RSS

Tag Archives: Republicans

Being A Constitutionalist

Greetings All,

I wanted to share my thoughts today on what being a constitutionalist means to me, and why that means more to me than party affiliation, or any other political boxes I can check:

Folks, I am a constitutionalist before I am anything else. This allows me, to have political allies from all walks of life, as long as we can agree that the law of the land must be adhered to, as well as the legal blueprint for amending it. This doesn't mean the law is without imperfections, nor are those who created it. The same is true for those whose job it is to defend it. We're all inherently, flawed human beings. We make mistakes, and we must correct them legally as a society at times. History is replete with major and minor instances of this. This is why I consider Americans, who readily accept political legerdemain, used to circumvent legal procedures when it suits their interests, the most unpatriotic citizens there are.

As for me, I've accepted the inevitable reality, that putting my own personal agendas and biases aside, and honoring the constitution, means there will be things I am opposed to, but must allow to legally stand. That is, if my arguments to the contrary are not legally strong enough, to influence a different outcome. I really wish more Americans would follow suit. It's such a relaxing political place to be…

Until next musing,

Talitha McEachin

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 19, 2017 in Philosophy, Politics, Society, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The “Obamaphone” Nonsense

The “Obamaphone” Nonsense

So recently, I retracted a prior criticism of former POTUS Barack Obama – the whole “food stamp president” nonsense. While this post isn’t a retraction, I want to share my thoughts on another erroneous label affixed to him – the infamous “Obamaphone”. The ironic thing about this, is that it’s origins are rooted back to 1984 when some Americans were still in “Will we ever see a black president?” mode. A “Barack Obama” if you will, was still a dream. 1984? Yep. When Ronald Reagan was president. Some even argue that it goes back as far as Roosevelt, but I digress. That year, the FCC created the Lifeline Assistance program. That’s the actual name of the “Obamaphone” program, technically. 

Obviously, cellular phones weren’t ubiquitous as they are now, in 1984, which is why the program provided free landline phone service, mainly to senior citizens. Interestingly enough, after eight years of the Obamaphone misnomer, so many remain ignorant of its history.  Am I the only one who’s never heard of an “Reaganphone”? What about a “Bushphone”? “Clintonphone” perhaps? What about a “Trumpphone”? (that sounds like the world’s worst megaphone ever). You haven’t because they were never labeled as such, even though the program existed in every presidency since Reagan. In fact, Safelink Wireless offered the first such cellular (keyword alert!) phone service in Tennessee in 2008, near the end of Bush’s second term. Barack Obama wasn’t elected until November of 2008. The program started three months earlier. 

There are some very, obvious motives and suspicious undertones, if I’m polite, associated with slapping this erroneous, derogatory misnomer onto the first black president, and literally none of his predecessors, but for now I’m not gonna go there (Hmm, no pun intended, but, did I just do that?). Now to be fair, the number of participants in the program, did increase significantly under the Obama administration, but that’s to be expected, with the expansion of any government program to assist the destitute in a recession. It’s a domino effect. If you had no problem with the program under Reagan, both Bush’s or Clinton, it’s simply hypocritical to have whined about it for the last eight years under Obama. I’ll be discussing three more things, I, and/or my political “macro tribe” got wrong, or, that were generally misunderstood or wrong when it comes to Obama. Then I’ll balance it by discussing the same number of things I stand by firmly, as far as my criticism of his presidency goes. Stay with me folks, this is about to get really interesting…

 
6 Comments

Posted by on July 7, 2017 in Politics, Society, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I Was Wrong about Obama

Greetings friends!

I’m back with my latest musing, on why I was wrong about a prior criticism of former president Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus package. As a Republican and Conservative libertarian, I have to work harder at objectivity when assessing his successes and failures. My missive here is to share one of his successes, which I erroneously deemed a failure:

After researching certain aspects of Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus package, I now see the labeling of him as the “food stamp president” quite differently. I haven’t written about it in a while, but I think a prior criticism I hurled his way was wrong. I didn’t agree with people calling him the “FSP” – I stand by that, but I understood why many called him that. Some attributed it to racism, and I’m sure that’s true for some percentage of his opponents, but certainly not all. I refuse to entertain the notion that all, or most Republicans are racists. It’s a stereotype, and I don’t play those games. In his economic stimulus, he expunged the work requirements, making the SNAP/FS program more accessible to Americans in need. We were in a recession, people were out of work and losing their homes. Many who had never received any government aid, found themselves swallowing their pride to feed their children. Most had at least one job, but simply didn’t make enough to make ends meet. It’s still true today that most SNAP recipients are working.

Barack Obama helped millions defray their cost of living by putting food on their tables. In other words, the criticism was that under his presidency, the highest number of people were food stamp recipients, due to the economic crisis. While there’s some truth to that, it’s a bit misleading for me and others (like Newt Gingrich), to assert, that he was responsible for the economic crisis, therefore forcing people on the SNAP program. That’s a faulty cause and effect. No, he recognized the crisis we were in, cause notwithstanding, and deliberately (key word) expanded the program, so millions could eat. The trade off was that the number of recipients under his watch soared. He deliberately took that hit on his economic report card. You don’t have to be a member of MENSA to understand, that loosening rigid requirements means more qualified applicants. You may not agree with his solution, and that’s your prerogative, but it was his solution, in his best judgment. The ends justified the means to him. That’s the job America hired him to do. If you want me to believe, that a Harvard educated attorney and former Senator couldn’t foresee, that the number of recipients would increase after removing work requirements, you may as well be asking me to believe in five-legged unicorns. Believing that is also an attack on his intelligence, and mine. You’d also have to ignore the trillions in debt, created by Bush before him. 

Some will argue that his motive was to increase government dependency – one rung on the ladder of socialism. The problem lies in the fact that it never happened. We aren’t a socialist nation. If I’m wrong and that was his goal, he failed utterly, so it doesn’t matter anyway. There will be criticisms of him that I’ll stand by, but this isn’t one of them. I’m humble enough to retract this view. Of course, there’s a valid counter argument to this reassessment that isn’t lost on me. Once the economy improved and the recession ended (2012), the number of SNAP recipients should have done down. That didn’t happen. The question is why, but that’s a lateral issue, one that’s unrelated to the “food stamp president” label. That’s also another musing.  I’m reassessing my view of his presidency, before writing a critical essay on his legacy. In order to fairly assess his presidency, you have to look beyond the numbers. There’s a lot of gray area. You have to dig deeper. Fair is fair, and this is one view that I’m totally comfortable with amending.

Until next musing,

Talitha K. McEachin

 
1 Comment

Posted by on July 5, 2017 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is It Easier to Vote Fraudulently Than It Is to Sign Up for Obamacare?

Friends,

To start, tonight I went to the Healthcare.gov website to peruse it & see what it would cost me to get health insurance, since technically, I’m part-time on my jobs & the one that has benefits for part-time employees will be discontinuing that coverage next year. The other job does not offer benefits for part-time employees at all. My identity couldn’t be verified (but they brought up my income & employers just fine – amazing!). I received a message which said that I needed to upload two pieces of identification like an original birth certificate & driver’s license because they couldn’t “auto” verify my identity, not even when I entered my social security number. I think I’ll just stay off the radar for now (hehe!)…but I digress a little.

I started thinking about the irony surrounding being asked by the federal government for official identification so that I could apply for and obtain health insurance. So let me get this straight. Again, Healthcare.gov tells me that I have to scan & upload two pieces of identification. One of them must have a picture (state issued ID, military ID or driver’s license). The website informed me on the site & via email that it would not process or accept my application without uploading original ID in order to verify my identity. The “submit” button was even disabled. Whether or not you think voter fraud exists (and I’ve never  really jumped on the voter fraud bandwagon), many on the right want everyone to show ID in order to vote. The acceptable forms of ID are things you need already in our society to cash a check, get on a plane, buy cigarettes…etc. The right has been called “racist” & accused of disenfranchising voters – most notably black Americans, Hispanics, college students & senior citizens. Well, I’m a black American & the federal government just told me that I can’t get healthcare without showing an ID. What’s wrong with this picture? Liberals and Democrats (many of you), will you call Obamacare racist? Am I being discriminated against? Why no outrage?

If you think that voter ID laws are racist and make it harder for the poor and minorities to vote, then certainly you must be outraged that those same poor people would be required to show ID (and upload it on a computer no less) to sign up for health insurance. This is of course assuming that they have a computer, internet service and the ability to scan the required identification, or that they have a computer at all. According to the Huffington Post, 20% of Americans have no internet access and the overwhelming majority of them are poor Americans. I know, I know, some will lament, “They can use the computer at the public library for free,” and on that we’d be in agreement, however, that’s no different from those of us on the right who have been explaining how easy it is (and affordable) for the same persons to obtain a state issued ID or the required documents necessary to get one.

My point is this liberals – be consistent. If you’re OK with the federal government requiring Americans to scan & upload identification in order to apply & sign up for health insurance, then showing identification in order to cast a ballot should be just as acceptable. Before anyone comments, challenging the veracity of my experience:

SSPX4515SSPX4516SSPX4517SSPX4518SSPX4519

As always, just my musings….Until next time – everyone have a wonderful, productive week!

 
3 Comments

Posted by on October 7, 2013 in In The News, Politics

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Actor Nick Searcy, A Conservative…in Hollywood!

Friends,

Nick SearcyPlease check out the episodes of “Acting School” a new show by my friend Nick Searcy, a Peabody award winning, international film star below who stars on the hit FX show “Justified” & is also a fellow Conservative! Nick Searcy, a consistent presence in American film and television for almost twenty years, has starred in independent films as well as studio blockbuster hits, including The Ugly Truth, The Last Song, Castaway, The Fugitive, Head of State, Runaway Jury, The Assassination of Richard Nixon, Blood Done Sign My Name, The Dead Girl, An American Crime, and Fried Green Tomatoes among others. On television, Nick was a series regular on five different shows: 7 DAYS, AMERICAN GOTHIC, FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON, RODNEY, and EASY MONEY, and has guested on many shows such as THE WEST WING, BOSTON LEGAL, and CSI. He also has shocked horror fans in the features DEADLY END, COLD STORAGE, and TIMBER FALLS. His newest release is a role in the hit MONEYBALL  from Sony Pictures, in theatres now.  He is currently filming Season 3 of the FX Network’s JUSTIFIED, portraying Chief Deputy Art Mullen.

We have to support our conservatives in Hollywood (the few that there are)! Nick was also on the Rush Limbaugh show today so please check that out as well! Here are both links, be sure to “like” the fanpage (1st link):

Nick Searcy, a consistent presence in American film and television for almost twenty years, has starred in independent films as well as studio blockbuster hits, including The Ugly Truth, The Last Song, Castaway, The Fugitive, Head of State, Runaway Jury, The Assassination of Richard Nixon, Blood Done Sign My Name, The Dead Girl, An American Crime, and Fried Green Tomatoes among others. On television, Nick was a series regular on five different shows: 7 DAYS, AMERICAN GOTHIC, FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON, RODNEY, and EASY MONEY, and has guested on many shows such as THE WEST WING, BOSTON LEGAL, and CSI. He also has shocked horror fans in the features DEADLY END, COLD STORAGE, and TIMBER FALLS. His newest release is a role in the hit MONEYBALL  from Sony Pictures, in theatres now.  He is currently filming Season 3 of the FX Network’s JUSTIFIED, portraying Chief Deputy Art Mullen.

NICK SEARCY’S ACTING SCHOOL EPISODE I

NICK SEARCY ON RUSH LIMBAUGH

Everyone have a blessed, wonderful productive weekend!

-Talitha, www.theelementsbooks.com

 
2 Comments

Posted by on January 17, 2013 in Politics, Pop Culture, Radio Appearances, Society, Videos

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday Night Live Spoofs Obama vs Romney Debate

A friend of mine shared this on Facebook this morning & I thought I’d share it with you all. No matter what “side” you’re on politically, this is funny:

SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE SPOOFS FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

Congrats to presidential contender Mitt Romney for doing such a fantastic job during the first presidential debate. The full debate schedule & all pertinent info is as follows:

TV Channels – Each debate will be broadcast live on C-SPAN, ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC, as well as all cable news channels including CNN, Fox News and MSNBC among others.

 

October 3, 2012
President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney
Watch Full Debate Video (WINNER: MITT ROMNEY-R)
Topic: Domestic policy
Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Location: University of Denver in Denver, Colorado (Tickets)
Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates
Participants: President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney
Moderator: Jim Lehrer (Host of NewsHour on PBS)
The debate will focus on domestic policy and be divided into six time segments of approximately 15 minutes each on topics to be selected by the moderator and announced several weeks before the debate.The moderator will open each segment with a question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the topic.
October 11, 2012
Vice Presidential
Vice President Joe Biden and Representative Paul Ryan
Topic: Foreign and domestic policy
Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Location: Centre College in Danville, Kentucky (Tickets)
Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates
Participants: Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan
Moderator: Martha Raddatz (ABC News Chief Foreign Correspondent)
The debate will cover both foreign and domestic topics and be divided into nine time segments of approximately 10 minutes each. The moderator will ask an opening question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the question.
October 16, 2012
President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney
Topic: Town meeting format including foreign and domestic policy
Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Location: Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York (Tickets)
Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates
Participants: President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney
Moderator: Candy Crowley (CNN Chief Political Correspondent)
The second presidential debate will take the form of a town meeting, in which citizens will ask questions of the candidates on foreign and domestic issues. Candidates each will have two minutes to respond, and an additional minute for the moderator to facilitate a discussion. The town meeting participants will be undecided voters selected by the Gallup Organization.
October 22, 2012
President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney
Topic: Foreign policy
Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Location: Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida (Tickets)
Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates
Participants: President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney
Moderator: Bob Schieffer (Host of Face the Nation on CBS)
The format for the debate will be identical to the first presidential debate and will focus on foreign policy.
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 8, 2012 in In The News, Politics, Uncategorized, Videos

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Obama’s “Truth Team” Caught….Lying

Obama’s “Truth Team” Caught….Lying

I signed up in 2008 on Barack Obama’s website to receive email updates on the campaign and four years later, I still receive the emails. For the most part, I delete them but sometimes I read them (depending on the topic) and I’ll forward them to my Conservative BFF & fellow blogger (a superb writer in his own right) Walter Myers III. Walter & I often have discussions about many political topics of the day and for my part I enjoy these discussions because no matter how much we may agree (or disagree), we always learn from one another and it’s great to have someone else’s perspective before I expound on a topic in a blog. I received the following email after the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare:

Talitha —

I’d love to take a moment to savor yesterday’s Supreme Court decision, but we don’t have time.

Already, Mitt Romney and Republicans are out with outright falsehoods about Obamacare — their favorite distortion being that this is somehow a broad tax on the middle class. In reality, this is all about personal responsibility — and the “tax” they are trying to scare everyone about is actually a penalty for the 1 percent of people who can afford insurance but still choose not to buy it, leaving the rest of us to pay for their health care when they head to the emergency room.

Just like they did when the bill was before Congress, Republicans are playing fast and loose with the truth, making up scary consequences to keep you from knowing all the good things Obamacare does. They’re not telling the truth about what this reform means for millions of middle-class Americans, so I need you to help get the facts out there.

Let’s break it down.

I forwarded this “Truth Team”email to Walter and we discussed these five points which ironically, couldn’t be further from the truth and decided to collaborate. Here’s how Walter and I both feel about Obama’s alleged “truth” regarding the GOP and future president Mitt Romney:

#1 Republican distortion: “The President promised he wouldn’t raise taxes on the middle class by a penny with this health care law. Well, that’s been proven false now.”

The facts: President Obama has cut taxes by $3,600 for the average middle-class family over the last three and a half years, and the Republicans fought him nearly every step of the way. From cutting taxes for every working American through the Making Work Pay and payroll tax cuts, to the American Opportunity Tax Credit which gives up to a $10,000 tax credit to help families pay for four years of college, the President has put more money in the pockets of middle-class Americans.

Here’s another fact: Obamacare includes the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in history. According to the independent Congressional Budget Office, 19 million people will receive tax credits — worth an average of about $4,800 each — to help afford health care. These tax credits will finally put health insurance within reach for millions of American families. In short, Obamacare cuts taxes for middle-class families. Period.

Around 1 percent of people — those who can afford to buy coverage but instead choose to opt out, shifting their costs to the rest of us — will pay a penalty. The Supreme Court acknowledged yesterday that this penalty will be charged through the tax code — but that doesn’t change its purpose (to ensure everyone who can afford insurance buys it) or its effect (to lower costs for everyone). It’s also the same policy Mitt Romney implemented when he signed health reform in Massachusetts. For many folks in Massachusetts, the penalties under Romney’s reform were even bigger. In fact, here’s a video of him extolling the virtues of his penalty.

REAL FACTSFirst of all, Obama attempts to fool the public by calling a tax a penalty because he knows that raising taxes is toxic. However, when his legislation is being questioned in from of the court, his lawyers say it is a tax even though he sold it as a penalty. Even once the court says it is a tax, Obama, his administration, and his campaign team continue to lie about it not being a tax. It is the height of hypocrisy, then, to say that Romney is lying. The entire law is based on a lie because it does not make healthcare more affordable and it pays for it through a myriad of new taxes. Moreover, they lied about the costs because now we see that the costs are at least double from what we were originally sold when the legislation passed. Furthermore, in 2010 Mitt Romney stated that his plan was for Massachusetts only and he’d never roll it out as a federal plan. Some of us may not like Romneycare but it was a state decision, which is a reflection of Mitt Romney’s respect for empowered states as the constitutional framers wanted. The “Truth Team”, in it’s rush to demonize Romney and Romneycare, neglects to tell us that 62% of Massachusetts residents surveyed support the healthcare law there.

#2 Romney distortion: Romney said Obamacare meant “a larger and larger government, more and more intrusive in your life — separating you and your doctor.”

The facts: Totally dishonest. In fact, this is one of the most dishonest claims in American politics. First, this isn’t about government. Obamacare builds on and improves the nation’s private health care system.

Second, here’s what it fixes. Before Obamacare, insurance companies had free rein to arbitrarily cap and cancel coverage, and they could waste our premiums on overheads and big CEO bonuses. With Obamacare, there will now be clear rules of the road to give patients and doctors more control over their health care. These rules will make sure that you and your doctor — not your insurance company, and certainly not a Washington bureaucrat — have control over your health.

REAL FACTSThis is absolutely about government so Romney is on target. How can it not be with 150+ new federal agencies to regulate insurance and medical care? And what about the IPAB, a 15-member commission appointed by the president whose purpose is to make annual “legislative proposals” starting in 2014 that will result in reducing the per capita rate of growth in Medicare? That is not more and bigger government intruding into your life between you and your doctor? Please. The best way to improve the nation’s private health care system is to make it more competitive, not coerce it to do the government’s bidding through artificial constructs only Washington bureaucrats could dream up. Also, it really is none of Obama’s business what insurance companies do with their money as long as they follow the law and do not cheat their customers. Bringing up CEO bonuses is nothing but another example of the class warfare that Obama likes to shamelessly foment. The bottom line is not just a Washington bureaucrat, but numerous Washington bureaucrats have control over your health, and Obama is lying if he is telling you that is not the case.

Supporting Evidence:

Obama’s Other Unconstitutional Provision (www.hoover.org)

Price: Obamacare Means 159 New Government Agencies (www.newsmax.com)

#3 Romney distortion: “Obamacare also means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have.”

The facts: Outright false. If you like the insurance you have, you can keep it. The only thing that’s changed is that your coverage is stronger. Here’s how:

— If you had a lifetime limit (and about 60 percent of employer-based plans did), it’s been lifted.
— If you have a child under the age of 26, they can stay on your plan.
— Insurance companies can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions.
— Starting in 2014, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny anyone insurance based on preexisting conditions, helping up to 129 million Americans get the care they need.
— Insurance companies will no longer be able to charge women more than men for the exact same coverage.
— 54 million Americans already have access to better preventive services, free of charge.
— And if you get sick, your insurance company can’t drop your coverage, and if they deny you a treatment, the law makes sure you have a chance to appeal.

Republicans who tell you Obamacare won’t let you keep your plan if you like it are lying to you — and it is shameful.

REAL FACTS: Obama continues to perpetuate a known lie because millions of Americans will lose some or all of the insurance coverage they have enjoyed. Obamacare causes employers to spend more money on healthcare plans for their employees because of the myriad taxes Obamacare imposes. Thus, costs will necessarily go up. Just look at the list above. When you impose all of these regulations, they will cause prices to rise significantly (which has already happened with the partial implementation of the law thus far). If you lift the lifetime limit, then premiums will have to rise. If you add children to a plan under the age of 26, premiums will rise. If insurance companies can no longer exclude anyone with a preexisting condition, then it will be impossible for an insurance company to stay in business without massive increases in premiums. What’s worse is that since the “penalties” for those who refuse to purchase insurance begins at a low teaser rate, smart people will just wait until they get sick, wreaking havoc on insurance actuarial tables. I don’t know how they will survive this and how any fool could think this is even workable.

It is a known actuarial fact that women have more healthcare needs than men simply due to the different makeup of their bodies, so why can’t they be charged more? If not, then everyone else will have to be charged more. These provisions above are the most egregious of the healthcare and are entirely unworkable, almost designed to make the private insurance industry fail so the government can create a single-payer system. Finally, if you are now giving preventive care to everyone for free, how can costs not rise? Yes, you can say this will lower costs over time, but can you really expect that once people are given “free” healthcare that they will be more responsible? I hardly think so. If you don’t earn your healthcare, you will never appreciate it as you would if you earned it. Thus, I believe that overall health will NOT increase because there is no incentive to be healthy. If premiums are manipulated so that one person can’t be charged the true actuarial cost based on their health, then why would a smoker quit since he/she wouldn’t have to pay appreciably more than the next person who doesn’t smoke? Their is no true price signal that would deter them, and they can also just wait until they get sick to buy healthcare. That is how perverse the healthcare law is since it is NOT market based.

Supporting Evidence:

The Coming ObamaTax Bomb (www.townhall.com)

If You Like Your healthcare Plan Can You Keep It? (The Foundry/Heritage.org)

#4 Republican distortion: “Costs are going up.”

The facts: Health care costs have been going up for decades — that’s one of the reasons President Obama fought to pass the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare makes targeted changes to hold costs down. The President started by taking on the insurance companies. As he said yesterday, the law ensures that insurance companies spend 80% of your premium dollars on your health care, not administrative costs or CEO bonuses. If they don’t follow that rule, they have to send you a rebate. This month, more than 12 million Americans will receive over $1 billion in rebate checks, and we’re all seeing lower premiums because of it.

The law also takes on waste in our health care system. Let’s take just one example. We spend billions of dollars every year treating people for infections they get while they are in the hospital. The health care law helps hospitals take simple but necessary steps to prevent infections. These types of reforms will save up to $35 billion and 60,000 lives.

REAL FACTSObamacare, as discussed above, only adds to the cost and does nothing to lower or contain costs. Also, it is simply common sense that if you bring supposedly 30 million more people into the healthcare system that the cost will go up since these people must now be served. What Obamacare does is just create more complexity and bureaucracy in a system that needs to be simplified and made more efficient. If we can’t make Social Security and Medicare work, what on earth would make someone think another entitlement system will be successful and make costs go down? The problem is not administrative costs and CEO bonuses, even though Obama likes to make this out to be the problem, which only someone who has no knowledge of the insurance industry would fall for. It is pure sophistry. Finally, premiums are already rising, so they can’t say just two years into Obamacare that premiums are going down in any case. In fact, they have had to provide over 1000 waivers to companies who said it was going to be a major burden to them to participate in the law. Ironically, most of the waivers went to union members and also restaurants in the district of none other than Nancy Pelosi:

Supporting Evidence:

1 In 5 of latest Obamacare Waivers Went to Nancy Pelosi’s District (Hot Air)

Over Half of All Obamacare Waivers Given to Union Members (The Weekly Standard)

And finally….

#5 Romney distortion: “Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt.”
The facts: Wrong again. The Affordable Care Act cuts the deficit by over $100 billion during the first ten years. In the following decade, it cuts the deficit by another $1 trillion. Not only is the Romney campaign misleading people about the President’s deficit plan, they won’t tell the truth about their own. Romney would grow the deficit by as much as $5 trillion by giving tax cuts that favor millionaires and billionaires while taking away health care benefits that people rely on. We can’t let them get away with it.
I’m going to be perfectly clear: Mitt Romney has promised that if elected our next president, he will repeal Obamacare on Day One in office. Immediately after the Supreme Court ruled to uphold health care reform yesterday, Romney reminded his supporters: “When I’m President…Obamacare will be over.”
 If Romney gets his way, 105 million Americans could see their lifetime caps reinstated, and more than 3.1 young Americans could be booted off their parent’s plan and could again be without insurance. Up to 17 million children with preexisting conditions could, once again, be at risk of being denied coverage, and insurance companies could once again drop you if you get sick.
REAL FACTSThat is a pure lie that is counter to the CBO’s own projections. The CBO now projects that the health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law. According to the CBO, 3 million fewer people will have health insurance through their employer, while 17 million Americans will be added to Medicaid and 22 million will be getting coverage through government-run exchanges. So Obama care is hardly a solution, and it needs to be repealed in favor of a real solution that does not involve government but increases competition and fixes the inequities in the current system.
Supporting Evidence:

 

Despite the “Truth Team’s” untruthful caveats regarding what would happen if Mitt Romney wins the election, Mitt Romney will not only repeal the Obamatax/Obamacare, he does have a plan to replace it with because no American wants to go back to what we had exactly. In an article in the New York Times, Op/Ed Columnist David Brooks gives us a hint of what Mitt Romney’s replacement for Obamacare would be:

“Moreover, there are alternatives. Despite what you’ve read, there is a coherent Republican plan. The best encapsulation of that approach is found in the National Affairs essay, “How to Replace Obamacare,” by James C. Capretta and Robert E. Moffit. (Mitt Romney has a similar plan, which he unveiled a little while ago and now keeps in a secret compartment in subsection C in the third basement of his 12-car garage).”

Barack Obama’s “Truth Team” is just another part of his smear campaign against the GOP and Mitt Romney but many Americans can see through his political legerdemain and we will not be victims of this “dumbing down” of American citizens. I have faith and trust that Mitt Romney is the man to do the job and I feel confident in saying that my friend Walter Myers III has the same level of trust but either way, unlike Democratic (the majority) blind support of Obama no matter what he does ( or fails to do), we will hold his “feet to the fire” to ensure that these promises are kept along with every other Conservative. To Obama’s “Truth Team” we suggest another career because your lies are transparent and this will only lead you to one place: the unemployment line on November 6th, 2012 behind Barack Obama and all of the rest of his liberal cronies and sycophants.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: