Obama Destroys Medicare: Where Are the Republicans?

You should know about the 500 BILLION dollar CUT in Medicare that Obama used to supposedly "pay for" Medicare (see next article). REpulibcans did use that in the ELECTION for Congress, but Repubicans IN Congresss (and potential candidates) did not make nearly enough of a pont of it, AND of the REALITY of "death panels". They were too busy running away from Sarah Palin's ACCURATE term. "PAB" (The Independent Payment Advisory Board established by ObamaCare, is just the tip of the iceberg).


Now a "conservative think tank" has run numbers on Obama's NEW ATTACK ON MEDICARE in Obama's "jobs bill", and has determined that the 135 BILLION dollar cut to Medicare , part D, will COST 230,000 jobs. That is because the "cut" is directed atthe pharmaceutical industry--simply a reduction in reimbursement for durgs.


It is true that Obama's tax increases and ATTACKS on private industry and Medicare will COST NTET JOBS. Wht is the problem, the? Aren't Republicans out there opposing the "jobs bill"? Dream on. You have this "Super Committee", which REPUBICANS set up to FORCE them to give in to Democrats, and lyou continue to have story after story that REPUBLICALNS are saying that Obama will not get more than HALF of the 455 BILLIION dollars he is asking in his Jobs bill". So REPUBLICANS (DE=FEAT LTHEM ALL, how are saying this) are saying that Obama may get 2225 BILLIONI dollars in ADDEED DEBT for GIMMICKS and extra government spending.


What is the NUMBER that REPUBLICANS say they "cut" (no cuts, realy, but simply not spenidng as much as was projected) from the current year's spending (the year beginning October 1)? 24 billiong dolalrs. That is IT. Look at those numbers, Tea Party politicians lwho are NOT out there attacking estalbishment Republicans and John Boehner. And what abut YOUm, Michele Bachmann, who SAID you wanted to ctu 40% of Federal spending for ThIS YEAR (the ONLY way tgo avoid raising the debtg ceiling)? Repbulicans are talking about ADDING 2000 BILLION dollars to THIS YEAR'S DEFICIT (and to the debt).


Wait, you say. Republicans arfe promising to "pay for" whatever they add to the defdicit. You just want to make me antrier at REUBLICANS, don't you? We are NOT PARYING FOR TWHAT WE NOW HARE SPENDING (which Republicans are saying). EVERY "cut", and every dollar of revenue "raised", needs to go to CUT the deficit spending we now have. It is a LIE--an outright, bald-faced lie--to suggest thatat we are "paying for" NEW additions to our debt. All we are doing is making it IMPOSSIBLE to ever REDUCE our deficit (because every dollar, and more, goes to "pay for" ADDDITIOINS to our defict). What can you say about REPUBLICANS this DISHONEST, to adopt this LIE about "paying for" NEW DEBT? There is only one thing you can say about them, and any TEA PARTY REPUB ICANS who let them get away with this perfidy: DEFEAT THEM, including the Tea Party Repubicans who do not STAND LUP AND BE COUNTGED (beyond a simple vote that means nothing, as Michele Bachmann's vote against the raise in the debt ceiling meant nothign).


It gets worse. Is the real lproblem here that Obama is going to directly COST jobs with his "jobs bill". Nope that is A problem, but not the major problem. The other FRAUD that REPUBICANS are participating in is to pretend that "reductions" in deficits TEN YEARS FROM NOW is the same as ADDITIONS to deficits ThHIS YEAR. Vote AGAINST ANY REPUBICAN who tells you taht. It is simply not ture. It is comparing apples and oranges. See, again, the next article. The ten-year projections are written in water. They not only may not take place. They WILL NOT take place (as projected, altough uor system may collapse and we may bctually have to do MORe than these meaningless projections). It is simply obvious. A one dollar addition to the deficit NOW is NOT the equivalent of a suyposed one doaar reduction ten years from now. It is INSANE to pretend otherwise. But Congress, including REPUBICANAS, is INSANE. Some day I will get to my article aobut the INANITY of saying that we have a "short-term jobs problem and a long-term debt problem". Hogwash. The problem is that additions to the SHROT-TERM debt make it IMPOSSIBLE to "solve" our long-term problems. You certainly can't do it by equating a dollar spent today with a SPECULATIVE dollar "saved" ten years from now. Tink o fit, if you could handle your personal finances this way. You could get a bank to LOAN you $1,000,000 dollars NOW on the PROMISE that you would "save/earn" $1,000,0000 in ten years. What am I saying? With the encouragement of the Federal Government, that is exactly what banks DID to get us into this mess.


Yep. I am telling lyou thgat even this "conservative think tank" is NOT attacking the jobs bill on AlL of its iteems, on the grounds lthat ALL of the jobs bill will KILL jobs by making it impossible for the private sector to believe that government is going to become fiscally responsible. Remember my weekly headline on new unemployment calims, where I telly you that Obama is LOSING 1,600,000 GROSS jobs every four weeks? Those headlines are absolutelyl ture, and misleading ONLY in that I am referring to FORSS jobs rather than NET jobs. So is Obama, when he talks about GOVERNMENT "creating" jobs. Even the]n, it has turned out that the government is paying something like $200,000 (or more) for every GROSS job created. And, yet, it is only nET jobsthat matter, and lthis Obama "jobs bill" is a NET jobs KILLER.


Medicare, part D is the most successful of the Medicare programs. That was also true of Medicare Advangtage. That does not mean that they are GOOD probrams. It only means that they are BETTER, because they do not put everything in the control of Federal bureaucrats. That is exactly why Obama is ATTACKILNG those lprograms, alnog with AARP (one of the worst organizations in the history of man, interms of HYOPOCRISY and DISHONESTY). That is the other thing that lthe "conservative think tank" guy FAILED to do. He FAILED to argue what is true: the Obama PLAN here is to DETROY Medicare (especailly those parts of Medicare that do not fit the total government model). Am I saing that Obama has it in for senior citizens? In the sense of "death panels, I am saying exaclty that. My 89 year old moter---who came up with this indpeendently of anythig I said--is convinced Obama id out to KILL HER. Andm, oto a large degree, she is right. Waht Obama wants to do is MERGE Medicare into ObamaCare, and basically make the entire helath care system a government run enterprise.



How can private employers HIRE under this kind of uncertainty and pressure? They can't. That includes the "jobs bill". That bill simply INCREASES the "confidence" that we will PUNISH private emplyers in oder to push PUBLIC DEBT. There is no way to increase NET jobs this way, and Obama does not even care. He is all about government, and that is what he intends to expand. I know. Does he not realize lthat DEMOCRATS are not helped if the economy COLLAPSES? I don't think he does realize that, because he is a True Believer. He believes that every collapse of the economy (" a crisis is a terrible thing to waste"--quoting Rahm Emmanuel) is merely another OPPORTUNITY to INCREASE GOVERNMENT CONTROL. The Obama delusion, and the present Wall Street deulusion, is that the government knows what it is doing, or is even capable of knowing what it is doing.



No. You can attack Obama on the easy details of his "jobs bill". But these FRAUDS that represent the real, fundamental problem are being connived in by to many Republicans. That is why I am heading for an election where I will probably recommend you vote against most TEA PARTY REPUBICANS. I have alreayd tol you to vote against all ESTABLISHMENT Republicans. But the Tea Party Republicans are hardly "standing up" for their supposed principles. You say that Michele Bachmann would have DOOMED her candidacy if she had ATTACKED John Boehne r and establishment Republicans in the way I would have wished? Uh-huh. And what has happened to Michele Bachmann by using a "strategy" of merely avoiding saying much of anything substantive, or antagonizing the powers that be? Right. She has LOST the election. Sure, she was always a long dshot. But she has not even been a positive force. That is why I withdrew my endorsement of her. Her challenged ow is to avoid me tellling everyone to DEFEAT HER for Congress next t year. No, unlike Romney and Perry, Bachmann does not need to worry about me not voting for her for Preisdent, if some miracle gives her the nomination (not going to happen). That is because I would want Bachmann to be President merely to see so may leftists FOAMING at the mouth. But I am perfectly capable of sugesting taht Bachmann be DEFEATED for Congress, despite recognizing that she has been a heroine of the anti-ObamaCare movement, on the grounds thaat she has simplly BETRAYED her principles by not PUSHING the SUBSTGNACE of real spending and deficit reductions. No, I do not doubt Bachmann's "sincerity". I doubt her INTELLIGENT COMMITMENT to the principles in which I do think she believes. She seems to have gotten the "bug" that she might actually be President, and that destroyed her (from that moment). I often thought Fred Thompson would have made the ideal Pressident. He did not really want the job, or--especailly--to run for it. Problem: How do we ELECT someone like Fred Thompson, wo makes it so obvious that he has no commitment to the job? A Catch 22 of Presidential politics: The only people who can be Preisdent are those who show themselves to be unworthy of the job.


Where are the Presidenttial candidates on Obama's jobs bill? The DETAILED parts of that "jobs bill"? Are thye o"on board' with $225 billion, instad of 455 billin (betraying the supposed "deal of this summer by Republicans)? If so, why should AnYONE vote for them. And if you don't know what they think about these issues, why don't you? Is it because these candidates,a dn the media, don't want you to know exactly hwere they stand on this?


you can sse why I call myself a major league cynic, even thyough I don't thik it is the healthy attitude toward life.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).