Last thursday's Democratic debate on CNN between Hillary and Obama is being called the 'nice debate'. That's nice. Obviously, we don't want candidates arguing during a debate about who the next leader of the world's lone superpower will be. We should be nice. Have a nice day. Make love, not war. You can find a transcript of the nice debate here if you're interested.
I'd like to focus on some of Barack Obama's policy. In his opening statement, Obama said the following:
"And at this moment, the question is: How do we take the country in a new direction? How do we get past the divisions that have prevented us from solving these problems year after year after year?
I don't think the choice is between black and white or it's about gender or religion. I don't think it's about young or old. I think what is at stake right now is whether we are looking backwards or we are looking forwards. I think it is the past versus the future".
Fair enough, Mr. Obama. This election IS definitely about the future, not the past. It's about where we go from here as a nation, and who will lead us in the right direction. It's not about the 90's, and it's not about what Bush did. Bush isn't running. Please tell Hillary. She doesn't seem to know. She utters the phrase 'the failed policies of the Bush administration' in response to practically every question.
So, where does Obama want to take this country ? How DO we get past our divisions ?
Well, as it turns out, it's as easy as pie. We all just have to become uber-liberals and turn everything over to our government Big Brother. See, once we all become uber-liberals, then voila, no more division (no more affluent society or freedom either, but that's a small price to pay, isn't it ?).
Got a problem with health care ? Obama has a government Big Brother solution:
"Let's take health care... set up a government plan that would allow people who otherwise don't have health insurance because of a preexisting condition, like my mother had, or at least what the insurance said was a preexisting condition, let them get health insurance...What they're struggling with is they can't afford the health care. And so I emphasize reducing costs. My belief is that if we make it affordable, if we provide subsidies to those who can't afford it, they will buy it... I want to lower premiums by about an average of $2,500 per family per year, because people right now cannot afford it".
Terrific, but...won't it cost a ton of money to subsidize health care for all those people ? How are you going to reduce costs to offset that hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending you just proposed ?
Here's the answer - Tax increases, expanded government control of business, and nonsense. Now that I think about it, those things are pretty much ALWAYS the answer for liberal Democrats.
"...but they [the drug companies] are making outsized profits on the backs of senior citizens who need those prescription drugs. And that is an argument that the American people have to be involved with, otherwise we're not going to get any plan through.
So I've already said a sizeable portion of my health care plan will be paid for because we emphasize savings. We invest in prevention. So that as I said before, the chronically ill that account for 20 percent -- or the 20 percent of chronically ill patients that account for 80 percent of the costs, that they're getting better treatment. We are actually paying for a dietitian for people to lose weight as opposed to paying for the $30,000 foot amputation. That will save us money. We can conservatively save $100 billion to $150 billion a year under my plan. That pays for part of it. Part of it is paid for by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top one percent".
Let me deal with the nonsense first. Obama's "prevention" isn't going to save one dime. Unless he has discovered the key to immortality, all humans are going to get sick and die eventually. He can't change that. The additional preventive health care that Obama advocates will only INCREASE medical costs over the long haul. The truth is, the longer people live, the more medical costs they will generate. We'd only save money if we told everybody to start smoking three packs of cigarettes and drink a quart of Jack Daniels every day, so they'd die off early. It's not a fun fact, but it's a fact nonetheless.
So, all Obama is really telling you is that he wants to control what the drug companies and other "special interests" connected to the health care industry charge, and he's also telling you he wants to raise taxes (only on the rich, of course). And here I thought this country was based upon freedom and capitalism. Apparently, not in Obama's futureworld. For a guy who talks about the future, Obama sounds like he wants to return to the year 1848. That's when The Communist Manifesto was written by Marx and Engels. They didn't care much for freedom or capitalism either. The Manifesto suggested a course of action for a proletarian (working class) revolution to overthrow the bourgeois social order and to eventually bring about a classless and stateless society. Sound familiar ?
It isn't only health care where Obama advocates increased federal spending. It's virtually across the board, just like Hillary. What really gets me PO'ed about this is - the liberal Democrats are using the Republicans to justify all this extreme new spending, AND THEY ARE GETTING AWAY WITH IT DUE TO THE REPUBLICANS OWN FAILURE ! Listen to the first words out of Obama's mouth following this question:
MCMANUS: Senator Obama, one other thing both of your health insurance proposals have in common is they would cost billions of dollars in new spending and both of you have proposed raising taxes on a lot on Americans to pay for that and for other proposals.
Well, now, you know what's going to happen this fall in the general election campaign. The Republicans are going to call you "tax-and-spend" liberal Democrats, and that's a charge that's been effective in the past.
How are you going to counter that charge?
OBAMA: Well, first of all, I don't think the Republicans are going to be in a real strong position to argue fiscal responsibility, when they have added $4 trillion or $5 trillion...
... worth of national debt. I am happy to have that argument.
I guess this election isn't about the future anymore to Obama, because he's going back to the past to say 'it doesn't matter how much money the Democrats spend in the future, because the Republicans abdicated fiscal responsibility'. It's the equivalent of going from the frying pan into the fire. There is no actual connection between what the Republicans did and what the Democrats will do. The issue is, WHO WILL RESTORE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE FUTURE. From everything I've seen, you can rank them in the following order, from the most fiscally responsible to the least: Romney, McCain, Hillary, Obama. The two Republicans are close to each other, and the two Democrats are close to each other. The big difference is, the Democrats are advocating enormous spending increases, and the Republicans are advocating controlling federal spending, yet the Democrats are seen as having the most credibility in this area, due to the Bush years. Pretty insane, if you ask me. Remember, Bush isn't running, and the election is about the future, not the past. Obama said so, and I agree completely. That's why you shouldn't elect Barack Obama.
About This Blog