We must vote for those candidates of any party that reflect these values: hard work, self-determination, smaller government, fiscal responsibility and honesty. Look to the character of anyone you chose to support. Their past does matter if they haven't learned from it. Their personal life is as relevant as their public one. We must be able to trust those who will be advising and leading us on what our country must do next. -Glenn Beck

Thursday, July 30, 2009

The Conservative Solution to Health Care

I was watching the Health Care Reform infomercial channel (CNN) yesterday, and they continually made comments that gave the impression that the big bad Republicans were blocking the Democrats' attempts to help the poor downtrodden citizens of the U.S. to recieve good health care. Completely false. The Republicans simply realize there is a better way:

"Mr. President, what's the rush?" by Mitt Romney

Imagine that... Provide health care to all citizens, allowing them to maintain their freedoms, at no additional cost, limiting government control, and all the while creating a structure that will continually drive down the costs of health care. 2012 will not come soon enough.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Palin and the Wolf

I just flipped over to CNN (as I do sometimes when I want to get the liberal viewpoint). Wolf Blitzer was talking about Sarah Palin and played her quote where she tells the media to quit making things up.

After they played the clip, Wolf asked the question: "If she wants national office, is that a smart strategy for her?"

I rewound it and listened to it again to make sure I'd heard right. That is exactly what he said, word for word. Wolf, probably without even knowing it, was showing his true colors. His comment was a threat.

It used to be that journalists would report the news. The mark of a great journalist was objectivity. But somewhere along the line, the media decided that rather than simply reporting the news, they wanted to influence the news. Like most liberals, they consider themselves elite (i.e. smarter than others), and they seek for power. Rather than just standing by and reporting the outcome of elections, they want to actually influence who gets elected. Wolf believes that if Palin wants to get to White House, the road goes through the media. Cross them, and they will crush your dreams.

Better watch out, Sarah! If you're not careful, the media will attack your experience as a mayor of a small town, your record and investigations, your education, your record as governor, your husband, your teenage daughter, your handicapped son, the way you talk, the way you dress, the state you were governor of, your religion, your hobbies, your finances, your win in a pagent 20 years ago, and everything you do or say, and it will continue long after the election is over!

Thursday, July 23, 2009

"I'm not asking for a handout"


I turned on the news this morning to see a woman speaking at news conference. She was telling a sad story about her experience with health care. The story went something like this:

"I was being responsible. I purchased a health care plan with a high deductible for a true crisis. Then one day I heard the horrible words 'You have cancer.' My first thought was not about the treatments or my family or my life; I worried about how I was going to pay for it. I went through the treatments, and one item on the 4-page itemized bill was for $6000. My only thought was whether I was going to have to lose my house. I finally made it through all the treatments. My mortgage company threatened to foreclose on my house, even though I had never missed a payment or even made a late payment."

Then came the kicker for me. She said:

"I'm not asking for a handout."

Then she proceeded to say that she just wanted government to take care of people like her that can't afford health care.

Once again, I thought I must be taking crazy pills. My understanding had always been that a handout was when somebody got something for doing nothing. I realized that I must have been wrong my whole life. So I went to the dictionary and saw this:

"Hand-out: Anything given away for nothing."

This woman was asking for the government to give her $100,000 worth of hospital treatment for $0. It doesn't matter if it was $100,000 worth of treatment for $10,000, or $20,000, or even $99,999. What she is asking for is for the government to give her a certain amount of treatment in exchange for nothing. I've got news for you sister: That is a handout.


Nancy Pelosi stood contently behind this woman as she told her story. It really would have been a compelling story, if it were true. I don't doubt that the woman had cancer, and I am completely sympathetic to her situation in that regard. But I know other parts of the story are either not true or are exaggerated. How do I know?

If she had truly purchased the insurance with a high deductible for a crisis situation, I believe the cancer would have qualified. If her deductible was $10,000, then she would have paid $10,000. The insurance would cover the rest. Even if there were a co-pay of 10% on a $100,000 bill with no maximum (an unusual situation), that would have added only $10,000 more. My guess is that the car she drives cost more than that total.

Then, as Dave Ramsey tells us, he's done some research, and 100% of the homes that are foreclosed have a mortgage on them. This woman took out a loan, and obligated herself to repay that loan in 360 monthly payments. If she fails to make those payments and meet her end of the obligation, the mortgage company takes the home as stated in the contract she signed when she bought the home. It has nothing to do with health care. But a mortgage company will never (and legally can never) take the home if she has never missed or even been late on a payment.

The Democrats find a well-spoken, well-dressed woman to tell this half-true sob story, and the people sitting at home think, "If it can happen to her, it could happen to me!" They mislead them to believe that she had to pay for every item on that 4-page itemized list (with only one of those items costing $6,000) even though she had insurance, and that the mortgage company was trying to take her home even though she was doing everything right.

Liberals operate on emotion, and one common liberal tactic (that is an Obama-favorite) is to try to scare people. It's been quite an effective tactic over the years. Democrats like to tell elderly people that the Republicans want to take away their Social Security, for example. Then when the Republicans say, "What? No we don't", the elderly people think the Republicans are trying to hide something.

Obama used fear to push the stimulus through, and the Democrats are using the same tactic to try to get health care socialized in two weeks. "We don't have time to debate this -- The American people need health care now!"


Unbiased CNN, presenting the official story as "What would you be willing to give up for health care?" then played a clip from Obama saying something like, "Some people say this is socialized health care. I don't want to socialize health care. The government shouldn't and couldn't run health care."

OK. Back to the dictionary:

"Socialized Medicine: Any of various systems to provide the entire population with complete medical care through government subsidization and regularization of medical and health services."

Hmmmm... Maybe Obama's dictionary got misplaced along with his birth certificate.


Liberals believe that every American citizen should be entitled to health care, although they get quite offended if you actually use the term "entitlement":

"Entitlement: The right to guaranteed benefits under a government program."

Where in The Constitution does it say that Americans are entitled to health care? Where did this idea come from that a person should get something for nothing?

Why has America emerged as the superpower that it is? It wasn't because of handouts from other nations. Quite the contrary, as a matter of fact. America is the land of opportunity, where it doesn't matter if you were born a "peasant"; anyone can rise as high and go as far as they want to if they are willing to work hard. That is why peole from other countries flock to the United States.

The American philosophy of "something for something" (the opposite of something for nothing) is what has pushed us and propelled us to be the economic and political power of the world. If a person gets out what that person puts in, that person will be willing to put more in to get more out.


And as long as we're entitling, why start with health care? Basic human needs are food, shelter, and clothing. If the government is going to provide, why not start with universal food? Or how about handing out a house to everybody? I know I spend way more money on housing than I do on health care. Why not socialized clothes? Where does it end?

We understand that if we want to buy a house, we have to pay for it. So how has this sense been created that a surgery is something that we shouldn't have to pay for? (Especially understanding that it is our neighbor who is paying for it.)


Some are probably thinking, if universal health care is such a bad idea, and it's going to increase costs and hurt the economy and lead to even more job loss and increase waiting times at hospitals and reduce the quality of care and on and on... Why would the Democrats be pushing for it?

One of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, said:

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have."

Obama and the Democrats would silently smile and say: "Exactly."

Once again, it's about power and control.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Real Life Economics

I regret that I'm feeling vindicated. I've taken my fair share of courses in economics over the years. In each of those courses, it really bothered me every time the teachers would ridicule "trickle-down" economics. Without mentioning any names specifically, they would smugly bash Reagan and his economics policies. As we studied the Great Depression and other depressions throughout history, they would demonstrate that the best way to get out of a recession and grow the government was for the government to spend our way out of it using demand-side economics.

I sat there in each class, knowing what they were saying was contrary to everything I believed, but not having enough knowledge to debate them as they "proved" everything through formulas.

It's unfortunate for our country, but the past 10 months have vindicated everything I believe. The country doesn't run on formulas.

Starting with President George W. Bush (who, as great as he was in many ways, was unfortunately not a fiscal conservative) and the housing bailout (remember when we thought $700 billion was a huge number?), and then the additional $1 trillion from Obama's stimulus plan, the government has been pumping record-breaking amounts of cash into the economy since September 2008. If what my economics professors had been telling me in each of these classes was correct, the GDP should have skyrocketed, unemployment should have sunk, and we ought to be well on our road to recovery.


Instead, here are the results of the government "saving" the country through spending:

Economic (GDP) Growth

Q1 2008: 0.9%
Q2 2008: 2.8%
Q3 2008: -0.5% (This is when the economy was "really bad")
Q4 2008: -6.3% (First bailout)
Q1 2009: -5.5% (Second bailout)
Q2 2009: ? (Numbers are not yet available)


July 2008: 6.0%
August 2008: 6.1%
September 2008: 6.0%
October 2008: 6.1% (First bailout)
November 2008: 6.5%
December 2008: 7.1%
January 2009: 8.5%
February 2009: 8.9% (Second bailout)
March 2009: 9.0%
April 2009: 8.6%
May 2009: 9.1%
June 2009: 9.7%

So what's President Obama's solution? The bailout and the first stimulus worked out so well, that Obama is now telling us we "need" a second stimulus.


Any time anybody calls Obama on the horrible performance of the economy, he tells us:

A) This is the Bush administration's fault. (He'll be using this one throughout his term as President.)
B) "This was not designed to work in four months. It was designed to work in two years." (Seeing the numbers, I'm scared to see what the economy will look like in two years.)
C) The condition of the economy have been worse had we not put the stimulus through.

C is my favorite. This is the same method liberals have had to revert to when global temperatures decreased (record July lows around the country): "Ummmm... Well, the fact that the country is seeing record lows is actually caused by global warming. Let's call it... 'climate change.'" Just compare the numbers to imaginary numbers. If only Bush would have known about this technique: "Well, the economy grew by 0.1% in Q1 2008, but that is actually 10% better than it was going to grow."


If a true conservative like Romney or Thompson had been elected, or even the non-conservative Republican John McCain, the first item on the agenda would have been to slash taxes. The record shows it. The result of slashing taxes is immediate; there would have been no excuses and no waiting period.

What would have happened if, rather than opening the floodgates on government spending, we would have slashed taxes? Nothing imaginary about this. We know what would have happened, because it's already been done in the early 1980s in a similar recession. Check out the post "The Solution" from April 10, 2009 for some numbers on what happened as a result of those tax cuts.

I just read a quote from Eric Cantor (R - VA) that I thought put things into perspective:

"For the [first] stimulus alone, Washington borrowed nearly $10,000 from every American household. Let me ask you: Do you feel $10,000 richer today?"

You will have to feel $10,000 richer before the stimulus is worth it to you. What if, instead, the government had cut your taxes by $10,000? Would you feel $10,000 richer then?


It looks like to pay for a part of the stimulus (it won't pay for it all, so look for more tax increases), the government is going to raise the tax rate of those making more than $1 million per year by 5.4%.

Better us than them, right? They won't miss it! The problem is that people who make more than $1 million got that way buy investing in business for the most part. (Check out "Econ 101" from February 11, 2009.) So if you take 5.4% of $10 million, that's $540,000 in additional money that would have been used to open new businesses and hire new employees and invest in start ups.

The tax increase kills business growth and increases unemployment. But the liberals keep stealing from the rich.


So why do the democrats persist when the stimulus is obviously not working? The strategy is to increase spending to the point that taxes need to be raised, and then you get stories like this:

Calif tax officials: Legal pot would rake in $1.4B

In order to push through their agenda, the liberals have to create an environment where their policies "need" to be pushed through in order to save the country. President Obama has used the stimulus, not to create jobs, but to socialize the country.

It now appears the next item on the liberal agenda is to finally push through socialized health care. That money has got to come from somewhere, and according to the Drudge Report today, New York's richest may pay 57% in taxes to pay for it. Taxes will be similarly hiked around the country.

The economy will continue to flat line as more jobs are slashed, more businesses shut their doors, and more companies move their operations overseas. Obama's policies will destroy the economy of this country.


The democrats have a super majority, so the Republicans can't do anything to stop them. There is only one thing we can do. Write a letter, wherever you are, to your congressmen, and let them know they are facing their last term if they vote for the health care bill. Their job is the only language they understand.

We have to limp along until 2010, retake majorities in Congress, and then work hard for 2012 so that we can undo the mess that's been created.


Demand-side economics may fine work on an exam, but we've had nearly a year of running the model in the real world. If you were assigning a grade to the economy over the past year, what would it be?

I want my tuition back.

Friday, July 10, 2009

[Insert Laughter Here]

Ladies and gentlemen, look what our commander and chief is up to:

Looks like he's giving his own personalized Presidential Seal of approval! ZING!

But seriously, folks, this picture, though funny, is just a case of a picture taken at just the wrong time. You can see the entire video of this "incident" here. But this once again raised a question that has been bugging me since Obama began to run for office - WHY IS EVERYONE SO AFRAID TO MAKE JOKES ABOUT PRESIDENT OBAMA??

I'm not a political person by any means. I've refrained from posting on this blog for some time because I am not informed about political issues. However, I do watch a lot of TV and, in particular, a lot of comedy and it's shocking to see how they avoid mocking our 44th president.

During the campaign, it was pretty obvious that the majority of "Hollywood" wanted Obama to win. Saturday Night Live (a sketch comedy show, NOT a politicial forum, might I add) made a point of slamming the McCain/Palin team each and every show while mocking the people who were against Obama. In a world where the rising generation (people like me) knows less and less about the political system, television shows like SNL really will sway their opinon. And I truly believe that this was the case with this past election. Entertainers said that John McCain was old, Sarah Palin was stupid and Barack Obama was cool - and the mindless masses blindly believed them.

Someone else noticed this as well:

There was even a study done by the LA times that gave statistics of how many jokes were made about President Bush, John McCain, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama. You can see the results here. It's not just me, comedians really were avoiding making fun of Obama!

I figured it would all blow over after the election, but I have been shocked and annoyed with how late-night comedians like David Letterman and Conan O' Brien have CONTINUED to make jokes about John McCain, Sarah Palin and even former President Bush even though they are, for the most part, out of the picture.

Now why is this the case? Why does President Obama remain practically untouched by the humor writers? Well, there are some theories out there (see here, here and here). Some say that it's because you'll be considered a racist if you make fun of him, others say that it's because the media is biased and wants to keep President Obama "cool" in the public eye. It's definitely not because the media respects the office of the President of the United States. Comedians have been making fun of presidents and presidential candidates almost as long as those positions have existed - and it's only gotten worse in the last 30 years (think Chevy Chase as Gerald Ford).

And please, please do NOT give me the excuse that you "just can't make fun of the guy."


You're just not trying hard enough, comedians.

We deserve current comedy.