Tag Archives: Obama

Obama: “I Can Go to My Right, but I Prefer My Left” – Political Hotsheet – CBS News

President Obama hit the basketball court and talked politics with CBS “Early Show” co-anchor Harry Smith this morning.Smith asked Mr. Obama, who is left-handed, if he can ever go to his right.”I can go to my right, but I prefer my left,” the president says.He doesnt always sink his famous jump shot.”You know, Ive got a few other things on my mind,” said Mr. Obama, who then makes the jump shot. “Its like health care, I always come from behind – I finish strong.” Watch the video at left.Watch for more of Smiths interview with Mr. Obama tonight on the “CBS Evening News with Katie Couric” and Friday morning on “The Early Show.”Smith also asked the president if he is aware of the extreme terms some use to describe him, such as “socialist” or “Nazi.”

Read the rest and watch the video here:  Obama: “I Can Go to My Right, but I Prefer My Left” – Political Hotsheet – CBS News.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Barack Obama, Big Government, Conservatives, Constitution, Cronyism, DEFICIT, Entitlements, EPA, Government Spending, Governmental Agencies, Healthcare Reform, Ideology, individual rights, Jobs, Liberals, National Debt, Organized Labor, Progressives, Redistribution of wealth, Socialism, Sovereign Debt, Stimulus, United States of America, Welfare

Healthcare Just a Costly Legacy Booster?? –>Best Letter to the Editor EVER!

EDITOR,

On July 30, 1965, at the Harry S. Truman Library in Independence, Mo., President Lyndon Baines Johnson handed former President Harry S. Truman the very first Medicare card ever issued to a U.S. citizen. A few seconds earlier, Johnson had signed the Medicare Bill, America’s newest entitlement program.

The Congressional Budget Office projected that Medicare would cost American taxpayers $12 billion annually by 1980. In 1980, Medicare cost taxpayers $110 billion, almost 10 times the projection of the CBO. In 2009, the Medicare entitlement cost taxpayers $418 billion.

The CBO calculates costs based on the assumptions given by the proponents of the bill. In other words, the rosiest of the scenarios is given by the CBO. The costs are slanted by the group advocating the bill.

There is only one consistency with the CBO: When it comes to CBO projected costs on an entitlement, the CBO is consistently wrong. On cost projections, I always take the CBO numbers and triple them. History proves that a multiple of 3 is a very conservative guess when it comes to entitlements.

The CBO projects President Obama’s health care proposal will cost $940 billion over 10 years. This cost assumes a $500 billion cut in Medicare. When was the last time the government cut cost on anything?

For the Americans who will actually work and pay taxes for this boat anchor, we will begin paying immediately for a so-called benefit that we won’t see until after Obama leaves office. Then, when the program actually begins, our health care premiums will cost more than a privatized health care plan.

Just remember Tracy residents, Obama told Joe the Plumber we must “spread the wealth around a little.” This is all part of that grand plan.

However, the scariest part of this whole process is the complete subversion of the U.S. Constitution the Democrats are planning in order to get this bill passed. Yellow-bellied Democrats who do not want their names on this travesty want to “deem the bill to have passed” when voting on proposed changes to the Senate health care bill. This is the trickery of cowards, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who do not want to go on record as voting “Yea” on the bill.

Article 1, Section 7, of the U.S. Constitution states “All bills which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall … be determined by the Yeas and Nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively.”

In President Obama’s recent interview on the Fox News Channel, Obama stated he does not care about the process used to get this bill passed. He just wants his health care bill to sign into law. The president was very specific about calling this “his” health care bill.

President Obama is really telling us he could care less about the U.S. Constitution. He just wants his legacy to show that he rammed health care down America’s throat.

via Tracy Press – Your Voice Health care just a costly legacy booster.

1 Comment

Filed under Article 1 Section VII, Congress, Constitution, Cronyism, DEFICIT, Economics, Entitlements, Government Spending, Healthcare Reform, House of Representatives, Ideology, individual rights, Liberals, Medicaid, Medicare, National Debt, Senate, Social Security, Stimulus, Uncategorized, United States of America

Obamacare’s Achilles Heel

There is an important lesson to be learned about Obamacare, which passed the House last night. It was brought to national attention on February 7th, when President Obama sat down for a Super Bowl interview with Katie Couric. Among the many surprising things he said was this:

Look, I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, you know, academically approved approach to health care. And didn’t have any kinds of legislative fingerprints on it. And just go ahead and have that passed. But that’s not how it works in our democracy. Unfortunately, what we end up having to do is to do a lot of negotiations with a lot of different people.

Translation: “There’s a rational solution that would not require all this messy politics.”

read the rest here: American Thinker: Obamacare’s Achilles Heel.

Leave a comment

Filed under Barack Obama, Healthcare Reform, Ideology, Liberals, National Debt

House Democrats appear set to pass Senate bill without voting on it

Republicans now expect Democrats to pass health care through the House with a trick only Capitol Hill could dream up: approving the Senate bill without voting on it.

Democrats will vote on a separate bill that includes language stating that the original Senate bill is “deemed passed.”

So by voting for the first bill — a reconciliation measure to fix certain things in the Senate bill — that will automatically pass the second bill — the original Senate bill — without a separate roll call taking place.

It’s called the “Slaughter Solution” (prepare for a weekend of endless TV gabbing about it).

And after debating House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on the chamber floor, Minority Whip Eric Cantor emerged convinced that Democrats are going to use the tactic, and that they won’t allow Republicans, and the public, to see the text of any legislation for 72 hours before a vote.

“I can infer that we’re going to see a rule that will deem the Senate bill as having passed, and at the same time not even have 72 hours to even look at what they are passing,” Cantor, a Virginia Republican, said in an interview outside his office at the Capitol.

“The outrage to me on the part of the public is going to be focused on the fact that there is not even an up or down vote, a clean up or down vote,” Cantor said.

Here’s the reason Democrats are using such a complicated procedure: many in the House completely do not trust the Senate to pass fixes to the bill passed by the Senate in December. But according to the rules of reconciliation, the House must go first in passing the Senate bill and passing a reconciliation fix.

So House Democrats have been searching for a way to alleviate members’ concerns that if they vote for the Senate bill and the Senate does nothing to fix it, they will be hung out to dry as having supported a piece of legislation that many across the country dislike, either for spending reasons, or because of special provisions like the extra money for Nebraska’s Medicaid population (the “Cornhusker kickback”).

Technically, using the “Slaughter solution,” they’ll never have voted for the bill they find odious, even if their vote on the reconciliation legislation will have been the vote that passed the Senate bill into law.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, alluded to all this at her weekly press conference Friday.

“There are certain assurances that they want and that we will get for them before I ask them to take a vote,” Pelosi said.

The “Slaughter solution” is named for House Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter, the New York Democrat who came up with the idea. She told the Daily Caller on Thursday that the chances of her procedure being used were “pretty good.”

Despite doubt among some on Capitol Hill on whether the “Slaughter solution” was feasible, Cantor expressed no doubt that the tactic could be used.

“It’s a self-executing rule. It is akin to passage but hidden in a rule as a side-note, passing the 2,700-page, $1 trillion bill, oh by the way,” he said.

Hoyer rejected the idea that Republicans have not had enough time to review the legislation.

“You have had months to review the substance of that bill. You don’t like it. We understand. You’re going to oppose it. We understand that as well. The fact of the matter is you cannot say you have had no notice of each and every provision for over two months,” said Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat.

Cantor said he wanted 72 hours to review the final text of the reconciliation bill.

“The reconciliation bill is new text. He claims it’s old hat, but this is clearly where they’re reconciling differences,” Cantor said, expressing concern that Democrats would rush the final text to the House floor for a vote to keep “sweeteners” used to buy off votes from being discovered.

Democrats are coalescing around a schedule for the bill’s route to the House floor for a vote. They are expecting a final score from the Congressional Budget Office later today.

On Monday, the House Budget Committee will mark the bill up, leading to an expected vote in the Rules Committee on Wednesday, with a final vote by the full House possible next weekend.

The question remains, however, whether Pelosi will even be able to round up enough votes to pass a bill.

Momentum continued to go the wrong direction for her on Friday, as two more Democrats said they are opposed to the bill.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/12/house-democrats-appear-set-to-pass-senate-bill-without-voting-on-it/#ixzz0i5TUtkLW

via House Democrats appear set to pass Senate bill without voting on it | The Daily Caller – Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment.

Leave a comment

Filed under Barack Obama, Big Government, Congress, Cronyism, Government Spending, Healthcare Reform, Liberals, Lobbying, Progressives, Uncategorized, United States of America

Bolton: Israel’s Options: Attack Iran or Accept Nuclear Power – Defense/Middle East – Israel News – Israel National News

(IsraelNN.com) Former United States ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton warned Sunday that Israel has just two choices: a strike aimed at Iran’s nuclear facilities, or a nuclear Iran. Bolton spoke with reporter Aaron Klein in a radio interview for Klein’s new show on WABC.

“We know about the facilities… We know where they are,” Bolton said of Iran’s nuclear program.  “I think they are susceptible to an Israeli attack.”

The United States will not take action in time to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, the former ambassador warned.

Israel has limited time to plan its next steps, he said. %u201CIf Israel is going to use force, it needs to do it sooner rather than later,%u201D he told Klein.

An intelligence dossier revealed in a Der Spiegel expose in January warned that Iran would have nuclear weapons within the year.

via Bolton: Israel’s Options %u2013 Attack Iran or Accept Nuclear Power – Defense/Middle East – Israel News – Israel National News.

Leave a comment

Filed under Iran, Israel, Middle East, Nuclear Weapons, United Nations, war

We’ve traded liberty for ‘safety’ -by: John Stossel

People suffer and die because the government “protects” us. It should protect us less and respect our liberty more.

The most basic questions are: Who owns you, and who should control what you put into your body? In what sense are you free if you can’t decide what medicines you will take?

This will be the subject of my Fox Business program tomorrow night.

We’ll hear from people like Bruce Tower. Tower has prostate cancer. He wanted to take a drug that showed promise against his cancer, but the Food and Drug Administration would not allow it. One bureaucrat told him the government was protecting him from dangerous side effects. Tower’s outraged response was: “Side effects – who cares? Every treatment I’ve had I’ve suffered from side effects. If I’m terminal, it should be my option to endure any side effects.”

Is your doctor well-informed? Read “What Your Doctor Doesn’t Know About Nutritional Medicine May Be Killing You”

Of course it should be his option. Why, in our “free” country, do Americans meekly stand aside and let the state limit our choices, even when we are dying?

Dr. Alan Chow invented a retinal implant that helps some blind people see (optobionics.com). Demonstrating that took seven years and cost $50 million dollars of FDA-approved tests. But now the FDA wants still more tests. That third stage will take another three years and cost $100 million. But Chow doesn’t have $100 million. He can’t raise the money from investors because the implant only helps some blind people. Potential investors fear there are too few customers to justify their $100 million risk.

So Stephen Lonegan, who has a degenerative eye disease that might be helped by the implant, can’t have it. Instead, he will go blind. The bureaucrats say their restrictions are for his own safety. “There’s nothing safe about going blind,” he says. “I don’t want to be made safe by the FDA. I want it to be up to me to go to Dr. Chow to make the decision myself.”

Read the rest here:  We’ve traded liberty for ‘safety’.

Leave a comment

Filed under Barack Obama, Big Government, Economics, Government Spending, Governmental Agencies, individual rights, Jobs, Liberals, Social Security

THEY’RE DROPPING LIKE FLIES DickMorris.com

Enter Coats. Exit Bayh. Bye, bye, Bayh!

The first time Evan Bayh gets a serious race for re-election, he quits!

The Scott Brown victory is still rippling through the House and the Senate causing retirements among committed, dedicated, long-term liberal Democrats. Seeing voter anger, they are heading for the hills.

The process seems to work as follows:

a. Public anger manifests itself in the Brown victory.

b. The improvement in Republican chances impels top notch, former statewide elected officials to jump into races against Democratic incumbents.

c. The Democrat bows out in the face of likely defeat. Suddenly, he wants to spend more time with his family.

This process has run its course in Indiana and may shortly be manifest in Wisconsin where former Governor Tommy Thompson is considering a run against Senator Russ Feingold. It may yet play out in Arkansas where Senator Blanche Lincoln now has a top tier opponent in Congressman John Boozman. And Senator Patty Murray may hear footsteps behind her with the entry into the race of wealthy businessman Paul Akers and the possible entry of former almost-Governor Dino Rossi. Rossi lost the governorship of Washington State in a Franken-esque theft after initial counts showed him defeating Christine Gregoire by 261 votes. Now Governor Gregoire won in the recount.

In New York State, billionaire Mort Zuckerman may take on appointed Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and, if he doesn’t, former Governor George Pataki might jump into the race.

When we predicted a Republican win in the Senate in 2010, some laughed. But nobody’s laughing now.

On a less high profile level, the House is also swinging Republican. The death of Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha opens the way for a likely GOP pickup in a special election and the Republicans now stand to pick up ten more seats through Democratic retirements. One wonders if the likes of Texas Democrat Chip Edwards, South Carolina’s John Spratt, or Arkansas’ Mike Ross might not be far behind in the race into retirement.

It now looks more likely than ever that Congress will go Republican in the elections of 2010.

via THEY’RE DROPPING LIKE FLIES at DickMorris.com.

Leave a comment

Filed under Barack Obama, Big Government, Government Spending, Healthcare Reform, Jobs, Liberals