Tag Archives: obama


If it weren’t so awkward because I hear people say this in real life, I’d think it was a joke. Can a single person explain this view (for real) without using ideological non-verbiage and flag pins? In other words, does anyone have concrete examples of civil liberties at risk under Obama?

Privacy? Bush’s Patriot Act is responsible for warrantless surveillance, phone tapping, and arrests. Obama did renew it though–is that what is meant? Civil marriage for all? Only the republican platform wants to limit those. Guns? Obama’s done nothing except expand gun allowances on Amtrak trains. There are even more gun freedoms now than under Bush.

Are these people truly *only* referring to the civil liberty to choose not to pay into a medical insurance pool and then cash into medicaid allowances for the uninsured when he or she can’t pay for emergency surgery? Because the Heritage Foundation, a republican think tank, thought that was stupid and wasteful and recommended that republican principles of personal responsibility and limited government financial intervention prevail, and therefore claimed that all should be required to hold an insurance policy for their own health in the same way that all are required to wear a seat belt for their own health. What government expenditures that can be avoided should be avoided–that’s the essence of conservatism, isn’t it?

The only reasons against PPACA I’ve heard are nonsensicals like “but, CIVIL LIBERTIES!” “……KENYA!” or the “How’s he going to pay for it?!’ Yes, better not to try anything new. Better to cope with the current system of bankruptcy and 60 million uninsured than to improve our policies just because “they’re new”. There has already been a pilot experiment: Massachussetts (Thanks, Mitt!). Besides that successful test, analysts for the bill at the Department of Health and Human Services anticipate over $10k annual savings for average income families and an annual $350 per family savings by small businesses through both healthcare tax credits and reduced premiums.

–>”HOW?! More medical problems = higher premiums, silly liberal!”

Yes, I’m a silly liberal…. one who has a Life, Accident and Health Maryland insurance license. Even if I didn’t, though, the concept is elementary. The principle behind insurance is shared risk. The larger the shared risk pool, the smaller individual risk become, and the smaller the premiums need to be. This requirement broadens the shared risk pool by millions.

–>”But why would private insurance companies lower their premiums just because you want them to?! No one will make them!”

Ahh, not such a proponent for de-regulation and free market control anymore, Mr. and Mrs. Adam Smith? You can’t have it both ways. Either you believe that the free market will run itself, or you don’t. Lucky for you, President Obama is a closet republican. The cheaper insurance options that will be offered federally (the only way to ensure that the insurance requirement makes sense–after all, if the uninsured could afford private insurance, they’d have it already….) will serve as heavy competition for private insurers. So, private insurers either need to price honestly according to the risk pool or lose their customers to the federal option. Free market solution to the rescue!

Response to the Republican unrest this morning RE: 4 more years

Another “wake up” article is linked below, although folks who want to call him a socialist already (clearly) don’t care about politics enough to know what the word means….  The only long-running “socialist” programs we have–Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare–POTUS offered cuts to during the debt-ceiling talks (real socialist of him, eh?). Boehner didn’t accept the cuts because they’d make Obama look responsible. Instead, he rallied the troops to stonewall jobs bills, obstruct equal pay bills, deny budget requirements and get our AAA bond rating reduced, and essentially deny any bill that would assist recovery (even if it was written by Republicans) in favor of pursuing 90 ways to restrict contraception and ignoring the jobs agenda that got them elected. Along the same vein of WTF: Ryan mirrored Obama’s $700 billion savings from PPACA in his own budget proposal, but then disavowed his stance once Obama adopted it for the PPACA and just recently campaigned against PPACA’s medicare cuts while simultaneously accusing Obama of too much spending. Come again?!

If you don’t follow the theater that is Congress, I kindly request you cease having strong opinions on it, because an uninformed opinion is a dangerous one. If you’d like to express dismay about the election results, you should definitely do so. But please, for the sake of your dignity, give an accurate reason. There’s plenty you can be disappointed about–you don’t have to make something up or regurgitate untrue campaign slogans. You can pick a bill and let us know why you opposed it, or pick a goal he didn’t meet and why it was important to you that he met it. Or you can let folks know where the PPACA fell short for your needs. But making up shit or attributing Bush spending to him? Please no. Be a responsible constituent–the kind of citizen you boasted of being by nature of voting Republican–and don’t purposely share false information.

“Yes, Obama imposed an individual mandate to buy health insurance…..You know where the idea came from? The Heritage Foundation. Personal responsibility—insisting that people carry private insurance so we don’t have to bail them out in emergency rooms and hospitals—was a Republican idea. Same with Wall Street reform: There’s nothing conservative about letting financial institutions gamble with other people’s money in ways that would force us to bail them out again. Even Obama’s cap-and-trade proposal echoed the market-based emissions-control policies of the 1990 Bush administration and the 2008 McCain campaign.” – Slate.com

Tithing vs. Charity

Something in particular is irritating me today: Romney apologists conflating his church tithing with “giving to charity”. Tithing to a large church organization to finance its infrastructure, salaries, decor, lobbying efforts, ministry costs (i.e. room/board for every member to recruit for a couple years), etc…. is not charity. He surely does additionally donate to charities, but please calculate that total separately to be respectful to truly charitable organizations. “He tithes such and such to the Church of LDS, and then additionally donates this quantity to these charities.” Churches of all faiths typically include charitable work in their budgets, but it’s secondary to their primary functions: holding services and recruiting members.

The folks conflating these two tend also to be Christian, and so I understand that they have a personal stake in calling it charity because they want to believe that their church donations buy food for the homeless instead of Sunday’s fresh azaleas. However, I’d like to draw additional criticism to that perspective as my counterargument: would those people still call it charity if Romney were Muslim, and that money went instead to a series of mosques? I guarantee the answer would be no, and further, he would be investigated to find out precisely what mosque expenditures that money went towards, and then he would be irrevocably tied to those items. In reality, a large chunk of Romney’s money went to lobbying for the anti-gay Proposition 8 legislation and subsequent court proceedings. Where’s that news coverage?

Investigative journalism is dead, and instead the closest thing to critical news I have on CNN is a body language expert providing an hour’s worth of feedback on debates that undecided voters weren’t even watching. In related news, I met my first undecided voter a few weeks ago–I was convinced they were a myth! But no, oh did I meet one. Yes. …..In fact, she seemed interested. She asked me who was running.


%d bloggers like this: