Jackson Lee: Congress complicating debt ceiling because Obama is black
By Josiah Ryan - 07/15/11 03:02 PM ET
"Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) on Friday strongly suggested that members of Congress are making it difficult for President Obama to raise the debt ceiling because of his race.
""Read between the lines," she continued. "What is different about this president that should put him in a position that he should not receive the same kind of respectful treatment of when it is necessary to raise the debt limit in order to pay our bills, something required by both statute and the 14th amendment?"
Jackson Lee concluded by saying that she hoped someone would step up and say that what appears obvious to her is not in fact true.
"I hope someone will say that what it appears to be is not in fact accurate," said Lee. "But historically it seems to be nothing more.""
Is it because he is Socialist or because he is ruining the country?
Maybe.
Showing posts with label Socialist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socialist. Show all posts
Friday, July 15, 2011
Thursday, July 14, 2011
What do the 10 most polluted places in the world have in common?
What do the 10 most polluted places in the world have in common?
If you said places with weak government controls over the economy you would be wrong.
If you said places plagued with unfettered free markets, you would be wrong.
Chernobyl, Ukraine
Dzerzhinsk, Russia
Kabwe, Zambia
La Oroya, Peru
Linfen, China
Norilsk, Russia
Sukinda, India
Tianying, China
If you said none of them are located in Liberal Democracies with strong defense of property rights you'd be correct.
If you said they are all current or former Socialist Paradises, you would be correct.
If you said places with weak government controls over the economy you would be wrong.
If you said places plagued with unfettered free markets, you would be wrong.
Chernobyl, Ukraine
Dzerzhinsk, Russia
Kabwe, Zambia
La Oroya, Peru
Linfen, China
Norilsk, Russia
Sukinda, India
Tianying, China
If you said none of them are located in Liberal Democracies with strong defense of property rights you'd be correct.
If you said they are all current or former Socialist Paradises, you would be correct.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Sen Warner's unanswered questions
I took the opportunity to attend Sen Warner's town hall in Fredericksburg the other night. We were not picked to ask questions, so I emailed the questions I would have liked to ask to his office.
I received a canned email response a little over a week later. Here are the questions left unanswered by his reply:
1. Your web site and Pres Obama promise that the Democrat plans to nationalize medical services will
- insure more people
- provide better service
- reduce costs
I know of only one Person Who ever distributed more than He had collected and ended up with a surplus - when Christ fed 5000 with 5 loaves and 2 fishes.
Neither you nor Barack Obama are Him. So, how do you really intend to finance this? Either you are being disengenous about the cost, in which case higher taxes AND higher deficits are likely; or about the services, in which case shortages, degraded care and government decisions regarding who gets what care are inevitable.
I anticipate all of the above.
2. The federal government is already involved in providing somewhere around 60% of medical services in this country via MediCare, Medicaid, Military and Veterans health care and government employees health insurance. Your statistics indicate that the current system is unsustainable. So, if the current, mostly government, system is unsustainable, why don't you think that MORE government will result in LESS sustainability? Why won't the Democrats even consider consumer-based solutions?
3. You said, "We need to control compensation." Given that you are a US Senator, I assume that by "we" you mean the US Government. Control of a producer's compensation is effectively control of his production. Do you really favor government control of the production of medical goods and services?
4. You rightly point out that our current medical insurance system is unsustainable.
Our automobile insurance system is fine.
Our Life insurance system is fine.
Our property insurance system is fine.
Our federally managed flood insurance system is broken.
Why do you prefer to reinforce proven failure by favoring federally [sic] management rather than emulating the successes of those insurance markets that do work?
5. A school teacher asked you to cite the article and section of the US Constitution that empowers you to do this. You admitted, "there is no place in the Constitution that specifically says health care.” While I admire your honesty, I do question how you can so brazenly proceed to act beyond your constitutional authority.
I received a canned email response a little over a week later. Here are the questions left unanswered by his reply:
1. Your web site and Pres Obama promise that the Democrat plans to nationalize medical services will
- insure more people
- provide better service
- reduce costs
I know of only one Person Who ever distributed more than He had collected and ended up with a surplus - when Christ fed 5000 with 5 loaves and 2 fishes.
Neither you nor Barack Obama are Him. So, how do you really intend to finance this? Either you are being disengenous about the cost, in which case higher taxes AND higher deficits are likely; or about the services, in which case shortages, degraded care and government decisions regarding who gets what care are inevitable.
I anticipate all of the above.
2. The federal government is already involved in providing somewhere around 60% of medical services in this country via MediCare, Medicaid, Military and Veterans health care and government employees health insurance. Your statistics indicate that the current system is unsustainable. So, if the current, mostly government, system is unsustainable, why don't you think that MORE government will result in LESS sustainability? Why won't the Democrats even consider consumer-based solutions?
3. You said, "We need to control compensation." Given that you are a US Senator, I assume that by "we" you mean the US Government. Control of a producer's compensation is effectively control of his production. Do you really favor government control of the production of medical goods and services?
4. You rightly point out that our current medical insurance system is unsustainable.
Our automobile insurance system is fine.
Our Life insurance system is fine.
Our property insurance system is fine.
Our federally managed flood insurance system is broken.
Why do you prefer to reinforce proven failure by favoring federally [sic] management rather than emulating the successes of those insurance markets that do work?
5. A school teacher asked you to cite the article and section of the US Constitution that empowers you to do this. You admitted, "there is no place in the Constitution that specifically says health care.” While I admire your honesty, I do question how you can so brazenly proceed to act beyond your constitutional authority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)