I love him SO MUCH. “It’s about ideology, not policy.” I would take that one step further and submit that it’s not just about ideology, it’s about Obama needing a perceived win. Even if he’s the only one who perceives it that way.
Author Archive for Mockarena
According to this, Obama announced this week that there’s going to be a new poverty measurement system to replace the current measure. His new system ties in nicely with his ultimate goal of taking people’s money and redistributing it to other people. You know – spreading the wealth around.
Here’s how it’s going to work. First, if a family’s income falls below a certain income threshold, they’ll be considered poor. Second, those thresholds are going to “rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the living standards of the average American.”
That’s kind of a big deal. Instead of gauging how much a family can Actually Buy, the new measure will gauge how much they can buy COMPARED TO OTHERS.
Liberals love this idea, but even President Lyndon Johnson nixed it. And with good reason. If the country prospers, the definition of “poor” keeps prospering right along with it. So people who receive benefits meant for “the poor” could actually be quite comfortable. That’s handy for people like Obama and other Democrats who count on people counting on them. Under Obama’s new measurement system, the definition of “poor” can only be reduced if the incomes of the poor rise faster than everyone else’s.
As the author of the article points out, poverty rates in countries like Bangladesh and Albania will have lower poverty rates than we do. Never mind that if you’re poor in Albania, you’re probably living outside in a box, whereas in the US, you’re inside with A/C.
Actually, let’s take a look at what poverty really means in the US. According to the article, most Americans who are officially classified as “poor” live pretty well, actually. The government’s data shows that the average “poor” person, according to the old measurement, “has two color televisions, cable or satellite service, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He also has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs.” Doesn’t your heart just BLEED?
So now, Obama’s new measuring scale is going to INCREASE, artificially, the number of Americans classified as poor. And so all of those poor, wretched people with their two tv’s and their air conditioning could potentially qualify for MORE of everyone else’s money to supplement their HORRIBLE LIVING CONDITIONS.
It’s the Harrison Bergeronification of America, you guys. It’s all about making everyone equal. Obama and other liberals will take money out of your check in the name of helping those less fortunate, when really, those less fortunate are actually pretty damn fortunate. But this is the Democratic agenda – keep people dependent on government and dis-incentivized to take care of themselves, and BLAMMO – you’ve got yourself a whole bunch of people who will keep voting Democrat so that the freebies don’t stop.
HATE.
Seriously – I just got done watching it and I have a massive case of the heebie jeebies now. BEHOLD – the warped justification and rationalization of this man’s ideology. Listen to the excuses he makes for living off a system he claims to despise. Listen even more closely for the similarities between what he ultimately wants (free stuff for everyone!) and what liberals what.
This totally rattled me to the core. We need to be vigilant, you guys. This is precisely the kind of smooth-talking freakshow that can captivate impressionable people.
Yiiiiiiiikes.
I mean, he completely wipes the floor with Paul Krugman in this video. Sam Donaldson is just embarrassing, and barely worth mentioning. But the smackdown George puts on Paul? PRICELESS. “One question: If the government came to you and said, “Professor Krugman, you have a car. We’re going to compel you to buy a more expensive car, but it’s not really more expensive because it’s a better car.” Wouldn’t you tell them to get off your land?”
LOVE.
I can’t believe Krugman is actually making the “young people will get added to the risk pool” argument. That is utter bullcrap. No young healthy person is going to spend a few thousand on a health insurance policy annually when they can just pay a $750 penalty for NOT having insurance, and know that IF they need insurance, they can pick it up anytime with no fear of pre-existing limitations.
GAWD.
According to this, Obama spoke to a crowd in PA a couple of days ago and bragged that, “Our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill, which reduces most people’s premiums and brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion dollars over the next decade because we’re spending our health care dollars more wisely.”
And he didn’t stop there. He kept the crowd of about 1300 going when he said, “Those aren’t my numbers. They are the savings determined by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the nonpartisan, independent referee of Congress for what things cost.”
Turns out – he was off by about $868 BILLION. The CBO estimated, based on the flawed information it was given to MAKE its estimation, that the bill would save $132 billion from 2010 to 2019.
When the White House was confronted about this discrepancy, they explained what Obama MEANT to say, which is that the bill would save $1 trillion in the 2nd decade, even though the CBO cautioned against even relying too heavily on those figures due to all the unknowns.
Maybe it’s just me, but I think it’s pretty pathetic that Obama has to go into full-on campaign mode to try and sell a bill that no one wants, by using faulty math and uncertain figures. Not to mention the fact that government is kind of famous for always going over budget on basically everything. WHO are the people who actually still believe anything Obama says? Because I have the best bridge to sell you!!
I guess we should all just rest assured. Clearly, BO’s got everything under control:
Unions. It doesn’t matter how much good any particular union might do at this point. They have outlived their usefulness, and are now becoming parasitic. Not to mention devious, underhanded, and cowardly.
HATE.
According to this, Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) threw a hissy fit on a radio show yesterday, saying that he was basically forced to resign because he was a “no” vote on healthcare. He said, “There’s a reason that this has all happened, frankly one that I had not realized. Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill, and this administration and this House leadership have said, quote unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they’ve gotten rid of me and it’ll pass.”
As if that’s news.
He then went on to complain about what a meanie Rahm Emanuel is. “When I voted against the cap and trade bill, the phone rang and it was the chief of staff to the president of the United States of America, Rahm Emanuel, and he started swearing at me in terms and words that I hadn’t heard since that crossing the line ceremony on the USS New Jersey in 1983. And I gave it right back to him, in terms and words that I know are physically impossible. If Rahm Emanuel wants to come after me, maybe he ought to hold himself to the same standards I’m holding myself to and he should resign.”
Them’s fightin’ words, Eric!
He went on to cry about the meanness of Steny Hoyer too. Basically he’s mad at everyone.
What a bunch of babies. All of ‘em.
According to this, the ever-so-charming Hugo Chavez called Hillary Clinton a “blond Condoleeza” because she “comes to Brazil to provoke us, to try and divide us from our brothers.”
I don’t know about you all, but I think Blondoleeza should take this as a HUGE COMPLIMENT. When you’re annoying Hugo Chavez, you’re doing something right.
The good stuff is from about the 4 minute mark to the 5 and a half minute mark. George: “There you have the premise of this legislation and the core of today’s liberalism: the American people are such dopes they can’t be counted upon to buy their own insurance.”
LOVE.
You know what I love? I love when pretentious blowhards say stuff that they end up contradicting later. Obama does it all the time, and it’s on VIDEO no less, but it’s just as glee-inducing when it’s in writing.
Case in point. Paul Krugman wrote an op-ed in the NYT (where else?) in which he feigns outrage over Senator Bunning’s attempted block of the extension of unemployment benefits. Democrats and Republicans “live in different universes” Krugman said, “both intellectually and morally.” And he used unemployment benefits to attempt to demonstrate Democrats’ clear superiority of intellect and morality (snort).
Krugman wrote, “Democrats believe what textbook economics says: that when the economy is deeply depressed, extending unemployment benefits not only helps those in need, it also reduces unemployment. But that’s not how Republicans see it. (Their) view, then, is whether we’re reducing the incentive of the unemployed to find jobs. To me, that’s a bizarre point of view — but then, I don’t live in (their) universe.”
Apparently, Krugman doesn’t live in his OWN universe either, because he in fact co-wrote a textbook which makes a case for that “bizarre point of view.” In his textbook, Macroeconomics, he wrote, “Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect…In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker’s incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of “Eurosclerosis,” the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.”
So which is it, Paul? Do long term unemployment benefits reduce people’s incentive to look for work or don’t they?
You’d think an MIT-educated economist would remember what he wrote in his own textbook. Then again, perhaps I just don’t live in his universe.
“Harry Reid isn’t the most intelligenic or charismatic guy around.”
LOVE.
You know how most polls show that Americans are opposed to Obamacare, and yet liberal pundits and Democratic officials keep insisting that when you break apart the whole plan and simply ask people whether or not they support pieces and parts of it, they’re all for it?
Well, Charles Krauthammer’s latest column provides a great explanation for this.
He wrote, “Allow me to demystify. Imagine a bill granting every American a free federally delivered ice cream every Sunday morning. Provision 2: steak on Monday, also home delivered. Provision 3: A dozen red roses every Tuesday. You get the idea. Would each individual provision be popular in the polls? Of course. However (life is a vale of howevers) suppose these provisions were bundled into a bill that also spelled out how the goodies are to be paid for and managed — say, half a trillion dollars in new taxes, half a trillion in Medicare cuts (cuts not to keep Medicare solvent but to pay for the ice cream, steak and flowers), 118 new boards and commissions to administer the bounty-giving, and government regulation dictating, for example, how your steak was to be cooked. How do you think this would poll? Perhaps something like 3-1 against, which is what the latest CNN poll shows is the citizenry’s feeling about the current Democratic health care bills.”
YES. This is exactly right. If Obama says, for example, “Hey! My plan will eliminate pre-existing condition exclusions!” then people are likely to say, “Well, that sounds like a fabulous thing! I hereby declare in this poll that I approve of that idea!” Because that idea, standing on its own, is kickass – just like free federally delivered ice cream. It’s when you start telling people that in order to GET free federally delivered ice cream, you have to face enormous tax hikes and lower quality service, because that’s the only way to make sure EVERYONE gets free federally delivered ice cream, that they realize, “Wait! This plan isn’t such a good idea after all!”
Krauthammer said that the problem with democratic governance is “The disagreeable absence of a free lunch.” OMG – how much do you LOVE THAT?!?
So that’s the thing about healthcare polls. Liberal pundits don’t want to believe that the majority of Americans don’t want Obamacare, so they grasp at straws and point to individual Obamacare components as proof that we actually DO want it – we just don’t realize we want it. Because we’re just ungovernable ankle-dwellers, you see.
You know what we need? We need Obama to give a few more speeches about his healthcare plan. That oughta do the trick.
I got hate mail this morning, you guys! 
I’m so excited. This means I’ve really made it! And, it didn’t disappoint. It was every bit as brainless as I always knew hatemail from liberals would be. I’ve screen captured it here, for your amusement. Feel free to send him a note of appreciation. I saw no reason to hide his email address.
I’m sure you too, are awestruck by the eloquence, the maturity, and the ability of Thomas Wise Jr to articulate the reason he is apparently dissatisfied with this site.
I’ll have to be sure to email him a link to this post. I wouldn’t want him to miss out on this opportunity to share his gift with all of the readers here!
I love how obvious he is that he thinks she’s absurdly ridiculous. The look on his face as she spits out talking points that most people with Actual Brains rejected a long time ago? Priceless.
Clever and competent reader Jennifer Lewis Williams attended the Dallas Tea Party on the 27th of February. You know – the one to which organizers invited Keith Olbermann, so that he could see how much diversity was there compared to, say, the MSNBC studios.
Jennifer asked that I share some photos, and I’m happy to oblige. The first one is of Jennifer and Uncle Sam!
Next, we’ve got a great tea party sign which I am posting for my sister, Bunny, who LOVES the song from The Hangover that this is based on:
Here’s a crowd shot. LO AND BEHOLD – I see people of various shapes, sizes, colors and ages. This is going to BLOW KEITH OLBERMANN’S MIND!
Keith asked “Where are the black faces?” Well, it turns out many of them were speakers at the event. I’m sure they would have loved to have seen him there, so that they could, you know, point out their blackness to him. They included: Scott Turner, former NFL defensive back, Alfonzo Rachel (of Zo Nation), Katrina Pierson, one of the original board members of the Dallas Tea Party, and Donald Thornton, host of Xservativetalk.com. And lest Keith start complaining about lack of Hispanic representation, Laura Medina, one of the founding members of the Tea Party in Dallas/Fort Worth, was speaking there too.
That of course doesn’t take into account the diversity of the attendees. But I have to say, my favorite example of that is this darling, cherubic face:
I want to MUNCH HIS FACE OFF, he’s so sweet.
Aaaand from Keith Olbermann’s desk? I expect we’ll hear nothing but crickets chirping.
There’s a facebook group for that.
It’s called Mitch Daniels for President, and you should totally join it by clicking here.
You can get twitter updates too!
Tell all your friends!
I think you guys are well aware by now of my love for Paul Ryan. And here’s the thing. I have had sort of an extraordinary week, during which I’ve gotten to do things I never in a bazillion years thought I’d get to do, and I’ve had ridiculous amounts of good timing and luck. And so I’d like to just go on the record now as saying that my new goal is to volunteer on the presidential campaign of Mitch Daniels and his running mate Paul Ryan.
Maybe if I have that actually typed out, it’ll come to fruition. Stranger things have happened this week.
ANYWAY, Paul Ryan, as you may recall, was basically unbelievably fabulous at the health summit, and although it fell on deaf ears, his points to Obama about the cost of Obamacare were brilliant and thus far irrefutable.
According to this, no one has tried to attack Ryan’s arguments, because, quite simply, they can’t. The Obama administration is so hell-bent on passing healthcare at ANY cost, that the ability for the country to actually pay for the healthcare plan is irrelevant. Obama can stand up in front of white-coated doctors and say his plan is “fully paid for” all he wants, but, as Paul Ryan pointed out, it’s because Obama insists on using shady math and budgetary gimmicks. And he Actually Thinks that Americans are too stupid to see right through it.
So, if you’re interested in the REAL math, it’s about $2.3 trillion over the next decade. And according to Paul Ryan, that’s being conservative. Obama’s response to Ryan at the health circus summit was basically that he didn’t agree with the numbers, but naturally couldn’t specify why or how. Obama is quick to point to the CBO’s report that everything he says is spot on, but you know the old saying, “Garbage in, garbage out.”
Brace yourselves, folks. If Stupak and his peers cave on the abortion issue, we’re about to go on a wild ride of tax hikes and poor quality healthcare. Buckle up!
I know I shouldn’t make fun, but there is something so deliciously ironic about the fact that the liberal clowns at Berkeley are protesting the rising cost of education there, when it’s likely that those are the same clowns who strongly believe in the very policies that helped get California into the total mess it’s currently in.
Helllloooo liberals – stuff costs money. And your state is OUT of money, because of liberal policies. See Detroit for another example. Kids – y’all need to realize that the thing about “public funding” is that eventually, you simply run out of other people’s money.
