Powered by TypePad

« Sunday Open Thread | Main | Let Me Run This Past You »

September 20, 2009



He's a moron. Period. He has no notion of taxes, economics, law to name just a few things he's clueless about.


It should be noted that auto insurance are state issues so, while I'm not sure a life insurance mandate at the federal level is unconstituional, it's not the same as a state auto insurance mandate.

Also, you are correct to point out that auto insurance is based on personal choices about owning a car. In the strictest sense, it's not a tax, but it's the government telling me I have to spend money on something that, in the grand scheme of things, I could live without.

I have to admit that I don't think the auto insurance mandate is a bad thing, but it is a mandate.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Stephanopolous also showed Obama he was lying about everyone getting to keep their current insurance. And Obama was blithely obtuse to the Medicare Advantage contradiction.


i'm okay with a mandate, but only for catastrophic. his point about someone being hit by a bus then having everyone else pay is valid. i don't want to pay for people who aren't will to make sure they have funds in case of an emergency. and one way to do that is to buy catastrphic insurance. But we all know that obama will require us to purchase comprehensive from private insurance companies. What a sicko.


For such a brilliant man, Obama certainly appears to be mostly clueless, ignorant, and (dast I say it?) kind of stupid.

He's been in a protective bubble for way too many years, I'm guessing. A man of modest, if any, talents, who believes his own blatherings.

Jim Ryan

The government is going to take my money and give me an X whether I'm willing or not and whether I want or need an X or not. It ain't a purchase.

This is obvious when you consider the first group of people, for whom it is rational not to purchase health insurance. For them it is clearly a tax.

Then you take into account people for whom it is rational to want insurance but not the government's choice of insurance. For them it's a tax.

Then there is the last group: the people who want the government insurance and are willing to pay the government's fee. It may not feel like a tax to them; it may feel like a user fee. But if they change their minds, they can't opt out but still have to pay. So even for them it's a tax.

That's everybody. It's a tax.


The comparison with auto insurance mandates is problematic because a person can choose not to drive a car. Or he can take the risk of driving an uninsured car and may well get away with it for years.

So with that in mind, how is this all to be enforced? I live in TX and every day people are killed by uninsured drivers. With auto insurance mandates, people are only caught when they're caught. There is no systematic way of finding and fining them. How are people without health insurance to be "caught"? At the point where they need care? That may work if you're trying to make a doctor's appt, but I anticipate major problems at the ER.

It sounds like unless they want to devote billions to enforcement (or do it through the IRS? shudder), we will still be paying for health care for millions of uninsured people.


This is one of those examples where I can buy the argument that BO-zo is not lying. I could believe that he simply isn't sharp enoung to understand.


The only way to drive medical care costs down while maintaining, if not improving quality is to make those receiving care bear the cost of that care. The way to drive insurance costs down is to (a) increase the number of competitors in the insurance marketplace and (b) decrease regulation so insurance companies can offer more choices.

That ObamaCare, in whatever form it exists, is void of any market based reforms we can logically conclude that health care costs will continue to rise, insurance costs will continue to rise and government attempts to cap prices and premiums will only lead to rationing and shortages.


I'm with Clarice. But then his background is the left-wing, post-modernism that results in his fantasies as the master:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."

If Obama says a mandate is not a tax, then it's not a tax.


would this come under the description of unfunded federal mandates? This could get constitutional. The states are outraged and at their wits end with this already.

hit and run

I recall he drove some old clunker to Chicago when he had his first job there, but maybe he went car-less later, or in Cambridge.


BOSTON -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama got more than an education when he attended Harvard Law School in the late 1980s. He also got a healthy stack of parking tickets, most of which he never paid.

The Illinois Senator shelled out $375 in January _ two weeks before he officially launched his presidential campaign _ to finally pay for 15 outstanding parking tickets and their associated late fees.

Doesn't mean he had insurance, but he did have a car...


This is funny in comparison to the string of Obama missives we heard for a while, such as a low mortgage rate was kind of like a tax cut.
Remember those?

Jack is Back!

At least Chauncey Gardiner didn't try to fake his way through his presidency. He was a gentle idiot savant. Whereas Obama is just an idiot thug who really believes he can handle this job. He couldn't handle Chauncey's other job - gardner.

Jack is Back!


My Redskins/Deadskins are not disappointing me since I know that they will find an even more unique way to lose again to the St. Louis Rams than they have in the past. Sure its close but this is not horseshoes. Hail Victory, indeed.

Gregory Koster

Dear Forbes, Jorg and Clarice: I'm on the other side from you on this one. The Once is not a moron any more than Geo. W. was. The Left bawled that Geo. W. was a moron for years. How well did that work? They deluded themselves that it was true and put up Kerry...Do we on the Right want to try that approach?

I myself have long doubted that The Once's IQ scores are in the stratosphere. But no one is going to doubt his cunning and ruthlessness, which make him a dangerous adversary. Seeing him as a moron, and hence harmless is 200 proof imbecility. The Once is maddening. I'll grant that he suffers from delusions, viz: he thinks he is Margaret Thatcher bellowing at her adviser John Ashworth: "The facts? The facts? I have been elected to change the facts?" It's a sign of The Once's megalomania that he may really believe he is the Reagan/Thatcher of the Left. We must keep our anger and contempt under careful control. We have a minimum of three years and four months of this bunkum to endure. Let's not end up as Cindy Sheehan did.

Holy cow it's cold up here on the scaffold. I see the hangman is busily tying his noose, and the sheriff is about to read the proclamation. Certainly, disagreeing with three of JOM's brighter ornaments is not to be done lightly. Nonetheless I roar defiance and reiterate:

1. The Once is not a moron.
2. The Once is a con man.
3. The Once is ruthless and cunning.
4. The Once has the press on his side.
5. The Once really believes in his destiny.
6. 1+2+3+4+5 = Holy cow, there aren't enough numbers in the universe to make a big enough numeral to show the danger he's dragging us into.

Pique, while well earned, must not detract from seeing The Once as he is.

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

Charlie (Colorado)

GK, I agree with 1–5. I think the reason they don't add up to 15 is (once again) the brilliance of the US system: after less than a year, he's been revealed as a con man, his associates are being revealed as crooks, and I think by 2010 he'll hold the Presidency as a sinecure, unable to do much more harm.


So Obamster is really concerned about the possibility of certain people having to pay for the irresponsible actions of others? I suppose that means that he is opposed to welfare payments to pay for children of the poor, and he is certainly opposed to federal funds being funneled to Planned Parenthood for abortion services. While he is showing disdain for those who don't pay their fair share, I imagine that he will soon be proposing a change in our tax system to ensure that those 48% of Americans who do not pay federal taxes will begin to carry their fair share of the tax burden.


OT, but Obama on Stephanopoulos regarding ACORN: "not something I've followed closely".



I agree, but I also feel he has a political tin ear and an incredible amount of hubris. These are his fatal flaws.

He is great campaigner, but perhaps the poorest president in our history. He is dismantling our defense and intelligence establishments beyond even the wildest dreams of Pelosi and the left and turning our foreign policy into one that will never be trusted again.

Ford/Carter (untrusted) - Reagan (trusted) - Bush (trusted)-Clinton (meh) - Bush 2 (sort of trusted)- Obama (duplicitous tool) is destroying our nation's reputation and status in the world.

Health Care, TARP, Cap & Trade are all hanging on by thin threads, and the opposition is as strong as it has ever been. If a tipping point comes, and I think soon, he's toast.

Not that I like the Republicans either, but I don't know if we will as a nation again elect a Democrat as president after this fiasco. The other shoe hasn't even dropped yet.

They say we're out of the recession, but the Commercial RE toxic debt hasn't hit yet and there is a wave of ARM resets due in 2010 and 2011 that, if we are in an inflationary environment, are going to kill the economy. Our manufacturing base is in tatters.

Just my early thoughts 9 months into the administration

Thomas Collins

Is a health insurance mandate a direct tax that under the US Constitution must be apportioned among the States on the basis of population? I haven't seen any literature on this, but if young folks are forced to buy health insurance to subsidize others, this issue may be worth considering. I may be missing something, because those arguing against constitutionality typically argue that Congress doesn't have the power to impose a health insurance mandate, not that such a mandate is a direct tax that would have to be properly apportioned to pass muster.

Rob Crawford

The comparison with auto insurance mandates is problematic because a person can choose not to drive a car. Or he can take the risk of driving an uninsured car and may well get away with it for years.

In some states you can "self-insure" -- post a large enough bond/show enough assets and you don't need to buy a policy.

The odds that any such thing will happen with health care are zero.

Headless Blogger

What an awful analogy. It is auto liability insurance that is typically mandated by the state, not collision coverage.

Health insurance is analogous to auto collision insurance. They both cover out of pocket costs that I incur for my benefit. In my state collision coverage is not mandatory, and I make a financial decision not to buy it for some of my vehicles.

The same financial calculus applies to health insurance coverage for many young Americans.

Thomas Collins

See LUN for an example of the arguments being made against the constitutionality of national health insurance. These arguments are typically phrased in terms of asserted lack of Congressional power, not that an impermissible tax has been imposed.

The problem with any constitutional argument is that the federal courts over the last 60 or so years have given so much deference to Congress that under current precedent, it is difficult to see how a successful challenge could be made to the constitutionality of health insurance mandates. The federal courts including the Supreme Court do change their minds on occasion. But the best chance of croaking a bad health proposal is to apply the death panel to it before it is enacted into law.


I'm confused about Obama's auto-insurance analogy. In this Geiko scenario is Obama the Lizard or the Caveman?

Thomas Collins

Someone may have mentioned this before, but if the analogy is to collision insurance, can I buy collision insurance after I get into an accident, with my premium subsidized by a mandate on safe drivers?


Auto insurance companies charge premiums based on "pre-existing conditions", do they not? The record of the driver, the number of miles a car is typically driven, where it is parked, and who will be driving it.

Is there a public option auto insurance to keep the insurance companies honest & give them competition? I can't think of one....

Terry Gain

OT, but Obama on Stephanopoulos regarding ACORN: "not something I've followed closely".

Actually with every topic there is an underlying issue concerning Obama's propensity for prevarication. Why on earth would he be concerned about a scandal involving an organization to whom his campaign gave a mere $830,000.00?

Great follow up GS. Not!

Charlie (Colorado)

I suppose that means ...

I think, I'm more and more convinced, that this is the whole flaw in trying to ollow these arguments. I don't think O makes that next step of thinking what the implications of what he says might be: he says what he thinks will, locally and immediately, ingratiate him most with the audience. If that doesn't fit with something else he says some other time, he doesn't even notice.


I don't want to pay for people who aren't willing to make sure they have funds in case of an emergency.

So don't.

It seems like there are a lot of people who would get a moral thrill by making sure others would have better health care - but not by, you know, paying for others to have better health care.


He's a moron. Period. He has no notion of taxes, economics, law to name just a few things he's clueless about.
Post of the Day. Clarice


I don't think O makes that next step of thinking what the implications of what he says might be

I think that's right, which is why I agree with clarice's Post of the Day and GK's points 2-5 but not 1.


Dear Gregory--let's compromise. He's a moron with a low cunning for self-advancement.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Auto insurance: I've never had an auto insurance plan willing to pay me more than the Blue Book in case of an accident that totals the car. And, I just bought a new policy and I had to take my car in so they could take pictures and note the mileage. Plus who keeps full coverage, like theft/fire on an older vehicle?

I pay for max liability (protection for someone I hurt or crash into) coverage, which I liken more to the malpractice insurance doctors pay than to the individual policy I pay for for that covers collision on my own vehicle.

Alex Trebek

Okay, for $400, he said, "You wouldn't consider giving him a job anywhere above middle management" about Bill Clinton, though he might have said it about the current president.

Sean Connery

Suck on it, Trebek!

Sean Connery

That's what your mother said last night, Trebek!!


Who is Ross Perot?

Alex Trebek

Correct! Clarice, you now have $845,400. Mr. Connery, you still have $0.


My state doesn't mandate car insurance. It mandates liability insurance for car owners, in case you hurt another person while driving.

Car insurance is for if my car gets hurt. In what states is that mandatory?


Here's the real reason Obama wants Guv. Paterson to step aside in the Governer's race:

In another blow to ACORN, Gov. Paterson put a hold Friday on all state contracts with the embattled anti-poverty agency.

Paterson's budget director and director of state operations ordered agencies not to move forward on contracts with the group.

The hold will stay in place during a 30-day review of $400,000 worth of state contracts with ACORN and its parent, New York Agency for Community Affairs.

Oh my!

Old Dad

The President's current difficulties can be traced to the "magic shit for free" theme of his successful campaign. It was a con then and it's a con now, but The President was always a small time con. When it came time to pay the piper, he always took the next train out of town to a better gig.

Now he's stuck. Picture Prof. Harold Hill in the Music Man, except I doubt this band can play.

Old Lurker

Since by all accounts mandating young healthy people get insurance is meant to increase the number of people in the pool, and since that would only be of value to the pool if the new additions pay more in premiums than they cost in claims, then as a group these young people will be asked to pay more than they cost, as a group. In all versions of the Dem's plans (sorry, have not actually read Once's Plan) those excess funds are deemed necessary to provide care to those who cannot pay, and that is therefore a transfer from this group to others. How is that (their total premiums net of their claims) not a tax on uninsured healthy young people?

The getting hit by a bus thing is the red herring.

Sean Connery

Mr. Connery, you still have $0.

Perfect, another three dollars and I'll be able to afford a Dirty Heloise from your mother and the Sunday Telegraph.


"Perfect, another three dollars and I'll be able to afford a Dirty Heloise from your mother and the Sunday Telegraph."

Bad news,it's in English.


Good grief. A tax is $$ paid to the gov't. If a mandate forces us to pay $$ to the gov't, the result is the same. Does Obama really think we care what word he uses to describe it?

Jeff Carlson

Millions of the healthy uninsured pay MORE than their fair share. When they go to the doctor for anything they pay full price which is inflated to cover Medicare and Medicaid patients. Its only in the case of a catastrophic disease that "we" have to pick up the tab. On average the extra they pay everyday for minor treatments makes up for the catastrophic care a small percentage of them need.


After the Iowa Caucus, he kept losing every single primary. He was saved in part by the
economic crisis, which conveniently happened
in a two month period before the election, and the savaging aided by the media, of the only person who ever really challenged his
gig, in public life. He can't possibly be that stupid as he pretends to be, but maybe
he is


The Telegraph. Obama Out of His Depth.
Save you some money.


Article sumaary--he's a campaign savvy moron over his head in the WH .


Presidolt Forest Chump.

Rick Ballard


I am unaware of any actual evidence in support of the contention that he is less stupid than he appears to be. Possession of a Credential of Morony issued by Harvard Law at the direction of Lawrence Tribe indicates that he can regurgitate appropriately - when coached. He can assume the tone and demeanor of someone possessing a modicum of intelligence with TOTUS in front of him but his neverending gaffes when TOTUS is removed are a perpetual reminder that simple mediocrity remains slightly out of his reach.

Let's focus on his positive attributes - he's a good puppet, has some potential as a parrot and is able to function reasonably well considering his alcohol intake.


Yup, Clarice and PUK. The Telegraph describes his out-of-his-depthness, but still wants to gloss over any transformational (evil) intent.

I think it is both. He has the plan, he has the idea, but he just can't get beyond looking at himself in the mirror, to carry it out effectively. Which is not to say that he isn't doing real, significant damage to us. But, imagine what it might be if he wasn't so enthralled with his own self-celebrity?


I was putting his campaign genius in perspective. They did train him well in manipulating words, as "Uncle Frank" put it. He had the money on his side, the media, the inept party apparatus of his opponents. He's not Carter, he's more of
a caffee aulait version of Henry Wallace.


he's forcing them to take responsibility VIA a tax increase. It's not a law like drivers insurance. It's a tax penalty

Old Lurker

"On average the extra they pay everyday for minor treatments makes up for the catastrophic care a small percentage of them need."

Jeff, that is true in part. But in my statement I referred to the total premiums from this new marginal class added minus the marginal costs attributed to that new class, and I suggested the excess is a transfer for the benefit of others. Also in your example, the high fee paid a hospital for say an aspirin tablet is designed to provide funds to the hospital to offset services they provide to others who did not pay the full cost of the service provided. That too is a transfer payment. And transfer payments if backed up by force of law are taxes.


I think Obama is trapped by his own smartarsedness. Because his mantel of omnipotence forces him to opine on every subject that arises,he goes into the blagging mode that he has used all his life.
"I've always said...."
The man bears the imprint of the last person who spoke to him.

Gregory Koster

Dear Clarice: With the hood over my head, Michelle cinching up the noose, and Rev. Wright chortling with glee as he reads the benediction, and my God bgates has come out sayin my #1 is wrong, I decline your compromise. The issue to me is not The Once's IQ. It is:

How to defeat The Once in 2012 and slow him down now and in 2010.

Go back to 1998. Billyboy is exploding as a new scandal erupts every week. The GOP thinks it can't miss in the fall elections: run against the drug dealing, hit man hiring, wife cheating, intern blowing, Billyboy! What happened? Millions were blown to show up Billyboy's warts, the electorate made a face and fell asleep. The GOP loses 5 House seats, a dreadful performance. Gingrich is forced out, his successor is stoned to death by bags of K-Y jelly, and the GOP lurches forward, bawling Impeach, impeach! How'd that work out?

Consider the present situation: how to stop The Once. Vote the Dems out in 2010? Good start---isn't it? How much confidence does the public, in the form of the Tea Partiers, have that the GOP isn't a semi-Tweedledum to The Once's Tweedledee? No need to groan so loudly, just because I am. Are you certain that The Once is so moronic that he won't be able to do a Billyboy and triangulate? Um....

OK, next scenario: the Dems are badly damaged in 2010, but hang on to Congressional control. How to defeat The Once? At this point, the Right has to rely on "Events, dear boy, events," as Lord Stockton put it. I think this strategy has much merit. But it leaves the vultures and vampires feasting away on the nation for the next four years. Good God. This is why Charlie's comfort at the checks in the American system seems so cold to me.

What about the argument that The Once's actions prove he's a moron? A formidable case, I admit, but I hope this will satisfy you: I think, deep down, he is quite aware of the likely consequences of his actions, and doesn't really care. The crowd he runs with will survive, billions being reduced to hundreds of millions perhaps, but survive. The Once personally will survive. The poor he ostensibly cares about will survive, so long as they vote right and grovel before The Once and his gang. The rest of the nation? To Hell with them, and bad luck along the way!

Deep down, there's nothing wrong with The Once's intellect. His character is quite another story. He, along with the noisome Michelle, does think America is a "mean country" and he, by Allah, is The One to strike back. Seeing this, Nixon is doubtless petitioning Satan for permission to sue The Once for trademark infringement. This, I think, explains his actions better than the "He's a moron," notion. If you can think of a word that does to The Once's character what "mon" does to his intellect, I will buy it gladly, and resume my attentive study of your posts. My fondest hope is to see a GOP Prez being sworn in on 20 January 13, while Michelle beats The Once about the head with her shoe, shrieking, "You half honky! I had it all AND YOU BLEW IT! I'M ENTITLED!" That scene is well worth working for.

Sum up: I'm not sure if the motto "Only the paranoid survive" is true. But I do think "The complacent are first to get killed," is true. I think there's way too much complacency in the "He's a moron" notion. This will not serve the Right well. In particular, the brilliant, distinguished, stylish, incisive, expert, sparkling, scintillating, corsucating, dragging-up-the-average, sage, prolific, witty, radiant, clever, sapient, learned, illustrious, wise author of these is not doing herself justice by adopting the "He's a moron" notion.

I have spoken.

Pull the trap!

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster


Like all actors,Obama depends on the suspension of disbelief. Have you ever watched a film,play,TV and notice that the protagonists are speak utter balderdash? You know so because,it is your field of expertise,you migh even have written the book.But there they are gabbling away,drivel spouting from their mouths.
That is the way you have to get people looking at Obama.
"That isn't a four iron,it's a shovel".


What trap?
To set one we have to analyze his weaknesses of charcter and play on those so that he will help us end his tenure in office.

He's vain.
He's inattentive to details.
He's lazy.
He cannot think fast on his feet.
He has equivocated so much he is losing the people's trust.

What have I missed,Gregory?


Would the Founding Fathers agree that the government should "have to" pay for your medical care if you get sick and don't have insurance? This is the fundamental problem with this whole argument. I'm ok with covering the disabled or truly poor, but like Affirmative Action, when we repudiate our founding principles, society is corrupted.

The thing I like about this mandate idea is that it will piss off the young, who will get a crash course in freedom once the bill comes due.


"He's so vain,he probably thinks this thread is about him".


I have a feeling that this tax will have a similar effect on the young as did the draft.
Time to get youth organising.

My fondest hope is to see a GOP Prez being sworn in on 20 January 13, while Michelle beats The Once about the head with her shoe, shrieking, "You half honky! I had it all AND YOU BLEW IT! I'M ENTITLED!" That scene is well worth working for.
Thanks, GK. Me, too.
Old Lurker

Ext, the young are about to be screwed, but they are no longer virgins I am sorry to say. Social Security screws them as much as anything, given that their FICA payments go to retiring boomers though the demographics cannot come close to covering them at the same levels they provide to us. And of course $9-12 Trillion of borrowings to the extent that that money went to current recipients (vs buying assets of very long life such that the debt spreads their cost over the present and future users of them) is nothing more than child abuse, in my opinion. Throw a new, ginormous (that's a PoF word I think) health care transfer payment on them and it all becomes laughably, but sickly, explosive....when the hope & change thing wears thin on them. Ponzi had nothing on FDR and his offspring, and FDR simply did better than most what progressives had talked about for a century before. (at least...Rick can provide the history.)


What about all the people who are supposedly too stupid/poor to get themselves an id to vote? How are they supposed to get themselves a health care plan?


All right, the moron's too harsh, how about the 'sorcerer's apprentice' who is playing
with forces beyond his understanding and control. Events are not something I want to consider with this crew. They have already
surrender to the wannabe czar, and his retainers, rubberstamped the Revolutionary
Guard's coup, already tipped their hand to the Taliban and AQ. Consider this latest plot out of NY and Colorado, if it's as significant as we think, why no commensurate
measures to show it's importance


I might be in favor of state mandating catastrophic coverage. But at the federal level? Nope. In fact, I don't even see a role for the federal government providing any direct services to any individual. Any program at the federal level immediately becomes too big. Service delivery is best done at the local level.

I do believe mandating someone to have health insurance amounts to a tax.

I work a for a city and have decent health insurance and would hate to tempt the city into dumping us onto a federal plan. They are already trying this in Massachusetts by cities and towns, under certain circumstance, being allowed to enroll in the state employees plan. This means a loss of control by the employees and city government.

Alex Trebek

Deep down, there's nothing wrong with The Once's intellect. His character is quite another story.

There is no hard and fast distinction between the two. A fine intellect takes love of truth, humility for those occasions when the evidence runs against one's cherished beliefs, and distaste for the appearance of knowledge as opposed to the genuine article. Without these things, the high-IQ brain fails to pick up the trail of evidence because it isn't used to doing so. After 20 years of atrophy I think even the IQ would fall.

Old Lurker

Nicely said, Alex


He's vain.
He's inattentive to details.
He's lazy.
He cannot think fast on his feet.
He has equivocated so much he is losing the people's trust.

He's lacks basic factual knowledge about the world.
He's quite possibly unaware of the existence of people smarter than him.

I don't think we're susceptible to the complacency which affected the left, for two reasons.

The more important is that we can't afford it as much as they could. They can nominate any tomato can in a suit and trust if he's elected he'll preside over the continuing slide to the left, towards bigger, more expensive, more intrusive, less American government. We can't just trust Obama's flaws to destroy him, because we need to make sure his replacement isn't going to be McSame as him.

The second reason is that we have the object lesson of trying to replace a less-than-beloved incumbent with a stiff: it doesn't work even with the media and Evan Thomas' 15% boost on their side. No way could we do it. We have to do the hard work of developing and spreading a positive view of negative liberties.

Gregory Koster

Dear Clarice: The "trap" is the part of the scaffold that falls away, leaving the executee which I was pretending to be, to begin his short sharp fall. See what happens when I get too clever with my jokes?

You're list has missed nothing, save the press's compulsion to cover for The Once. I am astonished at how much has gotten out so far. Yet there are other scandals that will require heavy lifting to do the job. My favorite are all those campaign donations that The Once accepted from "Karl Marx" and "Ronald Reagan" last fall. Remember those? The Once's website was set up to accept donations no matter how phony the info attached to them was. To my mind, financial corruption is the worst of all see e.g. Jimmy Bumpkin's paid-for-by-the-Middle-East Carter Center. Think the press is going to follow up on that? I don't.

Meanwhile, we will continue to press The Once because The Press isn't going to press...Shucks, there I go again. I continue to maintain that The Once is a formidable enemy, not at all too proud to bite in the clinches or use a blackjack. Best to treat him as such instead of a dolt. You aren't going to make me throw all that honey/brown sugar/butter mixture at you again are you?

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

Ralph L

I hate to admit it, but Barry would look pretty slick in an apricot scarf. A pleasing contrast to his purple lips.


What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you...

And paying for the public option by taxing the wealthy is not forcing the other people (the rich) carrying the burdens of rest (the poor)?

On that note, the whole idea of wealth redistribution is forcing the rich to carry the burden for the poor, the lazy and the failures, isn't it?


Don Obama giving Paterson an offer he can't refuse is intended to get Andrew Cuomo in without any mud on his wingtips, because they're worried about Rudy.


Isn't this mandate simply a tax on "existence"? This tax is placed on you because you are alive...that is all.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

My kind of guy. Funny too.

Doug Giles, Hannah's Dad:

No, It Wasn’t My Idea for Hannah Giles to Dress Like a Hooker and Infiltrate ACORN

Original MikeS

Suppose ObamaCare didn't cost a trillion bucks.

The idea would still suck for a bunch of reasons. The biggest reason it sucks is because there is no serious attempt to bring down the costs of medical care.


Thanks Sara for that link.

Rick Ballard


Don't forget Kill Granny. If Obama can relieve enough families of the decision to prolong the lives of the used up worker drones of no societal utility seasoned citizens, then total costs will drop. If he can bump up government funding for baby killing helping the poor make wise family planning decisions it will even drive down welfare costs. You have to be able to think like an amoral savage in the jungle true progressive in order to appreciate the total potential savings.

Rick Ballard


How Do You Spell Monetization?

How long can Uncle Ben hold off the vigilantes?


I try not to, Rick. YIKES!!!


To say he's a moron is not to underestimate him as an opponent. A moron with the media and so much money and power and so many years on the streets of Chicago behind him is no lead pipe cinch to beat. And consider the "opposition" contains such players as Lindsey Graham and the Maine girls .


I am unaware of any actual evidence in support of the contention that he is less stupid than he appears to be.

What do you mean, no evidence? We have Brooks' word for it.

Old Lurker

Rick, frankly I'm surprised he has held them off this long. The piper will be paid, though...he always is.


So, a guy gets hit by a bus? Isn't the bus owners liability insurance going to pay for it?


Stupid is as Stupid does.

Even if you do get into some catastrophic thing you have to pay for. So what? Amortize it out and pay it in monthly installments just like every other big ticket expense.

Rick Ballard


You'll enjoy this Cash for Clunkers Payoff

Stupid is far too kind for this crowd.


Well, really, should the effect of Cash for Clunkers be a surprise?

Yeah, not really.

But hey, it came in "under budget?"

September/October numbers are going to be "interesting".


One thing I've misunderstood -- well, actually I don't understand any branch of our government anymore so it's more than one thing. But, back to the thing puzzling me re this topic: when I heard about this money people were going to have to pay if they didn't carry insurance I thought that it was a "fine." (A fine, going to the government because they hadn't taken out insurance.) I didn't realize that the government was going to take their "fine" and buy insurance for them with it. How stupid of me.

So, now that I understand from reading the comments that it isn't a fine, but a "mandate", doesn't that mean it is also an "order?" When a government issues an "order", isn't that a "law?" When you break the law, aren't you punished with incarceration or a fine?

Heavens, they are being so generous. We pay a fine and get something (their choice of health insurance). Sometimes I really despise them.

Today I read in the newspaper that even though all of our senators and representatives know the bill is flawed and won't work, they are desperate to pass it and are vowing to "fix" all of the things that are wrong with it after it is passed. They're all either morons, ala Clarice, or they are truly corrupt, and, I'm going to add stupidly evil.


Okay people, you are all getting a little too loony here. A "tax" is something you pay to a governmental institution. It is not usually for a direct service. Mandated healthcare is more like a fee, not a tax. Examples of other fees are your cable and electrical bill, places where you pay money and you get a service back.

And as to the comparison to car insurance it is valid. You can choose to drive a car. But you cannot to choose to drive a car without insurance. Since you can choose to live (or you could commit suicide), you cannot choose to live without insurance, because we are forced as a society to pay for your emergency healthcare. And dead people are not forced to buy health insurance.

Okay that was twisting the examples, but technically correct. And it goes to show you the problems of using stupid metaphors to prove your argument.


Examples of other fees are your cable and electrical bill, places where you pay money and you get a service back.

No, those are not "fees" those are bills. The electric company and cable company provide services and you pay for them. Hidden in those bills are "fees" like "low income access" and other things, that are, essentially taxes, that they don't want to call taxes. A fee is essentially paying something that was mandated by the govt that probably benefits someone else.

Since you can choose to live (or you could commit suicide), you cannot choose to live without insurance, because we are forced as a society to pay for your emergency healthcare.

Can we get rid of this canard? If you are injured, and you don't have insurance, you find a way to pay the bill!!!!! The problem isn't people with insurance, the problem is people expecting other people to pick up their tab!!!!!!!



performance artist

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase. OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.
It's right there on page 29 of the Baucus bill .. Excise Tax. The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.

I'm just sick to death of our President acting like the buffoon (that is an act .. isn't it ?).
Clearly he doesn't even know what's in these bills, so obviously none of these bills are his plan, which remains as amorphous as ever in a permanent state of "vaporware".

Obama's inability to put pen to paper to communicate his plan really makes one wonder if those rumours of Bill Ayers writing Obama's books are true.


How could it be a tax, just because HR 3200, sec. 401 calls it a tax???

Sec. 401. Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage.
(a) In General.—
Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new part:

“PART VIII—Health care related taxes

“subpart a. tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

“Subpart A—Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage

“Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

“(a) Tax imposed.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
“(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
“(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.


I can't find a citation, but I'm certain that "more mush for the wimp" was used as the one-sentence review of a Christopher Cross album by a Rolling Stone writer sometime in the mid-80's. I'm aware that it's actually a Carter reference, but it still amuses me.

The comments to this entry are closed.