Big Dogs House

Obamacare Becomes A Liability, Again

Apr 20, 2011 Political

We already know that a number of Democrats lost their seats in the last election because of their support for Obamacare. This has been well documented and accounts for over a dozen seats that were lost. But Democrats like to say that was not an issue and that it is a wonderful thing even though we had to pass it to see what was in it.

One thing Obama did in his Socialist takeover of health care was to cut Medicare funds (and double count them) and there was a lot of bluster about Medicare Advantage. The DHHS rated many of the plans as “average” and a number of seniors would likely be forced into regular Medicare. A lot of them were not very happy about that and the support among seniors is the lowest with regard to Obamacare.

We are approaching an election season and Democrats are again worried that Obamacare will cause them problems so now Obama wants to give some Medicare Advantage plans bonus points to make them above average and infuse about $6 billion into the system. The regime claims this is to ease a problem and that politics is not involved but the reality is that they are trying to delay some of the more painful parts of Obamacare until after the next election.

They are trying to use taxpayer money for political purposes to the tune of $6 BILLION dollars. We are in a crisis and they are still piddling around spending billions of dollars.

AARP endorsed Obamacare and a lot of seniors left that organization because of it. The plan was rammed through and there was little regard for how it would affect people because the elitist pigs in DC know better how to run our lives than we do. Remember, this was supposed to be a great, pie in the sky plan that everyone would love once they understood what was in it and how great it would be. Now that the uncomfortable parts might hurt Democrats they want to change things.

Screw that. They need to keep it the way it is. People need to feel lots and lots of pain for supporting this and they need to know how bad it is so that they will stop supporting the Democrats who are bound and determined to hurt them.

There are two options, keep it like it was passed or repeal it all together. No Republican should support any change unless that change is repeal. They said it was wonderful and now it is showing to be anything but so we need to hang it around their necks.

Do not allow these weasels to change anything and avoid the wrath of the public. Make them stand on their votes and on their forceful imposition of an unconstitutional law on the American public.

Make them fall on their swords and die for supporting it.

Period.

Repeal is the only option. In fact, repeal should be a part of any plan to raise the debt ceiling and that plan should include a provision that any signing statement makes the entire thing null and void. Obama has already lied about his use of signing statements and he will do so again.

Hang him and his Democrats with their Socialist law.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: billions, hhs, lies, medicare, medicare advantage, obamacare, obma, politics

Political Blame Game

Jan 11, 2011 Political

Of course, the political blame game continues in full force today. Everyone is yelling and pointing fingers. The left is in full attack mode, blaming the right. The right is in full defense mode, pointing out all the times that the left has used the exact same words. But few people are actually blaming the shooter.

I like what Pat Buchanan has to say. I like his comparison to the 1933 assassination and the swift justice. But that’s not the political reality of today, is it?

I’d like to mention one other aspect of this story. I know it’s not going to be a popular opinion. In fact, it might even get me tossed from this blog. Big Dog, it’s your blog, and if you feel my views are too far out there, feel free to let me know. But I have been thinking about this since yesterday, and I think it needs to be pointed out, even if it’s only to the four or five readers of this blog.

First, I want to point out, I’m not in favor of violence to achieve political ends. I don’t believe it can work in this country. I don’t like violence at all. I think defensive violence is justified. But I do not think that this shooter should have shot the Congresswoman. I don’t support him, or anyone using violence against the system. In fact, as I have pointed out numerous times on this very blog, I don’t support using force against people to get them to make any decisions. I think using force to achieve political goals is wrong. But know who doesn’t? Do you know who believes in hiring mercenaries and using violence to reach political goals? I hate to say it, but Gabby Giffords does.

When she supported the Obamacare bill, she supported legislation that will force people to spend money the way she wants them to spend money. And that legislation hires policemen to make people pay. And if you don’t pay, that very legislation will send police to your house to jail or kill you if you do not do as Mrs. Giffords says. That’s not my opinion, that’s a fact.

So again, I do not support using violence to get my way. I don’t think Mrs. Giffords, or anyone else, should be shot for disagreeing with my political views. I’m not blaming Mrs. Giffords, I only blame the person who pulled the trigger. I pray for Mrs. Giffords and everyone else shot, and I hope she recovers. But I don’t see how people can be too surprised at violence used here — because the government supports using violence against people to achieve their political ends every single day.

Tags: blame, giffords, politics

About A Dollar A Day

Jun 16, 2010 Political

Barack Obama was on TV last evening discussing the oil spill in the Gulf and he used the crisis to push his agenda forward. He used his buzz words about this being the moment and the opportunity for this generation to end our dependence on fossil fuels. He spent the first part of the speech discussing the wonderful response of the federal government. He was basically trying to convince people that he was on top of things from the start. Then he went into the whole clean energy hard sell.

This fits right in with the never let a crisis go to waste and puts winds in the sails of John Kerry and Joe Lieberman who are putting forward the cap and tax bill. They were overjoyed to learn that the cost to families will be between $80 and $150 a year. They are giddy at this and Lieberman thinks it is great. What family would not be happy to spend less than a dollar a day to green up the country?

“There’ll be some people who will want to demagogue that politically, but that’s less than $1 a day,” Lieberman told reporters. “Is the American household willing to pay less than $1 so we don’t have to buy oil from foreign countries, so we can create millions of new jobs, so we can clean up our environment? I think the answer is going to be yes.” Politico

I guess I am one to demagogue because I can think of plenty of families who will not want to pay this. Perhaps those who are in foreclosure or are struggling to make ends meet. Perhaps those who do not have a job, the supposed priority of the Obama regime, would have a problem paying the money.

I do not think the numbers add up because we have seen time and again government estimates that end up costing way more than advertised. The health care bill was touted as a savings measure as Democrats hid the true cost. Once the bill was signed into law the real numbers came out and this monster will cost a hell of a lot more than advertised.

The cap and tax will be no different as the politicians decide they need more and more of our money. THEY ALWAYS WANT MORE.

Obama is using the crisis in the Gulf to bash BP (the company Kerry was courting when writing his bill) and to push an agenda that will cost us a fortune. Yes, we will pay more than the amount Lieberman proudly proclaims and we will also pay the increased costs to companies because costs are passed on to consumers.

Remember, it was Barack Obama who said his cap and tax scheme would necessarily cause electricity costs to skyrocket.

Obama sounded flat last night as if he were giving a half hearted campaign speech.

Even his state run media was unimpressed.

You know he has jumped the shark when he has lost his cheer leading section in the state run media.

Yes, Obama is not letting this crisis go to waste. He is using the tragedy to push something he has wanted all along.

I noticed he mentioned Katrina a few times as if he was trying to say that he is not as bad as the last guy. Funny, the folks in Louisiana don’t see it that way.

Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: bp, cap and trade, lies, Obama, oil, politics, shill

Democrats Wrestle With Court Decision

Jan 25, 2010 Political

This past week the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were allowed to spend as much as they want to support or oppose a political candidate or issue. Corporations are still limited in how much they can donate to a candidate but they are now allowed to spend what they want on things like political ads that favor or oppose a candidate. The issue revolves around free speech and the Court ruled that this was a free speech issue.

Democrats had expected this ruling and are now looking at ways to curb the process. Several ideas are floating around that would involve CEOs being required to get shareholder approval before funding political advertisements and not allowing the costs to be deducted as a business expense on taxes. There is also an idea that would require the CEO to be the voice on the ad approving the message.

Will any of these restrictions apply to the unions? SEIU spent millions of dollars in support of Obama and helped get him elected. The unions spent over half a million dollars trying to get Coakley elected in Massachusetts. The unions, and you can name them from SEIU to the teacher’s unions, spend huge sums of money on Democrats in order to get them elected. There has never been any concern among Democrats with regard to curbing the spending of their supporters. Since they view this ruling as something that will favor Republicans they now want restrictions placed on the process.

I don’t like the idea of any group spending a fortune to get a candidate elected or to push a particular agenda but they have the right to spend their money as they wish. My problem lies in the expected favors that follow. Groups spend money (in favor of or opposed to both political parties) and when all is said and done they expect payback. Democrats have their feathers ruffled now but they have been the recipients of huge sums of money from their supporters who seem to be able to spend as much as they want.

I wonder why the unions don’t have to get the permission of union members before they spend money on a candidate. Perhaps if the unions stopped spending millions and millions of dollars on candidates and issues they would have the money to fulfill the obligations they have to their members. Maybe then they would not have to come to the taxpayer with hat in hand looking for us to pay their way.

We scream about Wall Street paying huge salaries and bonuses and then taking taxpayer money to get right and yet we do not make a sound when the unions spend millions on candidates and then beg us for money to keep their members employed and plush with benefits.

I don’t like all the influence that is bought by any organization spending money on politics but it is their money and they can spend it however they wish. But if the Democrats are going to impose all kinds of rules then those rules need to apply to everyone, including their friends in the unions.

Source:
WSJ

Tags: donations, free speech, influence, law, politics, supreme court

Senator Dodd Reduced Aviation Security

Dec 29, 2009 Political

Now that securing the nation’s airports is again on the front burner, after the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack, the Washington Examiner is reporting that one Senator introduced an amendment to reduce aviation security. The Examiner reports:

Back in July, Senator Chris Dodd, D-Conn., proposed an amendment reducing aviation security appropriations by $4.5 million in favor of firefighter grants — a notoriously inneffective[sic] program. In fact, the money was specifically “for screening operations and the amount for explosives detection systems.”

According to the report, Dodd reduced aviation security by $4.5 million to give the money “to line the pockets of a constituency that supported his presidential campaign in a big way.”

Politics over security, yep that sounds like a Democrat.

Obviously this had no impact on what took place on Christmas but one has to wonder what affect it is having now that security has been stepped up. Would that money have been used to buy more x-ray screeners that airports are now begging for? Would explosives detectors now be in place so that dogs would not have to do the job?

Senator Dodd is not likely to win reelection next year. His constituency is unhappy with his illegal sweetheart mortgage deal and his role in the collapse of the housing market.

The fact that he played politics with our security cannot sit too well with them either.

Tags: aviation security, Democrats, dodd, national security, politics