Friday, March 29, 2013

Actual cost of health care bill ( Affordable Care Act )

Two things caught my attention recently.

First, this CBO report.  Look at the two lines; how much the NET cost of the bill is, over ten years:

$1,680,000,000,000

Just over $1.5 Trillion.

Now look at the "gross" cost... or minus the tax revenue that's been promised?

$1,165,000,000,000





This means that the actual cost is just over $1 Trillion.
Now I know what you're going to say.  Hey... look at the small print?

Those amounts do not reflect the total budgetary impact of the ACA. That legislation included many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits. 

As usual, the government is telling us that it really won't cost anything.  Because the bill contains cost cutting measures that in the long run, will offset that $1 trillion.  Right?  For instance, as you know, the government is planning on cutting $711 billion in "waste, fraud, and abuse" from medicare.

So... if that's true, we should see at least a stabilization of Medicare costs.  Yes?
Let's check in and see what the government is planning from 2011-2021:
Medicare spending is estimated to have grown 6.3% in 2011 and projected to grow an average of 6.1% per year over the projection period.

Huh.  That is not a cut.  Which means that Medicare is still going to rise, and there will be no cost savings.  Yes?

So... that was all just bullshit.  Right?

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

The best two parts of CPAC

In a close second, Ann Coulter, describing the "War On Women":


And absolutely, at #1, Sarah Palin talking about Gun Control, and mocking Bloomberg, at the same time.

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Guess who "re-defined rape"? The DOJ

Here's the way the a democrat would describe it:


Paul Ryan introduced a bill that would redefine rape

I just had someone tell me that. Again.  In fact, this time, they told me that Ryan was trying to restrict women from getting abortions even for rape, incest, and when the mother was in danger.
So I thought I'd attempt to quash this myth for once and for all.

HR 3 was a bill that would allow federal funding for abortions when the mother was in danger, and in cases of rape and incest, but disallow it in all other cases.
I know that sounds exactly the opposite of what was described, above.  But that's what it was.

It wasn't introduced by Paul Ryan, although he was a co-sponsor.  Along with 227 other people.

Latest Title: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act
Sponsor: Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] (introduced 1/20/2011)      Cosponsors (227)

Wait... 227 other people?
Phew!
Here are the original co-sponsors of the bill.  I've highlighted the names of the women who co-sponsored it:
"Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. AKIN, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. AUSTRIA, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. BARLETTA, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. BENISHEK, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. BONNER, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. BROOKS, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. CANSECO, Mr. CARTER, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado, Mr. COLE, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. CRAVAACK, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. CRITZ, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Mr. DESJARLAIS, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana, Mr. DUFFY, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. FORBES, Mr. FORTENBERRY, Ms. FOXX, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. GARDNER, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. GOWDY, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, Mr. GRIMM, Mr. GUTHRIE, Mr. HALL, Mr. HARPER, Mr. HARRIS, Mrs. HARTZLER, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. HERGER, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. HURT, Ms. JENKINS, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. JONES, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. KELLY, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois, Mr. KLINE, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. LANDRY, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr. LATTA, Mr. LEE of New York, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. LONG, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. MARINO, Mr. MCCARTHY of California, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. MCKINLEY, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. MULVANEY, Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mrs. NOEM, Mr. NUNNELEE, Mr. OLSON, Mr. PAUL, Mr. PENCE, Mr. PETERSON, Mr. PITTS, Mr. POMPEO, Mr. POSEY, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. RIBBLE, Mr. RIGELL, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. ROKITA, Mr. ROSKAM, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. ROSS of Arkansas, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. SCHILLING, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. SHULER, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. STUTZMAN, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. TERRY, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. TURNER, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. WOLF, Mr. WOODALL, Mr. YOUNG of Florida, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. WITTMAN, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. BOREN, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. CALVERT, Mrs. ELLMERS, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. TIBERI, and Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas)"

So... all of those women wanted to redefine rape?
Well... not quite.
This is the passage that so many democrats point to, as being offensive:

SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

    `The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--
    `(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or
    `(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
       
WOW. I think its pretty clear now.
Republicans were allowing federal funding in cases of rape, incest, or preserving the life of the mother.
Wait.  What?
That's exactly the opposite as its been described, by many people.

Let's skip past that for a moment... because what really bothers Democrats is that Republicans are trying to "redefine rape."  Right?
Its not like its a legal term that the FBI used all of the time?
Forcible rape, as defined in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.  Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded.

The FBI defined "forcible rape."  Yes?  We agree on that?
But wait.  There's more.  A year after the bill, above, was introduced... the DOJ quietly backed away from this definition.  Presumably because they didn't want to get the blame that the Republicans were getting for using the correct terminology.
 “Forcible rape” had been defined by the UCR SRS as “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.”  That definition, unchanged since 1927, was outdated and narrow. It only included forcible male penile penetration of a female vagina.
Now you know the full story, and how it wasn't the Republicans who re-defined rape, but the DOJ.
Not that a democrat will ever tell you that.

Monday, March 11, 2013

Like shit, Voter Fraud Happens

Thank you, Daytona Beach News Journal, for pointing this out.
The best part of this story?
Yet it was the Republican Party of Florida — a proponent of strong anti-fraud laws — that recently reported one of their own voter-registration contractors may have run afoul of state law. According to The Associated Press, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement charged two ex-employees of a GOP-hired firm with third-degree felonies. 
The employees were just a few out of hundreds at Strategic Allied Consulting, a group hired by Republicans to do voter registration drives in Florida and other states. The Florida investigation began when the state GOP fired the company and filed an election fraud complaint with state officials, according to AP. More than 25 voter-registration forms appear to be fraudulent, police said.
Kudos to the GOP for turning them in.
You made me proud.

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Cantor copying Obama. Or rather, Obama copies Cantor

Sometimes the left gets something so entirely wrong, that you can't even laugh at how wrong it is.
For instance.. this post by Jason Easley on Politicus USA:

Eric Cantor Rebrands the Republican Party by Plagiarizing a 2011 Obama Speech 

Sounds like a slam dunk, Right? And sure enough, when you read the entry, you're astounded by how much Cantor's speech sounds like Obama's speech.

It makes it clear that Cantor was copying Obama... and as the blogger suggests, trying rebrand the GOP.
Unless, of course, Cantor had made a similiar speech before Obama did.

But that can't be.  Right?  Because then that would suggest that Obama... had copied Cantor???

Which would really be hilarious.
And it is:
Below is a comparison of President Obama’s remarks (as prepared for delivery) and Leader Cantor’s. While their words are similar, their message is very different. Republicans want everyone to have a fair shot at earning their success, but the President is calling for tax increases, government controlled equality of outcomes and sweeping changes that will put Washington in charge of determining opportunity.

Keep in mind, Jason Easley was accusing Cantor of copying Obama's 2011 Kansas speech. But as the blog points out, in 2011, Obama was copying Cantor's material!
Neat trick.
Now someone (pointing to himself) may have tried to correct PoliticusUSA.  They might even have tried to let them know how wrong they were.
And originally, PoliticusUSA let that guy link to Cantor's original statements.
But then two things happened.  Or rather, didn't happen.
Firstly, the blog never corrected itself.  Go figure.  The left never admits that they're wrong, thus allowing themselves to think that they're always right.
Secondly, the blog didn't let this guy post again.  Go figure, again... if you're going to get it that wrong, you don't want someone suggesting that you should fix your post... when you want to spread the lie.
More importantly... you have to protect Obama from criticism.  Especially when you just aimed that exact same criticism at someone else.
I was curious if anyone else had accused Cantor of copying Obama... and lo and behold, the website Smoke And Mirrors provided me with the best pull quote of the week:
Eric Cantor did more than steal the president’s words. Cantor tried to steal the essence, concept, and theme that has been the trademark of Obama’s words and promise on economic equality, rights, and immigration since taking office. Like other transparent and lazy Republicans of his class, Eric Cantor assumes that the voting public will be fooled by sleazy tactics, empty promises, and the same tired policies wrapped in poetic language ripped from a popular progressive president.
We’re smarter than that.
Aren’t we?

No.  No you aren't.  You're really, really dumb.
Because even though I'm pointing out to you, now, that Cantor said it first, I'm willing to bet that you'll never.  Ever.  Ever.  Admit that you were.

Monday, January 14, 2013

Two Chairs

When I was young, I always wondered about people who had to have the biggest chair.  There was something that felt very insecure about it.

So when I heard that then candidate Barack had this on his chair, it struck me as arrogant and insecure at the same time:



What makes someone who is running for President decide that they need a chair that says President?
Keep that thought in mind as you view this image from the White House press office:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Back_of_President_Obama_chair_in_the_Cabinet_Room.jpg

Dude... you're President of the United States.  Did you really think that you needed a plaque on your chair just to make sure that everyone else knew who the fuck you were?
Or was this a history thing that happens to every chair in the White House?
"Okay... we got a new chair for the new president.  Let's put a plaque on it with the inaugeration date.  Ugh."

However you look at it, it feels... desperate.  Insecure & arrogant at the same time.
Hey, this is my fucking chair.  I'm the president.  Get it?

Maddow: Obama's deficit reduction is solid???

From Real Clear Politics.... you need to watch the video:

It is completely delusional.

I debunked the idea that Republicans were responsible for the FY 2009 spending here, and you can read all about it.  But the important take away is that FY 2009 didn't actually have a budget.  Why?  Because the left wanted to wait until a president who was more friendly to spending came into office.
That man's name was Barack Obama... and Reid was so glad:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said before passage that he was “very” surprised at how long it took lawmakers to reach agreement on the legislation. He said the bill will provide needed funding increases for federal agencies that saw too many lean budgets during former President George W. Bush’s administration.

Go figure... Democrats get into office and add $400 billion in spending.  This isn't the stimulus, btw.  It was just $400 billion in spending that they tacked onto the original spending.
So Democrats, and Barack, are responsible for FY 2009.

But wait, you say, spending did decrease since FY 2009.
Let me show you this chart that explains it all:
Year----Revenue--Spending--Difference
2000---2,025.2----1,789.0----88.34%
2001---1,991.1----1,862.9----93.56%
2002---1,853.1----2,010.9----108.52%
2003---1,782.3----2,159.9----121.19%
2004---1,880.1----2,292.9----121.96%
2005---2,153.6----2,472.0----114.78%
2006---2,406.9----2,655.1----110.31%
2007---2,568.0----2,728.7----106.26%
2008---2,524.0----2,982.5----118.17%
2009---2,105.0----3,517.7----167.11%
2010---2,162.7----3,456.2----159.81%
2011----2303.5----3603.1----156.42%
Source

What did you notice?
If you're like me, you noticed that revenue dropped from FY 2000 to FY 2003.  But then it went up.
Which seems counter-intuitive, since there were tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.  How do tax cuts result in an increase in revenue?  Ask any supply sider, and they'll explain.
Secondly, note when the difference between revenue and spending really skyrockets.  It starts rising in 2008 (after Democrats take over congresss), but just takes off like a bullet in FY 2009.

Go figure... right?
Now yes... its dipped a little since then.  But...
It was supposed to.  TARP and the stimulus were both supposed to be one time expenses.  So in theory, after FY 2009, the difference between revenue and spending should have gone back to FY 2008 levels.  Yes?
But we spent MORE - even though the stimulus and TARP were not included - in FY 2011, then in FY 2009.  How the fuck did that happen?
Ergo, to say that Obama decreased the deficit is true only if you forget that FY 2009 had a huge amount of additional spending in it... and that FY 2010 did also.  It also requires you to forget that TARP was mostly paid back.  Soooo where did that money go?  Shouldn't the difference go down significantly?

Tuesday, January 01, 2013