A review of broken promises

“The plan I’m announcing tonight," President Obama said on September 9th, "will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government."

“My plan," the President said, "would bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family…"

“I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficit," the President said, "either now or in the future."

"No family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase," he said. He said he wouldn’t cut Medicare. People who like the plans they have wouldn’t lose their coverage.

And, Americans were promised an open, honest debate. "That’s what I will do in bringing all parties together," then-Senator Obama said on the campaign trail, "not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN."

But the bill raises health care costs, according to the White House OMB.

While Obama states the current bill will reduce the deficit by $132 billion over 10 years, this is chump change compared to the $10 trillion in deficits his spending is forecasted to cause. If I owe my credit card company $10,000, this is like making a payment of $132. That doesn't even cover the interest.

If the bill will cost $2 trillion by most estimates, how is this lowering the deficit? This can only happend through higher taxes.

It raises premiums according to the the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office talking. It raises taxes on tens of millions of middle class Americans.

It plunders Medicare by half a trillion dollars and forces people off the plans they have — including millions of seniors.

It allows the federal government for the first time in our history to use taxpayer dollars for abortions. It raises feeds and taxes across the board, and the states may have to raise taxes to fund unfunded provisions of this 2,000+ page atrocity.

So a President who was voted into office on the promise of change said he wanted lower premiums. That changed. He said he wouldn’t raise taxes. That changed. He said he wanted lower costs. That changed. He said he wouldn’t cut Medicare. And, that changed too.

The fact the Democratic leadership had to bribe many of its members to vote for the bill should give you pause, if nothing else.

Not just conservatives are angry

This from the Huffington Post:

I voted for open transparency in Washington. I voted for bringing our troops home. I voted for to fix the economy by find us jobs instead of fattening the bonuses of Wall Street and financial political supporters. I voted for health care with a public option. And what did we get?

More Bush. Chicago politics. And a worse off economy with deepening unemployment. I have ten friends and family members all out of work, using up all their savings and what has Congress and the White House done about this past 12 months. Nothing. What a disappointment! I wish the election was tomorrow. I would vote them all out!

Another:

We have been played like a one string banjo, pickin' that deceptively simple ditty, "Belief we can change in."

And one more makes the point:

By embracing a half-baked bill from a corrupt Senate and a White House that made backroom sweetheart deals with the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, you are perpetuating bad government. If the political hacks keep receiving praise for their shoddy work, what's the incentive for them to do better?

These are from Democrats and/or liberals, who by the way, happen to be Americans. Our government, as I've been saying for a long time, is failing us all, regardless of political ideology.

Descending into the darkness

One of the features of Soviet-style leadership was everything for the ruling elite, while the masses where left with little or nothing.

This is happening here. The health care legislation is just the third step in the process (step 1 and 2 involved the auto and banking industries). Government control of our major industries is called facism (state-owned). But the bill won't affect federal employees, including our Representatives, Senators or President.

The bill that succeeded a test vote in the house the past weekend is "atrocious," according to the Washington Post's Robert Samuelson. The bill only passed its test vote because certain Senator's states where provided with hundred of millions of dollars in "pork" for pet projects. These amount to bribes, but only in name, not legality.

Obama said this morning his health care plan will lower the deficit by $132 billion over the next 10 years (while blaming all of our current problems on Bush. Are we tired of that yet?). This is a lie. No report, no study, has been able to substantiate that. Deficits will not only increase, but skyrocket. Obama's deficit for the first year is higher than all of Bush's eight years. Goverment will have to print more money, causing inflation. In fact, there is not enough money in the world to finance the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda. And that's according to the Chinese.

Taxes will go up, costs will go up, unemployment will go up. Our economy will falter, if not sink back into recession or depression. Everyone -- except those who work for the federal government -- will be poorer.

And still, this program will not provide everyone with heath care.

Has this happened somewhere before? If you don't know the answer to that, then you don't know history.

Are you conservative? Or liberal?

If a conservative does not like guns, he (or she) does not buy one.
If a liberal does not like guns, then no one should have one.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he does not eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants to ban all meat products for everyone.

If a conservative sees a threat, he plans on how to defend himself.
A liberal wonders how to accommodate the threat by negotiating.

If a conservative is a homosexual, he quietly enjoys his life.
If a liberal is a homosexual, he loudly demands legislated respect.

If a Black or Hispanic is conservative, he sees himself as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of of government handouts.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative does not like a talk show, he switches stations.
Liberals demand that those they do not like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he does not go to church.
A liberal wants any mention of God or religion silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care insurance, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the government provide his.

Junk science -- or at least reporting of it

Global Warming, which is now re-framed as climate change, is still a fuzzy area to me. I guess we don't really know which way it's going, so we can't call it global warming anymore. I'm not here to support either side, but to report bad reporting when I see it.

Part of the problem with the Internet is the ubiquity of bad writing and in-precise, sloppy thinking. Here's an example from a recent post on Red Orbit.

The headline alone is worthy of a prize: "Staggering Global Warming Statistics Emerge As UN Meeting Looms." The statistics are staggering, mind you. As in causing great astonishment, amazement, or dismay; overwhelming. I saw a statistic recently. In the last 120+ years, the earth's temperature has risen about 1 degree F. I'm staggering already.

Next we get this: "So far, the oceans have risen an inch and a half..." What does "so far" mean or describe? Since 1997? 1900? 3,000 BC? The age of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago? Depending on your timeline, an inch-and-a-half could be staggering, but I really doubt it. Science reporting must be precise.

We then learn, despite the incorrect sentence structure, that in one paragraph, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air is up 6.5 percent since 1997. Then, all of sudden, "world carbon dioxide has leapt up 31%."

Leaping lizards, batman. CO2 is up 6.5 percent, then "leapt" 31 percent? I really don't understand the blatant misuse of numbers here. besides the fact that "leapt" isn't the correct word to describe a 31 percent increase in anything.

And then I learned the amazing fact that "glaciers are disintegrating three times rapider than in the 1970s..." I felt like puking. "Rapider?" You mean faster? And then the statement, which is too general anyway, is not correct.

In the 10th Century, the Vikings grew grapes in Greenland. The climate was much warmer. So what is the disaster that is around the corner that will end life as we know it?

I'm sure I could find many more examples -- in fact I see them almost daily in my web travels.

It's hard enough getting the science straight, and even harder to communicate effectively. But if we continue to deal with how things change in our world in this manner, we'll be living in caves (except for Algore).