The “Affordable” Health Care Act?

Obamacare (a/k/a The Patient Protection and “Affordable” Care Act), was passed during the Christmas season of 2010 in the dead of night ‘to find out what’s in it’ This progressive panacea pitched as a means to supposedly insure the then-projected figure of 30-million uninsured Americans (many of whom were young, healthy and uninsured by choice); was passed in a convoluted effort to supposedly ensure that no American went without “affordable” health insurance. At the time it was pitched, Obamacare was supposed to cost somewhere to the tune of $900 billion dollars..and for that ‘investment’ we would supposedly in turn be ushered into an era of American Health-Care Nirvana, a new, Utopia in which there would be no more uninsured citizens (or undocumented immigrants, for that matter). As a bonus, if Americans liked their current health plans and doctors–they could keep them– PERIOD! What a deal, right?

But oh– the Pièce de résistance– the crowning, promised achievement, the “Promised Land”– would be that moment in time in which which those 30,000,000 unwashed Americans (Remember that figure– 30,000,000) projected to be without health insurance–the very raison d’etre for Obamacare’s very existence, would finally be insured! Everyone would get and receive the ‘affordable’ health care they needed! Boffo! Yay Obama!! Healthcare Nirvana–we have arrived!! .

Well, here we are– four-and-a-half years later. Now, Americans can no longer choose to be uninsured, at least not without paying what is amounting to a hefty fine on their taxes (much higher than was originally quoted, btw). Millions of those who thought they could keep their current health plans and doctors got a surprise letter from their insurance companies to the very contrary. The $900 billion dollar original price tag is now a hefty $2 TRILLION–$50,000 per person covered– over 10 years. Many who don’t qualify for taxpayer-subsidized insurance premiums are seeing a two- to three-fold increase either in their premiums and/or in the skyrocketing deductibles they must pay out of pocket before the benefits even begin to kick in. I have personally spoken with a number of people who bought insurance on an Obamacare exchange who were in need of surgical procedures but can’t afford the new higher deductible, and so are foregoing those procedures. And a number of those people told me that the insurance that they had held prior to the Obamacare rollout (and was discontinued forthwith) would have covered those procedures at little or no out-of-pocket cost beyond their premiums.

To bring it full circle– First the good news: remember those 30,000,000 unwashed Americans who weren’t insured, but mostly didn’t want insurance– you know, those healthy young people for which this entire fiasco was purportedly set into motion to cover? Many of those are now covered!

The bad news? We now have 31,000,000 (yes, that’s with a *31*) projected people that Obamacare will NOT cover– many who desperately need and WANT insurance–and many remain uncovered because the new premiums are now just too expensive for them to afford (refer to the word “Affordable” in the first sentence). On top of that, many millions more now do have insurance that isn’t worth the paper on which it is written, because they can’t afford the ridiculously high deductibles that before the ACA were absent or much lower.

The “Living Antonym to King Midas” (C), Barack Hussein Obama, with the help of a willing democrat-controlled Congress as well as propaganda organs such as the AARP and Big Unions, has transformed what was an imperfect, yet perfectly functional, highly innovative health care system into an abject mess that creates many more problems than it could ever solve (look up the acronym FUBAR).

We began this unicorn-fart propelled gallop into health-care hell with 30,000,000 uninsured, yet with a fairly functional and affordable system for most people, at most times.

Now, four- and a-half years into that long goodnight, we STILL find ourselves with *31*,000,000 uninsured Americans, but now with a “new and improved’ system populated by skyrocketing premiums and deductibles putting health care costs out of the reach of millions upon millions more.

Anyone else besides me see the sardonic irony in this?

A Greek tragedy writ large. God help us.

Obamacare To Cost $2 Trillion Over Next Decade, Leave 31 Million Uninsured

According to an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com

Advertisements

29 thoughts on “The “Affordable” Health Care Act?

  1. Retired Spook January 28, 2015 / 10:39 am

    In a previous thread there was some discussion about the destruction of the middle class. I don’t think there’s been a piece of legislation at the federal level in my lifetime that has negatively impacted the middle class more than ObamaCare. And now Obama is going to save the middle class? I don’t think so.

    • M. Noonan January 28, 2015 / 1:27 pm

      The middle class is where the money is – Bill Gates has, what?, 50 or 60 billion dollars? Chump change. If you’ve got 50 million Americans making 100,000.00 a year, that is $5 trillion to tax…there’s some frickin’ money! And you can tax it year after year after year. Its the gift which keeps on giving, as long as you keep your rhetoric set on “tax the rich”.

      That is why I keep broken-record on this – we need to out-class-warfare the liberals and, as an added benefit, go after their money bags. Even an ostensibly Republican rich person is, 99 times out of 100, progressive on most issues…he just wants lower taxes and maybe (some times) a strong national defense. Republicans who trust people like the Koch brothers or Adelson are fooling themselves…when push comes to shove and its time to impose things like same-sex marriage, abortion and Common Core, those rich “Republicans” are on the side of the left. So, let’s go after them – a tax on wealth. Ten percent on anything above $5 million – with a tax break for anything above $5 million if its invested in small and mid-sized companies which make, mine or grow things.

      To save the middle class, we’ll have to destroy the left – so, let’s get at it.

      • Retired Spook January 28, 2015 / 2:07 pm

        Sadly, I think a lot of people are going to have to endure a lot of economic pain before the political will materializes to “destroy the Left”.

      • M. Noonan January 28, 2015 / 2:34 pm

        I think we can do it – if we do it right. Its a matter of getting part – not all – of the people who are hooked on the system to vote to destroy it. Now, we all know that getting rid of our current system will benefit, most of all, those who are most dependent upon it but convincing them of this is difficult…but not impossible. So, I propose to use the money of someone like Soros to help a semi-welfare-dependent person to become independent of welfare. A Spread The Wealth tax…10% of Soros’ money to help the working, single mother who also gets welfare to become a small business owner…that sort of thing.

      • Retired Spook January 28, 2015 / 4:15 pm

        I think we can do it – if we do it right

        If one of the two political parties were in favor of what you suggest, I’d agree with you, but such is not the case. Both parties are run by Progressives, and both have the same agenda of growing the size, power and scope of the central government. The GOP is just content to do it at a slower pace.

      • M. Noonan January 28, 2015 / 8:31 pm

        Which is why I’m starting to look to Walker – whether he meant to, or not, he’s got the plan to destroy the left.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) January 29, 2015 / 12:54 pm

        Scott Walker is the Only Candidate for office (any office) that I’ve donated $$ to in the last three years.

        Exit Question; does his lack of post secondary educational accreditation (degree) bother you?

      • M. Noonan January 29, 2015 / 1:47 pm

        Nope: I consider that a plus.

      • Amazona January 31, 2015 / 5:53 pm

        Any version of “share the wealth” is just socialism in some new disguise. On the surface, in that warm fuzzy “wouldn’t it be swell if….” zone, sure it would be nifty if someone like Soros would use his power for good instead of evil. But taking away the property of one to give it to another is always, inevitably, the first step on an increasingly slippery slope, and it always depends on a third party making the determination of how someone else’s money should be distributed. There is always a great-sounding reason, always some aspect of “fairness”, but it always comes down to the confiscation of private property for redistribution by the State. “…a tax on wealth…” being promoted by a self-identified political conservative who at the same time decries the conservative credentials of some because they have a lot of money strikes me as being very distanced from reality.

        Again, it is time—–well PAST time—-to stop defining “conservatism” by stances on ISSUES. I no longer care how anyone feels about any given issue when it comes to electing our national officials. As long as someone acknowledges that his pet issue has to be fought out at the state or local level if it is not an enumerated duty of the federal government, I welcome that person into the POLITICAL Right. I may find a certain issue wrong headed, or even despicable, or anywhere in between, but all I care about right now is getting people to stop thinking about ISSUES and start thinking about GOVERNMENT.

        As for Walker’s lack of Ivy League creds, I find it a major plus. I am sick and tired of degrees being held up as some sort of proof of some sort of qualification or even superiority. I was once impressed by degrees from Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, etc., but that has worn away leaving me with the feeling that admiring them is tantamount to ooohing and aahing over the emperor’s clothes. I think the final nudge over the edge was learning just who these self-styled monuments to intellectual superiority were inviting to teach, and give commencement speeches, and so on.

        I find it telling, as well as amusing, that no matter how often the RRL have tried to come after Walker, the best (or worst) they can come up with is some accusation that at some time he used tactics the Left seems to feel should be restricted to them.

        I don’t think Mitt had to be meaner, just more focused on the weaknesses of Obama and his whole house of cards. I found his approach to be too close to the “a gentleman never reads another’s mail” level of fastidiousness. Honesty in pointing out the defects in another’s policies, politics, and programs, particularly when you believe them to be damaging and dangerous to the country, is not being “mean”. But it was not lack of aggression that I objected to, it was lack of focus, it was being out of touch with things that matter to the Average Guy. Instead of arguing the rightness or wrongness of any particular Obama policy he should have concentrated more on how it got ramrodded down the throats of Americans—instead of getting stuck in the quagmire of arguing over the merits of Obamacare, with its concurrent bickering over what any given clause or article really means, it would have been more productive to point out the way it got passed, with not a single Senator or Representative even reading the bill before voting for it, pointing out the dangers of having a Central Authority which seems to exert complete control over what is supposed to be its balancing arm of government. No one knows, even now, what Obamacare is or means or does, as evidence of various aspects of the mess keep bubbling up, a little here and a little there, but being denied the ability to read it, understand it, discuss it, and make an informed decision about passing it is something that anyone can understand.

      • M. Noonan January 31, 2015 / 6:52 pm

        I guess it depends on what one is trying to conserve. For me, I don’t want to conserve a system where someone like George Soros can (a) get rich or (b) stay rich. Remember how he got his money – he didn’t make a product that people wanted; he played and, at times, manipulated the financial system for his own profit. I wouldn’t care if he had a trillion dollars, if he had done something worthwhile to earn it…all he’s done is got himself rich, and now uses his money to undermine our civilization. Heck with him – and if by going after his wealth I can also de-fund the left (remember: that is the key to victory), then I’m all-in.

        After the Wendy Davis debacle people now laugh at the prospect of a Blue Texas. I, on the other hand, believe it is inevitable unless we destroy the left…they’ve got the money, the manpower and the time to just keep pressing and pressing and pressing until something gives. Remember, California used to be reliably Republican. The key to winning is to take away the left’s money. By far, most of their money comes from government, but they’ve also got players like Soros who use their vast wealth to advance the leftwing cause…hiring people to shill in popular media, hiring lawyers to file lawsuit after lawsuit, bribing politicians with campaign cash, behind-the-scenes working deals with Congressional staffers and the bureaucracy to have things slipped into law and/or regulation which advantages the left. Get rid of the left’s money, and they can’t do this any more…they’ll lose. And if one of our tactics is to blindside the left by “taxing the rich” to take away Soros’ money and give it to someone who will do something useful – and conservative – with it, I don’t see a downside.

      • Amazona February 1, 2015 / 10:45 am

        And if one of our tactics is to blindside the left by “taxing the rich” to take away Soros’ money and give it to someone who will do something useful – and conservative – with it, I don’t see a downside.

        Paraphrase: If one of our tactics is to adopt the political philosophy of the Left with the excuse that WE will do it right, I don’t see a downside.

        Well, there is the “downside” of advocating something that is the foundation of Leftist political philosophy, and acting in direct contradiction to the Constitution as further explained in the 10th Amendment, and violating every principle of the conservative movement.

        And here we are, right back to the complaint about Progressive Republicans, who fly the flag of conservative ideals while really just having a slightly different idea of how THEY would redistribute what they have confiscated from the people (their idea being so much better that it somehow justifies the confiscation in the first place).

        There is a really big problem with freedom, and that is that sometimes we are stuck with things we don’t like. When we pay lip service to freedom and then try to insert caveats that attempt to restrain, control or restrict the freedom of others we are not really advocating freedom at all. When we try to impose the will of the State on others, just as the Left does, we are not objecting to tyranny, just saying that we want to be the ones imposing it, on our terms.

        Yeah, Soros is a disgusting creature who amassed many billions of dollars by being a predator and a lawbreaker. If we can confiscate that wealth as a penalty for breaking the law, then fine, use it to accomplish something worthwhile. But if we think that we, somehow, have a claim on it because we don’t like him or what he does with that wealth, we are no different than the Left. More to the point, we are completely abandoning the principles upon which this nation was built, and upon which it once flourished.

        The “I don’t really object so much to what they do as much as to why they do it” argument does not set one apart from the Left, just establishes different desired outcomes for the same wrong acts. We constantly fuss here about the RINOS, who call themselves Republicans and often claim to be conservatives, who are really no different from the Left in their advancement of larger and larger federal government with more and more control over the people and more and more confiscation of their property and their rights. Advancing the idea of expanding the authority of the State to restrict the right of a man to own his own property and use it as he wishes is certainly not a conservative philosophy, no matter how the confiscated property might, hopefully, be used.

      • M. Noonan February 1, 2015 / 11:19 am

        Ah, but I’m only proposing to do to Soros what he claims he wants done – the man, and other progressives like him, says he wants the rich to pay more. He doesn’t mean, of course, that he should pay more…but I still propose to take him at his word. We’re in a fight to the finish with these people and they will lie, cheat and steal to win. I won’t lie, cheat or steal…but I will hammer them back and hit where it hurts…and nothing will hurt a rich Progressive more than the though that someone besides him is going to decide what to do with his money…they like the idea of sitting there in Davos deciding how I’ll spend my money, but turn it about? They scream like stuck pigs.

        The foundation of liberalism (progressivism, communism, socialism, etc) isn’t the moving about of money, but the false – heretical, actually – concept that by human action we can create heaven on earth. They believe that humankind only goes wrong because it hasn’t got the right set of rules…and the Progressives will happily think up and apply the rules so that perfection can be made. Of course this ideology appeals mightily to rich people like Soros…Chesterton pointed out a century ago that the Duke of Cornwall in the Capitalist system would be all too happy to become the Administrator of Cornwall under a Socialist system. People who have buckets of money they didn’t earn by working hard to provide a good or service people need are all like that – they just want to be rich and they figure the fact of their wealth means they should be in charge (keep in mind that the Fabian Socialists figured we should have rich people in charge because, get this, such people wouldn’t be tempted to graft!!! This is the sort of nonsense people can fall for!). As all Progressives are all alike – some of them just tending to be more violent than others – the bottom line is that Soros is Lenin with $50 billion. I wouldn’t leave Lenin with that kind of money, either.

      • Amazona February 1, 2015 / 12:41 pm

        Ah, but I’m only proposing to do to Soros what he claims he wants done – the man, and other progressives like him, says he wants the rich to pay more

        My point exactly.

        I do understand the appeal of using the Left’s own coffers to bring it down. It is a lovely fantasy, and reeks of a sense of justice. The problem is, it simply can’t be done while sticking to what are presumably strongly held Constitutional principles of government.

        Just look at the details that raise their ugly heads once one has stepped over the line:

        Who decides how much is “too much”? For that matter, how much IS “too much”? For many, “too much” is anything more than what they have.

        Are all riches, no matter how obtained, equally targeted? What are the categories? Who makes the determinations?

        1. Ill gotten gains, such as Soros’. And who gets to determine what is ill gotten and what is not?
        2. Inherited wealth
        What if someone inherits a few million and parlays it into billions? What is the cutoff point for what he “deserves” to keep and what he doesn’t?
        3. What about ill gotten gains, such as bootlegger Kennedy’s, that were then parlayed into much more using legitimate means, such as real estate?
        4. How deeply do you dig? Money belonging to the person who did the deed, or the first generation after that, or the second, or the third?
        5. Who says what is “legitimate” and what is not? Remember, to some the wildcatter who struck oil on his barren patch of Texas dryland and built upon that to amass billions, employing tens of thousands, etc. is really just a predator destroying the Earth for his eeeeevil greeeeedy profit. How about those who think all profit is exploitative and evil? You think those who make, mine or grow should be able to keep what they earn, but many would quibble, endlessly, about whether the making or mining or growing violated some deeply held personal opinion on the rightness of the method or process.

        The fact is, your concept is so deeply flawed it fails on all counts. It fails on its compliance with the Constitution, which means it falls far outside any metric of the Conservative Movement and well into Leftland. It depends on giving the Central Authority even more unconstitutional authority. It depends on targeting some segments of the population, on very subjective grounds that depend on the personal perspective of those doing the targeting. It is subject to massive corruption and manipulation, as those doing the deciding would have the ability to move the bar to wherever they want it to be, for personal reasons—-much like the IRS can be used as a personal or political weapon right now. And it depends very very heavily on the much-loved-by-the-Left Thought Police.

        And oh, by the way, it violates the 1st Amendment. And the 10th. And probably some others, too, though after those are trashed the rest don’t seem that important.

        If you want to openly stake out a position on the Left and then after that is established declare that while your tactics are the same your goals are different, that is one thing. But to stake out that position while at the same time trying to claim Conservative cred is quite another.

      • M. Noonan February 2, 2015 / 2:01 am

        Well, if we could prove they were ill-gotten, we could send him to jail…trouble is, once someone gets enough, ill- or well-gotten, its hard to do anything like that because they can hire an army of lawyers to defend themselves.

        Here’s bit from an upcoming book:

        …It is said that idle hands are the Devil’s tools. Now, imagine idle hands which are connected to person of immense pride. That is the sort of problem we’ve got. People who do no real work but who are yet convinced they are among the elite, if not the very best of the best. It just compounds the problem when such an idle, self-absorbed person has a lot of money, especially if the money was either inherited or gained by financial chicanery rather than making a product or service people actually want.

        If such people were just exiled on some barren island in the middle of nowhere, they’d be no problem. But they are all around us and as they don’t work – while we do – they have plenty of time to plot and plan and agitate and annoy. The more money they have, the more effective they are at this. While Mr. and Mrs. America have to get up in the morning, get the kids off the school and head to work the idle, self absorbed people have no one and nothing to concern themselves with other than themselves. They can devote full time to self-aggrandizement while regular folks barely have time to turn around.

        And therein lies the ultimate source of our trouble: decent, hard working people placed at a disadvantage against slippery schemers who have all the time in the world. As it is a fight between well heeled layabouts vs. busy, hard working people it is an unfair fight. It is a fight the regular folks have been losing for nigh on a century now. Imagine it as a fight between a rich gangster and plumbing contractor…

        I think it unwise to leave the enemy undisturbed in his sanctuary – that, to me, is a formula for defeat. We have to take the fight to them, on their own ground, and start taking away their ability to destroy us. Rich Progressives are spending buckets of money massaging the system to, among other things, eventually make my faith illegal in the United States. Its not a question of if they’ll do it, but when. They’ll keep filing suit and working the bureaucracy until one day I go to sleep with the free exercise of my religion intact, only to wake up the next to find that repetition of Catholic dogma is hate speech. I prefer to go down fighting, if it comes to that.

        I understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t see a path to victory in it. Suppose we elect Ted Cruz to the Presidency and get a TEA Party majority in Congress and then pass a strict border security law. What, then? We still have the illegals in country and something still has to be done about them. Deport? Once the MSM has shown the 10th crying, screaming family being deported, political support for deportation will evaporate and we’ll be clobbered at the next election. So, we have to do amnesty in some fashion…which is, of course, what the Progressives want. How to do it? Not on their terms – on ours. Which means doing it in a manner which is likely to turn at least a substantial portion of the target population in to supporters of our side. Same thing with reforming welfare, entitlements, etc – we can’t campaign on just getting rid of them as that will ensure our defeat – and our complete defeat where our views are outlawed, eventually. So, we have to find a way to get at least some of the people who are dependent upon those programs to vote for us…if you’ve got a better way to do it than I propose, I’m all ears. As for me, I’d like to kill two birds with one stone – Soros’ ability to bankroll the destruction of our civilization while at the same time turning at least some of the welfare dependents into middle class, GOP voters; that works for me. Eventually, once we’ve bankrupted the left and got ourselves a really solid, long-lasting majority of political power, then we can slowly dismantle the current system and replace it with what we used to have…but that is a job for a couple generations.

      • Amazona February 1, 2015 / 12:44 pm

        “Chesterton pointed out a century ago that the Duke of Cornwall in the Capitalist system would be all too happy to become the Administrator of Cornwall under a Socialist system. ”

        Quoting this in the midst of defending a Leftist concept to promote a goal of the Right indicates to me that you don’t understand the quote. I see it as a different way of saying what I have been saying—-that while you would be all too happy to claim to be a representative of the Right, you would be equally happy to be an administrator of the Left if it happened to satisfy a personal agenda.

      • Amazona February 1, 2015 / 1:09 pm

        “To save the middle class, we’ll have to destroy the left – so, let’s get at it.”

        Great. But let’s get at it in ways that are in compliance with our principles, so when we achieve our goals we have not sold our souls.

        When I analyze the success of the Left, I agree, much of it depends on the influx of money from well-heeled supporters of the movement. I suggest going beyond that superficial level of understanding, and looking at how that money is used.

        The way I see it, it is mostly used for propaganda. We could, if we were to use our brains a little, deal with that. Instead, we let them call the tune and get sucked into arguing the merits of various ISSUES, which is guaranteed to put us at a disadvantage because issues are belief systems, which are very very hard to change, and efforts to do so are easily countered. We could, if we were to step back and become more analytical, evaluate the purpose of the effort to keep discourse focused on issues.

        If we were to do that, we would quickly see that this is necessary to keep the sheeple from thinking about government. Setting aside the argument that we have to get people to vote for people who will take away their stuff (we are not there yet but we will be soon if we don’t change the course of our government) I think there is a simple argument that most people can understand. That is, the choice between having the government decisions which have so much power over their lives made by an ever-more-powerful Central Authority or by a government entity closer to home and subject to more oversight and control by the people. Instead of telling people we want to take away things that matter to them, such as money or the ability to freely butcher their young, we just say if this is what you want to do, you should be legislating it at the state level, instead of having these vitally important decisions made for you thousands of miles away by people who lump you in with millions of others in a One Size Fits All mentality, while amassing power for themselves.

        It is this simple choice that scares the crap out of the Left, because they know that it appeals to people across every spectrum of economics and education and even political affiliation.

        If we were to focus what resources we have on keeping a tight focus on narrowing the choices, not to choices among various deeply felt issues but between a massively powerful Central Authority far from home and a smaller, more personal, Local Authority, we could gain a lot of traction. A carefully crafted campaign to do that would not need the vast amount of money the Left dumps into its propaganda campaigns. The Left could, for example, spend fortunes on ads attacking a candidate, which could be effectively defanged by a simple ad asking why the Leftist candidate is spending all that money to avoid talking about how we want our government to be run. A nationally coordinated and focused strategy could provide coordinated responses to state level campaigns, and provide a unified message with economy of scale. It would avoid labels, such as “socialist”, because these provide footholds for Leftist quibbling. It would discard catchphrases like “smaller government” in favor of slightly longer statements that actually say what we mean.

        We can fight smart, we can fight ethically, we can fight while sticking to our principles, or we can be RINOs and pay lip service to constitutional restraints on federal power while advocating expanding it, and becoming nothing more than the other side of the Leftist coin.

      • Amazona February 2, 2015 / 9:16 pm

        “If such people were just exiled on some barren island in the middle of nowhere, they’d be no problem”

        Sorry, but I find this to be a chilling reprise of a somewhat moderated version of the gulags, of Castro’s prisons for dissidents, etc.

        I do recognize your passion, but I could not disagree more strongly with the conclusions to which it has led you, because those are exactly, precisely, the same kinds of conclusions used by tyrants to justify their actions to silence those they do not want heard.

        I also find some of your arguments shallow and poorly thought out, tossed out to try to give weight to your ideas. For example, you say: “Suppose we elect Ted Cruz to the Presidency and get a TEA Party majority in Congress and then pass a strict border security law. What, then? We still have the illegals in country and something still has to be done about them. Deport? Once the MSM has shown the 10th crying, screaming family being deported, political support for deportation will evaporate and we’ll be clobbered at the next election. So, we have to do amnesty in some fashion…which is, of course, what the Progressives want. “

        How about a plan which takes into consideration things I have not yet heard anyone discuss, such as the plight of seasonal workers. When we had a reasonable program in place, they could, and did, come to the United States for a few months every year, leaving wives and children behind, living several to an apartment, spending very little, and then having the ability to spend about half of the year at home in relative comfort, with US dollars buying them houses, farms, cars, and so on. When it was no longer possible to count on being able to return, they brought their families with them, meaning poor Mexican women (many of them very young) to cold harsh climates, trying to get by on too little money, speaking no English, isolated and scared—-and dependent on the US taxpayer. A return to a reasonable seasonal worker program would let these women stay home, where they really want to be, and let their men move freely back and forth, earning a good living for the families.

        How about a plan that first passes a strong law against being here without proper authority, making it a felony, and then giving a period of, say, 90 days to register before the law goes into effect? Many who have been arrested would leave rather than register and be fingerprinted and then held accountable for crimes they committed in the past, and over time those who did not register but remained would slowly be winnowed out. Those who pass the investigation initiated by registration would get lengthy work permits, of ten to fifteen years, after which they would either have to apply for permanent residency or go home. The work permit would be provisional for the first year, during which time the applicants would have to meet standards for basic English language usage and attend classes to learn how to live in this country.

        You do go on to say: “How to do it? Not on their terms – on ours. Which means doing it in a manner which is likely to turn at least a substantial portion of the target population in to supporters of our side.” This is not so hard, once we define “amnesty”. If we define it merely as the suspension of a penalty for breaking a law, we can easily not only offer amnesty—or waiving of the petty fine for being here without papers—we can OWN the word. A reasonable plan that is fair, and that gives the good well meaning illegal immigrant a solution to his problem, and which leaves decisions up to the people most affected, would not generate the kind of mass hysteria that arbitrary mass deportations would.

        Which leads me to the comment that the whole thing about screaming families being ripped apart and weakening the will of Americans is really just a straw man, as no one has ever been in favor of just deporting millions of illegal immigrants.

        But your foray into illegal immigration is not about your embracing of the very concept that divides the Left and the Right, and your efforts to justify this are mere echoes of every Leftist who has ever believed that confiscation of private property for redistribution by the State is a good thing if it is done by “the right people” for “the right reason”. It has never ended well, and it never will.

      • M. Noonan February 2, 2015 / 11:59 pm

        Ah, but there’s the Plan, the Whole Plan and Nothing But The Plan. Even Soros can save his money if it is invested in companies which make, mine and grow things. Hedge funds set up so that he can manipulate the market? Immoral. Gotta go.

        It is good to keep in mind that I am Catholic – everyone has a right to their property and the right to do with it as they will provided that nothing nefarious is going on. Wall Street is rife with nefarious actions. Madoff is not a one-of-a-kind thing…and he didn’t really steal as much as some do. HSBC was deliberately and maliciously laundering funds for drug cartels and terrorist groups…they got off with a fine. Which came out of the share-holder’s pockets. How’d they manage that? Bribery of some sort, somewhere…none of which we’ll ever be able to find out about; and even if discovered, we’d probably find it legal as those who run the system have written the laws pretty carefully to let themselves off. Remember, what is legal is not necessarily the same as what is right – we all know that; I just want to act upon it in a consistent manner. I don’t believe that people like Soros have a proper, legal title to their property, regardless of what legal i dotting and t crossing their lawyers and accountants did. And as they are using their money to destroy me, I propose to hit them where it hurts: in their money.

        I think you and I are at a bit of an impasse because you don’t want to take the radical and rather revolutionary measures I think necessary. I respect that. But I think we’ve got to get down and dirty with these people – into the trenches and have at them.

  2. Retired Spook January 28, 2015 / 5:52 pm

    OT, but if anyone thinks that our economy and, particularly our financial system isn’t riding on a knife’s edge, the DOW dropped 300 point in the last 2 hours today following an announcement by the FED that they haven’t ruled out beginning to raise interest rates around the middle of this year. Can you imagine what will happen if they actually do begin to raise interest rates? Every 1% increase in interest rates will raise the deficit by approximately $150 billion. A return to an historical average 6% interest rate will increase the deficit by nearly $1 trillion in the first year. Multiply that by 1.06 for every year interest rates stay at that level. Any bets as to how long our economy could sustain that?

    • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) January 28, 2015 / 8:58 pm

      The DJIA is not the economy – 300 points <1.5% pbllfft! – Rates need to rise; “investors” gambling with no chance of losing while taxpayers are covering the spread.

      There is no transmission of money into the economy unless there is an equity swap of some kind (See: uncle Miltie); there must be collateral to allow the loan system to work; free money (or a loose monetary system) always results in stripping away the collateral of the assets. All we achieved from this 0% interest as an accumulation of funds out of reach of the economy at large; in excess reserves and the stock market. the only thing this low interest loose monetary policy does is destroy the usefulness of the monetary units.

      Increase the economic output and the service of the debt (your $150 B) will take care of itself.

      • Retired Spook January 28, 2015 / 11:48 pm

        Yeah, Count — I don’t know what came over me. Everything is going to be great!

        Rates need to rise; “investors” gambling with no chance of losing while taxpayers are covering the spread.

        With that I totally agree, except that the longer they wait, the greater the pain.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) January 29, 2015 / 12:50 pm

        That’s because you’re a “half-empty” kind of guy. /sarc

        There will be pain, a lot of it and we deserve it, elections have consequences and we have the government we voted for.

        Liberals called it “stimulus” conservatives called it “investment” and we all condemned it while holding out our hands for more.

        You and I spoke of the failure of stimulus in 2008 after Bush had three failed iterations, the last one being the “tax rebate checks” in April. Remember how we both said the money would be used to pay down some personal debt rather than spread around?

        Last year I made a killing in the market which was driven by the no-risk, free money doled out to the investor class-I didn’t receive any of that largess but knew enough to go along for the ride.

        I’ll eventually have to pay for that good fortune like everyone else.

        The sooner we stop the loose money lending (raise rates) the sooner we hit bottom and can start the climb out.

        Buy land in New Zealand …

      • Retired Spook January 29, 2015 / 4:33 pm

        That’s because you’re a “half-empty” kind of guy. /sarc

        You mean the glass isn’t half empty? Well, that’s a relief.

        There will be pain, a lot of it and we deserve it, elections have consequences and we have the government we voted for.

        What’s this WE sh*t?

        I’ll eventually have to pay for that good fortune like everyone else.

        I’ll bet, if you really tried, you could find a loophole.

        Please take this entire post with the grain of salt with which it was written.

  3. Retired Spook January 30, 2015 / 9:22 am

    Anyone else notice that there don’t seem to be as many defenders of ObamaCare as there used to be. I wonder why that is?

    • shawny2011 January 30, 2015 / 10:38 am

      The only reason there are any defenders at all is because Obama delayed the worst parts of this monstrosity so the full impact has yet to be felt. And you can be sure he will delay them further until after the 2016 election. The best thing that could happen would be a forced enforcement of the entire law and forced compliance of it for everyone, including Congress, all religious groups, all those unions and anyone who received a waiver. If it cannot be repealed then at least the bandage should be viciously ripped off so everyone can share the huge owee.

  4. shawny2011 January 30, 2015 / 10:22 am

    I’d sure go with Walker. He’s got common sense, actually does what’s best for his state and has fulfilled his campaign promises, understands a budget, has cojones of stainless steel, and if the left had any dirt on him they would already have pulled it out of their Communist hat when they tried to recall him twice. The mere announcement that he intends to run would have many wetting their Nike’s and that just makes me smile. However, the economic path we are on is unsustainable and I don’t believe will hold up until next month, much less the 2016 election (with votes counted in Barcelona, Spain…..). So, it’s my belief that he would be too little and far to late. I believe those in power are now trying to implement as much of their agenda as possible at an accelerated rate and save their own burros. One president who is not owned or corrupted cannot change decades of destruction or an entirely subverted, compromised, corrupt Congress and both political parties or the system which encourages it to continue. Nor will one good man be able to prevent the collapse of the global economy.
    As for the “Affordable Care Act”, it was never intended to be affordable, nor sustainable, those were all lies, even more so now that Obama has added 5 more million illegal immigrants (800,00 “Dreamers” before) and so many more others with “refugee” status to the mix. None of our tax dollars were spent to secure our borders or fix the legal immigration process. None of our tax dollars were used to limit the exorbitant cost of pharmaceuticals or medical procedures or equipment or insurance in order to actually make our medical care affordable. The goal of opening both borders to the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement is where Bush was headed and where Obama now is going. In effect, he has operated as though it was already law for most of his presidency with little resistance as though this was no longer a sovereign nation with its own rule of law. The only non-violent way I see out of this is complete non-compliance coupled with nullification at the state level. Even a successful Convention of States would likely only serve as a late warning shot.. It is our tax dollars they are using to destroy us. Our tax dollars being used to arm,finance and train terrorists. Our tax dollars being used to indoctrinate our children. Our tax dollars used to build Obama’s citizen army. Our tax dollars being used to strip us of what little remains of our rights. We must not comply.

  5. Retired Spook January 30, 2015 / 2:42 pm

    OT, but the recent exchange between Obama and Romney is just too good not to share:

    President Barack Obama took a jab at Mitt Romney Thursday evening — and the former presidential candidate issued a blistering response online.

    Obama, speaking at the House Democrats’ annual retreat in Philadelphia, said that a “former presidential candidate” was “suddenly deeply concerned about poverty.”

    “That’s great,” the president said, according to the pool report. “Lets do something about it.”

    In a blistering tweet, Romney shot back:

    “Mr. Obama, wonder why my concern about poverty?” he tweeted. “The record number of poor in your term, and your record of failure to remedy.”

    BTW, although I’m glad Romney has decided not to run, I’d have voted for him in a heartbeat if he had become the GOP nominee. I don’t think a more decent man has run for President in my lifetime, and, given my admiration for Renauldus Magnus, that’s saying a lot.

    • Amazona January 30, 2015 / 8:42 pm

      The infantile pettiness of Barack Obama never ceases to amaze. It clearly irks him to know that so many who voted for him instead of Romney would not do so again if given another chance. The Boy King has to live with the ongoing record of Romney’s proposed policies being proved to be right, while his silly posturing has inevitably proved to be foolish and failed.

      I still think Romney is missing a chance to say “I would have gone to Paris”.

Comments are closed.