According to Charles Gasparino in the New York Post:
I’m told that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and chief economic adviser Lawrence Summers have both complained to senior Wall Street execs that they have almost no say in major policy decisions. Obama economic counselor Paul Volcker, the former Fed chairman, is barely consulted at all on just about anything — not even issues involving the banking system, of which he is among the world’s leading authorities.
At most, the economic people and their staffs get asked to do cost analyses of Obama’s initiatives for the White House political people — who then ignore their advice.
Roman Polanski has been arrested for a rape which occurred 32 years ago. He pleaded guilty and then fled the country. He made a mockery of our justice system. (LINK)
Now some (mostly Hollywood liberals) want to excuse him for his crimes.
Whoopi Goldbers says it “wasn’t rape, rape” (LINK). No? He drugged a 13 year old and had (let’s not get too graphic) non traditional sex with her. She tried but was unable to resist. That’s not rape?
Woody Allen is defending Polanski too. Gee, what a surprise. Does it surprise anyone that a guy who married his own adopted step-child would excuse another child molester.
Are these the same liberals that were screaming date rape was rampant on college campuses. Drunk college girls (adults) having sex is rape but drugging a 13 year isn’t.
Anyone who makes excuses for this predator and fugitive is despicable.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in Common Sense on September 30th, 2009
The New York Times has an article on the shifting focus to reusing spent nuclear fuel instead of storing it. (LINK)
What the Times leave out is who pushed for this ill conceived idea in the first place. A ban on reprocessing nuclear fuel is the brain child of liberals during the Carter Administration. They wanted to prevent nuclear proliferation by reducing the supply of uranium. They thought that the United States could lead by example. If we banned reprocessing, the world would follow.
Sound familiar?
As expected, other countries perused their own interests and ignored the United States. As far as I know, we are the only county that bans reprocessing nuclear waste.This ban has created a stockpile of nuclear waste that Congress has spent millions of dollars to study while tons of waste pile up.
This badly conceived idea proves that living in a fantasy world has serious costs.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in Alternative Energy on September 24th, 2009
Barack Obama had this to say about the health care “debate”:
Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.
I have highlighted the lines could have been spoken about Jimmy Carter’s claim that opposition to President Obama is driven by racism.
The President tried to deflect the Carter issues by saying
It’s an argument that’s gone on for the history of this republic, and that is, What’s the right role of government? How do we balance freedom with our need to look out for one another? … This is not a new argument, and it always evokes passions.
Concerns about bureaucrats giving the OK for health care at the end of life is cynical and irresponsible even though the bill is not even in its final form yet and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that such a thing is possible. Saying that 50% of the nation is racist for resisting a huge expansion of government is old argument that evokes passion.
Let’s shorten that.
If you challenge an Obama policy, you are cynical and irresponsible. If you support Barack by claiming 50% of America is racist, you are passionate.
Speaking of increasing the troop level in Afghanistan, President Obama said,
There is no immediate decision pending on resources, because one of the things that I’m absolutely clear about is you have to get the strategy right and then make a determination about resources.
Gee, do you think you could take some time away from your media tour promoting your solution to the phony health crisis to address the strategy in Afghanistan? Would it be too much to ask the President to fulfill his Constitution duty as Commander In Chief instead of attacking doctors, bankers, the insurance industry, the energy industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the CIA, conservatives…you know…everyone except lawyers and welfare queens).
Are we fighting a war against a savage foreign enemy or tilting at windmills domestically? Mr. President, I want you to fight to win. If the war is a bother to you, please bring our troops home. The American people will right the situation soon enough.
The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act,” Dr. Chu said. “The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is.
Don’t you stupid people know the debate is over. Now stop acting so childish and submit to our demands.
The administration aims to teach them—literally. The Environmental Protection Agency is focusing on real children. Partnering with the Parent Teacher Organization, the agency earlier this month launched a cross-country tour of 6,000 schools to teach students about climate change and energy efficiency.
They will teach our children so that they can teach the parents. I think they call that indoctrination.
I don’t learn from my children. They know nothing of science. I teach them. Come to think of it…their teachers went to teaching school and know nothing of science either. I am sure some teacher can regurgitate what is in their text book, but I would venture a guess that 90% of science teachers have little understanding and even less practical experience in what they teach.
“I don’t think so…maybe I’m optimistic, but there’s very little debate” that a new green energy economy will bring economic prosperity, Mr. Chu told reporters.
Really? What is it with liberals that they keep claiming there is “little debate” or “the debate is over”?
How is that more powerful and more frequent hurricane theory working out for you arrogant blowhards? How about the global cooling that has occurred while CO2 levels continue to increase? How about the fact the polar sea ice is returning when you predicted that we would have an ice free Arctic region?
Every prediction the geniuses have made is wrong, yet they are holding on to their preconceived notions…and then they have the nerve to compare us to teenagers.
It all points to extreme arrogance. It starts with the President and continues on to every level of his administration. They have high regard for themselves and little regard for the American people. What worries me is the coming reaction. When these arrogant people in power don’t get their way, will they lash out like teenagers with pointing fingers and lame justification on why they shouldn’t have to follow the rules. That has been the history of the left. Claiming the Constitution is a living document is just another way of saying the Constitution can be ignored.
So far the hurricane season for the Atlantic has been pretty quiet for 2009…In related news, Al Gore has dropped the [hurricane frequency] related slide in his traveling PowerPoint show
Nancy Pelosi got emotional about violence in San Fransisco politics last week. I am guessing that she had the murder of Harvey Milk in mind when she got all weepy. It’s ironic that 24 years ago today, Sara Jane Moore tried to assassinate the President of the United States. She was a left wing radical who took a shot a President Ford. She is by no means the only left wing radical to shoot at a President. Sir Han Sir Han was a Palestinian who killed Robert Kennedy in California saying, “I did it for my country”. And let’s not forget, the last successful assassination was by Lee Harvey Oswald, a communist. And just for the record…Havery Milk and the mayor of San Fransisco were assassinated by a Democrat.
What we see here is a classic example of projection. Liberals get violent, so they are expecting violence from conservatives.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in Common Sense on September 22nd, 2009
The poor will still have Medicaid. But for those earning more, the required premiums will be worse than any tax increase. For example, CBO estimates that when the program is fully implemented — by 2016 — an individual earning $32,400 a year would have to pay $4,100 in premiums before getting any subsidy. With deductibles and co-payments, he’d have to shell out $5,600 a year, or 17.3 percent of his income. A family of four, making $80,000 a year, would have to pay about $10,500 in premiums alone — with deductibles and co-payments, up to $15,000 or just under 20 percent of income.
Obama: Might lose even those now who lack insurance.
And if they don’t buy insurance, they’ll face federal fines that begin to approach these same premium levels. They won’t be able to buy what they truly need — catastrophic-only coverage at a lower premium — that won’t satisfy ObamaCare’s “minimum insurance” mandate.
The young and uninsured will catch on: This bill is designed to force healthy people who don’t have health insurance — and may neither need nor want it — to buy it anyway, in order to raise the money to subsidize those who do need it.
Obama has pledged only to increase taxes on the rich. But his program essentially taxes the core of the middle class (those making $30,000 to $80,000). It will make them overpay in order to pick up the slack for others who need the extra coverage.
The richest generation is also the unhealthiest generation. President Obama’s plan essentially is wealth redistribution from the poorest generation (young people just starting their careers) to the richest generation. How’s that for social justice?
“Kill Grandma or Terrorists Win”…that’s the provocative title by James Taranto from the Wall Street Journal. Taranto skewers Trudy Rubin of the Philadelphia Inquirer. Ms. Rubin lays down the argument that opponents of health care are weakening the President and a weak President puts us at risk in terms of National Security.
Taranto shoots back,
Attempting to seize control of one-sixth of the nation’s economy, by contrast, is not. ObamaCare is a “war of choice”–though this analogy goes only so far, since it is a domestic “war” in which the “enemy” consists of fellow Americans. Rubin argues that Americans must surrender to Obama’s risky scheme for nationalizing health care in order to create an appearance that he is strong so that he can deal with foreign-policy crises when he gets around to it. This is so perverse in so many different ways, it hurts our brain to think about it.
Nancy Pelosi choked up at the podium while telling reporters that she is afraid of violence spurred by those who used irresponsible rhetoric. Watch the video. The last seconds crack me up. After making this wild claim, she refuses to take questions. It appears like she bolts from the podium. Isn’t that special?
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in Congress,video on September 17th, 2009
The President used several stories as anecdotal evidence for his health care reforms. True to form, he mislead again. In one story, he told of a man who died after his insurance was rescinded. Technically, he was correct. What he didn’t tell you is what happened after his insurance was rescinded.
Otto S. Raddatz, didn’t die because the insurance company rescinded his coverage once he became ill, an act known as recission. The efforts of his sister and the office of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan got Mr. Raddatz’s policy reinstated within three weeks of his April 2005 rescission and secured a life-extending stem-cell transplant for him. Mr. Raddatz died this year, nearly four years after the insurance showdown.
Mr. Raddatz’s sister is a lawyer. She went to the plate for Mr. Raddatz and got the matter reversed. The last time I checked…lawyers make pretty good money. She could have paid for the treatment herself and continued to fight against the insurance company.
She argued that the insurance company was callous and immoral, and I have no beef with that. However, future battles will be fought against a callous and immoral government if Obama’s plans are put into place. Would you rather sue an insurance company or the government.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in Health Care on September 17th, 2009
Barack Obama’s poll numbers at Rasmussen have recovered lately. When you look at his Strong Approve versus Strong Disapprove, his number are currently at -8. They sunk as low as -14 on 8/23/2009.
It is not a surprise that 30% of the public strongly approves. Democrats love this man. It is also not surprising that 40% of the country disapproves. Republicans and some independents are fearful of his left wing policies. But if we strip these partisan feelings out, we are left with the moderate middle.
Back in July when his strongly approve/disapprove was at -8%, the President’s overall approval (including leaners) stood at +3%. Fast forward to today. His overall approval (including leaners) now stands at -5%. This tells me that Obama’s approval has dropped 8% of the moderate middle in two months.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in polls on September 17th, 2009
Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.
My step-father was a doctor. As a high school student, he never encouraged my brothers or me to go into medicine (we didn’t). My mother recently told me that this was a conscience decision. He saw the government take over of medicine years ago. If it wasn’t for cancer, I’m sure he would have been one of the “hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early”.
So the answer to my own question is, “Yes…I believe it”
ObamaCare will lead to an increase in demand for services and a decrease in the supply of providers. This of course will lead to shortages. Wait times will increase and care will be rushed or denied. The precedent has been set in other countries like England and Canada. We would be foolish to ignore these signs.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in Health Care on September 16th, 2009
Of more interest was the criticisms leveled by the bi-partisan panel — chaired by Elizabeth Warren of Harvard Law School — of the way the program was (and is) run. Among these: a failure to define the goals or criteria for the bailout, lack of transparency, and a lack of an exit strategy — leaving the question of when (if ever) the government will be selling its ownership stakes in GM and Chrysler. The report also questioned the government’s ability — as part-owner of these firms in a competitively-neutral hands-off manner, recommending that ownership be transferred to an independent trust.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in Free Markets on September 15th, 2009
Share on Facebook
