Obamacare Gets Ringing Communist Endorsement

Fidel Castro of Cuba has hailed the Obama takeover of health care as a great thing. Castro, the Communist who led Cuba for decades, is happy that the US has finally done what it took Cuba only 50 years to do.

Unfortunately, we will have the same outcome. Cuba’s economy is in the dumper as people cannot get food, and other basic needs items. Health care, despite Michael Moore’s claims, is not that good there. Castro had doctors from other countries flown in when he needed expert care. In this country, the elites will get the best as well while the serfs are relegated to substandard, rationed care.

Interestingly, Obama and his Democrats have declared that the health care takeover will decrease the deficit. They touted CBO numbers (even though the CBO can only score what it is given) as proof positive they were heading in the right direction.

That very same CBO has predicted that Obama’s 2011 budget will cost 1.2 TRILLION dollars more than Obama had predicted and will have our debt at 90% of GDP by the year 2020. If Obamacare saves us money how can our debt go up?

President Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation’s economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday. Washington Times

As anyone knows, it does not matter how much you claim to save if you spend more than you actually save.

And if Obama was 1.2 TRILLION dollars off on his budget what confidence are we to have that he is not off on how much health care will cost?

Ed Schultz told his listeners “he believes the next “socialist” takeover by the government should be on all the radio airwaves.” [emphasis mine]

Next, as in after health care…

Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

18 Responses to “Obamacare Gets Ringing Communist Endorsement”

  1. Adam says:

    “And if Obama was 1.2 TRILLION dollars off on his budget what confidence are we to have that he is not off on how much health care will cost?”

    Obama’s budget prediction comes from the OMB which differs from the CBO report. His health care prediction comes from the CBO itself. So you’re taking the CBO’s word when it makes Obama look bad but discounting the CBO when it makes Obama look good?

  2. Big Dog says:

    History shows they are not generally on target because the things they were given to score do not stay the way they were told.

    The CBO scored the OMB and the OMB is off. Either the CBO or OMB is wrong and both are likely. The point is that the health care score will not be anywhere near close.

    And if we are going to be this much more, how is health care going to lower the debt or deficit? Save money? I think not.

    • Adam says:

      “The CBO scored the OMB and the OMB is off. Either the CBO or OMB is wrong and both are likely.”

      I’d tend to want to go with the CBO numbers since the CBO tries to be non-partisan and the OMB is a cabinet office. They are both making highly-educated guesses though of course.

      “And if we are going to be this much more, how is health care going to lower the debt or deficit?”

      I’m still not seeing your point on this one either really. The health care reform bill as it stands now is projected to subtract, not add to the deficit. It has no control over the net deficit due to other pieces of legislation, budgeting or economic conditions of course.

  3. Adam says:

    Funny. I just ran into this at fact check. Seems Victoria was quoting from a chain letter the other day. Figures. Another right wing lie…

    Misleading e-mail: From Audacity of Hope: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

    Actual quote from “The Audacity of Hope” [pg. 261]: Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.

    What was it she said about authority of reason? How about settling for just a little bit of source checking?

    • Big Dog says:

      And of course even the quote here is full of mindless pap.

      Should the political winds shift in an ugly direction? They have now. He can stand with whom he wants but if it is on the wrong side he will lose.

      I guess it would be a bit too much to ask is the dark underbelly of immigration. Those who come here legally do well. Those who come here illegally do not.

      Obama’s dark underbelly deals with ILLEGALS and he wants to give them amnesty.

      As for the Muslims he talks about. This is no different than whites being looked at suspiciously when there is a police shooting of a black man or blacks being looked at differently when there is a rape of a white woman.

      9/11 happened and MOST people did not look at that community differently (unless they were cheering) and only a small handful of morons harassed them. Obama made it much bigger than it really was.

      Who would he stand with in the LA riots? The people who were upset with the verdict or the white people who had nothing to do with it but were being attacked?

      Funny he mentioned the Japanese. A Democrat locked them up and he used information from the Census to find them.

      After the attack on Pearl Harbor by forces of the Japanese Empire, there was growing pressure to imprison Japanese and Japanese-Americans on the West Coast of the United States. This pressure grew due to fears of terrorism, espionage, and/or sabotage. On February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 which imprisoned the “Issei” (first generation of Japanese who immigrated to the US) and their children, “Nisei” (who were US citizens).

      After both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy unilaterally declared war on the United States, German Americans and Italian Americans were also interned more widely. Wiki

      • Adam says:

        “Funny he mentioned the Japanese. A Democrat locked them up and he used information from the Census to find them.”

        I’d wager too that there were progressives in the GOP that opposed the internment. Too bad your side ran off all the sane voices over the next century to make room for people disheartened by blacks and women getting their equal rights acknowledged legally.

        “This is no different than whites being looked at suspiciously…”

        Except white citizens haven’t been rounded up in the US simply because white people in another country attacked us. You have big names on the right like Michelle Malkin that justify the internment of the Japanese and call for the use of racial profiling in the war on terror. Malkin’s just a nobody of course…who regularly appears on right wing media like Fox. But with all the tension and the uncertainty and the fear after 9/11 how dare Arab Americans be dumb enough to fear a backlash, right?

        • Big Dog says:

          My side supported the Civil Rights law by a larger proportion than yours and DDE introduced what was finally passed so that argument rings untrue.

          Johnson?

          One indisputable conclusion that Caro offers is pretty tough to swallow. The advances in civil rights legislation that helped end centuries of legal apartheid in this country could never have occurred had they not been planned and executed by a man who turns out to have been a thoroughgoing racist. Caro was much criticized for downplaying Johnson’s 1948 support for Truman, considering the fact that his lionized opponent, Coke Stevenson, stood with the racist Strom Thurmond Dixiecrat campaign. But Johnson, it turns out, attacked Truman’s civil rights policies no less virulently. He gave a campaign speech in May 1948 in which he compared civil rights legislation to the creation of “a police state in the guise of liberty.” Caro found the speech in a White House file with the following admonition stapled on top. “DO NOT RELEASE THIS SPEECH-speech–not even to staff…this is not EVER TO BE RELEASED.” Thanks to Caro, this story, and with it a big chunk of our history, has been released as well.

          Link

        • Adam says:

          “My side supported the Civil Rights law by a larger proportion than yours…”

          Depends on what you consider your side. Conservatives made up the Democratic party opposition to abolition and civil rights? With you being a conservative I see why you wish to distort the record on this though by somehow making it seem as if modern day liberal Democrats are racists because old time conservative Democrats founded the KKK. I’m pretty sure you understand this so your willingness to just keep repeating a lie makes it all the more revealing…

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “My side supported the Civil Rights law”>>

          DAR
          Again Bigd makes his favorite category mistake of confusing conservative/liberal (political stance) with republican/demo (party affiliation).

          The democratic party used to have a lot of racist bastards and conservative regressive hatemonger homophobes who fought against change and for the backward status quo. They just don’t have hardly any of those anymore because the republicans have enticed them away.

          Likewise, the republican party used to have sensible, moderate, open minded and even liberal thinking people who worked for change and progress. They just don’t have any of those anymore. None.

          Is Bigd just really incapable of learning this most basic difference? Party names remain the same, political stances of those parties however, fluctuate.

          D.

  4. “What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian Senate.”
    – THOMAS JEFFERSON, 1816

  5. Big Dog says:

    Rewriting history again. Definitions change over time. LBJ was certainly liberal as were many on the left who opposed the Civil Rights movement.

    • Adam says:

      Yes, President Johnson: clearly a good example of liberals that opposed the civil rights movement. He gave a speech against civil rights? Well, that changes everything! Let’s just ignore the fact that he “rammed” the thing through, to put it in your language. That’s like saying MLK was a Republican (which your side loves to lie about) even though he had a stated record of voting Democratic and working with liberal Democrats.

      No, you’ll be hard pressed to find liberal opposition to civil rights. If you think I’m re-writing history to say that it was conservative Democrats not liberal ones that opposed to civil rights then you clearly have no historical foundation to make your claim on.

  6. Big Dog says:

    Johnson rammed it through with bipartisan support.

    I guess King’s daughter is lying when she says he was a Republican?

  7. Jack Carter says:

    Fidel Castro would always be an icon of history evethough he is against the U.S.;;-