Does President Barrack Hussein Obama Lie? You Read and Decide.

Friday, September 18, 2009

Does He Lie?

by Charles Krauthammer

You lie? No. Barack Obama doesn't lie. He's too subtle for that. He ... well, you judge.

Herewith three examples within a single speech -- the now-famous Obama-Wilson "you lie" address to Congress on health care -- of Obama's relationship with truth.

(1) "I will not sign (a plan)," he solemnly pledged, "if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future. Period."

Wonderful. The president seems serious, veto-ready, determined to hold the line. Until, notes Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, you get to Obama's very next sentence: "And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize."

This apparent strengthening of the pledge brilliantly and deceptively undermines it. What Obama suggests is that his plan will require mandatory spending cuts if the current rosy projections prove false. But there's absolutely nothing automatic about such cuts. Every Congress is sovereign. Nothing enacted today will force a future Congress or a future president to make any cuts in any spending, mandatory or not.

Just look at the supposedly automatic Medicare cuts contained in the Sustainable Growth Rate formula enacted to constrain out-of-control Medicare spending. Every year since 2003, Congress has waived the cuts.

Mankiw puts the Obama bait-and-switch in plain language. "Translation: I promise to fix the problem. And if I do not fix the problem now, I will fix it later, or some future president will, after I am long gone. I promise he will. Absolutely, positively, I am committed to that future president fixing the problem. You can count on it. Would I lie to you?"

(2) And then there's the famous contretemps about health insurance for illegal immigrants. Obama said they would not be insured. Well, all four committee-passed bills in Congress allow illegal immigrants to take part in the proposed Health Insurance Exchange.

But more importantly, the problem is that laws are not self-enforcing. If they were, we'd have no illegal immigrants because, as I understand it, it's illegal to enter the United States illegally. We have laws against burglary, too. But we also provide for cops and jails on the assumption that most burglars don't voluntarily turn themselves in.

When Republicans proposed requiring proof of citizenship, the Democrats twice voted that down in committee. Indeed, after Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" shout-out, the Senate Finance Committee revisited the language of its bill to prevent illegal immigrants from getting any federal benefits. Why would the Finance Committee fix a nonexistent problem?

(3) Obama said he would largely solve the insoluble cost problem of Obamacare by eliminating "hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud" from Medicare.

That's not a lie. That's not even deception. That's just an insult to our intelligence. Waste, fraud and abuse -- Meg Greenfield once called this phrase "the dread big three" -- as the all-purpose piggy bank for budget savings has been a joke since Jimmy Carter first used it in 1977.

Moreover, if half a trillion is waiting to be squeezed painlessly out of Medicare, why wait for health care reform? If, as Obama repeatedly insists, Medicare overspending is breaking the budget, why hasn't he gotten started on the painless billions in "waste and fraud" savings?

Obama doesn't lie. He merely elides, gliding from one dubious assertion to another. This has been the story throughout his whole health care crusade. Its original premise was that our current financial crisis was rooted in neglect of three things -- energy, education and health care. That transparent attempt to exploit Emanuel's Law -- a crisis is a terrible thing to waste -- failed for health care because no one is stupid enough to believe that the 2008 financial collapse was caused by a lack of universal health care.

So on to the next gambit: selling health care reform as a cure for the deficit. When that was exploded by the Congressional Budget Office's demonstration of staggering Obamacare deficits, Obama tried a new tack: selling his plan as revenue-neutral insurance reform -- until the revenue neutrality is exposed as phony future cuts and chimerical waste and fraud.

Obama doesn't lie. He implies, he misdirects, he misleads -- so fluidly and incessantly that he risks transmuting eloquence into mere slickness.

Slickness wasn't fatal to "Slick Willie" Clinton because he possessed a winning, near irresistible charm. Obama's persona is more cool, distant, imperial. The charming scoundrel can get away with endless deception; the righteous redeemer cannot.

Dave Ramsey Says It Better Than I Ever Could - Cash for Clunkers - Another "Bail Out"

I have tremendous respect for Dave Ramsey. I follow his money management philosophy and I believe we all should be doing so in these perilous times. I could not better explain nor agree any more with his assessment of this ridiculous "Cash for Clunkers" program. The government has simply created another opportunity to "bail out" a bunch of people who should have never bought a car they can't afford. And for those of you who have not thought this through we now have all these "clunkers" out of the used car market creating problems for those who wish to buy a good used car. Here is Mr. Ramsey's recent article:

With all the buzz about Cash for Clunkers, it’s easy to think that it was a great way for people to get a better set of wheels. But was it really? No way! Cash for Clunkers was simply a way for broke people to buy cars that they really couldn't afford. It was a bad idea on multiple levels. But before digging into that, let’s take a little history lesson.

About a decade ago, a fair housing program was started, called a sub-prime lending market. The idea behind it was that everyone “needed” to own a home—including broke people. The government decided to start a program to reinvest in communities, which allowed pretty much anyone to borrow money to buy a house. Lending companies charged high interest rates, causing already struggling families to go even further into debt.

Basically, this was a program designed to encourage broke people to buy houses. Most people didn’t even know it existed until it unraveled and became the number-one cause of our recent recession. The government took those stupid loans back and securitized them, which created the financial mess last fall. Helping broke people buy houses didn’t turn out to be a great government program. Guess what? Helping broke people buy brand-new cars—and now home appliances—will turn out just as bad.

The Cash for Clunkers program was designed exactly for people who should not take advantage of the program. You trade your $2,000 clunker in for a brand-new, shiny $20,000 car, and the only way you can afford it is with a high-interest payment. That just means you really couldn’t afford it to begin with. Doesn’t this sound like the sub-prime mortgage problem all over again?

When you drive that new car off the lot, you’re immediately going to lose $4,500. The worst car accidents happen on the showroom floor. New cars go down in value like a rock. The government thinks it’s going to save the American auto industry by putting broke people into cars they can’t pay for. It’s going to come back to bite them—and the rest of us—in the form of taxes galore.

Another bad thing about this program is that we, the taxpayers, are paying for the new cars! It’s morally wrong of the government to take money away from us—against our will—in the form of taxes and give that money to someone else to buy a stupid car they can’t afford in the first place! This is theft, plain and simple.

Cash for Clunkers is a program that redistributes wealth in the name of the environment, and it’s going to be a curse on the car dealer and the manufacturer that carries the paper. It’s going to hurt the broke person who bought a car he couldn’t afford. And it’s already a problem for our country, because it’s adding dollars to the national debt.

There’s always a twist with government programs like this. They try to think of creative ways to help people, but the situation usually ends up worse than it did before they “helped.” In the end, I should decide what to do with my own money. If I want to buy you a car, I will! And if you can’t buy a car without actually paying for the whole thing, then you’re better off keeping your “clunker.”

So good riddance to a really bad program that has done more damage than good. -

Dave Ramsey

http://www.daveramsey.com/

Under Obamacare My Cancer Would Not Have Been Even Diagnosed in Time

From Tranquilla 2 on The Back of Eddy Creek on Lake Barkley ---

Rush Limbaugh is a "Big Fat Idiot," according to my progressive friends, so let's also throw in Glenn Beck, the best-selling populist author of "Common Sense" and Mark Levin, the best-selling author of "Liberty or Tyranny" as well. That should really titillate the "snipers" and "bomb-throwers."

However, if we are going to get into calling names let's be as childish on the "conservative" side as well and add Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and let's not forget Al Franken and Michael Moore, Chuck Schummer and a few others - maybe they can be called "Big Fat Air Heads." or something equally childish.

What's my point?

When people can no longer debate with reason, logic and facts and on principles they have to resort to name calling.

Sean Hannity becomes Sean Vanity; Ed Schultz becomes Ed "Big Mouth" Schlitz.

You get the idea.

The problem is name calling doesn't get us any where in the world of ideas nor does it move us toward solutions.

Frankly my friends this current administration is wrought with lots of ideas; they have never met a crisis they couldn't take advantage of and in my opinion they are using "Chicago-style" rough house politics on us all to force programs on many of us who simply don't want their "help."

I personally prefer to debate these issues on the merits and the ideals of liberty and freedom and not on silly name calling. But then, of course, even the administration has even gone back to the old playbook of "The Vast Right-wing Conspiracy" theory as to why they can't sell these ideas to the general public. They have become desperate.

However, let us not let Congress - those political hacks - that have become more arrogant and self-serving than we can measure off lightly in this debate. The problems in our country are on both sides of the political aisle as well as in the administration.

It is self-serving and to the Congress's advantage to keep us fighting with one another over "parties" so they can reach out into our pockets and solicit their campaign funds.

It is time for a new political party and agenda. It is time for part-time legislators at the state and federal level. It is time for the farmers to come from the fields, the factory worker from the production lines, the office managers from their desks to give to public service once again.

It is simply time we threw them all out and started all over. It is time we resorted to some "common sense" - we simply can not continue down this road to perdition.

Our debt is beyond the pale, each of us now owe the government more than $44,000 and the interest is climbing daily.

Progressives are asking that we sacrifice systems that work albeit they need improvement for systems run by the government such as Medicare and the Medicaid. If there is a single person reading this that doesn't understand both of those "government" programs are broke, wrought with fraud and mis-management and shamefully run then they have not lived the past 50-years watching government screw it up. They are uneducated and choose to be.

The money being borrowed to run these programs today is on the backs of our children and grandchildren.

The health care "advocates" on both sides want government to run health care - they want to give up their "rights and freedoms of being responsible for themselves" -- they want government to make decisions on the most personal of the decisions that we as free men and women now make.

I simply won't stand for it.

Had I been in an Obama health care system I would not have gotten my cancer diagnosis in time to have saved my bladder and quite possibly my life. That is a fact. I went from the diagnosis to surgery in 4-days friends an unheard of situation under any government program - I know I used to be a fed.

Listen carefully -- leave me and my health care and my family alone. I prefer to work harder and longer if necessary to buy my own insurance.

I choose to be a free man and make my own decisions thank you very much.

No Mr. President you are not a JFK and certainly not an Abraham Lincoln that you supporters are so fond of making you out to to be like.

My philosophy is appropriately stated below Mr. President.

Or, if I can make it simpler for you - I choose "Liberty or Death - Don't Tread on Me!" - Dr. D.

For your reading pleasure ---

These words are often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, but according to the book They Never Said it: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, & Misleading Attributions, they are not from Lincoln.

The quotes were published in 1942 by William J. H. Boetcker, a Presbyterian minister. He released a pamphlet titled Lincoln On Limitations, which did include a Lincoln quote, but also added 10 statements written by Boetcker himself.

They were:

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
3. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
4. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
5. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
6. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
7. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
8. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
9. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
10 You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

John Murtha's "Pork" of a Monument to Himself at Taxpayers Expense

From Tranquilla II on the Back of Eddy Creek on Lake Barkley --- You may remember Congressman John Murtha (D-Pa.). He maligned and bad mouthed our troops even though they have fought for our freedom and liberty and for his "privileges" as a "Congressman" to bring home "pork" of unbelievable amounts (tens of millions of dollars) to an airport named after himself that gets - are you ready for this - 20 visitors a day on the average!

From my friend and fellow conservative Lynn Beckman. See how your hard-earned tax dollars are being spent by the Democrats and the Republicans that "buy their votes" with our tax dollars! It's all pork stupid!

The below link illustrates very graphically how PORK pays off for incumbents. It's easy to see why the good folks of John Murtha's district may well re-elect him. He brings home the BACON!

However, I wish ABC would have translated the dollars spent on this airport into the cost to American taxpayers for each vote the infamous Congressman John Murtha stands to gain from the country's "investment" into the John Murtha Airport. Absolutely staggering to think about this kind of thing going on continually all over the country, year in and year out. Talk about a sea of RED INK !!! By the way, even though Murtha is a Democrat,

I'm not in any way excusing the many Republicans who perpetrate the same crime. They're all guilty and need to be un-elected at the next election, and replaced with fiscal conservatives, regardless of party.

The John Murtha Airport in Johnstown, PA

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=7415354

This was on ABC Nightly News a few days ago. The first few seconds is a
commercial. Then it goes into a report on the John Murtha Airport.