Friday, November 6, 2009

The party's over for Democrats

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&fkt=7113&fsdt=9578&q=national%20debt%20clock&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi


Did you hear that big "thud" last Tuesday ? It was Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrat party hitting the ground. I hope they enjoyed the last 2-3 Yrs., because the next few are going to be real rough for the liberals. Think of it this way; a person who likes to spend money gets the limit raised on their credit cards at about the same time as their employer reduces their hours. But they disregard the reduced income and go on a wild spending spree, and for a while they are having big fun, thinking about all of the exciting vacations they can go on and new "toys" they can buy.

Then the credit card bills start coming in, and the smaller paychecks start to dampen the party. So the person gets the limit on their credit cards raised again and takes out a second mortgage on their house, figuring they'll just pay it off "when the overtime comes back". Pretty soon this person's family starts to worry that "the spending is out of control", and that "we can't keep spending money we don't have." That is the exact position that President Obama and the Democrat party find themselves in today.

The party didn't last as long as "party" hosts Reid and Pelosi would have liked. Heck, they didn't even get to take over the health care system yet and their guests, the taxpayers, are starting to abandon the party. Those independent "guests" that have to work in the morning realize there is going to be a bad hangover from all of the irresponsible spending, and somebody is going to have to clean up the mess the liberals made.

Sure, it sounded fun when Barack was talking about all of the cool things we could do, but then when the bills started coming in and the unemployment numbers kept rising, they realized they couldn't keep spending. Their children and grandchildren are going to be left holding the bill for the Democrats spending spree. Voters said "enough" last Tuesday when they voted Democrat Governor Jon Corzine out of office in New Jersey and Virginia returned a Republican, Rob McDonnell, to the Governors office. The real "house cleaning" will take place next fall when every member of the U.S. House must stand for re-election. It promises to be a real awakening for free-spending Democrats !

45 comments:

  1. That was one big thug. We know it had a big effect on the Democrats as they can't stop trying to sell us that it didn't have an effect. Or that it didn't exist the way it did. If the Democrats won they would be praising Obama for it. And after only one year he's lost so much influence on the people that voted for him.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, Brian, you really do crack me up. I read that post and nearly spit out my morning coffee.

    Yes, Democrats lost two governors races, but the real story was in New York, where the "Conservative" wing of the Republican party forced out a moderat Republican, who still got 6% of the vote, even though she dropped out the weekend before the election and a Democrat won a seat that has been Republican since the Civil War.

    Democrats actually ended the night with an additional Congressman that is a yes vote for health care reform.

    After health care passes both houses and the President signs historic health care legislation, Democrats will focus like a laser on a jobs bill to supplement the stimulus bill.

    Republicans still have no ideas on anything. Their health care bill is a joke, leaving more uninsured at the end than when it starts, letting premiums continue to skyrocket and leaving the insurance companies more powerful than ever.

    The Republican mantra is to leave the status quo in place. Go Status Quo. More of the same, that's the way to solve America's problems in the 21st century.

    George W. Bush left the Democrats one hell of a mess to clean up.

    Why don't you guys grab a mop?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bruce you are hopeless ! First of all you're "whistling past the graveyard", trying to ignore last Tuesday's election results. Just like the Obama administration and other die-hard liberals, you don't want to admit that people are "waking up" and don't like what Obama is doing.

    The situation in NY-23 was an anomoly, and will serve the Republicans by keeping liberals like you comforted that "everything is going to be O.K." next year. You just keep telling yourself that Bruce ! The REAL indicators were in the 2 Governors races that switched dramatically to the Republicans. That is what the entire country is going to do next fall, when they take a good look at the socialist agenda of Reid, Pelosi and company. I'll predict that "Prince Harry" Reid is voted out of office for attempting a socialist take-over of our economy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bruce,the Obama/Reid/Pelosi government takeover of health care is NOT REFORM. Reform is eliminating waste and abuse, not allowing more of it.
    A government takeover of healthcare would INCREASE the cost, real reform would reduce cost, allowing more people to afford it because it's less expensive, not because of a government mandate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I believe MILLIONS of voters in VA & NJ vs. maybe a couple thousand in NY-23 tells the real story on a referendum on B. Husseins' agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wow, guys, don't you realize that the "Conservatard" takeover of the Republican party is not something most of America will vote for?

    The CBO, which is nonpartisan scored the Democratic health care plan as reducing the deficit by $80 billion. The Republican "plan" will increase the number of uninsured and will do away with the pre-existing condition clause in health insurance contracts and only insure 3 million more people. The Democratic plan insures 96% of Americans.

    I think they might remember that at the polls next year.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yeah right, Bill Owens campaigned against a public option on health care and won the election because of the split in the republican party.
    Then immediately flip flops and states he will vote for the public option.
    The guy should be recalled before he even has a chance to take his seat.

    ReplyDelete
  8. One thing Bruce leave out is there are only 20% liberal,40% conservative Americans. They don't want the crap you libs are selling not what the conservatives are selling. Every day,every month and every year that goes by since Obama took over the liberal idealogue is falling by the wayside. It is thew funniest thing. Bruce is the only one that is still praising Obama and the liberals in office. That goes to show you how much the libs have gone down. I don't see vomamike,djtyg or any of the other libs poushing for Obama any more. Even they know that it tis a lost cause to try and defend that retarded idealogy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wait a minute...
    Bruce said,
    "After health care passes both houses and the President signs historic health care legislation, Democrats will focus like a laser on a jobs bill to supplement the stimulus bill."

    You mean to tell me with unemployment over 10%, the likes of which we haven't seen since the Great Depression and the Dems are going to get around to that later??!! Are you kidding me??!!

    And the typical liberal mentality... all we have to do is pass a bill and problem solved, I don't know why someone didn't think of that before, yeah, pass a bill...
    Idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  10. pgp, Democrats have already done a lot and we need to do even more.

    We should have had health care done in August, before the break, but of course Republicans had to do their typical stall tactics.

    Hopefully Democrats won't make the same mistakes from now on and let Republican slow down progress.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well, it appears we can't blame the idiocy of Bruce on the Oakland Press. It matters not where he posts his views, they still contain no logic, no facts and have little to nothing to do with supporting anyone's rights, other than those you share his world view.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Paul and pgp, are you suggesting we do nothing? Or do you think we should pass the Republican health care plan? Oh, that's right, it's the same thing.

    What, oh great Republican minds, would you do? Let me guess, a tax cut, right?

    ReplyDelete
  13. If by nothing, you mean further involvement from the government, then yes. Bruce, for the sake of us poor, uneducated, uninformed fools, please tell us exactly what is wrong with our current health system and what is contained in the proposed legislation that is going to correct it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I support "refoming" health care, but I'll tell you what we shouldn't do ... We shouldn't let the government take the health care system in this country over ! Socialism is not "Reform", and Socialism is not an option !

    What we could do is enact some serious Tort reform that would eliminate frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits, seriously attack the BILLIONS of dollars of Medicare and Medicaid fraud, and require people on these government health care plans to quit smoking or be dropped from the plan.

    Taxpayers should not be required to subsidize smokers health insurance when it is known to be the number 1 risk factor for most of the preventable diseases. I'm sorry, but a persons right to smoke cigarettes does not mean I should be required to pay for their health care !

    ReplyDelete
  15. So, Brian, you want to take away the freedom of your fellow citizens to smoke if they want to?

    Isn't that what you've been yelling about for months, freedom?

    Tort reform won't do a damn thing to decrease health care costs, Brian, at least not in our world. Maybe in your little village of made up enemies, like trial lawyers.

    The Democrats' plan is NOT socialism. I can't for the life me figure out how you came up with that one.

    One thing I guess we agree on, Brian, is going after fraud and abuse. But guess what, your buddy George W. Bush cut back dramatically on the number of fraud investigators, so guess what happens then, more fraud, more abuse.

    What other rights do you want to take away, Brian? Maybe guns should be on your list, but I don't think your buddies would like that very much, now would they?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Brian,

    You say; "I'm sorry, but a persons right to smoke cigarettes does not mean I should be required to pay for their health care" !

    I agree with that but take the issue around cigarettes/tobacco further-taxation.The revenue from the insane taxation on tobacco products is supposed to go towards HEALTH CARE for guess who-THE UNINSURED!

    So if the "ever so honest" government did what it said it would,we would not even be discussing this!

    Now take the statement 'So if the "ever so honest" government did what it said it would' further and we can clearly see that this ignorant,socialist plan will kill people,jobs,liberty and the Nation!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Christopher, I think those are lines you borrowed from the debate about Social Security and Medicare.

    Can't you find anything original?

    So, Brian, where do you draw the line? What if someone engages in unprotected sex?

    What if someone flies airplanes?

    What risks are acceptable to you, Brian, since you've appointed yourself the actuary for the country?

    What risky behaviors do you engage in that your neighbor may not want to pay for?

    Do you have guns in your house? I may not want to pay for your health care either?

    That is just a silly argument. In fact, it's the basis for insurance. By having a big enough risk pool, you spread the risk around and lower the cost, hence single-payer with everyone in and nobody out, would be the lowest cost solution based on having 300 million people in the risk pool.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Taxpayers should not be required to subsidize smokers health insurance when it is known to be the number 1 risk factor for most of the preventable diseases." Why should taxpayers ever be forced to subsidize someone's health insurance? This may represent one of the more ironic statements I've ever seen.

    On one hand Brian demands freedom and voices his displeasure with socialism, while at the same time argues to deny someone else their freedom of choice. Doesn't he realize that Medicare is clearly a socialistic program and the problem stems not from liberty/freedom but socialism. You would be on firmer ground if you simply argued that Medicare should be disbanded and all welfare ended. Which, by the way, would make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Paul, thank god that will never happen.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Paul,
    "Taxpayers should not be required to subsidize smokers health insurance"

    That should read:
    Smokers should not be required to subsidize anybody's health insurance.

    ====================================

    Bruce,
    What are you talking about? I was not addressing you?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Paul said "On one hand Brian demands freedom and voices his displeasure with socialism, while at the same time argues to deny someone else their freedom of choice."

    I knew I'd rile some of my conservative friends by suggesting any restrictions on smokers. Paul, I am NOT arguing to "deny them their freedom of choice" I said if someone CHOOSES to damage their health by inhaling carcinogenic smoke all day long, I certainly don't feel that as a taxpayer I should be obligated to help pay for their health care. They can CHOOSE to commit slow suicide if they want to, I just shouldn't be asked to pick up the tab ...Let them pay for their own PRIVATE insurance, not the taxpayers.

    Bruce said "So, Brian, where do you draw the line?
    I draw the line where I am asked to pay it. If a person wants to pay for the health risk, whatever it is, then knock yourself out, but don't ask the taxpayers to pay for your insurance. Socialists like Bruce Fealk don't understand this concept.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Exactly! But the problem stems from the way you framed the statement. Read it again. "I'm sorry, but a persons right to smoke cigarettes does not mean I should be required to pay for their health care !"

    My point is that you should never be required to pay for anyone's health care, regardless if they smoke or not. Most of the problems we face in this country are not because of people exercising their free choice, it comes from the enforcement of socialistic programs from our government. A problem that is exacerbated by individuals such as Bruce that advocate government control of our lives. In fact the proof of this situation is revealed in this idiotic statement.

    "The Democrats' plan is NOT socialism. I can't for the life me figure out how you came up with that one." Socialism is broadly defined as "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

    The fact that Bruce fails to see how the health care legislation doesn't meet this definition, clearly demonstrates his diminished level of understanding regarding this issue. My problem stems from the fact that people, such as Bruce, are cowards. They don't have the moral fortitude to stand up, acknowledge their position and then defend it. Much better that they change the definition of words, engage in misdirection and basically hijack the nature of the debate to avoid revealing their true beliefs.

    Bruce is a socialist, he knows, we know it, yet he's to feckless to admit it. Hence, his weak attempts at covering it up and portraying himself as "a man of the people".

    ReplyDelete
  23. The House has passed the "Affordable Health Care for Americans" bill, so apparently they also want to dictate to the American people what is affordable.

    I guess the final bill that was voted on must have been on the internet for 72 hours as Pelosi guaranteed, otherwise they would not have voted. Oh, my bad. I think our taxes will go up some more to be able to pay off the bribes that the Democratic leadership made to their minions, excuse me Congressmen, for their votes.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Paul, You're right, the Dem's plan is Socialism and Barack's talent is for confusing the "sheeple" and lulling them to sleep while the government takes over MORE AND MORE of their lives.

    You and I see it, Socialist sympathizers like Bruce Fealk know it but won't admit it, and the average guy on the street is too busy trying to survive that he doesn't even realize he's being tricked into allowing the country to be turned into a Socialist state right in front of his eyes ! We (active conservatives) are the ones that have to wake up the "sheeple", before it's too late.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The following is from F.A. Hayek, 1974 Nobel Prize in Economics. How prophetic.

    "In many fields persuasive arguments based on considerations of efficiency and economy can be advanced in favor of the state's taking sole charge of a particular service; but when the state does so, the result is usually not only that those advantages soon prove illusory but that the character of the services becomes entirely different from that which they would have had if they had been provided by competing agencies. If, instead of administering limited resources put under its control for a specific service, government uses its coercive powers to insure that men are given what some expert thinks they need; if people thus can no longer exercise any choice in some of the most important matters of their lives, such as health, employment, housing, and provision for old age, but must accept the decisions made for them by appointed authority on the basis of its evaluation of their need; if certain services become the exclusive domain of the state, and whole professions - be it medicine, education, or insurance - come to exist only as unitary bureaucratic hierarchies, it will no longer be competitive experimentation but solely the decisions of authority that will determine what men shall get...

    It is sheer illusion to think that when certain needs of the citizens have become the exclusive concern of a single bureaucratic machine, democratic control of that machine can then effectively guard the liberty of the citizen. So far as the preservation of personal liberty is concerned, the division of labor between a legislature which merely says that this or that should be done and an administrative apparatus which is given exclusive power to carry out these instructions is the most dangerous arrangement possible."

    ReplyDelete
  26. Brian, I don't think people care about the language and whether you want to use the word Socialism.

    What they care about is whether they can afford to be able to take their child to the doctor to have him or her healed when then are sick or when they themselve have a serious illness or injury.

    Do you really think that a parent with a sick child asks, is this socialism, when their child needs the services of medical professionals? Really?

    Words like socialism don't matter one whit when it's you or your loved one in the emergency room with a serious illness or injury.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dont you just love how leftists always try to frame their arguments around compassion?
    When the governemnt controls everything and your access to to the things you need to survive the compassion goes right out the window, it is only to be used to further a socialist agenda.
    Contrary to the charlatans arguements, people that are in need of health care and dont have insurance still have access to the care.
    If the real aim was caring for those that dont have insurance and are in neeed of it we wouldnt need a major overhaul of the entire system that will affect all of us.
    Heres an idea how about we set up a program were people can contribute money to a fund that can be used for health care for people with out insurance.
    The incentive for contributing to the fund could be a reduction of your tax liability.
    Contribute so much money to the fund and your 35% tax rate can be reduced to 32%.
    Contribute more you can get get it down to 25%
    The same can be applied to businesses to reduce corporate and capital gains taxes.
    This would make it all voluntary and keep government involvement to a minimum and leave the rest of us out of it that dont want no part of it.
    Of course no good liberal would ever go along with it because it isnt actually about compassion and taking care of others, its about furthering a political agenda that ultimately seeks to control every aspect of our lives.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Again, the village idiot attempts to hijack the debate, using misdirection. In this case, an emotional appeal to advance his position. How can anyone be so cruel to deny the poor child or his equally sad mother their "right" to services provided for "free" by another human being.

    Dang it Bruce, step to plate, unmask yourself and profess your adherence to Marx. But, in the meantime quit trying to impress us all with your pious antics and phony concern for the supposed unfortunate members of society. Your hypocrisy shines through like a beacon.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Paul, Thanks for that excerpt from Friedrich A. Hayek.
    The guy was brilliant.
    I currently have a posting on my blog that features his book A road to serfdom.
    It sets each chapter to 18 cartoons.
    Short and to the point.
    Check it out at http://anamericanrenewal.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  30. Doug, like that would ever work. My, god, are you really that stupid?

    God forbid we should show compassion for our fellow human beings.

    How in the world did your minds get so warped? Must be too much Glenn Beck and Fox "News."

    ReplyDelete
  31. "God forbid we should show compassion for our fellow human beings."

    Absolutely, we should. But, that includes all human beings. Not just the ones you choose to defend. In other words, let's see just once where you defended Individual Rights. If you are truly principled you will denounce government programs that redistribute wealth from one segment of the population to the other. You conveniently focus on only the recipient of government largess and ignore the individual whose property was confiscated from him. Where is your compassion for him?

    Finally, after reading a number of your posts, for you to call someone stupid or question their mindset, represents a tragic irony.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I never said we shouldnt show compassion bruce and you can call me stupid all day long it just betrays your lack of intelligence by doing so.
    Apparently I wrote my post to fast for you to understand but in a nut shell I accuse you leftists ......of....using......the......the .....compassion.....angle.......to.....further.....your......political.....agenda.......because.......the.....government......is.....the.....least......compassionate.......entity.......in.....the.....land!
    Was that slow enough for you to understand?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Paul, I won't denounce any the programs that you mention as "redistributing" wealth. That's how you choose to look at it and hence Republicans and Democrats.

    You might want to review this video. Democrats and Republicans do have different world views. I do agree with you there.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bafg3brwX8

    ReplyDelete
  34. No Bruce, you don't get to set the parameters of this debate. I ask one more time.

    "DO YOU BELIEVE IN INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS?"

    Are you man enough to answer that question?

    ReplyDelete
  35. BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Paul just blasted Bruce good. Bruce is all smoke and mirrors just like obama is. They were the reasons why everyone got a trophy in sports.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Paul Bruce never answers questions on any of the blogs. John has all the questions that bruce and libs in general wont answer.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Paul, yes, I believe in individual rights, but not to the exclusion of the rights of all of us as a country.

    Do you believe in the right of all of our citizens to have affordable, quality health care as a basic right? I'm sure you don't. You'd put your individual right above all else and you're so worried about getting yours, to the exclusion of someone else not getting any you would go to war if someone tried to give someone else a fair shake.

    Do you believe all money and good fortune comes from god? Do you really think Jesus would say to those without health care, don't get sick and if you do, die quickly, which is basically the Republican position on health care, isn't it, Paul?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Paul, I'm sure that as a big believer in individual rights, you don't mind if gay people get married either, right? That's an individual right, isn't it? What two gay people do has no effect on you, but I'm sure you're going to tell me that's not the case aren't you.

    Individual rights only apply to your money and your guns, don't they?

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Paul, yes, I believe in individual rights, but not to the exclusion of the rights of all of us as a country." In other words, "I believe in individuals rights, except for when I don't".

    Bruce your words betray you and you are a LIAR. The proof is in your sorry attempt to "split the baby" and define individual rights as something that means one thing to you and something different to someone else.

    Individual Rights are very easy to define. They are natural rights that are granted to all human and involve such things as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They involve the freedom to obtain property and use it as you see fit. Under this doctrine, no one can deprive you of these rights, nor can they require you to provide any services to another without just compensation. The simple fact that you support government coercion to strip American citizens of their rights, through such programs as Social Security, Medicare and many other forms of Welfare clearly shows your hypocritical stance.

    Your sad attempt to invoke God, gay marriage and the idiotic belief that health care is a right, demonstrates your repeated efforts to change the focus of this debate. The fact remains that you are an unprincipled hack that espouses ideas more closely related to collectivism and are in complete deference to the ideals on which this country was formed.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I love you too, Paul. (Laughing Out Loud)

    ReplyDelete
  41. Paul, try not to let Moveon.org's representative get you upset. He's made a career out of pissing people off, that's why his blog isn't in the newspaper anymore ...
    He'd rather try to make a conservative angry than debate the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Brian, that's just not true. The reason we're not in the paper any more is your comment. I had Glenn ready to fire you and keep me, but I think they were just tired of refereeing your blog.

    Your comment about the 30 Republicans that voted against the Franken amendment was the last straw.

    You calling Jamie Leigh Jones a whore was over the line.

    I have the e-mails to back up what I'm saying.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Oh, and Brian, I'm not MoveOn.org's representative.

    I do think MoveOn.org is a fantastic organization that is a force in making America a better place, I have no formal affiliate with MoveOn, other than being a supporter and event facilitator in Rochester Hills. I am not paid staff with MoveOn, just so we're clear.

    ReplyDelete
  44. hmmmm..i'm late to the party, but better late than never.

    First bruce is off the mark. The latest CBO projection for budget decifit reduction through H.R. 3962 including its estimated cost (891 billion over 10 years) is 109 billion. the CBO director released that on Nov 6th.

    And to PGP, lol..."the likes of which we haven't seen since the great depression" are you flat out lying or do you not know the historical figures for unemployment?
    Michigans rate hasn't hit its histoprical high for the last 30 years yet. I'll give you a hint, its 16.9 and occurred in Reagans second year. The single highest state unemployment since 1976 is West virginia at 18.2 in march of 1983.

    You do realise that unemployment was over 10 percent for 10 straight months under Reagan? consider that the country had 9 percent or more for 19 straight months. Over a year and a half.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Bruce, Glenn Gilbert probably really regrets the day he offered you the "From the Left" blog. It was a real mistake. The controversy you cause was just too much for a family newspaper to put up with. The people who know you really despise you, and it shows in their comments about you.

    ReplyDelete