Hope you enjoy the site as much as I did and now its back to the politics and Barack Obama ruining our country!

President Obama's approval rating as of Sept. 5 2010, to see todays click the link below

and opinions I brought up back then are still pertinent today.

People are often asking, why is the President going to raise taxes in the midst of a recession? Why is the President going to try and implement a universal healthcare plan that is bad for the average american at a time when the government has no money. Why did we borrow so much money to stimulate the economy if it wasn’t going to stimulate? All of these issues people constantly talk about were issues before President Obama was President Obama. The difference is now all that hope and all the positive emotion has evaporated and the reality of a lagging economy and stagnant unemployment rate has set in. As American’s look at the issues facing them today, they are now able to judge President Obama with a clear head.

And when they do, they realize that many of the arguments made in this blog back in ’08 still hold true today. This is why it is truly no surprise that the President’s approval ratings are rapidly falling and why so many members of his own party are avoiding him during their reelection campaigns. The President was so good at taking the focus off the important issues and getting everyone to dream and to hope . He was so good at it that he was able to get elected. But as they say, “Charm gets you by for about 15 minutes and then you better know something.”  The election was President Obama’s 15 minutes.

To see President Obama’s approval rating click here

There are some things that I think most people can agree upon. People who can easily afford health insurance should get it. There needs to be a safety net for low income parts of our population. This is not only for the patients but also for the hospitals that treat these patients. If you go to the ER you have to be treated regardless if you can pay for it. Many hospitals in southern California have been forced to close because of this reason. There needs to be a way to reimburse these hospitals for their treatment so that they can stay open!

But taxing people who have worked their entire lives to earn a pension or retirement cannot be the answer. I am not going to pretend I have all the answers, but the current bill, thrown together as it is, cannot truly fix the problems and is likely to create even more. For an issue as enormous as healthcare, small steps, with measured risk and well thought out consequences is a must.

Fear is caused by the unknown. This is the reason that so many people are upset about this healthcare debate. No one seems to fully understand what is going on. Normally one would look to their leaders to better understand, but as we do this our leaders often seem to be just as confused as all of us.

It is time to take a step back, reevaluate, and move forward together.

Why Universal Healthcare is a Bad Idea – An Example

Obama Proposes Big Taxes

You might be asking yourself, “what will Obama do as president to change the economy and how will it affect me?” Barack Obama is going to raise your taxes, and he is going to raise them in a way we haven’t seen in a long long time. We have heard him on the campaign trail saying he will create a middle class tax cut for 95% of the population. A statistical impossibility since about 40% of the population does not currently pay income tax. If you read his tax plan from his website what he is actually planning on doing is adding about 15% more people to the group who do not have to pay taxes. He will also give a tax rebate to the 40% who do not pay an income tax. This is what he is calling a tax cut. This is not a tax cut. This is a hand out and would be better termed welfare.

Obama is unapologetic about his plan to raise taxes on the most wealthy. Many of these wealthy individuals are doctors, dentists, restaurant owners and other small business owners who were not born into wealth but worked their way up through education and hard work. They have realized the American dream and would now be punished under this tax plan.

An important fact to realize is that many small businesses file taxes as individuals so that they do not have pay taxes twice. The current tax rate for individuals and small businesses are in the 35% range. By rolling back tax cuts and then further increasing them Obama’s new tax rate on individuals and small businesses making more than 250,000 a year would go up to ~51%.

Now you might be saying to yourself, “that still sounds pretty good, 40% get some “free” money another 15% don’t have to pay income tax any more and it’s only the rich people who are paying and they can afford it. This doesn’t affect me.”

Well you are very very wrong.

While it is true that all of us would love to have a free check or hand out from the government to help us cope with the cost of gas, groceries etc this extra money will pale in comparison to the effects on all citizens in America. Here is an example of how taxing small businesses will directly affect the middle class:

Picture a business that brings in $500,000 annually in gross income. This is before taxes, before paying the employee’s incomes, before paying for the cost of the products they sell etc. Besides the owner, the company currently employs 3 people at $30,000 a year for a total $90,000 a year. The current tax rate of ~35% on taxable income (gross income minus salaries and overhead) costs the company $115,000. Assuming a 25% additional overhead at $125,000 a year the owner takes home an income of $185,000. ($500,000 – $90,000 – $125,000 – 100,000 = $185,000)

Now lets assume that Barack Obama is able to enact his tax plan raising the tax rate to 51%. This would raise the amount of taxes paid to the government to $145,000. When adding in the cost of employees and over head the owner now takes home $140,000! ($500,000 – $90,000 – $125,000 – $145,000 = $140,000) A 25% pay cut. This is assuming that the business could write off all 25% of their overhead which is currently not possible, so the pay cut would actually be higher than this. Could you afford a 25% pay cut in your income? If you could prevent this 25% loss in income, would you? What do you think is the natural and legitimate response to these tax increases? The owner would immediately fire at least one of her 3 employees. She would then raise prices on her goods so that she could earn more on each item sold. The owner would stop investing to grow the business and would stop charitable donations. Depending on the type of business the owner may also decide to use cheaper and less reliable materials in the products they sell. All of these reactions to the increased tax rate would occur throughout the country and would have a profound and far reaching effect on the economy. The people most affected would not be the owners (although they would suffer as well), it would be the workers, patrons and communities of these businesses, the majority of which come from the middle class.

Currently 75% of new jobs in America are found in the small businesses across the country. Imagine the profound effect that raising taxes would have on our already struggling economy. Jobs would be cut, prices on goods would be raised, and more and more businesses would be forced to lower standards or outsource overseas. Barack Obama himself mentioned he may want to wait a little bit to raise the taxes due to the economy, thus proving that even he knows his tax plan would only further punish the middle class.

The small amounts of money many American’s would get from the government ($500 a year is the equivalent of a 25 cent an hour raise) would not come close to the amount of money they would lose in the form of lost jobs, decreased wages, and increased prices on goods.

Fred Thompson may have put it best when he said, “Now, our opponents tell us not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they’re not going to tax your family. No, they’re just going to tax “businesses.” So, unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline or unless you get a paycheck from a business, a big business or a small business, don’t worry, it’s not going to affect you!

No one can afford Obama’s tax plan, especially those he says he is helping.

Great video on this theme can be seen here

More info:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11670.html

Washington Times on this issue

Obamanomics

Read more Posts from this Blog

This video does show one obvious contrast between Obama and McCain. When the Daily Kos (an extreme left wing website) was smearing Gov. Palin, saying her child was not hers, saying the child was her 17 year old daughter’s and then her 14 year old daughter’s child, Sen. Obama was silent. He never stood up to those people. The extreme left and right in our country often hold ignorant and dangerous views. Both campaigns have had a chance to stand up to these people in their party and only John McCain has shown the character we expect in a President.

If we want to know the effects of government run health care we need look no further than the old Denti-cal system in California. In California, low income families and individuals qualify for free government sponsored dental care because they are unable to afford insurance. Let’s examine this free “insurance” and the lessons it teaches us about government run health care.

1. The Government reimburses the dentist or specialist at about 33% of the normal going rate per procedure.

Due to this very low payment level most dentists in California do not accept Denti-cal. Those that do know that to make enough money to keep their practice afloat they must see about 4 times as many patients as those dentists who do not accept Denti-cal. What does this mean for these patients who are on government run dental care? Less time with their doctor, longer waits for an appointment and longer waits in the waiting room, Cheaper (translate to worse) materials used in their mouth, and an overall worse experience. There are many dentists who want to be able to care for these patients since they are often those at the highest risk but the dentist must also earn enough money to keep their small business alive. (Obama’s tax increases on small business will only further decrease the number of available clinics for these patients.)

2. The government decides what care can be delivered.

Normally when you go to the doctor they will discuss your condition and will recommend the ideal and best treatment for you. This is not the case when the Government is making the decisions. Denti-cal does not pay for crowns (caps) on your back chewing teeth, if a patient needs a crown to save a back tooth they are out of luck. Denti-cal will pay for them to get it taken out though because the cost of pulling a tooth is much much cheaper. Another example is the need for a partial denture. If a patient is missing a few teeth on the top or bottom of their mouth a normal course of treatment would be to get a partial denture to replace their missing teeth. (a partial denture is a removable prosthesis that fills in spaces and improves a patient’s appearance and ability to chew and speak). Unfortunately for these patients Denti-cal does not cover partial dentures. They do cover full dentures which do not function as well. This leaves the doctor and the patient in a very difficult situation. Do you pull out all of the rest of the teeth (which are perfectly fine) so that the patient is able to eat or do you leave the patient in the current unhealthy situation? Either way, the patient’s health is severely compromised.

Now imagine the consequences if this were a life or death situation. Do you want your doctor being restricted in the materials and techniques they use because your government run insurance doesn’t want to pay?

You are probably thinking to yourself, this is ridiculous and completely unfair to the patient and the doctor. You are right. The problem is that it is not doctors who are deciding what will and will not be covered by government insurance, it is the senators, congressmen, and politicians who are always looking for ways to decrease the budget. With the current 9% approval rating do we really want these people making these decisions for our doctors?

3. Government run health insurance is tied to the budget.

When the government is in charge of your insurance the insurance is tied to the budget. Just last year in California there was a budget problem and the proposal was floated to cut the Denti-cal program. It was later agreed to cut the Denti-cal budget by 10%. This further decreased doctors’ ability to provide competent and useful health care for their patients. Look at the current national budget. Do you really want your health insurance tied to a budget that is already over 10 trillion dollars in debt?

4. There is no such thing as free health care.

You will be paying for your health care and for the health care of everyone else. There is no way to create universal health care without severely increasing taxes. Even though you would not be making a payment at the doctor’s office you would be making huge payments out of every pay day check you earn.

The idea of government run universal health care will continue to be pushed by candidates like Barack Obama. It will always sound good on the surface but it is important to actually examine the effects Obamacare would have on you and your family.

It is true that there are too many people who currently do not have access to care and it is an issue that must be addressed. However creating a government sponsored system which would allow politicians to severely handicap your doctor’s ability to provide you with the best treatment is clearly not the answer. When it comes to health care we cannot settle for mediocre.

Here’s an example why Doctors hate Obamacare:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2011/09/26/doctor-and-ama-split-over-contentious-issue-of-obamacare/

Read more posts from my blog

Pelosi chose "Party First!"

American’s need congress to figure out this bail out plan and get the economy back on track. Knowing this, Nancy Pelosi decided that minutes before the vote on the bail out bill, she should unleash a partisan attack on George Bush. She blamed Bush for ruining a Clinton surplus, for his failing economic policies and basically blamed him for the current economic crisis. Whether you agree with her on this is irrelevant. The point is that she chose the most inopportune time to make a partisan attack. You can watch video of the speech here

Prior to this speech it appeared that the bail out plan had enough republican support for it to pass. However after the speech the vote was taken and multiple republican’s had changed their minds. When listening to Pelosi’s speech it almost seems anyone voting for the bail out bill would be in effect also supporting her views on the cause of the current crisis. There is no way that republicans (or democrats ) would be willing to take all the blame for this problem. Especially when it was actually many republicans (like John McCain) who were attempting to reform Fannie and Freddie back in 2004/05. Watch video evidence from breitbart here

Congress has an approval rating of about 9%. There are many people to blame. Using Nancy Pelosi’s line of reasoning the problems of an organization should be blamed on the leader. As speaker of the house, there is no one more culpable for two completely inept years in the house than Nancy Pelosi. Today’s unnecessary display of partisanship illustrates that Pelosi embodies everything that is wrong in American politics today.

Speaker Pelosi is very quick to throw blame around but it has never been more clear that the person who needs criticism is Pelosi herself. Today’s partisan displays make an even stronger case for John McCain for President. His record of bipartisan efforts in the senate simply dwarf those of Senator Obama. We cannot afford to elect a president who will follow the party line and mirror the actions and tactics of Speaker Pelosi.

More Posts from this Blog:

How Obama’s “Tax Cuts” will hurt the middle class

Obama – Fannie Mae’s second favorite senator

Barack Obama responded by saying that they should put out a joint statement on broad ideas that both he and Senator McCain agree on. He argued that presidents should be able to multitask and that now more than ever is the time to talk about their issues, their global standing and this crisis’ implications on the world.

Never in this campaign has the difference in character between these two men become more apparent. John McCain has run a campaign based on putting “country first” and putting America before party. He has done this for decades dating back to his time as a POW to reaching across the aisle on campaign finance reform, immigration, taxes, torture, stem cell research and many many others. As I mentioned in a previous article Senator McCain has actually worked with more Democrats on his bills than Republicans while Obama has worked with Republicans less than 20% of the time.

Obama has a history of inaction on some of the most important issues. He has voted “present” over 120 times in the senate. He refused to talk about AIG for days. He initially blamed both Russia and Georgia for the conflict, and now Senator Obama is again advocating inaction. He wants to talk, debate, and explain to the American people instead of taking action. What we need for the next four years is someone who can work across party lines and actually do something. Obama’s history of inaction and partisan politics will do nothing to help America face the pressing issues of our time.

Perhaps Obama’s response to a question at the end of his press conference sums up the contrast between Senator Obama and Senator McCain best. Obama said, “John McCain is running his campaign and I am running mine.” Unfortunately for America, this is no longer true. Only Barack Obama has decided that running his campaign is most important. In contrast, John McCain is putting America first and taking action on this financial situation that affects all Americans.

Ayers in the 70

Bill Ayers’ relationship to Barack Obama has been floated quietly throughout this campaign however it has been largely pushed aside by the mainstream media and Obama himself. Today new details about the relationship came out so Senator Obama’s relationship with this radical terrorist bears reexamination.

So who is Bill Ayers?

According to Wikipedia: Bill Ayers is an American elementary education theorist and former leading 1960s militant. He is most well known for his violent radical activism in the 1960s and 1970s, his current work in education reform, curriculum and instruction, and his association with 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. In 1969 he cofounded the violent radical left organization Weatherman, which was active during the 1960s and 1970s. He is now a professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, holding the honor of Distinguished Professor.

Bill Ayers has never repudiated his terrorist attacks or bombings on government buildings such as the New York City Police Building and the Capitol Building. When asked about those events from the 1970′s he said, “I don’t regret setting bombs, I don’t think we did enough.”

Ayers is a self proclaimed radical when it comes to education. He is unabashedly against patriotism in schools. In one of his books on education he talks about banning the pledge of allegiance and celebrating only world wide holidays. I wonder if this would include banning Memorial Day; a day celebrating our troops? He also compares America to the horrible segregation in the schools in South Africa, saying that U.S schools are purposely preparing inner city kids for prison, unemployment and war.

So early in the campaign, when Barack Obama was asked about his relationship to this radical, admitted terrorist he said that he was “just a guy in my neighborhood.”

As more details continue to come out it becomes obvious that Senator Obama was not being honest about his relationship with Bill Ayers. In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear that their relationship runs very very deep.

A few facts about the Obama-Ayers relationship:

-Obama became the chairman of an Ayers created education foundation.

-Worked together to craft the bylaws of this foundation.

-Obama was in charge of a foundation which gave money to support Ayers’ radical education projects.

-Worked together to shoot down a bill that would have made repeat violent juvenile criminals sent to an adult prison. A bill even most Democrats supported.

-Obama launched his political career in the home of Bill Ayers

-Ayers has donated to Obama’s election campaign.

From all of these examples of which there are many more, we can see that their relationship runs deep. Many say that just because Obama has a relationship with this man it does not mean that he believes in all of his beliefs. This may be true. The problem is that Senator Obama’s relationship to Bill Ayers is just one in a pattern of associations with the most radical in our society.

Bill Ayers Today

From Reverend Wright who proclaimed “God Damned America.” to the now jailed Tony Rezko who helped Obama get an amazingly cheap deal on his house, to Father Pflager another pastor who gives sermons at Obama’s church who said “America is the greatest sin against god” and continuously stirs up hatred between African Americans and White Americans, to the endorsement by Louis Farrakhan of Obama’s Campaign.

One or two of these relationships could be excused but there is clearly a pattern of radical friendships in Obama’s life. Having known these people for more than a decade there is no way that Senator Obama did not know about these people’s views on the world, on our country and our society. Despite his knowledge of their radical, anti-american views Obama did not distance himself. Instead he actually supported their causes. Publicly endorsing one of Ayers radical books on Education which supported banning the Pledge of Allegiance, and remaining a member of Rev. Wright’s church for 20 years.

Many, including Obama himself, will argue that it is not fair to say he is guilty by association. However, the sheer number of radical mentors and friends in his life makes one stop and wonder what this man truly believes. It makes you wonder about his true character. And as the old saying goes, You are the company you keep.

NYT on Bill Ayers

Great commentary here

Read more of this Blog’s Posts

Obama said "No" to aborted babys' rights

John McCain and Sarah Palin are pro-life, Barack Obama and Joe Biden are pro-choice. This is a contentious issue for many Americans and one that often drives a person’s party affiliation and their vote. However there are different levels of being pro-choice or pro-life and Barack Obama is the most extreme senator based on his voting record on this issue.

Barack Obama supports late term partial birth abortion and also supports the killing of a baby who was born alive despite an earlier attempt to abort it. While I support a woman’s right to choose (early on in the pregnancy) and obviously differ from John McCain and Sarah Palin on this issue it is much harder to understand Obama’s positions.

Many people do not understand what a partial birth abortion entails. A Partial birth abortion is when labor is induced, the child (often nearly fully developed) is pulled from the womb and a metal rod or scissor is used to stab the child through the back of the neck or head. It is one thing to support an abortion but quite another to support this barbaric act. Some proponents of this procedure say that to ban this procedure would start down the road towards overturning Roe vs Wade. There are some Democrats like Barack Obama who support this practice, however there is one procedure where Senator Obama stands completely alone. Obama voted against a bill to ban infanticide.

While in the Illinois state senate Obama first voted “present” and then against a bill that would have banned the killing of a child who was born alive despite a previous attempt at aborting it. When asked about this vote Senator Obama initially said that he voted against it because he felt the bill would be used to over turn Roe vs. Wade. So a new bill was crafted which explicitly said that the bill could not be used to overturn Roe vs. Wade and that it would be only to enacted to protect a fully developed child who was born alive. It gave the child the same rights as any other child born in America. Senator Obama again voted against this bill.

An Identical bill was drafted in the U.S Senate and it passed 98-0 garnering support from all Democrats and Republicans. When questioned about his votes Barack Obama continuously said Republican’s were lying about him and his votes and that the bill he voted on was different than the U.S. Senate bill. Finally weeks later he conceded that the bill in the state senate was in fact identical to the bill passed in the U. S. Senate. He then said had he been in the U.S Senate at the time he would have voted for the bill. Obviously Barack Obama does not want to kill a bunch of innocent children. However, it is indisputable from his record that he also does not believe all babies should be protected. This stance is in contrast to every other senator in the U.S Senate and one even pro-choice voters have trouble understanding.

Why does he now say that he would have voted for the bill? The only explanation is that he now understands how much he differs from America on this issue and that it would benefit him politically to say this. So my question to you is this. Should we judge someone on the decisions they make when they think no one is looking or the ones they make during the heat of a political campaign? I will let you make the decision on that.

Background info:

Obama misrepresenting his vote and getting caught lying

example 2

Hannity and Colmes debating this issue

Video of him lying before his campaign admitted his vote was the same as the senate bill

What is partial birth abortion?

read more of my Blog posts here