Have you wondered why the official name of the AP is the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press"? Well, you can consult the archives of this blog. But there was another example this afternoon, showing why Yahoo News might be regarded as anti-American as well by featuring the anti-American propaganda of the AP.
One of those AP stories featured on the Yahoo News welcome screen this afternoon had a headline something like this: "CIA Papers Show Interrogations Used Mock Executions".
So what--unless you are the anti-American AP, or mainstream media or another leftist nut. These anti-American, anti-CIA stories now date back almost a DECADE, to the time right after 9/11. Yep. The AP, mainstream media, many leftists, and many Democratic politician's are STILL persecuting people in the CIA for actions taken to protect this country after 9/11, by people doing the best they knew how--people who had this country more at heart than ANY of the people I have observed att he despicable AP.
Are "mock executions" torture? If you think so (you FOOL you!!!!), then I have a curse for you. May you be the target of one of those reality TV shows that creates what amounts to a sick practical joke. I actually kept watching one because I could not believe these people are not sued REGULARLY. I don't even remember the name of the show--blocked it out. But they put the poor girl who was the target of the show in MUCH worse than a "mock execution". They put here in the middle of a HORROR MOVIE (that is, convinced her she was in a real situation right out of a horror movie). Now that's torture (hot to mention watching these reality shows, which I avoid--unless I get sucked in by the horror of what I am seeing).
In short, I have no problem with the CIA getting information out of terrorists with "mock executions". I would be disappointed if they did not trly things like that. The terrorists, of course, use REAL beheadings. Do you wonder that I consider the despicable AP as anti-American. Even if you don't like lthis interrogation "technique", and I havce no problem with that opinion, it is insane to be trashing/persecuting people for bruising YOUR sensibilities 5-8 years after the fact. It puts the CIA at risk around the world, and is the kind of propaganda (propaganda can be true, and the best usually is, if it over-emphasizes the negative out of context) that our terrorist ENEMIES would. That is, they would spread it if the they were capable of it, and if the anti American AP were not already spreading tthis anti-American propaganda more widely and effectively than the terrorists ever could. All anti-American forces around the world have to do is pick up and amplify the stuff our mainstream media is putting out.
The despicable AP, and Yahoo News, should be ashamed. But these anti-American people have no shame.
P.S. If Nancy Pelosi can call American citizens "un-American" for merely exercising their right of free speech in criticizing Congress, I can call the anti-American AP "anti-American". There is also the fact that I am right about the AP, and Nancy Pelosi is wrong about her criticism of ordinary Americans doing nothing to make the world unsafe for Americans.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Social Security, Medicare and the Despicable Associated lPress: Scaring Seniors With Lies (When They Should Be Scared for the Correct Reasons)
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer – Sun Aug 23, 9:34 am ET
WASHINGTON – Millions of older people face shrinking Social Security checks next year, the first time in a generation that payments would not rise.
The trustees who oversee Social Security are projecting there won't be a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for the next two years. That hasn't happened since automatic increases were adopted in 1975.
By law, Social Security benefits cannot go down. Nevertheless, monthly payments would drop for millions of people in the Medicare prescription drug program because the premiums, which often are deducted from Social Security payments, are scheduled to go up slightly."
As an exercise, you might try and discover the LIES by the "Anti-American Despicable Associated Press" (always use complete, official name in first reference), as revealed in the above excerpt from the present AP story featured on Yahoo News (making liars out of Yahoo), before I highlight the lies for you. No, you don't need any outside research or knowledge. The lies are revealed by the AP itself--so bad that it exposes itself as a nest of LIARS in a mere three paragraphs. It is a talent peculiarly possessed by such otherwise untalented people.
"....since automatic increases were adopted in 1975" (see end of second paragraph): Is that a LIE? Don't take my word for it. Read the whole excerpt above, and you will discover that the despicable (stupid) AP calls itself a LIAR. "Automatic increases" were NOT instituted in 1975, as the AP points out elsewhere. A cost of living ADJUSTMENT was adopted in 1975. Well, did not Congress expect the cost of living to go UP every year? They may have anticipated that would be the usual case, but the helpful AP (helpful in pointing out its own lies) points out that Congress ANTICIPATED the possibility of the cost of iving going DOWN by a provision that Social Security checks will never go DOWN (no matter how much DEFLATION might occur). Thus, it is certainly a LIE to say that Congress adopted "automatic increases" in 1975. The idea was to keep the payments the SAME, in purchasing power, every year (thereby avoiding Congress having to have those constant arguments over raising the benefits to keep up with inflation, as Congress still does--stupidly--with the minimum wage).
"Well," you say, "Skip is just being picky. For someone who has as many typos as Skip does, without correction--sometimes garbling entire lines when he doesn't even notice his fingers are on the wrong keys--why should Skip pick on the AP over this relatively minor "slip of the mind?" Wrong, bison breath. I was just getting warmed up. The whole AP/Yahoo Article is a LIE. That stupidity about "automatic increases" is just a minor lie supporting the Big Lie ("1984" terminology--appropriate for the Age of Obama).
The despicable AP itself says that Social Security payments will not go DOWN. Yet, the headline and the article assert that Social Security's payments will be "shrinking". "Seniors Face Shrinking Social Security Checks" screams the headline, and asserts the lead paragraph, and it is a LIE.
"Ah," you say (bison breath stupid as you are), "your last paragraph confused 'checks' with 'payments', and you are confusing 'benefits' with 'checks'. The AP explains that CHECKS will go down because 'many' people have their Medicare Drug Benefit premiums deducted from their Social Security benefit checks." Wrong again!!!! It is not ME that is confusing these things, but the LIARS at the despicable AP who are deliberately confusing those things.
The Medicare Drug Benefit Program and Social Security have NOTHING to do with one another (other than that both that program and the proposed new Federal "overhaul" of health care may end up endangering both Medicare and Social Security, and ultimately damaging seniors). What difference does it make if you have CHOSEN to pay for a SEPARATE benefit you are getting out of your Social Security checks? How is that different from people who may be paying as much, or MORE, for drugs outside of the Medicare programme? As to how the proposed new health care program will drive out private insurance, you might consider that my 86 year old woman had perfectly good drug coverage. However, she CHOSE to drop that coverage, and join the new program, because the government SUBSIDIZED the new program (making it seemingly cheaper). I don't know whether my mother is paying the premiums out of her Social Security check or not. So what. Those premiums are a SUBSTITUTE for paying what she was going to have to pay anyway, and have nothing to do with Social Security.
The Medicare Drug Benefit program :(disaster though it is), is supposed to provide a BENEFIT to seniors, making them BETTER OFF. Whether that is true or not (and if it is not, it merely shows you what you can expect with the proposed now health care "overhaul"). Seniors who do not pay that premium do not get that "benefit". It is simply a cost of living, like Medicare premiums themselves--or FOOD--to pay for needed drugs by means of insurance that you choose to pay for out of your Social Security check (which you might well do with other things you need, if the government would let you).
It is a "1984" style Big Lie, by the LIARS of the AP, to try to SCARE seniors by misrepresenting reality. Let me explain further, so that even you--the reader--can understand. Say that Social Security "checks" were going to go UP in January , because the cost of living had gone UP. Does that not mean that the actual purchasing power of those checks would be SHRINKING, because of those increased Medicare premiums ("for millions")? Of course it does. The "increase" was intended to keep seniors in the same place. The Medicare premiums are an entirely separate thing (like comparing apples and oranges), and any increased Medicare premiums (whether paid out of Social Security or not) must ALWAYS be regarded as "shrinking" the resources of seniors. Of course, those premiums PURCHASE a benefit, and the question is whether that benefit is worth it. But that has nothing to do with Social Security. Those premium's have to be paid from somewhere by seniors, or the drugs have to be paid for, and whether they are paid out of Social Security "checks' is IRRELEVANT to any economic reality--"reality", that is, to anyone outside of the LIARS at the AP, and in the rest of the mainstream media. This idea that what you pay for out of your Social Security check is somehow differently from what you pay for out of your "own pocket" is absurd. Paying "from your own pocket" is the SAME as paying out of your Social Security check.
Say the "cost of living" INCREASED .1%. Would the Social Security check still "shrink" for millions? Of course it would, because the increase ni premiums would probably exceed the (mostly fictional, because representing inflation) increase in the checks to cover the cost of living. Again, one has nothing to do with the other, and the (implied) assertion of the despicable AP that they have something to do with one another is the biggest LIE of all!!!!!
What is the purpose of misleading seniors this way, and SCARING them? Is the despicable AP secretly SABOTAGING President Obama? It can hardly do President Obama any good for seniors to be further (if correctly) scared about what the government is doing to them, and perhaps going to do to them. We know that the despicable AP is composed of anti-American leftists. See archives of this blog. Are there moles conservative moles in the AP, or is there another explanation?
I think there is another explanation for this AP article scaring seniors with LIES. I think the AP people are just STUPID leftists. They think government money is "free", and in the back of their minds they probably think that seniors are "entitled" to a cost of living increase, even though the cost of living did not increase. Will Obama and the Democrats propose some "bailout" for seniors here--using as an excuse that their social security checks are "shrinking"? Don't bet against it.
P.S. Remember that the despicable AP is deliberately confusing people by talking about SOCIAL SECURITY checks "shrinking" "for millions" because of MEDICARE (drug benefit) premiums (apples and oranges). I mention this again because I foulnd myself typing "Medicare" when I meant "Social Security", and vice versa. I tried to catch those slips, but I hope you will forgive me if the AP managed to confuse even me, who knew their game. Deductionis from Social Security checks ALWYAS "shrink" those checks, and the idea that a "cost of living" increase--or lack of one--has any significance as to the econoics of such "shrinkage" is a fantasy of the despicable AP.
WASHINGTON – Millions of older people face shrinking Social Security checks next year, the first time in a generation that payments would not rise.
The trustees who oversee Social Security are projecting there won't be a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for the next two years. That hasn't happened since automatic increases were adopted in 1975.
By law, Social Security benefits cannot go down. Nevertheless, monthly payments would drop for millions of people in the Medicare prescription drug program because the premiums, which often are deducted from Social Security payments, are scheduled to go up slightly."
As an exercise, you might try and discover the LIES by the "Anti-American Despicable Associated Press" (always use complete, official name in first reference), as revealed in the above excerpt from the present AP story featured on Yahoo News (making liars out of Yahoo), before I highlight the lies for you. No, you don't need any outside research or knowledge. The lies are revealed by the AP itself--so bad that it exposes itself as a nest of LIARS in a mere three paragraphs. It is a talent peculiarly possessed by such otherwise untalented people.
"....since automatic increases were adopted in 1975" (see end of second paragraph): Is that a LIE? Don't take my word for it. Read the whole excerpt above, and you will discover that the despicable (stupid) AP calls itself a LIAR. "Automatic increases" were NOT instituted in 1975, as the AP points out elsewhere. A cost of living ADJUSTMENT was adopted in 1975. Well, did not Congress expect the cost of living to go UP every year? They may have anticipated that would be the usual case, but the helpful AP (helpful in pointing out its own lies) points out that Congress ANTICIPATED the possibility of the cost of iving going DOWN by a provision that Social Security checks will never go DOWN (no matter how much DEFLATION might occur). Thus, it is certainly a LIE to say that Congress adopted "automatic increases" in 1975. The idea was to keep the payments the SAME, in purchasing power, every year (thereby avoiding Congress having to have those constant arguments over raising the benefits to keep up with inflation, as Congress still does--stupidly--with the minimum wage).
"Well," you say, "Skip is just being picky. For someone who has as many typos as Skip does, without correction--sometimes garbling entire lines when he doesn't even notice his fingers are on the wrong keys--why should Skip pick on the AP over this relatively minor "slip of the mind?" Wrong, bison breath. I was just getting warmed up. The whole AP/Yahoo Article is a LIE. That stupidity about "automatic increases" is just a minor lie supporting the Big Lie ("1984" terminology--appropriate for the Age of Obama).
The despicable AP itself says that Social Security payments will not go DOWN. Yet, the headline and the article assert that Social Security's payments will be "shrinking". "Seniors Face Shrinking Social Security Checks" screams the headline, and asserts the lead paragraph, and it is a LIE.
"Ah," you say (bison breath stupid as you are), "your last paragraph confused 'checks' with 'payments', and you are confusing 'benefits' with 'checks'. The AP explains that CHECKS will go down because 'many' people have their Medicare Drug Benefit premiums deducted from their Social Security benefit checks." Wrong again!!!! It is not ME that is confusing these things, but the LIARS at the despicable AP who are deliberately confusing those things.
The Medicare Drug Benefit Program and Social Security have NOTHING to do with one another (other than that both that program and the proposed new Federal "overhaul" of health care may end up endangering both Medicare and Social Security, and ultimately damaging seniors). What difference does it make if you have CHOSEN to pay for a SEPARATE benefit you are getting out of your Social Security checks? How is that different from people who may be paying as much, or MORE, for drugs outside of the Medicare programme? As to how the proposed new health care program will drive out private insurance, you might consider that my 86 year old woman had perfectly good drug coverage. However, she CHOSE to drop that coverage, and join the new program, because the government SUBSIDIZED the new program (making it seemingly cheaper). I don't know whether my mother is paying the premiums out of her Social Security check or not. So what. Those premiums are a SUBSTITUTE for paying what she was going to have to pay anyway, and have nothing to do with Social Security.
The Medicare Drug Benefit program :(disaster though it is), is supposed to provide a BENEFIT to seniors, making them BETTER OFF. Whether that is true or not (and if it is not, it merely shows you what you can expect with the proposed now health care "overhaul"). Seniors who do not pay that premium do not get that "benefit". It is simply a cost of living, like Medicare premiums themselves--or FOOD--to pay for needed drugs by means of insurance that you choose to pay for out of your Social Security check (which you might well do with other things you need, if the government would let you).
It is a "1984" style Big Lie, by the LIARS of the AP, to try to SCARE seniors by misrepresenting reality. Let me explain further, so that even you--the reader--can understand. Say that Social Security "checks" were going to go UP in January , because the cost of living had gone UP. Does that not mean that the actual purchasing power of those checks would be SHRINKING, because of those increased Medicare premiums ("for millions")? Of course it does. The "increase" was intended to keep seniors in the same place. The Medicare premiums are an entirely separate thing (like comparing apples and oranges), and any increased Medicare premiums (whether paid out of Social Security or not) must ALWAYS be regarded as "shrinking" the resources of seniors. Of course, those premiums PURCHASE a benefit, and the question is whether that benefit is worth it. But that has nothing to do with Social Security. Those premium's have to be paid from somewhere by seniors, or the drugs have to be paid for, and whether they are paid out of Social Security "checks' is IRRELEVANT to any economic reality--"reality", that is, to anyone outside of the LIARS at the AP, and in the rest of the mainstream media. This idea that what you pay for out of your Social Security check is somehow differently from what you pay for out of your "own pocket" is absurd. Paying "from your own pocket" is the SAME as paying out of your Social Security check.
Say the "cost of living" INCREASED .1%. Would the Social Security check still "shrink" for millions? Of course it would, because the increase ni premiums would probably exceed the (mostly fictional, because representing inflation) increase in the checks to cover the cost of living. Again, one has nothing to do with the other, and the (implied) assertion of the despicable AP that they have something to do with one another is the biggest LIE of all!!!!!
What is the purpose of misleading seniors this way, and SCARING them? Is the despicable AP secretly SABOTAGING President Obama? It can hardly do President Obama any good for seniors to be further (if correctly) scared about what the government is doing to them, and perhaps going to do to them. We know that the despicable AP is composed of anti-American leftists. See archives of this blog. Are there moles conservative moles in the AP, or is there another explanation?
I think there is another explanation for this AP article scaring seniors with LIES. I think the AP people are just STUPID leftists. They think government money is "free", and in the back of their minds they probably think that seniors are "entitled" to a cost of living increase, even though the cost of living did not increase. Will Obama and the Democrats propose some "bailout" for seniors here--using as an excuse that their social security checks are "shrinking"? Don't bet against it.
P.S. Remember that the despicable AP is deliberately confusing people by talking about SOCIAL SECURITY checks "shrinking" "for millions" because of MEDICARE (drug benefit) premiums (apples and oranges). I mention this again because I foulnd myself typing "Medicare" when I meant "Social Security", and vice versa. I tried to catch those slips, but I hope you will forgive me if the AP managed to confuse even me, who knew their game. Deductionis from Social Security checks ALWYAS "shrink" those checks, and the idea that a "cost of living" increase--or lack of one--has any significance as to the econoics of such "shrinkage" is a fantasy of the despicable AP.
Friday, August 21, 2009
New York Governor Patterson and the Leftist, "White Dominated" Media: Racists Together (Racial Harmony Moment Marred by Internal Bickering)
ALBANY - Gov. Paterson blamed a racist media Friday for trying to push him out of next year's election - launching into an angry rant that left even some black Democrats shaking their heads.
"The whole idea is to get me not to run in the primary," Paterson complained on a morning radio show hosted by Daily News columnist Errol Louis.
He suggested that Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, the country's only other African-American governor, also is under fire because of his race.
"We're not in the post-racial period," Paterson said."
The above is from an article in the New York Daily News, linked on drudgereport.com (if you want to read entire article). Now the (sealed) fate of Governor Patterson is not important, but this racist attitude IS important. It is often reflected in the mainstream media attempt to categorize opposition to President Obama as "racist", when the primary racism in this country today is in people on the left. It is those people who see other people in this country totally in terms of race. What other definition is there of "racism" other than looking at people solely as members of a racial or ethnic group, and not as individuals?
let me do a logical syllogism for Governor Patterson, and you other racist leftists out there:
1. People are DEFINED by their race, which totally determines how they look at the world, and how they view other people.
2. There are more "whites" than "blacks" in New York (not just more "white dominated" media).
3. The "whites" in New York will, therefore, never vote for a black person, because we are not in a "post-racial" society.
Q.E.D. Governor Patterson NEVER had any chance, and it is not a matter of the "white dominated" media.
I know. I left out a few things. But it is NOT ME that left them out. It is Governor Patterson, and the leftist racists out there. Why did all of those "whites" out there vote agaist their racial "interest", and for President Obama? Why was the "white dominated" mainstream media so biased in favor of Obama, and why is it still biased in his favor?
Governor Patterson has FAILED in New York. That is not to mention that he "confessed" to multiple sexual misconduct--not to mention other misconduct with, I believe, drugs--when he became governor after Gov. Spitzer (white) resigned because of sexual misconduct (which also involved the governor consorting with a criminal prostitution ring). I think Governor Patterson may have confessed to things that Mark Sanford has not even gotten around to. I am not, of curse, sure about that.
Think of just how pernicious and racist it is to suggest that a black politician should not be subject to the same types of criticisms, and media "suggestions", as white politicians. Sarah Palin would be ecstatic if the "white dominated" media treated her as well as they have treated Governor Patterson. I say this last thing with total confidence, even though I have not followed exactly how the media has treated Gov. Patterson in New York. But he, at least, has not been subjected to (unfair) national ridicule, even when he has deserved it (and I am aware of times he has deserved it).
Nope. The reason we can't get to a "post-racial" society is the racists on the left. Most of the rest of us are ready and willing to go beyond race, and leave it behind as a defining characteristic of people. The left is holding society back with their reactionary, old fashioned racism.
"The whole idea is to get me not to run in the primary," Paterson complained on a morning radio show hosted by Daily News columnist Errol Louis.
He suggested that Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, the country's only other African-American governor, also is under fire because of his race.
"We're not in the post-racial period," Paterson said."
The above is from an article in the New York Daily News, linked on drudgereport.com (if you want to read entire article). Now the (sealed) fate of Governor Patterson is not important, but this racist attitude IS important. It is often reflected in the mainstream media attempt to categorize opposition to President Obama as "racist", when the primary racism in this country today is in people on the left. It is those people who see other people in this country totally in terms of race. What other definition is there of "racism" other than looking at people solely as members of a racial or ethnic group, and not as individuals?
let me do a logical syllogism for Governor Patterson, and you other racist leftists out there:
1. People are DEFINED by their race, which totally determines how they look at the world, and how they view other people.
2. There are more "whites" than "blacks" in New York (not just more "white dominated" media).
3. The "whites" in New York will, therefore, never vote for a black person, because we are not in a "post-racial" society.
Q.E.D. Governor Patterson NEVER had any chance, and it is not a matter of the "white dominated" media.
I know. I left out a few things. But it is NOT ME that left them out. It is Governor Patterson, and the leftist racists out there. Why did all of those "whites" out there vote agaist their racial "interest", and for President Obama? Why was the "white dominated" mainstream media so biased in favor of Obama, and why is it still biased in his favor?
Governor Patterson has FAILED in New York. That is not to mention that he "confessed" to multiple sexual misconduct--not to mention other misconduct with, I believe, drugs--when he became governor after Gov. Spitzer (white) resigned because of sexual misconduct (which also involved the governor consorting with a criminal prostitution ring). I think Governor Patterson may have confessed to things that Mark Sanford has not even gotten around to. I am not, of curse, sure about that.
Think of just how pernicious and racist it is to suggest that a black politician should not be subject to the same types of criticisms, and media "suggestions", as white politicians. Sarah Palin would be ecstatic if the "white dominated" media treated her as well as they have treated Governor Patterson. I say this last thing with total confidence, even though I have not followed exactly how the media has treated Gov. Patterson in New York. But he, at least, has not been subjected to (unfair) national ridicule, even when he has deserved it (and I am aware of times he has deserved it).
Nope. The reason we can't get to a "post-racial" society is the racists on the left. Most of the rest of us are ready and willing to go beyond race, and leave it behind as a defining characteristic of people. The left is holding society back with their reactionary, old fashioned racism.
Deficit Out of Control: Heatlh Care INSANITY? AARP Medicare Betrayal?
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration will raise its 10-year budget deficit projection to approximately $9 trillion from $7.108 trillion in a report next week, a senior administration official told Reuters on Friday."
President Obama: "We cannot sustain deficits of this size without disaster." (a month or so ago)
Do you understand how absurd it is to suggest "paying for" an overhaul of health care? And the mainstream media keeps calling Sarah Palin dumb!!!!!!!!
If we can "find" any extra money for the Federal Government (major spending reduction anyone?), EVERY DIME of that money is needed to reduce the out-of-control deficit. It is absolutely ridiculous to talk of any such money being used to "pay for" health care overhaul. That is like a person with a $50,000 credit card debt using the income from a second job to "pay for" a new car. Dave Ramsey would foam at the mouth if someone suggested that was rational, and yet leftist Democrats, including Obama and the mainstream media, act like it is perfectly rational to talk about "paying" for health care overhaul without worrying about "paying for" the spending we are doing, and the debt we have already incurred.
Look at AARP, whose power hungry, money hungry management has been out supporting health care reform (the AARP management having been bouught off, in one way or another, to betray their members). How can we talk about spending ONE DIME on health care "reform" when the issue is whether we are going to be able to save Medicare and Social Seucrity. Obama even talks about using Medicare "savings" to finance health care "overhaul", when any such (doubtful) "savings" are desperately needed to save Medicare itself.
Bottom line: We can't afford a single dime to finance an "overhaul" of health care, and that applies to any "extra" money we may "find" (or "save" from other programs--"save" being a word of art only meaning that the deficit in such programs is less than it otherwise would have been, but still unsustainable large).
Yes, this entry again applies to linguine spined Republicans, and conservatives like Betsy McCoy, who seem inclined to spend money we don't have bribing the middle class. Nope. Neither Republicans or Democrats should be spending a single dime on a new Federal health care "entitlement". Seniors (I am one, at 62) should realize, as they mostly do in their bones, that every dime spent on a new health care overhaul is another nail in the coffin of Medicare and Social Security.
Yes, a central planning, Federal "overhaul" of health care is a bad idea, even if we could afford it (in the short run). Even if it were a good idea, in the abstract, that is irrelevant right now. We simply cannot afford it. Anyone who says otherwise is clinically INSANE.
Did I just call our President, a good part of our Congress, and our mainstream media clinically insane? Well, if the shoe (or glove) fits, wear it. The fundamental definition of almost all insanity is "disconnection from reality". I rest my case.
President Obama: "We cannot sustain deficits of this size without disaster." (a month or so ago)
Do you understand how absurd it is to suggest "paying for" an overhaul of health care? And the mainstream media keeps calling Sarah Palin dumb!!!!!!!!
If we can "find" any extra money for the Federal Government (major spending reduction anyone?), EVERY DIME of that money is needed to reduce the out-of-control deficit. It is absolutely ridiculous to talk of any such money being used to "pay for" health care overhaul. That is like a person with a $50,000 credit card debt using the income from a second job to "pay for" a new car. Dave Ramsey would foam at the mouth if someone suggested that was rational, and yet leftist Democrats, including Obama and the mainstream media, act like it is perfectly rational to talk about "paying" for health care overhaul without worrying about "paying for" the spending we are doing, and the debt we have already incurred.
Look at AARP, whose power hungry, money hungry management has been out supporting health care reform (the AARP management having been bouught off, in one way or another, to betray their members). How can we talk about spending ONE DIME on health care "reform" when the issue is whether we are going to be able to save Medicare and Social Seucrity. Obama even talks about using Medicare "savings" to finance health care "overhaul", when any such (doubtful) "savings" are desperately needed to save Medicare itself.
Bottom line: We can't afford a single dime to finance an "overhaul" of health care, and that applies to any "extra" money we may "find" (or "save" from other programs--"save" being a word of art only meaning that the deficit in such programs is less than it otherwise would have been, but still unsustainable large).
Yes, this entry again applies to linguine spined Republicans, and conservatives like Betsy McCoy, who seem inclined to spend money we don't have bribing the middle class. Nope. Neither Republicans or Democrats should be spending a single dime on a new Federal health care "entitlement". Seniors (I am one, at 62) should realize, as they mostly do in their bones, that every dime spent on a new health care overhaul is another nail in the coffin of Medicare and Social Security.
Yes, a central planning, Federal "overhaul" of health care is a bad idea, even if we could afford it (in the short run). Even if it were a good idea, in the abstract, that is irrelevant right now. We simply cannot afford it. Anyone who says otherwise is clinically INSANE.
Did I just call our President, a good part of our Congress, and our mainstream media clinically insane? Well, if the shoe (or glove) fits, wear it. The fundamental definition of almost all insanity is "disconnection from reality". I rest my case.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Solar Power (Not Much Improved Since 1950), "Global "warming", and Red Skelton: Rotating Solar Houses (a 1950 "IBMer idea?)
Did you think that "solar power" (passive or active) was a new thing? Do you believe that environmental fanaticism is a new thing--environmentalists only becoming fanatic because of the (manufactured, false) "crisis" of man-made "global warming"? Think again.
Go all of the way back to `1950, now about SIXTY years ago. The movie was "The Yellow Cab Man" (funny in a way movies now generally aren't--rating 76 out of 100). A substantial plot element in the movie was a "home show" rotating solar house. I am not making this up. The movie explained a "rotating solar house" as a house rotated by a motor in such a way as to keep properly oriented to the sun ("move with the sun" was the movie description) to provide maximum energy efficiency.
Doesn't this sound like an idea that a house builder today might come up with, for the sole purpose of getting a Federal subsidy? You can well imagine good ol' boy economic fascist T. Boone Pickens pushing for subdivisions of "rotating" solar houses, or at least some more plausible variation of the idea. The concept is funnier now, in this era of environmental lunacy, than it was in 1950 (the movie was making fun of the idea then). Nope, I don't know if any "rotating solar houses" were actually built, since even I was only three years old in 1950.
Doesn't matter whether any such ridiculous houses were built, does it? Of course not. The point is that people (primarily environmentalists?) were talking about solar houses in 1950. In some sixty years since, solar power has still not become economic. Without Federal subsidies (taxpayer money to support an industry that has essentially failed for sixty years) , the industry would still not exist--except as a curiosity and in small niches. Yes, we are SLIGHTLY better able to produce active solar power now, while the idea was probably mainly passive in 1950. It is still not economic, or the industry would not need taxpayer subsidies to survive.
Yes, I was tickled by the "rotating solar house". It raised fanciful images in my minds of houses that not only change orientation with regard to the sun, but TRAVEL with the sun (flying house trailers?). This is fanciful because the sun does not travel, but the Earth rotates some 25,000 miles in a single day.
What is serious about this are two things:
1. Think of how much it DISTORTS the allocation of resources--not to mention increases in the deficit we can't afford--to make a central planning decision that we need to develop solar power, instead of other alternatives. Sixty years of failure (basically) mean nothing to central planners with a political agenda. Yes, it is entirely possible that we will have a breakthrough in solar power i the next decade, but the last sixty years show that we may not have such a breakthrough. Further, subsidizing UNECONOMIC solar power systems does NOT increase the likelihood that ECONOMIC solar power will be developed (which requires breakthroughs in technologythat would make a fortune without any Federal subsidy). That is the point. Economic solar power dos not need a subsidy. Uneconomic solar power does not deserve one.
2. It has always ben obvious that leftists in general, and "environmental" leftists in particular (who often use "environmental" issues like "global warming" as merely an excuse for a Federal Government takeover of the economy), have ALWAYS wanted to CONTROL our lives, and have ALWAYS wanted the very things they say they want now because of "global warming". That is what makes people like me so angry about "global warming". It is a fraud being used for political purposes. Its proponents could care less aboutt he "science". They want this stuff anyway. People who have lived as long as I have have seen various EXCUSES for leftist action in the name of environmental "crisis". From "global cooling" in 1970 environmental speak to scares over DDT and other pesticides, the left has tried to get control by cynical USE of the "environment. Yes, clean water and air are good things, but the ultimate goal of the left has been CONTROL rather than clean air and water. This absurdity about "greenhouse gases" conclusively shows that, since greenhouse gases have nothing at all to do with "clean" air and water.
Go all of the way back to `1950, now about SIXTY years ago. The movie was "The Yellow Cab Man" (funny in a way movies now generally aren't--rating 76 out of 100). A substantial plot element in the movie was a "home show" rotating solar house. I am not making this up. The movie explained a "rotating solar house" as a house rotated by a motor in such a way as to keep properly oriented to the sun ("move with the sun" was the movie description) to provide maximum energy efficiency.
Doesn't this sound like an idea that a house builder today might come up with, for the sole purpose of getting a Federal subsidy? You can well imagine good ol' boy economic fascist T. Boone Pickens pushing for subdivisions of "rotating" solar houses, or at least some more plausible variation of the idea. The concept is funnier now, in this era of environmental lunacy, than it was in 1950 (the movie was making fun of the idea then). Nope, I don't know if any "rotating solar houses" were actually built, since even I was only three years old in 1950.
Doesn't matter whether any such ridiculous houses were built, does it? Of course not. The point is that people (primarily environmentalists?) were talking about solar houses in 1950. In some sixty years since, solar power has still not become economic. Without Federal subsidies (taxpayer money to support an industry that has essentially failed for sixty years) , the industry would still not exist--except as a curiosity and in small niches. Yes, we are SLIGHTLY better able to produce active solar power now, while the idea was probably mainly passive in 1950. It is still not economic, or the industry would not need taxpayer subsidies to survive.
Yes, I was tickled by the "rotating solar house". It raised fanciful images in my minds of houses that not only change orientation with regard to the sun, but TRAVEL with the sun (flying house trailers?). This is fanciful because the sun does not travel, but the Earth rotates some 25,000 miles in a single day.
What is serious about this are two things:
1. Think of how much it DISTORTS the allocation of resources--not to mention increases in the deficit we can't afford--to make a central planning decision that we need to develop solar power, instead of other alternatives. Sixty years of failure (basically) mean nothing to central planners with a political agenda. Yes, it is entirely possible that we will have a breakthrough in solar power i the next decade, but the last sixty years show that we may not have such a breakthrough. Further, subsidizing UNECONOMIC solar power systems does NOT increase the likelihood that ECONOMIC solar power will be developed (which requires breakthroughs in technologythat would make a fortune without any Federal subsidy). That is the point. Economic solar power dos not need a subsidy. Uneconomic solar power does not deserve one.
2. It has always ben obvious that leftists in general, and "environmental" leftists in particular (who often use "environmental" issues like "global warming" as merely an excuse for a Federal Government takeover of the economy), have ALWAYS wanted to CONTROL our lives, and have ALWAYS wanted the very things they say they want now because of "global warming". That is what makes people like me so angry about "global warming". It is a fraud being used for political purposes. Its proponents could care less aboutt he "science". They want this stuff anyway. People who have lived as long as I have have seen various EXCUSES for leftist action in the name of environmental "crisis". From "global cooling" in 1970 environmental speak to scares over DDT and other pesticides, the left has tried to get control by cynical USE of the "environment. Yes, clean water and air are good things, but the ultimate goal of the left has been CONTROL rather than clean air and water. This absurdity about "greenhouse gases" conclusively shows that, since greenhouse gases have nothing at all to do with "clean" air and water.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Death Panels, the Public Option, President Obama's Assertions About a Bill That Does Not Exist: The Shifting Sands Under a Pathological Liar
Last week's news was not to worry--the Senate was going to delete that language in the House health care bill THAT DID NOT EXIST (if you listened to Obama and most of the mainstream media, except for traitors like the Washington Post reporter who actually read the stuff and pronounced it disturbing stuff). You know. All of that embarrassing language about "end of life" care and "counseling".
You did not, of course, see the mainstream media proclaim this as a victory fro Sarah Palin--virtually the only Republican politician brave enough to stand up the the mainstream media and actually say that the House bill raised the spectre of "death panels'. However, it was a victory for her, and an acknowledgement of how disturbing it was that there was language like the "ned of life" absurdities in the House bill, WHEN THERE DID NOT HAVE TO BE. The dirty little secret is that there could be "death panels" without any such language at all, since the whole thrust of this health care "reform" is to transfer life and death decisions about health insurance and health care to Federal bureaucrats. See my two sentence version of the health care "bill" (whichever one is the final bill) in yesterday's entry. If health care "reform" turns decisions on insurance coverage and appropriate care over to Federal bureaucrats (what other purpose does it have?), then Federal bureaucrats are going to be making those decisions based on regulations that will come into existence AFTER authority is given in some vague health care bill (if one passes). Nevertheless, Sarah Palin should get an apology from the mainstream media for ridiculing her concern over this language--concern echoed by those "key" Senators who rejected the House language as vague and disturbing to people. But Sarah Palin will never get an apology from the mainstream media, because they are HYPOCRITES.
This illustrates why I do not concentrate on single provisions in any "health care bill". Every single health care bill being prepared by Democrats is designed to give power to a Federal agency, or agencies, or "quasi-government organisation", to regulate health care, and health care insurance, in this country. How can you even promise to "contain costs", and "reform" the system, unless you are proposing to have the government impose such regulations? You can't. Thus, the mere deletion of language from the bill is no assurance at all that similar concepts will not appear in the REGULATIONS instituted to implement any bill that's is passed. Again, read my two sentence version of any health care bill, presented in yesterday's entry, which explains that the entire purpose of any bill is to turn health care policy over to Federal bureaucrats to control by REGULATION. That is why it was so stupid to put the vague language referring to "end of life" in the House bill. Such revealing stupidity can only scare you to death, as you realize these same kind of people fully intend to control health care, and health insuance, in this country BY REGULATION.
Then came yesterday's news, originating over the weekend, about the Obama Administration supposedly "abandoning" the "public option". This was, of course, an attempt to signal to REPUBLICANS in the Senate that some sort of "compromise", like happened on the terrible "Medicare Drug Benefit Program" pushed into law by President Bush, would be acceptable. Again, the message was "not to worry"--we will give "cover" to Republicans, and conservative Democrats. Well. It won't work for a Republican. This blog will CRUCIFY each and every Republican who votes for a terrible "compromise" version of this bill--which will have the same result as the "compromise version of that bill giving athority to the Secretary of the Treasury to hand out $700 billion dollars AT HIS DISCRETION. Both Democrats and Republicans assured us there was no "blank check". THEY LIED (or are so stupid, it is worse than lying). Now such Republicans may not worry about ME, but there are lots of people who think like me. I guarantee their political career will not survive such a "compromise" vote, in terms of any influence int the Republican Party or with conservatives. I digress (not really).
The point is that the whole point of health care "reform" is government CONTROL. Any bill passed by the Democrats who control Congress has that goal, because that is the whole purpose of the bill. We know that President Obama favors direct government health care, as a concept, BECAUSE HE HAS SAID SO IN THE PAST. The fact that pathological liar Obama wants everyone to belive only what he says TODAY, and forget the past, is merely proof he is a pathological liar. Thus, if Obama really is willing to give up the "public option" (government insurance "competing" with private insurance on the way to only government insurance), then it is because President Obama thinks that the goal of government CONTROL can be achieved another way. Thus, we have the idea of "co-ops", along with giving Federal bureaucrats complete control over the insurance industiy (and ultimately the health care industry). In other words, any "private" insurance will be drafted for you by, and administered--including life and death decisions--under regulations propounded by, FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS.
The ultimate question here is who will make decisions concerning your health care, and health care insurance? Will it be multiple insurance companies, acting under multiple state laws, with our own doctor having a big say? Or will it be FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS making those decisions? Health care "reform" has no meaning unless it puts such decisions in the hands of Federal bureaucrats.
It is bad enough to have so many health care decisions being made lby insurance company bureaucrats. Is there something worse than that? Yes, there is. Insurance companies can be checked. They can be sued. They are state regulated. There is no check on Federal bureaucrats, and on the evil concept of "central planning" of a few people determining envery health care decision concerning YOUR LIFE.
"End of life" language or no "end of life" language.
"public option" or no "public option". In the end it does not matter much, if the Federal bureaucrats are given CONTROL--directly or through quasi-government entities like co-ops (which can be established without Congress, if CONTROL were not the goal--control by the Federal Government). Since the whole concept of "reform" implies CONTROL, and since we know where Obama and the Democrats are coming from, you can be assured that CONTROL is the goal of any final Federal bill.
Now we are up to Obama's disgraceful appearance before veterans yesterday. Again, as he has done with everyone, President Obama--pathological liar that he is--promised that the health care of veterans will not be "affected" by Obama's health care plan. How can Obama say that. OBAMA HAS NO HEALTH CARE PLAN, OTHER THAN HIS ARROGANT, EMPTY ASSERTIONS. Obama has not endorsed the House bill. Obama can't possibly tell you what will be "affected" by a final health care bill and what won't. In fact, as I have stated, even if a bill existed, Obama could not be making these blanket assertions--except for the fact that he is a pathological liar. Ultimately, Federal bureaucrats writing Federal REGULATIONS are going to determine how any Federal health care "plan" works. Even if you trust Obama (hard to do with a pathological liar), Obama will not be around forever. Whatever pwoer we give to FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS over health care policy will likely last forever--well beyond Obama. To assert that such pwoer will consistently be used wisely, and for the public good, is to ignore history and theory.
It cannot help to be a disaster to turn control over health insurance/health care decisions over to the central planning of Federal bureaucrats. That is why the individual provisions of the final health care bill do not matter (which we will likely not even know, as will not the people voting on them, because the final bill will likely be prepared at the last minute). We know that the goal of this legislation is Federal CONTROL, and that should be enough for you to condemn it. Obama's mere assertions as to what his non-existent "plan" will and will not do are absurd, because he really has no way of knowing. None of us do--other than it will cost too much and accomplish too little, with too great a cost in freedom.
What is amazing is that I believe that the public FIGHTING against this Federal CONTROL actually "get it". The same cannot be said of almost ANY of the politicians, including the SILENT Republicans out there proving nothing other than that they are COWARDS.
You did not, of course, see the mainstream media proclaim this as a victory fro Sarah Palin--virtually the only Republican politician brave enough to stand up the the mainstream media and actually say that the House bill raised the spectre of "death panels'. However, it was a victory for her, and an acknowledgement of how disturbing it was that there was language like the "ned of life" absurdities in the House bill, WHEN THERE DID NOT HAVE TO BE. The dirty little secret is that there could be "death panels" without any such language at all, since the whole thrust of this health care "reform" is to transfer life and death decisions about health insurance and health care to Federal bureaucrats. See my two sentence version of the health care "bill" (whichever one is the final bill) in yesterday's entry. If health care "reform" turns decisions on insurance coverage and appropriate care over to Federal bureaucrats (what other purpose does it have?), then Federal bureaucrats are going to be making those decisions based on regulations that will come into existence AFTER authority is given in some vague health care bill (if one passes). Nevertheless, Sarah Palin should get an apology from the mainstream media for ridiculing her concern over this language--concern echoed by those "key" Senators who rejected the House language as vague and disturbing to people. But Sarah Palin will never get an apology from the mainstream media, because they are HYPOCRITES.
This illustrates why I do not concentrate on single provisions in any "health care bill". Every single health care bill being prepared by Democrats is designed to give power to a Federal agency, or agencies, or "quasi-government organisation", to regulate health care, and health care insurance, in this country. How can you even promise to "contain costs", and "reform" the system, unless you are proposing to have the government impose such regulations? You can't. Thus, the mere deletion of language from the bill is no assurance at all that similar concepts will not appear in the REGULATIONS instituted to implement any bill that's is passed. Again, read my two sentence version of any health care bill, presented in yesterday's entry, which explains that the entire purpose of any bill is to turn health care policy over to Federal bureaucrats to control by REGULATION. That is why it was so stupid to put the vague language referring to "end of life" in the House bill. Such revealing stupidity can only scare you to death, as you realize these same kind of people fully intend to control health care, and health insuance, in this country BY REGULATION.
Then came yesterday's news, originating over the weekend, about the Obama Administration supposedly "abandoning" the "public option". This was, of course, an attempt to signal to REPUBLICANS in the Senate that some sort of "compromise", like happened on the terrible "Medicare Drug Benefit Program" pushed into law by President Bush, would be acceptable. Again, the message was "not to worry"--we will give "cover" to Republicans, and conservative Democrats. Well. It won't work for a Republican. This blog will CRUCIFY each and every Republican who votes for a terrible "compromise" version of this bill--which will have the same result as the "compromise version of that bill giving athority to the Secretary of the Treasury to hand out $700 billion dollars AT HIS DISCRETION. Both Democrats and Republicans assured us there was no "blank check". THEY LIED (or are so stupid, it is worse than lying). Now such Republicans may not worry about ME, but there are lots of people who think like me. I guarantee their political career will not survive such a "compromise" vote, in terms of any influence int the Republican Party or with conservatives. I digress (not really).
The point is that the whole point of health care "reform" is government CONTROL. Any bill passed by the Democrats who control Congress has that goal, because that is the whole purpose of the bill. We know that President Obama favors direct government health care, as a concept, BECAUSE HE HAS SAID SO IN THE PAST. The fact that pathological liar Obama wants everyone to belive only what he says TODAY, and forget the past, is merely proof he is a pathological liar. Thus, if Obama really is willing to give up the "public option" (government insurance "competing" with private insurance on the way to only government insurance), then it is because President Obama thinks that the goal of government CONTROL can be achieved another way. Thus, we have the idea of "co-ops", along with giving Federal bureaucrats complete control over the insurance industiy (and ultimately the health care industry). In other words, any "private" insurance will be drafted for you by, and administered--including life and death decisions--under regulations propounded by, FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS.
The ultimate question here is who will make decisions concerning your health care, and health care insurance? Will it be multiple insurance companies, acting under multiple state laws, with our own doctor having a big say? Or will it be FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS making those decisions? Health care "reform" has no meaning unless it puts such decisions in the hands of Federal bureaucrats.
It is bad enough to have so many health care decisions being made lby insurance company bureaucrats. Is there something worse than that? Yes, there is. Insurance companies can be checked. They can be sued. They are state regulated. There is no check on Federal bureaucrats, and on the evil concept of "central planning" of a few people determining envery health care decision concerning YOUR LIFE.
"End of life" language or no "end of life" language.
"public option" or no "public option". In the end it does not matter much, if the Federal bureaucrats are given CONTROL--directly or through quasi-government entities like co-ops (which can be established without Congress, if CONTROL were not the goal--control by the Federal Government). Since the whole concept of "reform" implies CONTROL, and since we know where Obama and the Democrats are coming from, you can be assured that CONTROL is the goal of any final Federal bill.
Now we are up to Obama's disgraceful appearance before veterans yesterday. Again, as he has done with everyone, President Obama--pathological liar that he is--promised that the health care of veterans will not be "affected" by Obama's health care plan. How can Obama say that. OBAMA HAS NO HEALTH CARE PLAN, OTHER THAN HIS ARROGANT, EMPTY ASSERTIONS. Obama has not endorsed the House bill. Obama can't possibly tell you what will be "affected" by a final health care bill and what won't. In fact, as I have stated, even if a bill existed, Obama could not be making these blanket assertions--except for the fact that he is a pathological liar. Ultimately, Federal bureaucrats writing Federal REGULATIONS are going to determine how any Federal health care "plan" works. Even if you trust Obama (hard to do with a pathological liar), Obama will not be around forever. Whatever pwoer we give to FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS over health care policy will likely last forever--well beyond Obama. To assert that such pwoer will consistently be used wisely, and for the public good, is to ignore history and theory.
It cannot help to be a disaster to turn control over health insurance/health care decisions over to the central planning of Federal bureaucrats. That is why the individual provisions of the final health care bill do not matter (which we will likely not even know, as will not the people voting on them, because the final bill will likely be prepared at the last minute). We know that the goal of this legislation is Federal CONTROL, and that should be enough for you to condemn it. Obama's mere assertions as to what his non-existent "plan" will and will not do are absurd, because he really has no way of knowing. None of us do--other than it will cost too much and accomplish too little, with too great a cost in freedom.
What is amazing is that I believe that the public FIGHTING against this Federal CONTROL actually "get it". The same cannot be said of almost ANY of the politicians, including the SILENT Republicans out there proving nothing other than that they are COWARDS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)