TCUnation
social network for conservatives
Obama Breaks Kucinich - Yes to Healthcare
Even though Dennis Kucinich voted no the first time round on the health care bill, a ride on Air Force One has seemed to change his mind. He will now vote "yes".Kucinich says, "And, so even though I don’t like the bill, I’ve made a decision to support it in the hopes that we can move toward a more comprehensive approach once this legislation is done."
Wonder what was said on Air Force One?
Tags: Healthcare, Kucinich, Obama, bill, congress
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by gail hair on
-
Sold out for a ride..... Shame.
Think this will start the downhill slide?
-
Permalink Reply by jerry on -
i wonder how much money didhe get paid off with.by passing the healthcare using rep Slaughter rule the healthcare is illegally done.the health is against article 1 secction 7,5tth,10,admenments and the comerce claus of our consttitution. we the people can take it to the suprreme court and haave it overr rruled and tthrown out.
-
Permalink Reply by John McCue on
-
You mean AF1 is out of the reach of Cspan? I'm beginning to not trust this guy.
transparency..... pffffttt
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Mott on -
John,
Are you saying that Obama's hope and change thing ain't working out so good? Nice post.
-
Permalink Reply by DaveG on -
Come on guys, clean it up. I've had to remove about four posts referring to sexual acts between these guys. We don't need to stoop that low here.
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Sheridan on -
Sad day for us the republicans, but hey, long term politics and our contributions are more important than short losses. I see this as a small battle lost. The big game is still out there. What Democrats and president Obama does with this law and how they work it over is really what will determine the future of democrats and their re-election. Be patient my fellows, we just gained more terrain in politics by this loss. And the people of US sure know now that can count with US and the Republican party as their solemn defender.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Mott on
-
I hope you are right about the Republicans, but I wonder. In my humble opinion the Republican Party is in part responsible for this mess because they forgot their roots.
-
Permalink Reply by DaveG on
-
No doubt, Mike, the GOP has drifted far away from the powerful, deep roots that they built the conservative machine on in Reagan's time. But like all big machines, they forgot they were built FOR the people and not just BY the people.
In November, we will be reminding BOTH parties that the people still own this country ... and we are going to demand it back !!!
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Mott on
-
Some talking heads show I happened upon yesterday mentioned that the people had become disaffected with both of the political parties, which I think is a healthy thing. When I last saw the polls the approval of Congress was somewhere around 17%.
Come November it will be interesting to see if
1. Voters return large numbers of incumbents (historical average is 97%, or so)
2. Turn out the Democrats
3. Turn out incumbents
What will the disaffection bring?
-
Permalink Reply by American Man on
-
Thanks Mike!
I am one of the individuals which has become somewhat disafected by party affiation. I tend to adhere to Independants. The values that I hold dear are directed by the nature of the issues. Until Americans are on the same page, what desired effect can we accomplish? I am a fiscal conservative the the point of being very concerned about the rising deficit, but I tend to embrace Keynes. Our fellow Americans are suffering a great recession at the present time and we need to get back on track economically. We are depending on too many other countries to provide our energy to our people. A lot of them dispise us for the freedoms that we have and use their profits to set us back. The American people must be able to see this and be on the same page to rectify this. Party affiliation does not matter. The love of this country, and the uplifting of it and its citizens ia paramount to any kind of affiliation.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Mott on
-
Keynes is wrong. Here is the with the problem with all of the arcane details stripped away. First, wealth is created by TRADE. That means that nothing and no one (assuming it is possible) can "spur" economic growth without dealing with those who produce and those who consume. By definition Keynes is trying to spur demand by handing consumers more money to spend.
Where does that money come from? Well the government gets money out of the economy. With progressive taxation that means that the money is taken from the most productive parts of the economy. So in order to "prime the pump" Keynesian style a body blow is delivered to those who invest in the products, get them to markets and create jobs. Unless the stimulus is big enough to overcome this body blow then the stimulus does more harm than it does good.
Where is it spent then? With Keynes -- especially liberal Keynesian stimulus -- the money is targeted to those on the lowest economic wrung. What's wrong with that? Nothing if one believes in wealth transfer. But you MUST acknowledge that these are also among the least productive citizens in the economy.
We have Kenseyian economics, Obama style, taking money from the MOST productive parts of the economy and giving it to the LEAST productive parts of the economy. In between the government takes a BIG cut to keep its operations humming along.
I ask you, how is this going to spur economic growth?
There are a number of published studies that now show -- many of them -- that the more government spends the slower the economy grows. This provides strong evidence that taking money from productive parts of the economy and giving it to non-productive parts of the economy hurts economic growth.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Mott on
-
Let's deal with business and the BIG, BAD INSURANCE COMPANIES WHO ARE GOUGING PEOPLE. Obama's argument is that unless the government does something people will no longer be able to afford health care insurance.
I say again, Obama's argument is that UNLESS the government does something people will no longer be able to afford health insurance. This statement is ridiculous on its face, but I will burn a few sentences to shred it further. Before launching into that, Walgreens has just announced that it will take no more Medicaid (Medicare?) patients, I forget which.
Now think about it. Business only work if they have customers. No customers; no business. I believe we can all agree on this point. Obama's claim then is that insurance companies will raise the rates until no one can afford health insurance. Wait a minute. If no one can afford health insurance then that means insurance companies have no customers, does it not? If they have no customers then they have no business. Obama accuses, in essence, insurance companies of being dodo birds working towards their own extinction.
Now our great-thinking president, who has never met a payroll, is going to help write laws that keep insurance companies from turning themselves into dodo birds. There is a further assumption behind all of this and that is that NO ONE else is smart enough to build insurance policies people want and can afford. Therefore unless this president, with no business experience whatsoever, crafts legislation then there will be no insurance companies left who provide health care because they are all dodo birds and NO ONE is smart enough to do this.
Isn't that silly on its face?
It is TRADE, free people trading freely with others who will figure out the right market. The problem today is not with the market, but it is with government interference in the markets. Just as the economic meltdown started with government interference with the housing markets (CRA, FANNIE, & FREDDIE). The culprit in all of this -- let's be very clear about it -- is government. If it allowed markets to function then they will function, there will be prosperity, and people will have jobs.
This statement is independent of party. The better way to think about the issues instead of left vs right, conservative vs liberal, or Democrat vs Republican is by form of government: oligarchy (rule by the few) or republic (the system of limited government crafted by the founders). Under Obama fewer than 600 people will control the spending of 1/3 of the economy. It his is not an oligarchy then it is getting close. History tells us that this sort of central planning for the economy does not work. So our filter for politicians needs to be will they reduce the size and scope of the federal government and will they pay down the debt.
© 2013 Created by Earl B.
