Posts
With the presidential race looming I realized it's time for somebody to start telling the truth. While Republicans are rejoicing that the price of gas is rising and they can whole-heartily lie about how they can change that, they will also be deflecting attention from the rising National Debt they are 100% responsible for. My information comes from the most unlikely source...Fox News.
As equally surprising as getting some truth from Fox is their employment of Shepard Smith. This guy is actually a journalist who asks real questions and has a great deal of insight. I just can't imagine how he fits in to the Fox format.
The clip below is an interview Shep had with an "expert" regarding the then critical vote on raising the debt ceiling back in August. Don't just notice that the "expert" was dead wrong about the effect of the downgrade America got from S&P, but also try and notice how the two of them agreed on one very salient point:
The video was accompanied by an article that sort of boiled down the essence while avoiding the biggest point made in the interview. "...had they not extended the Bush era tax cuts...we'd be two (trillion) dollars better off then we are...". There was no disagreement on that by the guest. (Note: Shep actually said "two million dollars ahead" but he mis-spoke. The universal view is that the tax cuts cost the economy some $2,000,000,000,000 and Shep is smart enough to know that).
I certainly don't want Shep to lose his job over this but there it is, on Fox News of all places, that by forcing the president to extend the cuts that have obviously created no jobs we were forced by the Republicans to once again increase our debt despite what everyone at the time prophesied would be disastrous.
Now I know that too many people will view this as old news since the disscussion did take place last year, but the facts are the facts. I imagine shortly after I post this the link will be taken down but that will only help to prove my point.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Time For Some Truth
As the 2012 Presidential season begins to heat up so does the lying. One of the main issues should be (in a rational world) the economy. While I can understand why both parties will lamely try to dodge the issue, it will eventually come up and the lies will start pouring out. Unfortunately facts are facts and I finally found the time to compile the facts. The numbers are taken from www.treasurydirect.gov which may explain why dates are all September 30 instead of December 31. I also added the Presidents and their term with the Debt they inherited and the Debt they left. I separated the terms by using bold print. Since most people don't own a calculator (or don't know how to use one) I did a little math for you.
I put this together because I'm tired of hearing “unbiased” analysis and the results of “impartial” committees. I've been interested in this particular aspect of government ever since I heard that the National Debt had passed the $1,000,000,000,000 (Aside: I always write out those big dollar amounts. “One trillion dollars” doesn't nearly make the point a 1 followed by 12 zeroes makes) mark.
So here's the raw data with a few facts concerning the Presidential administrations associated with the Debt. Sorry I didn't lay it out neater but I lack the computer skill to format it any better without putting in a lot of time and I just don't want to bother. Besides, fancy graphs and colorful charts are designed to influence your perception.
And last, and most important, I am not unbiased. I've gone over these numbers many times in the past and things look pretty clear to me. I'll save that for the end.
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999
5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998
5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997
5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996
5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995
4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994
4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993
4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992
4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991
3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990
3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989
2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988
2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987
2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986
2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985
* 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984
* 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983
* 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982
* 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981
* 997,855,000,000.00
09/30/1980
* 907,701,000,000.00
09/30/1979
* 826,519,000,000.00
09/30/1978
* 771,544,000,000.00
09/30/1977
* 698,840,000,000.00
06/30/1976
* 620,433,000,000.00
06/30/1975
* 533,189,000,000.00
Gerald Ford 1974-1977 $533,189.000.000 to $698,840,000,000 = $165,651,000,000 or an increase of almost 25%. That comes out to about $3,100 for every man, woman and child in the US.
Jimmy Carter 1977-1981 $698,840,000,000.00 to $997,855,000,000.00 = $299015000000 or an increase of about 30%. That comes out to about $4348 per person.
Ronald Reagan 1981-1989 $997,855,000,000.00 to $2,857,430,960,187.32 = $1,859,575,960,187.32 or an increase of slightly less then 100%. That comes out to about $11,577 per person.
George H.W. Bush 1989-1993 $2,857,430,960,187.32 to $4,411,488,883,139.38 = $1,554,057,922,952 or an increase of about 46%. That's about $17,115 per person.
Bill Clinton 1993-2001 $4,411,488,883,139.38 to $5,807,463,412,200.06 = $1,395,974,529,061 or an increase of about 30%. That's about $20,636 per person.
George W. Bush 2001-2009 $5,807,463,412,200.06 to $11,909,829,003,511.75 = $6,102,365,591,311 or increase over 100%. That's about $39,000 per person.
Barack Obama 2009- present $11,909,829,003,511.75 to $15,503,030,151,312 = $3,593,201,147,801 or an increase of about 32%. It's currently $49,631 per person.
So, what to do with the facts? If your a politician you can do one of two things: You can take the most common route and lie about the historical data or, being used to lying, you can embellish the facts with outrageous claims since a basic rule in politics is that you never let the facts speak for themselves.
It should go without saying that the raw data needs to be viewed in context with the events at the time. Of course I have already done that. That's one of the reasons I compiled this list. In future posts I'll be referencing it to prove various points. In the meantime, here are some facts that are clear and concise and can easily be verified by the above:
1) From the above data it is very clear that in the years listed above, we have never had a balanced budget. NEVER! When constructing a budget you can lie in any number of ways with any kind of accounting method you choose but the Debt is a nasty thing. It's the money we borrowed to cover expenses we don't have the income to meet. Consequently, at some point the debt shouldn't increase. At some point, the Debt should actually decrease. Never happened.
2) Every President on the above list inherited massive Debt from the previous administration. And you can go a lot further back in history and say the same about almost any President. At one point in time (1919) the Debt began to drop from $27,390,970,113.12 to $16,185,309,831.43 (1930). After the Great Depression the Debt rose 250% from 1931( 16,801,281,491) to 1940 ($42,967,531,037). Did we spend our way out of the Depression?
3) It's easy to distort the truth based on being selective. For instance, Ronald Reagan entered office with a Debt slightly under $1,000,000,000,000 and left office with the economy almost $3,000,000,000,000 in the red. After eight years in office the Reagan administration added twice as much money to the Debt as the country had run up to that point. Based on the numbers, that is absolute, 100% true and totally indisputable. What that means can be interrupted by any number of people in any number of ways. Currently the Obama administration has upped the ante by raising the Debt almost $3,600,000,000,000 in half the time. What's that say?
Two things are readily apparent to me and that's just one of the reasons I put this together. As I noted in #1, Bill Clinton never balanced the budget but he did manage the Debt to a degree. Under the current trend that is commendable. But why lie about?
But since the myth of Clinton's Balanced Budget exists why shouldn't the opposition grab it's coattails? Newt is claiming he was the driving force behind 10 balanced budgets. That may be true if he was a member of Congress over 40 years ago. He may look it, but I doubt Newt is over 100 years old.
Now, you see, if you didn't know the facts you may well be suckered in to buying in to one or both of the above lies. Now I know full well a lot of people will be quick to point out it depends on circumstances and definitions. Maybe so, but if you tell me you balanced the budget, the budget better well be balanced. And by that I mean you better not be spending more then you take in. If it has some other meaning then you better clearly define it so we actually know what you're doing.
Sorry folks, but facts are facts and over the years we've all been suckered in to believing garbage just because somebody makes a statement with authority. Personally I find them all to be liars. Factually, the above proves it beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise.
I put this together because I'm tired of hearing “unbiased” analysis and the results of “impartial” committees. I've been interested in this particular aspect of government ever since I heard that the National Debt had passed the $1,000,000,000,000 (Aside: I always write out those big dollar amounts. “One trillion dollars” doesn't nearly make the point a 1 followed by 12 zeroes makes) mark.
So here's the raw data with a few facts concerning the Presidential administrations associated with the Debt. Sorry I didn't lay it out neater but I lack the computer skill to format it any better without putting in a lot of time and I just don't want to bother. Besides, fancy graphs and colorful charts are designed to influence your perception.
And last, and most important, I am not unbiased. I've gone over these numbers many times in the past and things look pretty clear to me. I'll save that for the end.
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999
5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998
5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997
5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996
5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995
4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994
4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993
4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992
4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991
3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990
3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989
2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988
2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987
2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986
2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985
* 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984
* 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983
* 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982
* 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981
* 997,855,000,000.00
09/30/1980
* 907,701,000,000.00
09/30/1979
* 826,519,000,000.00
09/30/1978
* 771,544,000,000.00
09/30/1977
* 698,840,000,000.00
06/30/1976
* 620,433,000,000.00
06/30/1975
* 533,189,000,000.00
Gerald Ford 1974-1977 $533,189.000.000 to $698,840,000,000 = $165,651,000,000 or an increase of almost 25%. That comes out to about $3,100 for every man, woman and child in the US.
Jimmy Carter 1977-1981 $698,840,000,000.00 to $997,855,000,000.00 = $299015000000 or an increase of about 30%. That comes out to about $4348 per person.
Ronald Reagan 1981-1989 $997,855,000,000.00 to $2,857,430,960,187.32 = $1,859,575,960,187.32 or an increase of slightly less then 100%. That comes out to about $11,577 per person.
George H.W. Bush 1989-1993 $2,857,430,960,187.32 to $4,411,488,883,139.38 = $1,554,057,922,952 or an increase of about 46%. That's about $17,115 per person.
Bill Clinton 1993-2001 $4,411,488,883,139.38 to $5,807,463,412,200.06 = $1,395,974,529,061 or an increase of about 30%. That's about $20,636 per person.
George W. Bush 2001-2009 $5,807,463,412,200.06 to $11,909,829,003,511.75 = $6,102,365,591,311 or increase over 100%. That's about $39,000 per person.
Barack Obama 2009- present $11,909,829,003,511.75 to $15,503,030,151,312 = $3,593,201,147,801 or an increase of about 32%. It's currently $49,631 per person.
So, what to do with the facts? If your a politician you can do one of two things: You can take the most common route and lie about the historical data or, being used to lying, you can embellish the facts with outrageous claims since a basic rule in politics is that you never let the facts speak for themselves.
It should go without saying that the raw data needs to be viewed in context with the events at the time. Of course I have already done that. That's one of the reasons I compiled this list. In future posts I'll be referencing it to prove various points. In the meantime, here are some facts that are clear and concise and can easily be verified by the above:
1) From the above data it is very clear that in the years listed above, we have never had a balanced budget. NEVER! When constructing a budget you can lie in any number of ways with any kind of accounting method you choose but the Debt is a nasty thing. It's the money we borrowed to cover expenses we don't have the income to meet. Consequently, at some point the debt shouldn't increase. At some point, the Debt should actually decrease. Never happened.
2) Every President on the above list inherited massive Debt from the previous administration. And you can go a lot further back in history and say the same about almost any President. At one point in time (1919) the Debt began to drop from $27,390,970,113.12 to $16,185,309,831.43 (1930). After the Great Depression the Debt rose 250% from 1931( 16,801,281,491) to 1940 ($42,967,531,037). Did we spend our way out of the Depression?
3) It's easy to distort the truth based on being selective. For instance, Ronald Reagan entered office with a Debt slightly under $1,000,000,000,000 and left office with the economy almost $3,000,000,000,000 in the red. After eight years in office the Reagan administration added twice as much money to the Debt as the country had run up to that point. Based on the numbers, that is absolute, 100% true and totally indisputable. What that means can be interrupted by any number of people in any number of ways. Currently the Obama administration has upped the ante by raising the Debt almost $3,600,000,000,000 in half the time. What's that say?
Two things are readily apparent to me and that's just one of the reasons I put this together. As I noted in #1, Bill Clinton never balanced the budget but he did manage the Debt to a degree. Under the current trend that is commendable. But why lie about?
But since the myth of Clinton's Balanced Budget exists why shouldn't the opposition grab it's coattails? Newt is claiming he was the driving force behind 10 balanced budgets. That may be true if he was a member of Congress over 40 years ago. He may look it, but I doubt Newt is over 100 years old.
Now, you see, if you didn't know the facts you may well be suckered in to buying in to one or both of the above lies. Now I know full well a lot of people will be quick to point out it depends on circumstances and definitions. Maybe so, but if you tell me you balanced the budget, the budget better well be balanced. And by that I mean you better not be spending more then you take in. If it has some other meaning then you better clearly define it so we actually know what you're doing.
Sorry folks, but facts are facts and over the years we've all been suckered in to believing garbage just because somebody makes a statement with authority. Personally I find them all to be liars. Factually, the above proves it beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise.
Monday, December 6, 2010
REPUBLICANS ARE SCUM, DEMOCRATS ARE STUPID
The only issue anybody cares about lately is if the Bush tax cuts for the rich will be extended. AS can clearly and indisputably be seen the Republicans are totally supportive of giving a break to the exact same people totally responsible for our current economic conditions (including the new record unemployment) and there seems to be some question as to what the right thing is. In order to make perfectly clear how stupid the whole situation is, I will make it so easy to understand that even a Teabagger can get it:
1)Whatever their purpose, the Bush tax cuts did not work. It's perfectly clear since we are currently experiencing the worst economy since the Great Depression. Whatever anybody had thought would happen I'm pretty sure no sane person figured on our economy collapsing. More then ever, we need more revenue going to our government. Plain and simple fact. You may not like some of the policies in place (i.e. health care), you may not agree with the massive additional debt we've incurred (i.e. the war in Iraq), but facts are facts. All that money has to come from somebody. Why not the wealthiest that pay less in taxes then you do?
2)The Republicans have offered a compromise. They are willing to extend unemployment benefits to the people who lost their jobs in return for tax cuts for the people directly responsible for the job losses in the hopes of creating new jobs despite the fact that hasn't happened while the proposed tax cuts have been in place.
3)The Democrats, of course, could simply do the right thing and allow the tax cuts to lapse. But then taxes would go up for every one and the Republicans would characterize that as a tax increase on everybody, regardless of how slight that would be for 98% of the population. The fact is, if the current tax cuts lapsed the average person still working would hardly notice a difference. In fact, when the laughable cuts were instituted for the average citizen there was collective laughter at how insignificant they were.
4)Instead, there will be a compromise. The Republicans will get a tax cut for their friends and primary donors and unemployment benefits will be extended to those who are out of work because of the previous policies of the last Republican administration. So, despite their objection of refusing to extend unemployment benefits unless there was a way to pay for them, Republicans will allow the extension while eliminating the most obvious way to pay for them.
The Bush tax cuts have clearly been demonstrated to be a very bad idea. Now I'll be the first to admit there is no definitive correlation between the Bush tax cuts and the current economy that's worse then anything since the Great Depression. On the other hand, they plainly didn't help. Absolutely no one can point to the cuts and in any way show that any benefit has been derived from them. The only thing any one can say to defend the cuts is the tired old excuse that things would be worse if they weren't in place. In that case, the economic stimulus plan is a raging success! You can't have it both ways.
Undoubtedly the Republicans are lying scum. All their claims about “fiscal responsibility” are now totally proven to be lies. They really don't care. They have proclaimed, with no doubt about it, that they would rather cater to their supporters then look out for the best interests of the country. Essentially, if they ever meant a word they said, they have completely and 100% sold out. There is no doubt about that.
On the other side, the Democrats have perfectly defined themselves as totally inept at handling the responsibilities they were given. They are, quite clearly, simply scrambling to keep their jobs. They are pathetic. And stupid. By agreeing to extend the tax cuts and giving control to the minority Republicans they have forever stamped themselves as cowards. Why vote for some one who doesn't have the brains or integrity to do the right thing?
Now for the most decisive proof anyone (I'm looking at you Teabaggers) could ever want:
(The numbers here are estimates. However, they are not based on lies and are more accurate then anything any so-called expert could ever come up with).
There are approximately 130,000,000 working Americans, though that number will most likely continue to drop over the coming months. Approximately 98% of them make less then $250,000 a year. That means 127,400,000 make less then that. So, since I own the marvelous tool known as a calculator that no member of Congress seems to own or knows how to operate, that means 2,600,000 Americans fall in to the $250,000 category. Instead of making convoluted changes in the taxes laws let's keep everything the same as it is now. Yeah, the Republicans win. Now let's add a flat $2 a week tax to everybody earning less then $250,000/year. That would generate an annual $13,249,600,000. Now let's charge everybody earning over $250,000 an extra 10 bucks a week. That comes out to $1,352,000,000 a year. Add 'em up. That's over $14,000,000,000 a year in additional revenue that none of the effected would actually notice.
Now that's a very clear, very reasonable way to increase much needed revenue with very little thought (Hey!!! I may have a career in politics forming!). By designing a graduated method of charging that flat rate, it would be an easy and painless way to more then double the generated revenue I've proposed here.
Of course, that was the whole idea when the current tax system was first implemented. Eliminate deductions, charge flat rates based on income, and the government will be flush with money. I can't take credit for this insight-fullness that borders on pure genius since it has been proposed a number of times by some of the wealthiest people in the country (and the world). Why anybody would be stupid enough to ignore them is beyond me. Not subscribing to that notion is so idiotic that I simply can't shut my brain down enough to even begin the thinking of anybody opposed to the idea. I can certainly grasp why the majority of corrupt and irresponsible politicians don't pursue the idea, but I really can't begin to understand why 99% of the population isn't clamoring for that change.
I'm the last guy to say the government doesn't waste money. I'm the last guy to say that any member of Congress isn't more interested in retaining their job then do the best thing for America. I'm the last guy to say Congress will ever do the right thing. But I'm the very first guy to say that every responsible American needs to support massive tax reform and needs to stop blindly following some “pundit” on TV or the radio who is exclusively looking out for their own best interests.
As always, I welcome any one to try and dispute the overwhelming facts I've presented here. Feel free to embarrass yourself by attempting to dispute the logic and reason here. I'm actually looking forward to humiliating you.
1)Whatever their purpose, the Bush tax cuts did not work. It's perfectly clear since we are currently experiencing the worst economy since the Great Depression. Whatever anybody had thought would happen I'm pretty sure no sane person figured on our economy collapsing. More then ever, we need more revenue going to our government. Plain and simple fact. You may not like some of the policies in place (i.e. health care), you may not agree with the massive additional debt we've incurred (i.e. the war in Iraq), but facts are facts. All that money has to come from somebody. Why not the wealthiest that pay less in taxes then you do?
2)The Republicans have offered a compromise. They are willing to extend unemployment benefits to the people who lost their jobs in return for tax cuts for the people directly responsible for the job losses in the hopes of creating new jobs despite the fact that hasn't happened while the proposed tax cuts have been in place.
3)The Democrats, of course, could simply do the right thing and allow the tax cuts to lapse. But then taxes would go up for every one and the Republicans would characterize that as a tax increase on everybody, regardless of how slight that would be for 98% of the population. The fact is, if the current tax cuts lapsed the average person still working would hardly notice a difference. In fact, when the laughable cuts were instituted for the average citizen there was collective laughter at how insignificant they were.
4)Instead, there will be a compromise. The Republicans will get a tax cut for their friends and primary donors and unemployment benefits will be extended to those who are out of work because of the previous policies of the last Republican administration. So, despite their objection of refusing to extend unemployment benefits unless there was a way to pay for them, Republicans will allow the extension while eliminating the most obvious way to pay for them.
The Bush tax cuts have clearly been demonstrated to be a very bad idea. Now I'll be the first to admit there is no definitive correlation between the Bush tax cuts and the current economy that's worse then anything since the Great Depression. On the other hand, they plainly didn't help. Absolutely no one can point to the cuts and in any way show that any benefit has been derived from them. The only thing any one can say to defend the cuts is the tired old excuse that things would be worse if they weren't in place. In that case, the economic stimulus plan is a raging success! You can't have it both ways.
Undoubtedly the Republicans are lying scum. All their claims about “fiscal responsibility” are now totally proven to be lies. They really don't care. They have proclaimed, with no doubt about it, that they would rather cater to their supporters then look out for the best interests of the country. Essentially, if they ever meant a word they said, they have completely and 100% sold out. There is no doubt about that.
On the other side, the Democrats have perfectly defined themselves as totally inept at handling the responsibilities they were given. They are, quite clearly, simply scrambling to keep their jobs. They are pathetic. And stupid. By agreeing to extend the tax cuts and giving control to the minority Republicans they have forever stamped themselves as cowards. Why vote for some one who doesn't have the brains or integrity to do the right thing?
Now for the most decisive proof anyone (I'm looking at you Teabaggers) could ever want:
(The numbers here are estimates. However, they are not based on lies and are more accurate then anything any so-called expert could ever come up with).
There are approximately 130,000,000 working Americans, though that number will most likely continue to drop over the coming months. Approximately 98% of them make less then $250,000 a year. That means 127,400,000 make less then that. So, since I own the marvelous tool known as a calculator that no member of Congress seems to own or knows how to operate, that means 2,600,000 Americans fall in to the $250,000 category. Instead of making convoluted changes in the taxes laws let's keep everything the same as it is now. Yeah, the Republicans win. Now let's add a flat $2 a week tax to everybody earning less then $250,000/year. That would generate an annual $13,249,600,000. Now let's charge everybody earning over $250,000 an extra 10 bucks a week. That comes out to $1,352,000,000 a year. Add 'em up. That's over $14,000,000,000 a year in additional revenue that none of the effected would actually notice.
Now that's a very clear, very reasonable way to increase much needed revenue with very little thought (Hey!!! I may have a career in politics forming!). By designing a graduated method of charging that flat rate, it would be an easy and painless way to more then double the generated revenue I've proposed here.
Of course, that was the whole idea when the current tax system was first implemented. Eliminate deductions, charge flat rates based on income, and the government will be flush with money. I can't take credit for this insight-fullness that borders on pure genius since it has been proposed a number of times by some of the wealthiest people in the country (and the world). Why anybody would be stupid enough to ignore them is beyond me. Not subscribing to that notion is so idiotic that I simply can't shut my brain down enough to even begin the thinking of anybody opposed to the idea. I can certainly grasp why the majority of corrupt and irresponsible politicians don't pursue the idea, but I really can't begin to understand why 99% of the population isn't clamoring for that change.
I'm the last guy to say the government doesn't waste money. I'm the last guy to say that any member of Congress isn't more interested in retaining their job then do the best thing for America. I'm the last guy to say Congress will ever do the right thing. But I'm the very first guy to say that every responsible American needs to support massive tax reform and needs to stop blindly following some “pundit” on TV or the radio who is exclusively looking out for their own best interests.
As always, I welcome any one to try and dispute the overwhelming facts I've presented here. Feel free to embarrass yourself by attempting to dispute the logic and reason here. I'm actually looking forward to humiliating you.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
HAPPY 9/11
It’s actually September 9th as I write this but it’s a post I’ve been planning since the beginning of the year. In fact, I could have written this on January 20th (and indeed, that’s when I thought of it) but I waited. I wanted to see how things would unfold during this remarkably historic period in US politics. Everything developed in such a contrived manner that it really is impossible to conceive how the Republican Party can avoid extinction. The absolute, inarguable, final nail-in-the-coffin for the GOP will occur on September 11, 2009. I’m jumping the gun a bit but I feel fully confident that on that day it will be proved beyond any doubt (reasonable or otherwise) that Republicans are far inferior to Democrats when it comes to defending the country, and isn’t that what it’s all about?
On this day, eight years ago, terrorists were putting the finishing touches on the greatest attack on American soil in history. On this day, eight years ago, the Republican lead administration was totally oblivious to one of their major responsibilities…protecting the citizens. There’s no doubt whatsoever that they failed miserably to protect us. In those first months of a Republican administration 2,993 people were murdered. Comparatively, on September 11, 2009 no such slaughter has occurred under a Democrat administration. Using the rationale Republicans have campaigned on during the last two elections they are failures. By their own “reason” and “logic” they are far worse then the current administration when it comes to one of their fundamental principles, protecting the US. The resulting campaigns launched due to Republican negligence has created an even bigger body count. We’re now embroiled in Iraq and Afghanistan due to their total incompetence. I won’t bother with death counts as of the end of the Bush administration versus the current administration since I’m not pretending to be a prophet. I suppose that aspect could go either way.
My point here is in no way to trivialize what happened eight years ago. Rather, it’s to mock and shame every single (without any exception at all) politicians. Every one of the evil bastards fed on the fears of the American public to keep their job. Not a single one had the courage or honesty to step forward and declare that the government had totally failed in one of their major responsibilities. Now, on September 9, 2009, every single one of the weasels are totally ignoring the most important issue of our time and are totally abdicating their responsibilities in order to just keep their jobs. Sure, without a doubt, a bunch of these sub-human scumbags will make a speech, lay a wreath or two, and make meaningless vows in memory of the disaster they allowed. And you’ll be more then happy to buy in to it.
Facts are facts (sorry to have to be this blunt) but every one of you idiots that voted for failed policies are the ones who are 100% responsible. You’re not only responsible for 9/11, you’re responsible for the current Bush Depression, you’re responsible for the sorry state of health care, you’re responsible for the $11,000,000,000,000 national debt, and you’re responsible for every single problem we will be facing in the coming years. That’s because you simply vote over and over again for the exact same people that have been ruining this country for decades. You want your guy or party to win so badly that you’ve ruined my life, your life, and the lives of your children and/or grandchildren because you’re too stupid to think for yourself. The irrefutable logic goes like this:
1) Since it’s the anniversary of 9/11 I’ll start there. You voted back in to office the very same person who presided over the disaster. Being a reasonable, rational person, I can’t even begin to understand the rationale there. I really can’t. I’m going to try and imagine the thought process that went in the mind of some one pulling the lever to re-elect George Bush. I suppose it went something like this: Let’s see…who should I vote for? They guy that was in charge when terrorists attacked us and started an irrelevant war in the meantime, or John Kerry, who actually served in the military, actually “defended” this country, and didn’t allow thousands of Americans to be massacred? Hmmmm, I’ll go with my party since Democrats are total evil or, worse yet, LIBERALS! Yeah, that will make the country better! That’s the only “thinking” I can come up with.
2) Let’s disregard the whole 9/11 thing for the moment. With the national debt at around $9,000,000,000,000 and social security in a state of collapse, did you think for an instant that the very same people who had four years to address those issues would actually do something in the next four years? Nobody bothered to address the national debt since 99% of the voting public have no idea what it is, but social security was, at the time, a major issue and the only solution was a stupid proposition to “privatize” it. In hindsight it was an overtly moronic proposal but, even at the time it was incredibly stupid. If that would really work, why would we need social security in the first place? Think about it…and if you can’t wrap your brain around that then you’re hopeless.
3) But, this is about 9/11 and lying, useless politicians. The number one reason either party should have been in office (by their own philosophy) is to protect the US. They simply don’t. They haven’t physically, they haven’t financially. And nobody is doing anything any different now. But, I admit, I could be wrong here. Unlike your favorite politician I haven’t bothered checking the polls lately. Frankly, I don’t care what the “majority” of ignorant morons think. Most people don’t care about another terrorist attack since they have financial concerns (like they had on September 10, 2001). Today, the number one concern is health care or employment or some other garbage. There will be a lot of “wailing and gnashing of teeth” come 9/11 but it won’t mean a thing.
We’re screwed because the people you consistently vote for don’t care about anything other then keeping their jobs. They will prey upon your fears and concerns (according to the latest polling numbers) so they can continue to enjoy decent salaries, great benefits, and any perk they can get. But they’re part of your party so you’ll continue to support and pay them. Good for you. And thanks from the majority of people you are now screwing and the future generations you are hurting. You simply have proven you don’t really care about anything but yourself. Maybe you should run for office. .
On this day, eight years ago, terrorists were putting the finishing touches on the greatest attack on American soil in history. On this day, eight years ago, the Republican lead administration was totally oblivious to one of their major responsibilities…protecting the citizens. There’s no doubt whatsoever that they failed miserably to protect us. In those first months of a Republican administration 2,993 people were murdered. Comparatively, on September 11, 2009 no such slaughter has occurred under a Democrat administration. Using the rationale Republicans have campaigned on during the last two elections they are failures. By their own “reason” and “logic” they are far worse then the current administration when it comes to one of their fundamental principles, protecting the US. The resulting campaigns launched due to Republican negligence has created an even bigger body count. We’re now embroiled in Iraq and Afghanistan due to their total incompetence. I won’t bother with death counts as of the end of the Bush administration versus the current administration since I’m not pretending to be a prophet. I suppose that aspect could go either way.
My point here is in no way to trivialize what happened eight years ago. Rather, it’s to mock and shame every single (without any exception at all) politicians. Every one of the evil bastards fed on the fears of the American public to keep their job. Not a single one had the courage or honesty to step forward and declare that the government had totally failed in one of their major responsibilities. Now, on September 9, 2009, every single one of the weasels are totally ignoring the most important issue of our time and are totally abdicating their responsibilities in order to just keep their jobs. Sure, without a doubt, a bunch of these sub-human scumbags will make a speech, lay a wreath or two, and make meaningless vows in memory of the disaster they allowed. And you’ll be more then happy to buy in to it.
Facts are facts (sorry to have to be this blunt) but every one of you idiots that voted for failed policies are the ones who are 100% responsible. You’re not only responsible for 9/11, you’re responsible for the current Bush Depression, you’re responsible for the sorry state of health care, you’re responsible for the $11,000,000,000,000 national debt, and you’re responsible for every single problem we will be facing in the coming years. That’s because you simply vote over and over again for the exact same people that have been ruining this country for decades. You want your guy or party to win so badly that you’ve ruined my life, your life, and the lives of your children and/or grandchildren because you’re too stupid to think for yourself. The irrefutable logic goes like this:
1) Since it’s the anniversary of 9/11 I’ll start there. You voted back in to office the very same person who presided over the disaster. Being a reasonable, rational person, I can’t even begin to understand the rationale there. I really can’t. I’m going to try and imagine the thought process that went in the mind of some one pulling the lever to re-elect George Bush. I suppose it went something like this: Let’s see…who should I vote for? They guy that was in charge when terrorists attacked us and started an irrelevant war in the meantime, or John Kerry, who actually served in the military, actually “defended” this country, and didn’t allow thousands of Americans to be massacred? Hmmmm, I’ll go with my party since Democrats are total evil or, worse yet, LIBERALS! Yeah, that will make the country better! That’s the only “thinking” I can come up with.
2) Let’s disregard the whole 9/11 thing for the moment. With the national debt at around $9,000,000,000,000 and social security in a state of collapse, did you think for an instant that the very same people who had four years to address those issues would actually do something in the next four years? Nobody bothered to address the national debt since 99% of the voting public have no idea what it is, but social security was, at the time, a major issue and the only solution was a stupid proposition to “privatize” it. In hindsight it was an overtly moronic proposal but, even at the time it was incredibly stupid. If that would really work, why would we need social security in the first place? Think about it…and if you can’t wrap your brain around that then you’re hopeless.
3) But, this is about 9/11 and lying, useless politicians. The number one reason either party should have been in office (by their own philosophy) is to protect the US. They simply don’t. They haven’t physically, they haven’t financially. And nobody is doing anything any different now. But, I admit, I could be wrong here. Unlike your favorite politician I haven’t bothered checking the polls lately. Frankly, I don’t care what the “majority” of ignorant morons think. Most people don’t care about another terrorist attack since they have financial concerns (like they had on September 10, 2001). Today, the number one concern is health care or employment or some other garbage. There will be a lot of “wailing and gnashing of teeth” come 9/11 but it won’t mean a thing.
We’re screwed because the people you consistently vote for don’t care about anything other then keeping their jobs. They will prey upon your fears and concerns (according to the latest polling numbers) so they can continue to enjoy decent salaries, great benefits, and any perk they can get. But they’re part of your party so you’ll continue to support and pay them. Good for you. And thanks from the majority of people you are now screwing and the future generations you are hurting. You simply have proven you don’t really care about anything but yourself. Maybe you should run for office. .
Monday, August 24, 2009
CHUCK GETS A THIRD ONE
No sooner do I get done posting an observation that completely humiliates and degrades one of the leading Conservative spokesmen (Charles Krauthammer) the idiot in question comes out with an even more despicable column. Having completely run out of ideas (i.e. “lies”) to aid in derailing a health care reform bill to benefit American society he’s decided to dredge up a recent lie and dress it up with some twisted form of “logic”. His assumptions and those of anybody who agrees with him refer to the non-existent “Death Panels” that will be instituted if any kind of change in the current health care system takes place.
He tones down the patently absurd rhetoric and then makes an even more preposterous assertion: Your doctor would rather see you die then undergo any further treatment if your case appears to be terminal. A provision in the proposed health care reform allows for reimbursement for “end of life” consoling which every doctor would gladly pounce on for a few quick and easy bucks. I can’t imagine what the pay is for a physician to offer you alternatives when facing the grim reaper but apparently you doctor is in favor of death (or, as Chuck says” we know that if this white-coated authority whose chosen vocation is curing and healing is the one opening your mind to hospice and palliative care, we've nudged you ever so slightly toward letting go.”).
The sum and substance of his column is that there’s so much more profit in it for your doctor to pull the plug that he’s bound to encourage you in that direction. Apparently the fee for counseling you to die is more profitable then continuing to administer treatment. In the Conservative world doctors are only in it for the money. Apparently there’s some kind of bonus in it for them to get in you in the ground rather then treat the illness.
Chuck even cites a personal example though I’m really not sure what course he chose. He claims the decision was obvious, but the rational choice completely contradicts the point of his column. So, allow me to explain my own circumstances when dealing with an end-of-life-consultation:
My older brother was determined to be brain-dead after a brief hospitalization. I sat down with the Chief of Neurology and he explained the situation and the alternatives. I sat down with the family and discussed the alternatives and we decided to terminate any further treatment. I don’t know how much longer the insurance carrier he had would have continued to pay to keep him on the respirator. The cost was never a factor. The doctor I talked to was sympathetic and open to the alternatives. There was no additional charge for that end-of-life-consoling. Frankly, there was more money in it for the hospital if they kept him there rather then pull the plug. So how does the Conservative lie of “Death Panels” or alternative form thereof make any sense? It’s always more profitable to continue “treatment” then to terminate the patient. Why would any greedy, capitalistic doctor choose the path of least riches?
In order to believe any Conservative viewpoint on this matter you have to believe that every doctor (including yours) wants nothing more then to get you “out of the way”. You have to believe that the only reason any doctor (including yours) went to Med school was to make a lot of money. You have to believe that every doctor (including yours) is a pawn of the government and one of his main objectives is to eliminate the infirm and elderly from society. You have to believe that there’s a conspiracy among all the doctors (including yours) to reduce your care and encourage your death. There’s absolutely no other way to interrupt the gross stupidity being asserted by moronic Conservatives spouting such outrageous nonsense.
Even though I’ve just made it crystal clear as to why Conservatives are complete idiots and liars, they will continue to influence a large number of people. Fortunately (and amazingly) more and more Americans are beginning to realize what liars they are. They have become relatively insignificant as their desperation continues to grow. However, they do seem to have enough influence on the American public to further wreck our society. I can only hope that Chuck’s Living Will is adhered to. In his own words “If I have anything so much as a hangnail, pull the plug.” Let’s hope so.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
WHY CONSERVATIVES HAVE LOST
One of the leading and realistic spokesmen for the conservative movement isn’t the blowhard Rush Limbaugh or his idiot cousin Sean Hannity but the “distinguished” moron Charles Krauthammer. Chuck is a columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group and has the onerous responsibility of representing the conservative point-of-view. Apparently he makes a decent living spouting any nonsense that appeals to the ignorant masses. So, in order to collect his check, he defends the conservative point-of-view at any cost and will lie like a rug to convince anybody near brain death that there’s some validity in the conservative philosophy.
A recent column of his (read it yourself) makes the idiotic “point” that prevention is even more costly then simply letting people suffer or die. In his opinion column he sites like thinking idiots that preventive medicine will in no way save any money and will actually cost more. I’m going to rip him a “new one” and I certainly hope you have enough functioning brain cells to realize how stupid he actually is. I’m using the word “stupid” because if he actually believes what he says he clearly is an idiot. It’s crap like this that is making health care reform totally impossible. So, here are the indisputable facts:
1) Quote from the column: “The idea that prevention is somehow intrinsically economically different from treatment — that treatment increases costs and prevention lowers them — is simply nonsense.” This statement of his is clearly nonsense. That, or the moron has never heard of (or understands) the concept of vaccinations. Polio has been completely wiped out (he’s obviously too stupid to understand what the Salk vaccine accomplished). Nor does he have the common sense to understand what your annual flu vaccination does. Currently the CDC is feverishly working on a vaccination for the Swine flu. Regardless of how you feel about the coming “threat” getting a shot that will preventive you from becoming infected and spending money on over-the-counter medications to relieve your symptoms and the lost time at work don’t factor in to the obvious costs of being ill. No, (and this is sarcasm for all you die-hard Conservatives) preventing hundreds of thousands of people from contracting the flu and developing further complications is clearly a waste of money.
2) Not vaccinating the general population from something as “simple” as the flu would result in billions (if not trillions) of dollars being spent on treatment and the dreaded “lost time” that conservatives love. What could this idiot possibly be thinking?
3) Again, he quotes an equally moronic “authority”, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf who says.” "Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness." The idiot (and I mean the idiot Elmendorf) adds “we don't know in advance which patients are going to develop costly illnesses.” Really? No kidding? Gee if only we did know in advance which patients would develop costly illnesses! I got an idea…why don’t we test them!
4) I was just in for a physical and the doctor tested my blood pressure, my lung capacity, and gave me an EKG. So far so good. Everything’s fine. I could relate the story of a friend of mine who went in for the exact same tests and much to his surprise he found that he had suffered two major heart attacks in the recent past (no, he didn’t realize that. It happens.) His doctor immediately admitted him to the hospital and he had a triple by-pass that saved his life. And, it also eliminated all the potential expenses related to his having a third attack. True, it would have been more cost effective if the first one would have killed him. Sorry about Conservatives.
The whole point of Krauthammer’s ranting is that he’s attacking one of the proposed features of health care reform. Preventive health measures would reduce medical costs in the long run. That seems pretty odd considering insurance companies that provide health care for a profit routinely approve any number of tests recommended by a physician. Whether you or Chuck realizes it or not, if you’ve been to a doctor you’ve been checked for high blood pressure, diabetes, heart and lung damage, and probably a lot of stuff I’m not aware of. And I’ll just through vaccinations in here just to rub Chuck and Doug’s faces in it one more time.
I’m supposed to schedule myself for a colonoscopy. Yeah, I’m putting that off but I’ve decided to schedule one. It’s a standard test guys my age are supposed to get. And my doctor who doesn’t have any overt political affiliation that I know of and actually understands medicine informed me that it’s one of the few ways a cancer can not only be detected early but totally prevented. Obviously my insurance company agrees with him but for a different reason. I have no idea what a colonoscopy costs but my insurer sure does. And they know that the aggregate cost of early detection is more cost effective then shelling out even more money for treatment. Chuck probably hasn’t had one since his head seems to be up there most of the time.
I’m pretty sure, without “researching” the cost of every conceivable test to be administered to every citizen, that the cost of such tests would exceed the cost of treatment. But, I have a solution for that little “sticking” point: as the other idiot (Elmendorf) said, we just don’t know who would benefit from what test if we blindly administered them to everyone. That being the case, why don’t we get a bunch of highly trained, highly skilled people to examine individuals and recommend the appropriate tests. You know, people like doctors!
The entire point of the foolish column was to argue against the case that improved health care would save money by preventing major illnesses. So-called “researchers” have done the work and declared it to be so. Well, those guys can skew (i.e. “lie”) the numbers anyway they want. The guys that depend on accurate, profit making research (i.e. “the insurance companies”) have already done the work and have determined that it’s better to give the tests and vaccinations rather treat the illness, even if they don’t know in advance who’ll get sick.
Billions (oh hell, let’s say “trillions” since that seems to have more impact) have already been saved on preventive health care measures. Even the insurance companies agree with that and that’s their business. You can be sure if a columnist from say “The Washington Post” develops any kind of symptom he’ll be expecting a full battery of tests to determine the cause. After all, diagnostic medicine isn’t part of his job description. Pandering to mindless followers with any kind of drivel that can get him noticed is.
A recent column of his (read it yourself) makes the idiotic “point” that prevention is even more costly then simply letting people suffer or die. In his opinion column he sites like thinking idiots that preventive medicine will in no way save any money and will actually cost more. I’m going to rip him a “new one” and I certainly hope you have enough functioning brain cells to realize how stupid he actually is. I’m using the word “stupid” because if he actually believes what he says he clearly is an idiot. It’s crap like this that is making health care reform totally impossible. So, here are the indisputable facts:
1) Quote from the column: “The idea that prevention is somehow intrinsically economically different from treatment — that treatment increases costs and prevention lowers them — is simply nonsense.” This statement of his is clearly nonsense. That, or the moron has never heard of (or understands) the concept of vaccinations. Polio has been completely wiped out (he’s obviously too stupid to understand what the Salk vaccine accomplished). Nor does he have the common sense to understand what your annual flu vaccination does. Currently the CDC is feverishly working on a vaccination for the Swine flu. Regardless of how you feel about the coming “threat” getting a shot that will preventive you from becoming infected and spending money on over-the-counter medications to relieve your symptoms and the lost time at work don’t factor in to the obvious costs of being ill. No, (and this is sarcasm for all you die-hard Conservatives) preventing hundreds of thousands of people from contracting the flu and developing further complications is clearly a waste of money.
2) Not vaccinating the general population from something as “simple” as the flu would result in billions (if not trillions) of dollars being spent on treatment and the dreaded “lost time” that conservatives love. What could this idiot possibly be thinking?
3) Again, he quotes an equally moronic “authority”, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf who says.” "Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness." The idiot (and I mean the idiot Elmendorf) adds “we don't know in advance which patients are going to develop costly illnesses.” Really? No kidding? Gee if only we did know in advance which patients would develop costly illnesses! I got an idea…why don’t we test them!
4) I was just in for a physical and the doctor tested my blood pressure, my lung capacity, and gave me an EKG. So far so good. Everything’s fine. I could relate the story of a friend of mine who went in for the exact same tests and much to his surprise he found that he had suffered two major heart attacks in the recent past (no, he didn’t realize that. It happens.) His doctor immediately admitted him to the hospital and he had a triple by-pass that saved his life. And, it also eliminated all the potential expenses related to his having a third attack. True, it would have been more cost effective if the first one would have killed him. Sorry about Conservatives.
The whole point of Krauthammer’s ranting is that he’s attacking one of the proposed features of health care reform. Preventive health measures would reduce medical costs in the long run. That seems pretty odd considering insurance companies that provide health care for a profit routinely approve any number of tests recommended by a physician. Whether you or Chuck realizes it or not, if you’ve been to a doctor you’ve been checked for high blood pressure, diabetes, heart and lung damage, and probably a lot of stuff I’m not aware of. And I’ll just through vaccinations in here just to rub Chuck and Doug’s faces in it one more time.
I’m supposed to schedule myself for a colonoscopy. Yeah, I’m putting that off but I’ve decided to schedule one. It’s a standard test guys my age are supposed to get. And my doctor who doesn’t have any overt political affiliation that I know of and actually understands medicine informed me that it’s one of the few ways a cancer can not only be detected early but totally prevented. Obviously my insurance company agrees with him but for a different reason. I have no idea what a colonoscopy costs but my insurer sure does. And they know that the aggregate cost of early detection is more cost effective then shelling out even more money for treatment. Chuck probably hasn’t had one since his head seems to be up there most of the time.
I’m pretty sure, without “researching” the cost of every conceivable test to be administered to every citizen, that the cost of such tests would exceed the cost of treatment. But, I have a solution for that little “sticking” point: as the other idiot (Elmendorf) said, we just don’t know who would benefit from what test if we blindly administered them to everyone. That being the case, why don’t we get a bunch of highly trained, highly skilled people to examine individuals and recommend the appropriate tests. You know, people like doctors!
The entire point of the foolish column was to argue against the case that improved health care would save money by preventing major illnesses. So-called “researchers” have done the work and declared it to be so. Well, those guys can skew (i.e. “lie”) the numbers anyway they want. The guys that depend on accurate, profit making research (i.e. “the insurance companies”) have already done the work and have determined that it’s better to give the tests and vaccinations rather treat the illness, even if they don’t know in advance who’ll get sick.
Billions (oh hell, let’s say “trillions” since that seems to have more impact) have already been saved on preventive health care measures. Even the insurance companies agree with that and that’s their business. You can be sure if a columnist from say “The Washington Post” develops any kind of symptom he’ll be expecting a full battery of tests to determine the cause. After all, diagnostic medicine isn’t part of his job description. Pandering to mindless followers with any kind of drivel that can get him noticed is.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
WHEN I’M RIGHT MOST EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG
As I pointed out well before any one else, there will be no meaningful health care reform. Forget “meaningful”…there will be no health care reform. There will eventually be some form of mock health care legislation passed that will be trumpeted as “reform” but nothing will change. The more cynical among us will attribute the failure to the usual politicizing of the issue or be even more accurate by attributing the failing to the usual greed and corruption running rampant in Washington. The trillion dollar a year health care industry has too many palms to grease, too many “donors” to satisfy and too many special interests to placate. Couple that with the almost total ignorance of the general population and what ever measures are passed will be insignificant since no one will really know the difference. But, as usual I understand the real reason things will only get worse regardless of what pitiful changes emerge from the health care debacle.
There isn’t anybody smart enough or committed enough to propose a real plan. Either party coming away from the health care debate without having formulated and enacted a real solution will be proving beyond any doubt that are totally ineffective and useless as leaders. Of course the Democrats will be the biggest losers since they brought the critical issue up in the first place and actually pursued it. But they were too stupid to design a program that could be easily understood and implemented. Nobody even knows what the basic components of their “plan” is.
Taking much less heat will be the Republicans who have made no attempt to have a plan and spent all their time and energy stonewalling any potential improvements. They lose big time if anything substantial happens but that would in no way benefit them. In fact, it’s in their best interest if no plan is implemented. Any meaningful health care reform would only benefit the other party and maybe the country. But that isn’t their goal. They’ve made it their goal to lie about the costs and scare people about the possible consequences in order to be able to point to the failure of the current administration in hope of getting their jobs back.
Both parties suck at what they are being over-paid to do. Democrats achieved control because the previous Republican administration demonstrated clearly they were either too corrupt or too incompetent to run the country (take your pick). Democrats won control because of the ineptitude of the past administration and the promise to change things which they simply haven’t done. The coming failure of health care reform will be ample proof of that.
There isn’t anybody smart enough or committed enough to propose a real plan. Either party coming away from the health care debate without having formulated and enacted a real solution will be proving beyond any doubt that are totally ineffective and useless as leaders. Of course the Democrats will be the biggest losers since they brought the critical issue up in the first place and actually pursued it. But they were too stupid to design a program that could be easily understood and implemented. Nobody even knows what the basic components of their “plan” is.
Taking much less heat will be the Republicans who have made no attempt to have a plan and spent all their time and energy stonewalling any potential improvements. They lose big time if anything substantial happens but that would in no way benefit them. In fact, it’s in their best interest if no plan is implemented. Any meaningful health care reform would only benefit the other party and maybe the country. But that isn’t their goal. They’ve made it their goal to lie about the costs and scare people about the possible consequences in order to be able to point to the failure of the current administration in hope of getting their jobs back.
Both parties suck at what they are being over-paid to do. Democrats achieved control because the previous Republican administration demonstrated clearly they were either too corrupt or too incompetent to run the country (take your pick). Democrats won control because of the ineptitude of the past administration and the promise to change things which they simply haven’t done. The coming failure of health care reform will be ample proof of that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)