Researched by Ric Joyner

This is a blog post from DailyKos.com which is a VERY leftist blog. They call themselves Kossacks and if you review their logo it appears to mimic the old Soviet Union communist propaganda art. Remember communism seeks to create an egalitarian society by taking wealth from others to give it to people who didn’t work or earn it and basically turning the entire country into slave labor with no opportunity.

Please follow the thread to see the “rock and the hard place” that President Obama is experiencing with several different factions in the democratic party, labor and left wing organizations that are for and against health care reform. President Obama has pandered to the left, unions and has helped to pay them back in the stimulus bill and even bailing out their pension plans in HR3200.

AFL-CIO: No Public Option, No Support

By BarbinMD

Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 03:00:04 PM PDT

This is what it sounds like when someone representing the Democratic wing of the Party speaks:

Democratic lawmakers will not be able to count on the AFL-CIO’s support if they drop the public insurance option from the health care reform legislation, union officials said Tuesday.

The AFL-CIO’s incoming president, Richard Trumka, outlined “three absolute musts” in any overhaul package: a public option, an employer mandate and no tax on employer-provided health benefits.

Asked if the union would work against any bill that did not hit those targets, Trumka told reporters during a *briefing: “That means we won’t support the bill if it doesn’t have the public option.”

Please note I cannot find independent verification of *a briefing: Ric

And as Trumka declared last month during a speech to the Sheet Metal Workers International Association:

We need to send them a special message: it’s that you may have forgotten what the labor movement did to get you elected; but, by God, we never will! And if you stab us in the back on health care this year don’t you dare ask us for our support next year!

And the Max Baucus/Blue Dog wing of the Party needs to remember that — and that 2010 is just around the corner.

Overview of what the “left” believes is the next move for Obama.

Report: President to reveal health care deal-breakers

By Jed Lewison

Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 04:30:04 PM PDT

Marc Ambinder delivers a report that has the feel of a trial balloon:

This time, the President is going to be specific. Next week, President Obama is going to give Democrats a health care plan they can begin to sell.

He plans to list specific goals that any health insurance reform plan that arrives at his desk must achieve, according to Democratic strategists familiar with the plan.

Strikingly, despite the tough “deal-breaker” language, there still seems to be a ton of wiggle room on the public option:

He will insist upon a mechanism to cut costs and increase competition among insurance companies — and perhaps will even specify a percentage rate — and he will say that his preferred mechanism remains a government-subsidized public health insurance option, but he will remain agnostic about whether the plan must include a robust public option. Officials won’t say whether the president intends to endorse a specific “trigger” mechanism if the competition mechanism fails, but they say he will make it clear that the final bill must contain language that increases competition.

Purely in political terms, if the White House’s goal is to generate enthusiasm in the Democratic base, that sort of approach won’t cut it. If they want to excite the base — and as Kos showed earlier, they need to — then they will need to come out more strongly for a public option, because it is the only mechanism that anybody has proposed that will meet his stated objectives.

Update (4:50, by Jed) — Remember that this sounds like a trial balloon, and it’s not coming from named sources. Nothing is written in stone. President Obama hasn’t said anything yet. If you don’t like what you’re hearing, the best thing to do is to let your voice be heard, whether at public events, phone calls to your senators and representatives, or whatever works best for you. Without your active involvement, AHIP could still win this thing.

Make a difference on Friday 9-11 and make the call. Your Representatives need to hear from you. They will be hearing from those who wish to take our freedom of choice, jobs and livelihood.

By Ric Joyner

Obama showed his core beliefs at the Saddleback Church debate which is “redistribute wealth” by taxing the rich and many other socialistic leanings. The problem with taxing the rich thinking, is that being rich is a moving target. For example, I have relatives that are “rich” in farmland that will be sold for their retirement, but have lower  income now. Are they rich? Yes. Wealth, in the land puts them in the wealthy or rich category. But they don’t “feel” rich (their words) because the disposable income is not in their pocket NOW. But it will be in the future. Paying the bill when the land is sold from the tax increases, which  Obama enacts, will be payback for voting for him.

Historically the democrats “tax the rich” and the rich stop spending money. Who gets hurt when people stop spending money? Take a look at housing….slow now because folks aren’t spending… and the result is people are out of work. But the real question is; “who is better with my money…a bureaucrat in DC…or my family?” Those that want to tax the rich, don’t mind if the government taxes someone else, as long as it isn’t them.

McCain was clear on taxes. Let’s not tax anyone.

It was clear that Obama doesn’t do well in a personal debate, which John McCain excels. John McCain doesn’t do well as Obama in a prepared speech.

I was on the DailyKos Blogs, which is a left wing daily blog, earlier in the day on Saturday prior to Saddleback. I found the comments interesting as they focused on how Obama will show the world what a cool candidate he is, and turn John McCain into Elmer Fudd. During the debate, I watched the comments on Kos, and was surprised at the comments being shared that said Barack was doing poorly. Later in the day Kos posts began to coalesce that their “man” went into the lions den of Christians, and Obama was at an unfair advantage! Yikes, both candidates were given the questions ahead of time! Are Obama supporters whiners? The other thread that was on Kos was many Hillary supporters were saying “I told you so”.

The real Obama came out. Big government, redistribute wealth, and good feelings all around!

My opinion is that Obama is in a world of hurt and the polls are showing this fact.

By Ric Joyner

She made an incredible comment of ignorance. Question what if your generals say that pulling troops out would be a disaster? “We do not know what will happen when we pull out”.

WE DO KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN. Our fallen heroes sacrifice will be for nothing! Hillary, do you remember Vietnam when the Democrats DEFUNDED the war and the communists won and experts say that over 5,000,000 people were massacred? Iraqi’s have died during the war, but many thousands more will die after the fundamentalists get a hold of the country and it will be a new terrorist base!  We will tell the world community that when the going gets tough the US gets going….with our tail between our legs.

She is playing to the liberal left which wants no wars at all even to defend ourselves.

This morning on NPR Chelsea Clinton was asked by a reporter how she felt about her fathers affair. Her response should serve as a lesson for all media folks. She responded that she felt his actions were her families personal business.

I for one can’t imagine why any thinking person would run for political office when the only thing that is certain is the destruction of family the media thrives upon.

I can’t seem to decide which I find more offensive the scandal sheets at every grocery check out stand or the negative practices of the American press. Perhaps the folks of the American Press missed the bible lessons about what happened to the only perfect man in history.

No matter how negative my feelings are toward Hillary Clinton or any other politician. The press is far more offensive to me.

Once again I retire the soap box to the deepest corner of the closet. Jim

——————————————-

F Jim Parks, RHU, CLTC

F Jim Parks Agency

ricjoyner’s del.icio.us Bookmarks: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 to Wednesday, April 09, 2008

political blog

tags: Obama_Barack_Hillary_Clinton_Politics

Auto parsed by del.icio.us bookmark plugin

by Ric Joyner

Geraldine Ferraro was speaking at a conference, and a question was posed. Why do you think Barak Obama has gotten this far in his campaign?  She responded by stating that he was black, and that people were looking for a qualified black to run. Which is true. There is nothing demeaning in her comment.

She has been savagely attacked by the Obama campaign. BO is attempting to get her to resign from Clinton’s finance campaign. The problem? Geraldine has been a tireless advocate to end racism, and is only a fund raiser for Hillary. Thus what should she resign from?

Geraldine was on Fox News today, and was furious that the Obama campaign was on the attack. She has class, and stated that the Obama campaign will regret the attack because if he is nominated she would raise funds for him, unless the attacks continue.

The Obama campaign is prickly over the race issue, and anyone who discusses the issue is deemed a racism. These type of attacks are core to liberal thinking. Call someone a racist, if the generic topic is discussed or they disagree with you.

In my opinion, we need to talk about race, and have it out on the table. Calling someone racist stops discussion, and that may be the idea.

What happened to common sense?

by Ric Joyner

Hillary took all the big prizes!  Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island. WOW!

She may be running against McCain. Obama out spends Hillary 3-1 and she still wins!

The substance issue is a key and Obama is losing.

Now this gets interesting. We will go down to Pennsylvania Primary to find out who wins, but this makes for interesting politics.

The Super Delegates are now going to have to reconsider abandoning Hillary for Obama because now she is in the race with the popular vote and delegates. They are in a dead heat which may come down to the Democratic Convention before this over!

He seems to be speaking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand saying he wants to renegotiate NAFTA with Canada and Mexico and attacking Hillary on her previous support of NAFTA.

An AP story broke today regarding a meeting with Canadian officials that basically told the Canadians not to worry about the rehetoric in the campaign that

"According to the writer of the memorandum, Joseph De Mora, a political and economic affairs consular officer, Professor Goolsbee assured them that Mr. Obama’s protectionist stand on the trail was “more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.” (NY Times 3-3-08)

Uh oh, looks to me that he lost his common sense, and is now saying whatever he can to get elected. Exactly what he has accuse Hillary of doing…saying whatever to whomever to get elected. Is this the change he is speaking about? Change back to the old ways of selling cars? Give folks what they want? Sad…

If he doesn’t have credibility with our trading partners and those he is wooing to vote for him will the democrats prior to Super Tuesday 2 now change their minds on Barack? The polls seem to suggest they will.

Ric Joyner

The questions are being asked. What does he mean “Change”? What has he done? His record of uniting the country is hollow, because his time in the Senate demonstrated no record to work with Republicans on any key issues.

Why is the steam escaping his momentum? He is thin on experience and the media is starting to question his experience. The nagging question in voters minds is he sounds great, talks a good game, but is it just talk without substance? The problem that the media, and the Obamaphites have is the harder you dig for substance the less you they are finding?

He has demonstrated serious misunderstandings about the war, and who we are fighting in IRAQ. His comments in the debate last week regarding pulling out of IRAQ, and that he would go back if Al Qaeda came back, left many checking their ears in disbelief. Al Qaeda, plus other Islamic radicals, came specifically to fight Americans in IRAQ. The question now if Obama is elected, and keeps his promise to pull out of IRAQ, he will pull out to keep his promise, and then go back, at what massive cost in life and dollars? It defies common sense.

His lack of substance is starting to catch up to him and now so is the media and Hillary is starting to sharpen her message.

I will maintain my prediction that Hillary loses Texas, and wins Ohio with a wider margin in Ohio. The caveat is that Hillary may indeed win Texas because Republicans were asked last week by Rush Limbaugh to upset the democratic primary by voting for Hillary, and keep her in the election. Many will do just that.

Investors Business Daily

IBD:2008 Feb 15

BENJAMIN ZYCHER

   Sen. Hillary Clinton’s proposal for reform of the health care system makes a promise: “If you are happy with your current health care coverage, keep your existing coverage.”
   That coverage usually is provided by private insurance companies, which retain a prominent role also in Sen. Barack Obama’s reform plan.
   Ostensibly, the Democratic candidates recognize the importance of private insurance options, and the proposals add a Medicare-like government insurance option to provide enhanced competition driven by supposedly lower administrative costs.
   The larger reality is very different: The government option would crush competition and render meaningless the Democratic promise to preserve choice.
   That is because the proposals would lead inexorably to a singlepayer (government) system of health insurance in which private coverage would become extinct.
   The proposals would implement a requirement (“individual mandate”) that some or all individuals obtain insurance coverage, and that most employers offer coverage or pay a tax (“pay or play”).
   Small employers and lower-income individuals would get a tax subsidy. Coverage would be guaranteed for all (“guaranteed issue”) and premiums would be set largely without regard to health status (“community rating”).
   Each plan, whether issued by private insurers or the government, would have to offer benefits as comprehensive as those offered by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).
   Why would private options evaporate under such a system?
   Consider first small businesses, which arrange coverage for many fewer policyholders than is the case for large companies.
   Small groups thus cannot spread their risks as widely, and for other reasons as well are more costly to serve. As a result, their plans tend to offer benefit packages worth around 30% less than those offered by large groups.
   Because Democratic plans would require small groups to offer benefit packages similar to those in the FEHBP program, the insurance costs of small businesses that continue to offer coverage to their employees could be expected to rise by at least 30%. Few small businesses would make that choice.
   First, the subsidies directed to small employers are unlikely to reduce their cost of providing FEHBP-equivalent private coverage below the pay-or-play tax, which almost certainly would be determined by the cost of the government option supposedly enjoying lower administrative costs.
   Accordingly, most small businesses would elect to pay the tax and set their employees loose on the insurance market. To compensate employees for their lost coverage, businesses would likely give them salary increases equal to the insurance premiums the businesses had been paying for private coverage.
   That salary increase wouldn’t be enough to cover the cost of private coverage as comprehensive as that of the FEHBP, as required by the proposals. And so the employees would be induced to choose the supposedly more-efficient government option.
   If, however, the subsidies for small employers were large enough to induce them to offer the more comprehensive coverage, then the cost estimates for the Democratic proposals would turn out to be too low.
   Moreover, costs will increase substantially as expanded subsidies for one group induce others to demand bigger slices of an expanding federal health-insurance pie.
   After all, FEHBP benefits are 15% or so richer than those of Medicare; why should Medicare beneficiaries accept packages worth less than those offered everyone else?
   For large groups, the benefits of existing plans are about the same as those in the FEHBP. Accordingly, employers’ decisions on whether to assume the cost of private insurance or to incur the pay-or-play tax would hinge on a simple cost comparison.
   Again, given the claim that the government option offers substantial administrative savings, it would be politically difficult for Congress to impose a pay-or-play tax that exceeds the purported cost of the government coverage.
   Moreover, a Democratic Congress favoring government-provided insurance would be tempted to hide its actual costs. As such, just as with small employers, it makes economic sense for large businesses to shift employees onto the government plan.
   And so the Democratic promise that those who prefer private coverage will be able to keep it, and that the health-insurance market would continue to enjoy the broader economic advantages offered by a private system, borders on the naive or the cynical.
   Why does this outcome matter?
   Because governments have interest groups, not patients, and thus face powerful political pressures to squeeze both providers and patients in response to the budget demands of others.
   The inevitable result is waiting lists, denial of coverage, under-investment in medical technologies and the long-run degradation of health care quality observed under all single-payer systems.
   The more “universal” the coverage, the greater the budget pressures, and so the more powerful the forces yielding reduced healthcare quality.
   That’s why single-payer “universal” coverage is the enemy of health care, and it’s the inevitable outcome of the Democratic proposals.

Zycher

is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. 

Does anyone think the government can do a better job with health care? If you do where is your common sense? Remember Katrina? Ric Joyner

By Ric Joyner 

Picture a balloon with its air sputtering around the room. Fun to watch, but the end result is anti-climactic with a balloon on the floor and garbage to pick up.

I am now tired of the democratic debates. I felt drained afterward. How many debates, and how much can we learn after 20 plus?

Tedium is what I came away with last night. And boy can they sign autographs.

Here is what I learned. 

Both candidates are naive. The jobs lost under NAFTA, that the Unions are ticked about, are manufacturing jobs. Are these the best jobs? John Stossel did research on these jobs outsourced overseas, and discovered that most people ousted by outsourcing found higher paying jobs that were easier on the body. Here is the web link for the articl from ABC’s 20/20.

No. 4 — MYTH: Outsourcing Is Bad for American Workers

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=448934&page=3

Naive and bordering on socialism are their programs. Do these two candidates have degrees in economics? They both have law degrees so that may explain it!

Creating programs that take money away from the “rich” to give to everyone else.

John Stossel did another piece on Sharing is not Caring.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3957544&page=1

I was surprised that Hillary was angry at Obama over the weekend, but showed none of her ire last night. The issue on health care differences is so minute that it created tedium when watching. In fact, all their programs are similar thus what are the real differences between them? I think the voters are answering that question.

I also realized Obama’s incredible inexperience is translating into policies or programs that will be difficult to get through Congress.  Even the universal health care plan is convoluted.

And they both didn’t answer the questions straight forward. Tim Russert had to bring Hillary back several times to answer the question.

Even writing this makes me tired!