Friday, June 22, 2007

The Dems War on Prosperity

Short on time for blogging today. However, I want to do a short post about something that caught my eye and stuck in my mind all week over at Larry Kudlow's Money Politic$.

He may or may not have coined the phrase "The Democratic War on Prosperity," but in any event he hits the nail on the head and uses the phase often and successfully.

There is indeed an unspoken war on prosperity going on in this country both in Washington and relentlessly in the MSM. As Investors Business Daily says in it's current series entitled "Beyond the Basics, how media incompetence leads to mass ignorance about the U.S. economy," I do think many, if not most, people are completely illiterate on how the economy really works.

The most glaring of the myths that are perpetuated in liberal la la land is that we need to raise taxes to increase state and federal revenues. Another is that government can solve each and every energy crisies through taxing the bejeebers out of the oil companies. None of this will work and in fact will have a depressing effect on our economy as well as our wallets; but you'd never know it from the ignorant MSM and such financial giants as Pelosi and company. And Hillary is the worst, the queen of wanting to wreck the economy and then having the nerve to want to redistribute our wealth. She, like John Edwards, will have to preach "two Americas" in order to justify her call to unceasing call to socialism and socialize medicine. She and Bill know what to do.

So thanks Larry for "The Libs War on Prospertiy." It's a good one that I plan to use more too.

And finally did you ever notice how the MSM always forecasts doom and gloom for the economy? It's amazing. Likewise when there's good news, even great news like there's been the past four years, it simply overlooks it and go back to its war on prosperity.

I learned a long time ago when the CEO of a big company is on the cover of an MSM magazine, it's time to sell the stock, rather than buy.

It's like saying babies come from storks to say higher taxes will boost the economy. And believe you me, if the likes of Hillary Clinton gets elected, God forbid, she'll do her best to stick big governement more and more into out lives and pocketbooks.

And below the greatest warrior on prosperity. And nice as her ideas sound, they're an abomination which perpertuates many myths that will wreck our economy and cut out many jobs. Her answer is always more and more government and it wars on prosperity. The redistribution of wealth by government is a socialist and communist concept and she promotes it without shame and with impunity. Oh Hillary, you're so vain and oh so ignorant. God help us all.

16 comments:

Bob said...

Amen!

pam said...

What planet is this person living on? Maybe in an "undisclosed bunker of her mind," like Dick Cheney? The "Dems war on properity"... indeed!

The number of Americans living in severe poverty has expanded dramatically under the Bush administration, with nearly 16 million people now living on an individual income of less than $5,000 a year or a family income of less than $10,000, according to an analysis of 2005 official census data.

The analysis, by the McClatchy group of newspapers, showed that the number of people living in extreme poverty had grown by 26 per cent since 2000. Poverty as a whole has worsened, too, but the number of severe poor is growing 56 per cent faster than the overall segment of the population characterised as poor - about 37 million people in all according to the census data. That represents more than 10 per cent of the US population.

Health care premiums have increased by over 80 percent. The cost of family health insurance has skyrocketed 80.8 percent since 2000. Premiums are rising twice as fast as wages and inflation. The typical family health insurance premium is now $11,480 a year compared with $6,348 in 2000. The number of uninsured Americans has increased every year since President Bush took office, from 39.8 million in 2000 to a record high of 46.6 million in 2005.

Republicans’ close ties with special interests, have helped lead to both lower wages on the one hand and skyrocketing costs for basic necessities like gas, health care, and college tuition on the other.

W said...

Let me get this straight, the way to end poverty is to make sure that more people are poor? Tax the hell out of those who work, invest and save, and especially those who create jobs, and give more of these tax revenues to those who wait for government handouts or are here illegally? I guess misery loves company, doesn't it, Pam.

My healthy premiums have not gone up 80% since 2000, have yours? But truthfully, they've inched up over the last 20 years as I age about the same every year or two. And they'll continue. And let's face it, with the standard American diet with the amount of sugar, salt, dairy and just plain junk food we Americans consume, not to mention lattes and strong, sugary caffeine drinks, we're only going to get sicker and therefore our health costs are, surprise! going to increase exponentially in the years to come.

My health premiums are helping to finance those who can't pay, cause I've never filed even one claim. But if Hillary ever gets her socialized health plan, none of us would be able to choose a doctor and some might have to wait months, if not years, to have surgery like in Canada or Britain.

Whenever the government gets involved, no matter how good the promise, it only fosters waste and, for many, utter dependency. In Tennessee something like 80% of TennCare monies, a form of universal health care, are spent on less than 5% of the population. And it has almost bankrupted the system. Finally a Democratic governor, yes a Democrat, has had to apply some tough love to the little tics who are sucking all the state monies for roads, schools and prisons, for their diabetes medicine so they can go on eating candy.

You and I certainly don't live on the same planets, cause the poor I see have cell phones, computers, loud cars and lots of toys.

No one in this country who really wants help and is willing to take a little responsibility for themselves can fail to get it. That's why people from all over the world want to come here. Anything else is either a (Hillary)myth, or a statistic about people who simply don't want to try and want a nanny, the government, to take care of them.

And for the truly destitute, as all societies have, I can only say, even they are rich, compared to much of the rest of the world.

pam said...

"some might have to wait months, if not years to have surgery"-

- This speculative bull. It's not that way in Germany, it doesn't have to be like that here. American health care is not ranked highly among industrialized nations.

Health insurance companies should be abolished, drug companies need to be regulated strictly like a public utility, the savings to the public would be huge.

Most Americans can't afford to pay the $200-400 per month for $1000 deductible personal health insurance. Particularly since the Republicans kept minimum wage steady for so long. Inflation had depleted the relative value of the minimum wage to the lowest level in more than 50 years, before the Democrats came to the rescue.

There is an incredible amount of fraud and waste in the present system, it's not working well even for the people who have insurance.

W said...

Pam, do you have any idea why the Bush Administration has kept the minimun wage steady? Besides just for meanness?

It's because when it's raised, businesses cut jobs and so less people are employed in starter jobs. The theory is to get more people employed at a minimum wage than less. And the vast majority of these at minimum wage are promoted out into higher pa within 6-12 months.

One last thing, if Americans can't afford to spend so much each month on health premiums, then maybe they should begin to take better care of themselves and their health, eating less sugar, salt, dairy etc. Of course that would require more personal responsibility, God forbid!

W said...

One other thing about the decision by the Bush Administration not to raise the minimum wage.

When the Dems raise the wage, then businesses begin to look for cheaper labor and ultimately those higher minimum wage jobs are lost through outsourcing to countries in Asia that have cheaper labor. And all because the minimum wage was raised. Then the Dems are the first to decry the loss of jobs in this country.

It's always a trade off, but often keeping the minimum wage steady keeps more people working here and keeps those jobs here in the USA.

Also, inflation is minimal in this country for the past few years. But that's a subject for another day.

pam said...

I totally agree with what you said on preventative health and lifestyle habits. It's amazing the difference between walking on the Champs Elysées and in the local TN Walmart. There seems to be no fat people in Paris and in America (especially in the south), every other person is obese. You don't have to lecture me on that, I've been a vegetarian for 18 years, a third of that time, vegan.

And btw, socialized medicine already exists if you're fortunate enough, like me, to be under the state umbrella.

The haves and have nots, that what this country has become. Why should we care about the have nots, right?

Vienna VA said...

As probably the only one who ever reads or comments on this site whe actually participates in a form of government run health care, I feel I should add my $.02, for what it's worth.

First of all, we do not pay for our medical care; the US Goverment covers the costs. Upon retirement from active duty service, if we want to stay within the Government run plan, we would pay an anuual fee of $460 which would cover our family, and then a co-pay for each visit. We have a very comprehensive medical plan, which includes everything on the medical spectrum, but in our case, tends to be annual checkups and same-day appointments for ear/strep/sinus infections. We have had one broken bone, and the care we got in the emergency room was, in my opinion, and based on discussions with others who have used public hospital emergency services, better, quicker and more thorough. Our son received immediate attention, x-rays within the hour, and a diagnosis and discharge within 2 1/2 hours after arrival.

We have access to numerous clinics within 50 miles or so of our duty station (this can be an issue if you live in a rural area that is not near a base). We have access to full pharmacy benefits, including ordering online and having our prescriptions mailed to us. We have never had to pay any fees for medicine we needed at the clinic (usually limited to antibiotics, allergy medicine and pre- and post-natal medications). The total out of pocket charges for delivery of two children was $110. I have never had to fill out any paperwork related to any visit, save for enrolling into the program upon arrival in our new duty stations.

The downsides, as I see them, are that we usually do not get to pick our physicians. We are generally assigned to a particular physician, who we never actually meet until our first appointment. We could opt out of the program and choose our own doctor, which would require approval and massive amounts of paperwork, not to mention annual fees and copays, but since we don't stay in any one area more than 24 months (on average), our experience having an assigned physician at a clinic or base hospital has worked out well so far(knock on wood).

Outside of a few headaches along the way (usually related to the large number of veterans taking up appointments at the expense of active duty dependents), our experience with government run medicine has been very positive in every one of our 6 duty stations around the country and the world. Our health care system has not in any way led my family to utter dependence on the goverment. Like most people, we take good care of ourselves, eating right and getting exercise so that we can spend as little time at the doctor's office as possible.

Whether this program coud be run nationwide is any one's guess. My guess is that running a program this generous would never work for a country of 300 million people. The expense alone would be prohibitive. However, the idea of paying a reasonable annual fee with co-pays and having a similar plan could be an interesting solution to our health care issues.

W said...

Nt care about the have nots? This country, and its people are the most generous people on earth---both in the public and private sector. And dare I say, if you are a Christian, you are charged to be your brother's keeper.

However, there have been haves and have nots since the beginning of time, and that's not ever going to change.

But the point for me is, the Dems always see the glass half empty instead of half full. Hillary and Johnny Edwards need to create two Americas to play on myth and envy and just plain ignorance.

W said...

I'm sure that medicine in the armed services is quite good; however on a national basis, whenever competetion and choice are eliminated, server physicians get expensive and less efficient, like tenured professors.

One of the best health plans in America is Whole Foods Markets health savings plan with vouchers which allows so much money and the freedom to shop around for a doctor. Competetion and quality, thus, stays in the system.

You ladies can have your socialized medicine. But like owning a car, I prefer the privilege to hire and fire a doctor in the free markets. And to do the same with drugs which I use none of, thank God.

But again, there is far too much emphasis on medical care, and far too little on wellness. And the destitute are the most likely to be eating and drinking in extremely unhealthy ways.

Vienna VA said...

Thanks, I like my health care system. If it makes you feel better to call it "socialilzed", be my guest. It works pretty well for the vast majority of military families, mine included.

There are actually three types of TRICare, and you can pick whichever one you want. If you or your children were serving in the military, you would be welcome to pick the type of system you seem to favor - you'd just pay more for it with enrollment fees and co-pays. The people I know who opt out of the Prime system seem to have a never ending stream of headaches related to finding a doctor who will actually accept TRICare, an endless stream of paperwork to fill out for each visit/procedure, and multiple negoations over who will cover what percentage of each procedure. We'll skip the glories of that part of the free market, thank you very much.

Also, TRICare, along with all of the services, have a strong emphasis on eating well and getting exercise, because they know that those two things together reduce overtime the need for medical care, and a combination of the two can do wonders for helping military spouses deal with deployments. I lost over 10 pounds during my husband's last deployment through working out more and eating less (probably due to not making big dinners since it was just myself and our two children, who were, at the time, both under 5). Getting a good walk every day and some fresh air can do wonders for the mind and spirit.

W said...

Yes, we can finally agree that diet, exercise, a good night's sleep all work together to make us healthier. And also they lower our strain on the health care system which in whatever forms it takes, will only come under greater stress in the years to come, as the standard American diet takes its toll on young and old alike, and increasing people want a quick medical fix---mostly in the form of drugs---to ameliorate unhealthy lifestyle choices.

Again, no matter how you cut it, those people who take greater and greater responsibility for their health and wellness, for their retirements and for their families wellbeing are will be the ones who are most in control of their lives and not be at the whim of either political parties whims for many things.

Vienna VA said...

Agreed.

Now, does that make me a conservative? Or you a liberal? Is it possible that people from different political views can agree on things? And can people who disagree with each other still love their country??

Webutante said...

Well, I have always thought people who take greater and greater responsibility for themselves do begin to lean more and more to the right. But whatever you say you are, yes, I do think we can all have love for our country. And I'm quite sure you and your husband do.


...one small step for world peace!

pam said...

In my brand of "socialized medicine," I pick my physician.

By the way, when looking at state statistics, the states with the highest % of obesity generally are the same as those with the least % of college educated adults. I don't think I have to tell you to which candidate those (fat) states electoral votes went to.

Vienna VA said...

Pam, those states that are the most obese are also among the states ranking highest in federal spending per dollar of federal taxes, all the while railing against the feds for taking money from their pockets. The 10 states with the highest obesity rates are: Mississippi, Alabama, W. Virginia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Indiana, South Carolina and Texas.

The top 10 heaviest states rank this way in Federal Spending per dollar of Federal Taxes: Mississippi (4th), Alabama (6th -$1.71), West Virginia (3rd-$1.83), Louisiana (13th-$1.45), Kentucky (14th-$1.45), Tennessee (18th-$1.30), Arkansas (12th-$1.47), Indiana (33rd), South Carolina (17th-$1.38) and Texas (36th). So, for example, Mississippi receives $1.77 in federal spending for every $1.00 it sends to the federal government. On this list, only Indiana ($.97 received for every dollar sent) and Texas ($.94 received for every dollar sent) receive less in federal spending than they contribute in taxes.

Statistics found here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html