Posted on 04/15/2010 4:11:15 AM PDT by Kaslin
"I'm not exaggerating," said President Barack Obama. "Leaders of the Republican Party ... called the passage of (the health care reform bill) 'Armageddon.' Armageddon! 'End of freedom as we know it.' So after I signed the bill, I looked around to see if there were any asteroids falling or some cracks opening up in the earth. Turned out it was a nice day. Birds were chirping. Folks were strolling down the Mall."
Post-ObamaCare the sun indeed rose in the east, Denny's remained open and California stayed attached to the mainland. Therefore, according to Obama, ObamaCare opponents engaged in baseless fear-mongering. This is an interesting definition of success: Government tax-spend-spread-the-wealth works if, come morning, our cars start.
The corrosion caused by the relentless expansion of the Welfare State doesn't work that way. The costs are harder to see, the damage more difficult to discern -- especially given our leftist media/commentary class, which doesn't know Milton Friedman from Milton Berle.
Government, for example, again and again extends unemployment compensation -- oblivious to or unconcerned about its hidden costs. Last December, the then chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., chortled on his Web site: "I have great news to share with you. The House passed an extension of unemployment insurance and COBRA health benefits last night. Had we not acted, 1 million workers would have lost these benefits at the end of the year."
Lawrence Summers, former Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton and current Obama economics adviser, wrote in 1999: "(One) way government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment is by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work. ... Unemployment insurance and other social assistance programs (cause) an unemployed person to remain unemployed longer." Had "we not acted," how many people would have taken action and found work?
Similarly, banks and financial firms engaged in "reckless" behavior in part because they assumed -- correctly so -- that government considered them too important or too big to fail. Encouraged by government policy to increase lending to those unable to meet usual criteria, banks made loans to otherwise non-creditworthy borrowers. And "government-sponsored entities," Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, bought these loans with an implicit understanding -- true, it turned out -- that the government would not let Freddie and Fannie fail. What stops bailouts from promoting future counterproductive behavior?
ObamaCare guarantees medical insurance to nearly all Americans -- regardless of economic status, willingness to pay or health. But achieving the goal of "universal coverage" -- while supposedly restraining costs -- will require government rationing. A recent front-page New York Times article admits: "From an economic perspective, health reform will fail if we can't sometimes push back against the try-anything instinct. The new agencies will be hounded by accusations of rationing, and Medicare's long-term budget deficit will grow. So figuring out how we can say no may be the single toughest and most important task facing the people who will be in charge of carrying out reform. 'Being able to say no,' Dr. Alan Garber of Stanford says, 'is the heart of the issue.'"
Leftists want to take from the "rich" to "level the playing field" and "close the gap between the rich and the poor." But higher taxes discourage people from taking risks. This in turn creates a disincentive to hire, which means fewer jobs for the non-rich.
The first thing you learn in economics is simple: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. The second thing you learn is this: A lot of people don't believe the first thing.
Things cost money. Government action to deliver them involves trade-offs. Leftists want bigger social programs and greater government regulation over everything from financial services to manufacturing to student loans. But they refuse to see, admit or care about trade-offs.
An economics professor asked his class which of these two scenarios the students preferred. First scenario: Japan grows at an annual rate of 7 percent, and the Unites States grows at 4 percent. Second scenario: Japan and the United States both grow at 3 percent. Overwhelmingly, the students chose the second option. In other words, the students accepted their own lower domestic growth rather than allow Japan -- a friendly nation -- to outpace us. In exchange for "equality," they chose an otherwise lower standard of living. They, at least, acknowledged the existence -- and accepted the price -- of the trade-off. If people understood the damage done when government takes from A and gives to B, how many would sign on?
So, is it "Armageddon"?
Collectivism is a bargain that most people -- if they knew the real price tag -- would reject. These trade-offs include lower productivity, diminished initiative, fewer jobs, rewarding reckless behavior and poor choices, a lower-than-otherwise standard of living, less economic freedom, greater government dependency, and fewer resources to spend on national security and to secure our borders.
By that definition, then, yes. Armageddon is already here.
He’s an azz!
it’s Obamageddon you big eared fake
You stole my post. Only you’re spelling-challenged: a$$.
= )
No Armageddon, but lots of lines for free health-care!
When you least expect it, expect it.
When taking a slow acting poison it’s stupid to, just after ingesting it, mock that you aren’t dead yet.
Didn’t Obama basically imply the same end-of-freedom scenario when the US Supreme Court overturned the law to allow corporations advertising during elections??
Strange, we haven’t seen any asteroid bombardments since THAT one either ....
This is a liberal tactic. The day after a bill is passed or ruling is made, they always say: “See, the sun rose this morning—all is well.” Of course, these things take a while to implement and sometimes a decade or more for the effects to really become apparent. Nontheless, they wouldn’t be doing it unless the majority are easily fooled.
My premiums just went up 5% last month for my whole family, $265 to $278 a month.
I called him at home to find out why and he said he could not afford to take on more Patients under the new pay rules proposed.
So in my home town Obamacare has fixed it so anyone who moves here now or that does not already have a Doctor here must travel out of town to get Medical Care.
See how brilliant that is. Obama has caused growth in the energy industry by forcing folks to travel farther to get medical care.
Of Course that is taking into consideration that the next town's Doctors aren't planning to take no new patients either.
And since we are a very low income area I figure the chances of such happening are very high!
This empty suit is all talk.
Indeed
you’ll see it in November, asshole.
He’s an ass cactus
obama being the asshole, not the OP
just a thought...
” The Organ in Charge
All the organs of the human body were having a meeting, trying to decide who should be the one in charge.
“I should be in charge,” said the brain , “Because I run all the body’s systems, so without me nothing would happen.”
“I should be in charge,” said theblood, “Because I circulate oxygen all over so without me you’d all waste away.”
“I should be in charge,” said thestomach,” Because I process food and give all of you energy.”
“I should be in charge,” said thelegs, “because I carry the body wherever it needs to go.”
“I should be in charge,” said the eyes, “Because I allow the body to see where it goes.”
“I should be in charge,” said therectum, “Because I’m responsible for waste removal.”
All the other body parts laughed at the rectum And insulted him, so in a huff, he shut down tight. Within a few days, the brain had a terrible h eadache, the stomach was bloated, thelegs got wobbly, the eyes got watery, and theblood Was toxic. They all decided that the rectum should be the boss.
So what’s the moral of the story?
The asshole is usually in charge!”
This is very off-topic, but I love your tagline. Last night my son asked me about the U.S. Constitution, for a homework project, and among other things, I told him that the Second Amendment is the protector of the First. :)
OK, so where is my $2,500 annual savings on health care premiums?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.