Powered by TypePad

« Sunday Evening Rally | Main | Sure, He's White Now »

March 19, 2012



I suspect they are worried employers will start telling employees No pay raises this year. Healthcare costs are now taking the profits that used to fund your salary.

Calls attention to the real costs of telling insurance companies there can be no deductibles for what are regularly occurring expenses.


I would have said first if I had known. Mostly I am tired of paying with after tax income for high deductible policies and listening to why personal living expenses should be covered on a first dollar basis. First dollar is always a bad idea. No skin in the game.

Jack is Back!

OT: Manning to Denver. Tebow to ? [Hope its Jacksonville but it could be Miami].

So, a guy who is 35 years old with 4 neck surgeries is supplanting a miracle worker with the strongest work ethic in professional sports. We'll have to see how this one works out. Puts Manning outside not inside.


Healthcare costs have threatened raises for the past couple years -- covering "children" to age 28 and pre-existing illness coverage were not cheap. First dollar coverage of anything will blow the lid off costs to the point where compensation rollbacks may be required (by ending employer coverage and compensating prior year pretax gross). Layoffs would also be looked into.


TomM-- fantastic Fisking of Krugman. I would have preferred more snark-- but that's me. Personally-- I focus on the inherently contradictory, but at the same time revealing 'Bam quote to Leonhardt-- 'Bam says: "And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels." well we did NOT have a democratic discussion 'Bam rammed the IPAB through as part of Obamacare being rammed through-- he did it OUTSIDE NORMAL POLITICAL CHANNELS just like he said to Leonhardt. We've never had the end of life medical cost discussion-- 'Bam precluded it with the fascistic railroading of Obamacare. 'Bam is a liar and a punk-- he's also a sneak.

Dave (in MA)

JiB, as I mentioned in the previous thread, Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe said on the radio this AM that his sources indicate a strong possibility of Tebow ending up in New England as a non-QB. Strong work ethic or no, he doesn't seem to be up to being a modern-day NFL QB.


I've no idea how the CBO came by its "covered by employer-provided heatlh insurance" numbers - but - in January 2014, employers will have the choice of paying a minimum of 65% of premiums for family coverage (at an annual average of $13,000.00) or paying a $2,000.00 fine. Not a hard choice really.

Jack is Back!


Won't be the first time Bob Ryan was wrong. New owner of Jags needs bums in the seats and he is guaranteed a season ticket sell out with Tebow. We'll see.

I don't think Manning will last the year out. Very fragile neck - one helmet on helmet and he is done. What they going to do? File charges? In the NFL? LOL.


--I've no idea how the CBO came by its "covered by employer-provided heatlh insurance" numbers...--

Let me give you a hand.
First they write a number down that looks about what they'd like the answer to be. Then to it's left they write an equation followed by an equals sign.
After calculating the equation, if it doesn't yield the initial number they wrote down then obviously the equation needs a little tinkering.
It's a marvelous mathematical tool used widely across disciplines ranging from unemployment numbers to global warming to environmental risk factors to Democratic party vote counting.


((Just Make Stuff Up Faster Than The Opponents))


Dave (in MA)

I was hoping to see Manning in Miami to have a minimum of 2 Brady/Manning matchups per season.

Jack is Back!

A list of the Usual Suspects - Top 50 Progressives of All Time - take away line: Who'd we miss?

No Ayers
No Ogelsby
No Fox-Piven
No Obama
No Derrick Bell
No Krugman
No Alan Colmes:)

But I thought Jackie Robinson was a Republican?


INSTALANCHE!!-- congrats TomM, another link on Instapundit!!

Captain Hate

After how putrid the Colts were last season they should've retroactively given Manning the MVP for every year he started in Indy when he didn't previously get it.


JiB-- I read the Nation bio of Jackie R. No mention of his political party or that he was a bank president and resident of North Stamford Ct (just down the road fro Bill Buckley and the Family Simon & Shuster.)Quelle surprise.


What gets me, when I wade through the nonsense written about PPACA (which is the official acronymn for Obamacare) is the assumption employers will feel any especial ppbligation to pay for healthcare coverage for their employees, once the thing goes into full effect. The reason to offer benefits, for an employer, is to recruit and retain workers. If first dollar care is already provided by the government, then there is very little incentive for an employer to provide the benefit, and not that much incentive for an employee to choose an employer based on the great health benefits.

The big lie behind PPACA -- and I think the lie is intentional -- is that employers are not going to subsidize healthcare if the government is going to mandate it -- and the result is going to be employers bailing from healthcare, and contrary the CBO assumption TM highlighted earlier, employers will not gross up their employees for it.

(henry -- fyi, I do not see employers decreasing wages -- its always easier to dump benefits than it is to derease someone's takehome pay)


The always-reliable CBO. Where do I sign?


Appalled-- I agree with your 2:04-- that is the plan for Obamacare.


TM, I may have never said this before. You really do a wonderful job shredding these people. I appreciate your ability. Thank you.

Off topic but I find this fascinating.



Manning to Denver and trading Tebow will become very bad karma for Denver very quickly. Tebow inspired that team to perform beyond their individual capabilities and took them to the second round as a 2nd year QB playing first string for the first time.

One thing we know is that Tebow is a very quick learner. I agree with JiB that one hard hit may make that $90 million contract look absurd. Anyone paying that kind of money for a 36 year old QB with his history is taking stupid pills.

As to the numbers on Obamacare, when has government ever been able to forecast true costs within 30% in its history?

SS and Medicare are accelerating towards BK and we are somehow supposed to believe the CBO can accurately predict costs a number of years into the future.

Reading a very interesting book I picked up in an airport called "Currency Wars" by James Rickards. He points out that with QE I, II, and III we have been devaluing our way into oblivion.

The Chinese central government today set out some of the rules for the rollover of local government debt, which they estimate at $1.5 trillion. it's going to be very interesting to watch as this plays out against the RE bubble.

Between bad deals, the bubble, and Macau casinos there's gonna be some 'splainin to do. Throw in a little Cult O' Mao as Bo Xi Lai was trying to do and who knows which way the wind will blow.

If the masses and the middle class get the shaft, it could get hairy.


That Prog list needs to be teased into finer categories:

True progs
The Frauds
The Deluded
The Co-opted
. . .


Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

The entire OBAMINATION BILL was written and in the can when Obama took office.
Who wrote it. Hint, NOT David Obey.


Appalled, dropping health care at zero cost to the employer means the employer contribution to healthcare (less gov't penalty) is converted to cash compensation. This holds total compensation per employee level, but the government takes a cut pre-tax (the penalty) and another cut from conversion of the balance of health premiums to post tax pay. Total compensation to the employee is cut. Wages increase and the employee ends up with less. I call that a pay cut.


henry, the pay cut if for the employees own good.



If I drop healthcare as as an employer, that means I lose a tax deduction, unless I pay the employee the difference. But, actually, I do take a tax hit, because the employer portion of FICA is due on cash compensation, and is not due on health benefits.

All this assumes that a healthcare deduction is a be all and end all of an employer -- which, reat assured, it is not. The penalty an employer pays per employee plus the foregone deduction (meaningless for the many employers with NOLs) is less than what they are already paying in premiums for benefits that, on the surface, look a lot like the Obamacare package.

Whether the employee, when all is said and done is worse off is a question. He will be paying the freight for an individual policy -- which is likely not going to be cheap -- (or he'll pay his own penalty, and be a free-rider). Whether the employee sees it as a pay cut by the employer, or an inreased tax is something we may see play out in the 2014 elections, should the GOP not be able to repeal Obamacare.


Great blog posts recently. I'm making this blog a daily read from now on.

Good job.

Rick Caird

For years, I have been convinced the reason Krugman is active in the print media is because he does not have to take on critics of his work. He has enough sycophants who fill up the comment section, so he can feel gratified and he can just ignore the very real counter arguments made by others that just shred his claims and analysis.

The real question is why Princeton lets him shred their reputation as he shreds his own reputation.


Scott, you forgot to include your link to your commercial website under your name.

Oh, ... you really mean it?


Princeton doesn't have much choice, as he has tenure. Of course, I'm sure there's a contingent there that just loves him and thinks he's doing Princeton a big favor.


Didn't Krugman say that "most" of those insured would see no change? 93% (using your 7% figure) seems to confirm that claim. Krugman also qualifies it as those with "good" benefits and I can guess that would exclude many of the lower income workers and those in small businesses cited in the reports. Take Krugman to task when he deserves it, but he never said "close to zero" -- I don't see evidence that he is pushing any fictions here, just making the verifiable claim that most Americans with employer-based coverage won't be adversely affected.


Raig, first, there's considerable uncertainty about that 7 percent figure, which already is a contrast to what Obama promised. So even if Krugman says "most," that's a considerable shift of the goalposts. Second, "adversely affected" should also include having one's premiums increase because of all the mandates and other structural changes brought about by the act.


Talk about a disingenuous post (you, not Krugman). Krugman's point is that the government will not force you off out of your insurance program, it is the employer who'll do so. Of course somehow that little point slipped by you. Now the issue of employers dropping insurance for their employees brings up a whole other host of issues that are worth engaging, but you rather noticeably didn't want to go there. Wonder why that was?


jimmyK@3:03-- absolutely right. The only 'true' statement that these lying Obamacare weasels ('Bam, Pelosi, Reid & Krugman) made in 2009-2010 was by Pelosi when she said 'you'll have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."

Cecil Turner

The reason to offer benefits, for an employer, is to recruit and retain workers.

The linked CBO study at least takes a stab at rationalizing that one. They point out (IIRC) employers are currently paying for health care plans even though the costs are escalating; they've historically been a popular part of compensation packages (outweighing costs), and that the Massachusetts experience suggests employers won't desert in droves. Not sure any of that was convincing, though.

My main problem with the evaluation is that it's based on models of individual decisions with little or no link to reality. And the four scenarios presented are a long way from the full gamut of possible outcomes. I just skimmed it, but the methodology looked awfully arbitrary.

The linked Cohn piece is at least as misleading as anything Rush said. Money graf:

Yes, you read that right: The real news of the CBO estimate is that, according to its models, health care reform is going to save even more taxpayer dollars than previously thought.
How exactly does it "save" taxpayer money? By taxing more than the cost, of course. The CBO report is bad enough, totting up gross costs of $1.762T and then offsetting excise taxes and penalties to bring the "net cost" down to $1.252T. But the implication that it's free (or that those new taxes will have no impact on the economy) is ludicrous. Stripping the accounting tricks, it's about $2T over ten years. And yes, that's about double what it was sold as.


Appalled, I think we are saying the same thing -- that the employer pays attention to total compensation as it impacts total profit. While 2014 is an interesting point in time, the mandates coming now affect benefits costs now. The increased healthcare costs costs may exceed the room for increased compensation -- and that leads to reduced (not flat) compensation in other areas going forward. (Headcount and wages are the big two).

The only form of compensation excluded from cuts is free coffee -- it is too important to productivity.


Cecil T-- in truth -- the Obamaniacs $900+B was 6 years of costs ($150B/year), the CBO # is now $1.76T over 9 years ($200B/year). So costs are up 50%/year, but the real crime here was the media let the Obamaniacs get away with a 6 year cost over the next 10 years. Lying media.


I thought Jackie Robinson was a Republican?

At one point he was. He liked Nelson Rockefeller - but he despised Goldwater and Reagan.


What "Dave" is saying in his 3:04 is tantamount to: "I didn't kill him, the bullet did! In fact, it was his fault for getting in the way of the bullet."

Cecil Turner

Krugman's point is that the government will not force you off out of your insurance program, it is the employer who'll do so. Of course somehow that little point slipped by you.

If that was his point, it's very poorly written. But I'm not giving him even that much credit. The talking point is: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." Krugman is parroting it, and it's false. You can't keep your plan if your plan no longer exists.

Moreover, your point doesn't wash. Government mandated expanded coverage raises costs, and that's driving the decision for employers to drop coverage (or, in some cases, giving them a good excuse for doing so). You can try to blame that all on the employer if you like, but the government is certainly part of the equation.


bgates-- correct, Jackie R was a liberal NE Repub.


Now the issue of employers dropping insurance for their employees brings up a whole other host of issues that are worth engaging

Such as? The typical socialist gripe that if only people would disregard their own self interest and go along with their masters, the system would work just great? Obamacare makes it uneconomical for millions of employers to continue to offer coverage. That's not the fault of Obamacare, but of the greedy employers?


CecilTurner@3:19 - correct. The Left claims mandated insurance coverage REDUCES costs on the perverse logic of broader risk spreading (insurace premium assessment.) Absurd, because in reality, all mandates do is -- well mandate- more medical service without increasing supply. Then the Left claims shock when that costs more.


You really have to laugh at the idea that if government makes the required coverage too rich to be affordable for a business, it's still somehow the business's sole decision what to do.

Because there are just a myriad of ways to bring in more revenue and cut costs in other areas.

I know. The business could cut customer service or the quality of its product in order to finance the increased costs of employee health coverage.

What a viable long-term solution that will be. I think instalaunche is bringing in commenters who get taxpayer funded coverage or mom & dad's policies.

Finite pot. Can't undermine what brings revenue in the door in first place.

Charlie (Colorado)

So, a guy who is 35 years old with 4 neck surgeries is supplanting a miracle worker with the strongest work ethic in professional sports. We'll have to see how this one works out. Puts Manning outside not inside.
In Denver, we're still kinda hoping this is making Tebow Manning's paduwan.

Frau Roggenbrot

Gack! Zut!
JiB - not only did you link to The Nation (p'tooey) but to Howard Zinn -may his eternal sleep be as disturbed as he was.


Krugman is a lying sack of shit. What is there to debate. We all kmow what Obama and the Libtard parties intentions are. Obama is on tape saying that, his intentions may take 5 or 10 0r even 20 years to implement. It's much like Iran. They are saying what their intentions are.
In Krugmans' case, he is such a mentally ill LIBTARD, that he still wants to believe that Obama is sincere. There is NOTHING sincere about Obama. He is filth. I've never found a person as disgusting as Obama. Some libtards do come close, but Obama is a fraud. Top to bottom, start to finish. Obama is a fraud.


--Krugman's point is that the government will not force you off out of your insurance program, it is the employer who'll do so. Of course somehow that little point slipped by you.--

What, pray tell, will have changed between now and then that will cause employers to begin forcing employees out of their insurance?
Either it will be some type of alien, Scrooge-inducing space ray (to link to one of Krugman's more idiotic recent themes)or perhaps it just might be the carrots and sticks intentionally placed in the health care system by Barrycare.


NK, adding umpteen million people who don't pay any premiums. Yeah, that will reduce costs.


Gus- you forgot expanding Medicaid eligibility. ALL FREE today!

Frau Roggenbrot

Gus, I thought Robert Creamer was putting pen to paper for ObamaScare while he was in that certain retreat with bars on the windows.

Frau Roggenbrot

TK - Did you notice the final words in your link:

"Also see related April 20, 2008, Gateway Pundit article What Newsweek Didn’t Tell You About Obama & Nadhmi Auchi."

*That* link has been scrubbed...


INSTALANCHE II !!! now Reynolds is quoting a comment from TomM about 'Bam botching a debt deal. That was in July 2011 when 'Bam decided to go ALL Left ALL the time, and not cut entitlements to get tax increases. JOMers know more than Glenn Reynolds-- who knew! TomM-- we're not worthy, we're not worthy.....


rse: "The business could cut customer service or the quality of its product in order to finance the increased costs of employee health coverage."
Sounds like GM!
How did that work out?

Captain Hate

Behold the SCoaMF: http://s1208.photobucket.com/albums/cc364/BeefyMeatball/?action=view&current=mediocrates.jpg


JimMtnView-- or State and County budgets and public union retirement contracts! How are they working out for Calif/Illinois/NJ etc etc


"...State and County budgets and public union retirement contracts! How are they working out for Calif/Illinois/NJ...."

Not too well here in CA, actually.
However, our Dem Gov and legislature remain confident that with appropriate tax levels the problems can be overcome with OPM.


JimMtnView-- the Calif tax receipts are frightening, the State tax base is evaporating.

Frau Roggenbrot

"TomM-- we're not worthy, we're not worthy....."

NK, As long as I get to continue sitting in the basement with the rest of you, I'll count my blessings.


I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy..

didn't mean to offend anyone else at JOM.


The "conveyer belt" is working really well in CA.
First the government hires people. Paycheck union dues are auto-deducted. The union works to elect more Dems, who create more government jobs with increasingly lavish benefits. Repeat over and over.
After a while, Repubs and the private sector are crowded out and marginalized.

We are still waiting to see if this model is sustainable....on both the state and national level.
One suspects not.


JimMtnView-- I think Melinda R will say that model was perfected in Cook County Illinois. I assume you are asking a rhetorical question about 'sustainability'. In reality, when you get to the point where Calif, Ill. RI, NJ and DC have reached, the Dem Pols know the "conveyor belt" is doomed so the current Dem polticians "bust the joint out" like the Brooklyn Mob did to the nightclub in Goodfellas.

INSTALANCHE II !!! now Reynolds is quoting a comment from TomM about 'Bam botching a debt deal. That was in July 2011 when 'Bam decided to go ALL Left ALL the time, and not cut entitlements to get tax increases. JOMers know more than Glenn Reynolds-- who knew! TomM-- we're not worthy, we're not worthy.....

Heard Rush going on about this article on the final leg of the drive back this morning. Something stuck me.

Rush was trying to figure out why the story was out now as it hurts democrat causes by making Obama look like an idiot negotiator and Pelosi and Reid as absent in the process. He said it also made the point that Boehner and Cantor gave Obama exactly what he wanted (Rush called it "calling Obama's bluff") and that Obama lied in his public address that the republicans were not being the obstructionists that he said they were in that public address. Rush was flummoxed at the article giving the republicans a win like this. However:

I was struck at how pissed I am learning that Boehner and Cantor were giving Obama exactly what he wanted.

I think the article is another attempt to drive a wedge in the republican/ABO camp and depress the turnout by ABO supporters. To wit, Boehner and Cantor sold out the tea party stance of no new taxes which effectively said to tea partiers why bother to vote this year as your leadership is not doing anything to roll back this monstrous governmental spending?

And now you have all this talk of Obama's steel spine and the bottom line is Obama got what he wanted with no muss from Boehner and Cantor and got to bash them to boot.

So to me the article said two things "Obama's not that smart and he's a liar" and "republicans are still not on board with the tea party vis a vis spending levels." Two universal truths that are sure to depress and divide republican voters.

Did I miss something? Rush never even approached the tea party issue and seemed to just gloss over (even as he repeated the fact several times) that Boehner and Cantor gave Obama exactly what he wanted right out of the gate.

So just who the hell got snookered here? Brer Rabbit or Brer Fox and just who is who?

I'm still pissed. Probably why I made it back from Charlotte in under three hours - lead foot being symbolically applied to Rush's ass for glossing over the Boehner/Cantor cave and still getting beaten about their ears by Obama yet characterizing it as a 'puzzling hit piece on Obama.' Sez who?

Frau Roggenbrot

NK - No insult registered here. I was joining in on your statement.
btw I have this image of us in the basement speaking up through the heating and cooling vents at TM.


Stephanie-- think you're being way unfair. Ryan, Cantor and Boehner understand the danger the 'Bam debt poses for the country. They really wanted to begin fixing the problem. 'Bam was cynically trying to recreate Clinton's 1996 welfare reform. OK be angry at Ryan, Cantor and Boehner for trying to save the nation from bankruptcy. Personally, I choose to damn 'Bam for his cynicism and cowardice.

Jack is Back!

There is something about any TM post on Krugman that brings out the legions of apologists like dave and rain above. Never se them around here until there is bone with a big stink on it. At least Ben is consistent in opposing and promoting every little idea or issue we bring up.

OT: Sean Bielat's new Comms Director is our own Sarah Rumpf known in Florida circles for her blog "sunshinestatesarah.com". She is top notch and a campaign finance attorney. So, he gets FEC knowledge and Comms in one package. Great deal for him.


FrauR-- OK. personally, I visualize us all toiling in Massa TomM's blogging fields... or mowing his sprawling lawn..... just kidding TomM.


Hasn't this been the pattern, continously, Stephanie, what did we get from the last deal except a rather agregious defense cut. It's interesting how Auchi and Al Amoudi and other figures get there way, through 'libel tourism,

Frau Roggenbrot

Stephanie, I heard that and wondered why Boehner/Cantor could not (or did not want to) set the record straight. Are they really silenced when it comes to media access? I thought the new internet media was going to open up more news from the Republican side. I recall there was a fear that Boehner/Cantor were set to cave and then a blackout until Pres. SCoaMF spoke. It seems president got the best of both sides.

Jack is Back!

:;rain = raig:: Spell checker is on. Now off.

OT: How the hell was Illinois able to avoid this list? And New York and California?

Yeah, right, North and South Dakota are ripe with sleazy, corrupt politicians all driving cadillac tractors and pulling Mercedes manure spreaders.

Frau Roggenbrot

president got the best of both sides = the media will continue to aid him in any and all ways without question. Obama does not even need to ask.


New Jersey, seriously, Sopranosville, CPI is a contradiction in terms, and a Soros front.

Jack is Back!

Wait a minute!

Now, we are believing a story in the Washington Post? For real?Unlike Rush, who is accepting this at face value and trying to figure out the leak and why, I am doubting it in a number of ways.

Do we really think that this Regime and its partisan POS in Pelosi and Reid would keep secret that Boehner and Cantor and the nasty, despicable Republicans were going to agree to raise taxes? They would have had a Black Tie party for the press with free champagne and caviar and Lady Gaga just to reveal this and let the press drive a 10 ton wedge between the republicans and the Tea Party. Doesn't make sense to all of sudden now expose this in a fashion that makes Obama look like a wimp for turning it down. I don't think it ever happened to let him turn it down.

This idea that Boehner and Cantor and Ryan are prepared to stiff arm the Tea Party and their agenda in order to earn brownie points with the POTUS Is crazy. If this happened as the story says and when then we would have heard about every "niggardly" detail then not now.


An Illinois mom talks about her child's CRT curriculum--in operation since 2007. LUN


Frau, one of the things that totally disgusts me, is exactly WHOM, Robert Creamer is, and who he is married to.
I don't watch the MSM at all anymore, unless sports is on. The malpractice is sickening.
Jan Schakowsky and Robert Creamer are commies.


How could he run against a do nothing congress if he compromised with the right? Maybe there's more to come?


Yes, Creamer defrauded many for the cause, went briefly to prison, then basically wrote
the over arching strategy behind Obamacare and
the Stimulus.


I don't know how he gets enough air in that bubble,



JiB, Rush claims that Obama refused the deal so he could bash the 'do nothing congress' in his reelection deal and that Boehner 'called his bluff' and gave him all he wanted and he was too stupid to take the deal all so he could pound that 'do nothing, obstuctionist' meme for a few votes.

Me, I see nuance (ick) where it is all a long game and just who got snookered is still up for debate. BUT, it still looks to me like the tea party issue was the football that got kicked around. NOONE was doing what was best for the country in the long haul. Just more football tossing with the 'well we tried' and 'the republicans are intractible' from each side. Status quo maintained and the party is still going in Washington.

That both sides think they have some chit to play to win the war for the POTUS is disgusting. Repubs chit being 'he's not that smart and he's a liar' (:eyeroll: tell the electorate something they don't know) and 'republicans are meanies that want to take some of your swag away and are obsturcting my visions for the country' (except they don't want to take back enough swag and are too stupid to think you are evil).


How does an EX-CON like Robert Creamer get into White House state dinners?? Any of you LIBTARDS want to weigh in on this?? Bank fraud is naughty.

Rick Ballard


Even crazier than that. Maybe even crazier than engaging in debate over CBO projections. The Gallup Daily Approval widget provides a method of testing the hypothesis that Obama "won" anything in the summer lieathon. I would invite anyone claiming an Obama "win" to pick a starting point prior to the Bin Laden assassination and demonstrate how Obama's summer strategy improved his standing. The notion that Obama was "shoring up his basetards" is refuted by a cursory examination of his 'Strongly Approve' numbers from the Rasmussen trends.

I'd say that Boehner and McConnell allowed the President to land a very solid punch. To his own jaw.

Jane (get off the couch - come save the country)

Stephanie, I heard that and wondered why Boehner/Cantor could not (or did not want to) set the record straight.

Boehner and Cantor made it clear at the time that the president reneged on his offer, and they left because the target kept moving. I suspect they didn't go into greater detail because they didn't want to advertise the tax increases. And I'm quite sure they are aware of the media bias that would have accompanied any reporting.

I'm not as upset as you at the negotiation Stephanie, because it was a negotiation and the alternative would be to not come to the table at all. I have to remind myself constantly that as a tea partier I am often too all or nothing. Now whether we could have done better, I have no idea. I don't have enough info on what we were getting.

The WP article demanded I register in order to read page 4, but you surely had to read between the lines to see what a scum Obama was in the deal on pages 1-3.


Rush also said he heard that there were other stories that were gonna break about this and that Woodward was doing a book about the negotiations last summer.

I smell set up.

I suspect they didn't go into greater detail because they didn't want to advertise the tax increases.

No, *&%$.

Jane, as to negotiation, you don't go to your opponent and give him everything on the first go round and claim that was 'calling his bluff', do you? Why were tax increases (of 800 million) their first move? Wasn't the public face that they were gonna go for all cuts? And isn't that what Ryan was pushing for - all cuts?


Maybe the leftists are trying to pass Robert Creamer off as an example of what for Illinois seems to be one of their few growth industries: Political fraud.

Here's one now.



President Barack Obama’s 13-year-old daughter, Malia Ann Obama, will be spending her springbreak in the Mexican city of Oaxaca with 12 friends and 25 Secret Service agents.

What the hell? A 13 year old gets spring break in Mexico? I mean, seriously, what the hell?


Transcript of what I was listening to on Rush today


I'm sitting here trying to figure out why the Washington Post would run such a story. Folks, it's profound. I'm over overusing that word. It's remarkable because of its length. It's a front-page story on Sunday, the most read issue of the week. Front page, top of the fold, right in the center of the page. Well, it turns out that the New York Times is going to do a story on the same subject. Now, I don't know why. I don't know why all of a sudden the debt deal from last summer has become such a matter of great interest. Bob Woodward is going to write a book on these debt negotiations. I don't know why this has become such a big deal.

Something stinks in this.


Sue, settle down, Malia Stanley Ann Obama is a PRINCESS.

Jack is Back!


It stinks because it is a lie. Pure and simple and Rush is falling for it. I want Boehner and Cantor to admit to it first before i will believe anything in it. Its not cover nor pre-emptive for cover but a lie.


Georgia made the list!



Oh dear, the LIBTARD LEFT is coming up with the POST FLUCKER distraction. The contraception thing didn't work out so well, and the Catholic vote is going away. Lets' start up a new distraction. We'll start by leaking bullshit to the Washington Post and the New York Times. Funny, this revelation that seems to HELP the GOP isn't being reported by FOX.


is there a remote possiblity that some elements in the Democratic are expecting a terrible electoral outcome? which would prompt them to throw even Obama under the bus ... to maintain crediblity for the party as a whole?


in the Democratic Party

Rove on Hannity today: no one can win the presidency without the support of Catholics.


You want to know what's the biggest difference between the left and the right? On the right, we do math and morality far better than they on the left do. And if we ever abandoned morality, we'd still do better math.


Hi RebbeccaH, are you the same RebeccaH who comments regularly over at Tim Blair? In any case, welcome. I think a big difference is that the right has a deeper understanding of cause and effect, which is related to math and morality.


I am with Sue. What stupid school plans a "spring break" trip to Oaxaca, Mexico for 13-14 year olds? And, who is scrubbing all internet references to this trip? If the S.S. is so concerned and worried, why did they allow the trip?

Here are some pictures (scroll down past Russell Simmons and his kids).

This link will probably disappear soon, too.


Credibility and Democrats can be used in the same posting? Who knew?


Sue, Sue. You are just so not the 1%.


OldTimer, Great LUN in your 04:56.

I do not see how the Republican Party can survive if the unhindered teaching of CRT is allowed



Oaxaca, seriously, have they not been paying attention lately,


Is it a school-sponsored trip or something the Obamas dreamed up? The link doesn't say. It does say "Here is Malia looking just like her mom" which she totally doesn't. She looks just like her dad.

Jane (get off the couch - come save the country)

Why were tax increases (of 800 million) their first move?

Why do you think it was their first move. It sounded like their final move to me.

The comments to this entry are closed.