her leadership we no longer have a swamp of Republicans. We have a cesspool of Democrats.

What we have are DINO’s, Socialists who are Democrats In Name Only.

Leave a comment

Posted in Political polemics

Tagged , , ,

DISCOVERY – CAPITALISM CAUSES INSANITY

Posted on March 19, 2010 | Leave a comment

The New York Times Online has a regular feature called “The Idea of the Day”. The idea for Feb 17th was that capitalism causes neuroticism. The idea was centered on a study printed in a publication by the name of “Eurozine”, based in Germany. Here are some excerpts.

“There is good reason to assert the existence, […] of a new type of capitalism, neuro-capitalism”

“…what links capitalism with neuroscience is not so much strict regulation as a complex system of systemic flaws. Repressive late nineteenth-century capitalism, with its exploitive moral dictates, proscriptions and social injustices, was a breeding ground for the neurosis diagnosed by scientists in the early twentieth century as a spiritual epidemic.

The article is long and your time is valuable, so I will spare you from the rest of it, except the conclusion. It is too entertaining to miss.

“The psychologically relevant question of how the self will relate to a mood-enhanced, more capable version of itself is rendered irrelevant by the fact that the requirements of the new capitalist reality make an individual improvement of this kind appear a highly desirable option. Indeed, as a consumer and commodity value appropriate to capitalism, it has already been in currency for some time. Alongside globalisation – the capitalist rationalisation of space and time – we are witnessing the epistemic and technical rationalisation of the neural foundations of the self, or what Walker Percy called the abstraction of the self from itself”

Now, dear reader, if you consider yourself a capitalist, and if you understand what the authors have just said in this their summary and conclusion, then I must consider their premise may be valid after all.

Or perhaps you think our nations leading newspaper is just putting us on. It’s true, the item is ridiculous to the point of being funny, but I am afraid they are serious. Lest you doubt me I offer this, another sample from the “Idea of the Day” feature. It was submitted by a reader and published immediately following Obama’s election.

The free market did I embrace,
Derivations and hedges took place,
Now I’m short on my cash
I’m feeling the crash,
The redness, it shows on my face.

— Thank God America is now Socialist.

We have a tough row to hoe to reclaim America. I am writing a blog. It is not much, but it is my best. What are you doing?

Bob B

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Posted in Political philosophy, Political polemics

Tagged , ,

Posted on March 18, 2010 | Leave a comment

From The Hill, Online

The co-chairwoman of the Blue Dog Coalition says that using a controversial “deem and pass” mechanism to pass health care reform would be “poison.”

In a conference call with reporters today, Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.), who is a “firm no” on the bill itself, said the process Democrats are considering would spell disaster for the climate in Congress.

Neither “reconciliation” nor “deem and pass” have ever before been used by Republicans or Democrats for forcing the passage of controversial bills. These tools were handshakes of agreement on substance with discretion given for minor details in the interest of bureaucratic efficiency.

To Stephanie I say, we already have a spell of disaster in the climate in Congress. There are too few Democrats left in Washington who are as principled as you appear to be.

Leave a comment

Posted in Political polemics

Tagged

KILLING BIN LADEN

Posted on March 18, 2010 | Leave a comment

Can an Osama assassination by drone save the Obama presidency? It looks like this is Obama’s ace in the hole. It might work. Even the far left would probably forgive him for it.

He has lost support from the left for keeping prisoners in Guantanamo and support from the middle for extending rights to live terrorists, rights never intended for combatants in war. A policy of take no prisoners would solve both of those problems. There would be no live terrorists to try and you cannot capture enemy combatants with a drone.

Bin Laden’s personal fortune is long depleted. His capability as an organizer of a force so decentralized as Al Qaeda is severely limited. His inspirational value would undoubtedly rise if America bestowed upon him the coveted qualification of a martyr. In addition to the passel of brown-eyed virgins, Jihadists could look forward to an early meeting with Bin Laden himself.

It would afford some satisfaction to see Osama killed but it would not make us any safer. Particularly not if it were to determine the results of the 2012 election.

Bob B

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Posted in Political polemics

Tagged ,

US SENATE NOT NEEDED

Posted on March 11, 2010 | Leave a comment

In order to get Obamacare rahmed through into law, the United States House of Representatives under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi (D) San Francisco, is prepared to declare the United States Senate superfluous. No, I am not reading the National Enquirer, it is in the Washington Examiner.

The Examiner reports that House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is preparing a new rule that would allow Nancy’s House to declare it unnecessary to re-submit the Bill to the Senate for their vote. Under this provision, if voted Up in the House it would bypass the Senate and go directly to the President for signature.

We have gone from nuclear option to Slaughter Solution. Pelosi said she would do anything to get this Bill passed. Now we know that includes rendering the US Senate obsolete. If perchance the Slaughter Solution doesn’t do it, I dare not think what might be next on Pelosi’s anything list.

Bob B

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Posted in Political polemics

Tagged ,

RECONCILIATION MY FOOT

Posted on March 10, 2010 | Leave a comment

Michael Medved has written an excellent column entitled Reconciliation: Disdain For The Public, Disregard For Democracy. Here are some excerpts.

The legislative tactic known as “reconciliation” uses a soothing word to mask an ugly reality. Far from the dictionary definition of “restoring to friendship and harmony,” the Congressional term “reconciliation” suggests the spurning of cooperation and the brute use of partisan power. Worst of all, in the case of Obamacare, it also involves a dangerous, destructive violation of democratic principle.

The original idea of reconciliation, first employed in 1980, involved desperate efforts during the Carter era to bring the exploding federal deficit under control –a goal embraced by both political parties. [It was intended only for] budgetary and tax policy adjustments designed to produce spending and taxation levels in line with previously declared Congressional goals. The attempt to use reconciliation to jam through Obamacare represents a drastic and dangerous departure from original intent.

More important, it violates democratic principles at the very heart of the idea first articulated in the Declaration of Independence – that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” In what sense do the “governed” consent to Obama’s health care take-over – when every national survey, and the avalanche of constituent communication with Congress, indicate impassioned and overwhelming opposition to the so-called reforms? The most recent Rasmussen Survey shows that independent, unaffiliated voters – the same voters who placed Obama in the White House – oppose his health care proposals by a margin of 64% to 32%.

The President and his allies assure nervous Democrats in Congress that the public will readily embrace the new legislation once they’re presented by a fait accompli —promising that even though the majority hates the reforms now, the public will ultimately learn to love it. This obnoxious attitude expresses the very essence of liberal elitism: the idea that enlightened policy-makers know best, and that the great unwashed will eventually appreciate the fact that their betters imposed changes that were ultimately good for them.

Well said, Michael

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Posted in Political polemics

Tagged , ,

ABOUT OBAMA Part II

Posted on March 7, 2010 | Leave a comment

PART II
Obama says the costs of health care are too high. In that, he is correct. The reasons he gives are, doctors are dishonest, insurance companies seek profits and there is administrative waste in the system. Rubbish. Dishonest politicians may be the problem but dishonest doctors are not. And does he think unprofitable insurance companies will pay out more benefits than profitable ones? Everyone is for eliminating waste. No one has ever succeeded. Obama has said he can cool the planet, so perhaps he, as no one before him could, can eliminate waste. Just do it Barack, no new law required.

I love this country, but I do have a big gripe. We are the most litigious nation on earth. Ask a surgeon how much he nets for each procedure and how much he has to pay per procedure, to protect his life from destruction by tort lawyers. One gall bladder specialist told me, insurance is two thirds of the cost of a gall bladder operation. A study by the Massachusetts Medical Society (MMS) found medical malpractice premiums to have risen 2000% since 1975. That is 4 times the inflation rate. In another study cited by the MMS, 93% of doctors in Pennsylvania acknowledged practicing CYA medicine. I guess the other 7% wouldn’t admit it. The MMS study reported that 25% of medical procedures are ordered for litigation protection, having no medical justification.

Obama and the Democrats have steadfastly rejected efforts to address tort reform. The two largest special interest groups that lobby and financially support Democratic politicians are unions and the tort law community. Measured by campaign contributions, the tort law community is the larger of the two. There is no plausible reason for denying medical tort reform other than the corrupting influence of this arm of the legal community. A good many fine gynecologist felt compelled to leave their practices as the result of one lawyer who made a fortune and a reputation suing members of their specialty. Thousands of women, perhaps tens of thousands had medically inadvisable Caesarean section deliveries purely as a consequence of this lawyers’ successes in court. The lawyer is John Edwards, one time candidate for President on the Democratic ticket.

to be continued, Part III Foreign Policy
Bob B

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Posted in Political polemics

Tagged , ,