Obama’s Middle-Class Squeeze
I’m shocked, shocked:
The hardest hit won’t be those earning more than $250,000 a year–the group that he says needs to “pay their fair share.” Rather, it’s families whose combined annual income is around $100,000 who could be crushed under this plan.
Many of these middle-class families will probably opt to pay the federal fine, and go without health insurance until they get sick.These folks will be too “rich” to qualify for ObamaCare’s subsidies, but probably too poor to easily afford the pricey insurance that the president’s plan forces them to buy.
Many of these $100K families will be obliged to buy a policy costing an average of $14,700 for the mid-level, “silver” health plan, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates. After income taxes, they’ll be spending almost a quarter of their net income for health insurance.
I think that if you pass a law that requires you to purchase something, and it’s enforced by the IRS, it’s not unfair to call it a tax. And it’s another demonstration that every one of Obama’s statements (this one about no raising taxes on people making less than a quarter million) has an expiration date.
[Late afternoon update]
A commenter asks what he can do to fight this in the final hours. This looks like a good place to start. Whatever your political affiliation, if you want to stop this, it’s all up to the Republicans at this point, and you’re going to have to help them this weekend, if not in the future. Don’t look for any help from the Democrats.
March 18th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
This assumes that employers will drop employees from health care plans. Which, since they would be required to offer plans to their employees and most do so now (with no requirement) defies logic.
March 18th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Chris, it’ll be cheaper for the employers to drop coverage. If they have no health insurance for their employees, employers will be required to pay an 8% penalty (8% of the employees’ wages) which is less than what insurance will cost. You see, the morons in Congress filled the bills with perverse “incentives” like this.
And Rand, Obama will use the words “insurance premiums” or “fees” instead of taxes to weasel word his way about not raising taxes on the middle class. You see, a government mandated “fee” isn’t the same thing as a “tax” (yet if it walks like a duck…)
Anyone who was stupid enough to believe Obama wouldn’t raise taxes on the middle class is dumb enough to get what’s coming to them. Unfortunately, those of us who never believed Obama’s lies will also get creamed.
March 18th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Chris Gerrib,
You are assuming that the current plan the employer offers will be available. With new insurance mandates comes higher cost. An insurance plan that has give more coverage will cost more. If that cost exceeds what the fine for not offering a plan would be, employers might just opt for dumping their plan.
March 18th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Employers quite possibly will drop plans. Which costs less, largely paying for them AND paying tax on the plans you offer, or paying fines for not offering plans?
And, of course, will employees drop the plans when they are taxed on the employer’s “contribution” as income?
March 18th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
The other requirements in the Obama bill drive the cost of insurance up.
Since its already above 8% for many businesses then the 8% penalty is a bargain. This is all a backdoor way to destroy the current insurance system so that single payer government insurance will come about.
March 18th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Employers are not required to offer plans now. They do. Employers don’t all offer the same plan – they offer different plans, some cheap, some not. Price is only one factor in what plan(s) they offer. Other factors include what the competitors offer their employees and what the owners of the company (who frequently use the coverage they offer for their own use) want.
March 18th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
BTW, health care benefits for employees is a tax-deductible cost. So, if you cancel coverage, you lose the deduction AND add a tax. It’s more than an 8% swing.
March 18th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
And Rand, Obama will use the words “insurance premiums” or “fees” instead of taxes to weasel word his way about not raising taxes on the middle class. You see, a government mandated “fee” isn’t the same thing as a “tax” (yet if it walks like a duck…)
There is no precedent of a “fee” for the privilege of being a US citizen. This will be challenged, and will likely not stand. There is nothing in the Constitution about the federal government having the right to compel citizens to purchase anything at all. It’s a clear violation of the Tenth Amendment.
March 18th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
That amount of money is 3x what we are paying now.
March 18th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
It’s an air tax, and we ain’t even on a space station.
March 18th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
I’m willing to kick in some money to fight this, like my $50 donation to Scott Brown’s campaign.
Any advice on where to do this?
March 18th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
“expiration date”
That’s a euphemism for, the stuff horses and bulls leave behind, right?
March 18th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Whatever your political affiliation, if you want to stop this, it’s all up to the Republicans at this point, and you’re going to have to help them this weekend, if not in the future. Don’t look for any help from the Democrats.
That’s exactly backwards — the Republicans are already against it, so nothing is up to them. The only way to keep the reform bill from passing is to convince enough Democrats to vote no. Of course that means convincing them to kill their party’s signature initiative, which is why the odds favor passage.
March 18th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
There is nothing in the Constitution about the federal government having the right to compel citizens to purchase anything at all.
There’s nothing in the Massachusetts Constitution about that either, and yet RomneyCare’s individual mandate has not been struck down.
[Notice how Rand is arguing both sides of the question: it's a tax, so Obama lied, and it's not a tax, so it's unconstitutional and will be struck down.]
March 18th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Rather, it’s families whose combined annual income is around $100,000 who could be crushed under this plan.
Of course they were going to be crushed even worse without this plan, according to the CBO.
March 18th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Indeed. The exchange will remove one of the biggest incentives for companies to offer health insurance, especially since Sherrod Brown is already working on the public option bill for later this year (likely underwritten by the taxpayers again, naturally). We can expect the same premium inflation that we see now with MassCare, so 8% is a bargain.
March 18th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
That’s because States are sovereign, and can enact almost any legislation that isn’t proscribed by their respective constitutions or a very narrow set of rights which flow down from the Feds.
March 18th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
“BTW, health care benefits for employees is a tax-deductible cost. So, if you cancel coverage, you lose the deduction AND add a tax. It’s more than an 8% swing.”
Chris, youre right that it is more than an 8% swing, but it isnt going to be a 25% to 35% swing. The benefits cost for most employees to their employers falls between that range. Rest assured that for many employers of varying sizes it will be far cheaper to stop offering insurance and downsize their human resources departments.
March 18th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
I don’t know about where you work. but where I work there is only one plan – which has gotten to be so expensive that the owner is probably going to drop it anyway. The loss of the tax write-off and the fine are cheaper.
March 18th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Notice how Rand is arguing both sides of the question: it’s a tax, so Obama lied, and it’s not a tax, so it’s unconstitutional and will be struck down
What mental disability would result in your thinking that taxes can’t be unconstitutional?
March 18th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
[Notice how Rand is arguing both sides of the question: it's a tax, so Obama lied, and it's not a tax, so it's unconstitutional and will be struck down.]
Word games Jim? They call it a fee. Unconstitutional. What they call a fee is essentially the same as a tax. So Obama lied. Considering all the convoluted logic you’ve used in the past, how is this too hard for you to understand?
March 18th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
Yeah, what Rand said.
March 18th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
So let me see if I got this right. Government gets a hidden 10.5% tax or “fee” on a bunch of income (for all the workers and employers who will get by within health insurance). In return for breaking the insurance system, they’ll probably get the opportunity to introduce single payer. There’s nothing government can’t fix!
March 18th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
Of course they were going to be crushed even worse without this plan, according to the CBO.
Only people that are unable to add up:
1) The fee/tax/revenue generation starts nowish. And yet the serious benefits start four years out. Yes it’s tricky and slow to set all this crap up – but that doesn’t change the fact that the CBO basically scored six years of payments against ten years of revenue.
2) 1.1 trillion from the Medicare Trust fund is donated to Obamacare – and thus marked as “revenue”. Never mind the fact that you’ve basically just stolen money from a different account that we’ll have to refill.
March 19th, 2010 at 4:52 am
What bothers me and makes me fear for my children and grandchildren are the attitudes of people like Jim and Chris. The government is not the solution. Higher taxes and less freedom are not good. I have yet to hear a good reason for not trying less expensive reforms first. The only reason for a program like this is to expand federal control over our lives. Pelosi and Obama have both said this is just the beginning. I find this type of belief system anathema to what America is. You and those like you dim our shining light with your support of these socialist programs.
March 19th, 2010 at 4:56 am
“Robbing from Peter to pay Paul”, is the old saw Gramps would have used.
Smoke and mirrors, is another way.
Lies and half-truths is closer still.
A pile of dung, by any other name…
March 19th, 2010 at 5:14 am
There is no precedent of a “fee” for the privilege of being a US citizen. This will be challenged, and will likely not stand. There is nothing in the Constitution about the federal government having the right to compel citizens to purchase anything at all. It’s a clear violation of the Tenth Amendment.
Amendment 1 to the Colorado state constitution is the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights (TABOR). Among the provisions of TABOR is the requirement for voter approval for tax increases. Some local governments decided that calling the increase a fee instead of a tax was a way to get around TABOR and the state supreme court agreed. So now, the state and local governments are practically falling all over themselves creating new “fees.” I predict Obama and crew will do the same thing and claim that since he didn’t raise taxes, he kept his promise. It matters not the least to them that mandated fees are just as painful and damaging as taxes.
March 19th, 2010 at 5:48 am
They also don’t talk about the health costs they are shifting to states to keep the cost of this bill “down”.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/19/tn-governor-tells-corker-gordon-that-state-cant-afford-obamacare/
March 19th, 2010 at 6:05 am
Here’s where we get in trouble when the concept of limited government stops having any meaning. It’s not the 10th Amendment that is dispositive here, it’s the nature of the Constitution itself. Does anything in it grant the government the power to mandate health insurance? No. It takes some truly tortuous reasoning just to allow for things like Medicare.
Without clear limits around what the federal government can and cannot do, we are all threatened. If you’re a leftist who was appalled at what Bush did, just think what this unprecedented expansion of government power might mean for the next Bush and GOP Congress. These extraconstitutional power grabs keep happening, with the supporting partisans going rah-rah on the sidelines, acting like there’s nothing inherently dangerous in unlimited government.
As for the states, while they are restricted by their own constitutions (and by some limitations imposed via supremacy and incorporation), they are viewed as having something called general “police power.” This is what allows states to do most of the things they do. The police power is actually a much broader power than the federal government has, and we intentionally did not grant that sort of power to the central government, out of fear of it evolving into tyranny. Neither the Commerce Clause nor any other part of the Constitution was intended to morph into that sort of power (defeats the entire purpose of limited government).
March 19th, 2010 at 7:48 am
Does anything in [the US Constitution] grant the government the power to mandate health insurance?
As stated later, morons will cite the Commerce Clause while ironically calling themselves liberal and denying they are full socialists. With passage of this bill, every American can be denied freedom for failing to pay now for a service they don’t want or need now. Mobsters used to call this protection money. Chicago liberals call this freedom.
March 19th, 2010 at 8:26 am
Look, there is a simple way for liberals to get these kinds of health insurance regulation without the vagest shadow of unconstitutionality.
Let the states do it. All Congress need to do is get the federal government out of the way – that is remove the impediments in federal law that prevent states from cooperating in this arena. States cooperate all the time. We even have bistate taxes where I live.
The bonus is that different groups of states can try different things. We can see what works best. Sometimes states will benefit from having different health insurance regulations. For example, there are some environmental differences between states which might reasonably cause different regulations to be best.
In addition blue states can be more liberal and red states more conservative. What’s not to like?
Yours,
Tom
March 19th, 2010 at 8:38 am
I know for a fact that taxes on the lower middle class have already gone up, judging by my own taxes and factoring out the anomalous Making Work Pay tax credit (which I found out about at the last minute).
Makes you wonder if the tax credit was put there to disguise the tax hike. Then again, they didn’t give it as much fanfare as they did the Haiti relief tax deduction.
March 19th, 2010 at 8:41 am
“Robbing from Peter to pay Paul”, is the old saw Gramps would have used.
Actually, Peter and Paul rob each other, and third-party bureaucrat Mary scams a big percentage of their take.
March 19th, 2010 at 8:52 am
What mental disability would result in your thinking that taxes can’t be unconstitutional?
Do explain how FICA can be constitutional but this isn’t.
March 19th, 2010 at 8:53 am
I know for a fact that taxes on the lower middle class have already gone up, judging by my own taxes
LOL. And I know for a fact that global warming is real because it’s warm outside.
March 19th, 2010 at 8:58 am
What bothers me and makes me fear for my children and grandchildren are the attitudes of people like Jim and Chris.
That bothers you more than the fact that, without this reform, half of Americans under 65 will find themselves without health insurance sometime in the next decade?
I have yet to hear a good reason for not trying less expensive reforms first.
These reforms will save the government over a trillion dollars over the next 20 years. How much less expensive do you want?
The only reason for a program like this is to expand federal control over our lives.
No, the only reasons for these reforms are to help people and protect the solvency of the U.S. economy. Strange concepts, I know.
March 19th, 2010 at 9:15 am
I have yet to hear a good reason for not trying less expensive reforms first.
These reforms will save the government over a trillion quatloos… blah blah blah
And you still haven’t.
March 19th, 2010 at 9:24 am
Reform, as is fixing the regulatory system and trying some alternatives to government-provided or controlled healthcare (which there is plenty of already), makes all kinds of sense. Which, of course, is why we’re not talking about doing any of that.
Above, someone mentioned that the states could do this. That’s true, though with the upside down tax regime, where the federal government gets more of your taxes than you state or locality do, it would be hard to fund. Massachusetts seems to be having fiscal problems with their mandatory insurance scheme, for instance. And no cash-printing options for the states, not to mention that many have balanced budget requirements of varying degrees.
March 19th, 2010 at 9:50 am
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
This part of the constitution tells me two things.
1) Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises or any other fee for collecting revenue from the people amounts to the same thing regardless of what you call it.
2) These taxes are for defense alone. General welfare refers to defense of the country.
Everything else is retained by the states and the people. Taxes not for defense are unconstitutional.
all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform
This is what makes our current definition of welfare unconstitutional. You can not rob or tax some people and give it to other people.
March 19th, 2010 at 10:14 am
all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
This also indicates that the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisanna Purchase (special giveaways to those states that are part of the Senate bill) are unconstitutional.
Pelosi is touting the CBO’s report about how much money this debacle “saves the government.” However, it transfers a great deal of the financial responsibility to the states, so they’ll have to raise state taxes to pay for the unfunded federal mandates. And to think some people are dumb enough to believe that’s a real savings to the taxpayers.
March 19th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Larry J – that language was repealed by the 16th Amendment.
March 19th, 2010 at 11:04 am
If the doom and gloom prognostications of the looming health care crisis bare any resemblance to the global warming scaremongering then I’d be willing to bet that it is all complete and utter bilge. It is a manufactured crisis that is being used as a justification for a power grab of 1/5 of the economy and further enhancement of control over our daily lives. You busy bodies need to stay out of my body.
March 19th, 2010 at 11:40 am
Usually, the people trying to scare you the most are lying or, at least, have other axes to grind. We had some or a lot of that (depending on your point of view) before the Iraq invasion, we have it with AGW, we have it with healthcare, we’ve had it to a more limited extent with education, and we’ve had it in spades with the stimulus and bailout packages.
March 19th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
“What mental disability would result in your thinking that taxes can’t be unconstitutional?”
It’s called Socialism.
March 19th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
“Larry J – that language was repealed by the 16th Amendment…”
which was passed over massive opposition by promising that income taxes would never, ever, ever exceed 1%.
March 19th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
This [16th] amendment created an exemption for non-apportioned direct taxes on income, which were held unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (1895)
So the supreme court agrees with me and those that passed the 16th had no clear understanding of what our founding fathers intended or simply disregarded it.
March 19th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Ken and Larry J – the 16th amendment passed fair and square. It has the same force of law as the 1st, 2nd or 10th amendment. The people who passed it knew EXACTLY what they were doing – the were overruling the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court. That’s the way the process works.
March 19th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
> Larry J – that language was repealed by the 16th Amendment.
The 16th Amendment did not overrule that portion of the Constitution. It modified it. All Duties, Imposts and Excises except Income Taxes must still be uniform.
> This also indicates that the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisanna Purchase (special giveaways to those states that are part of the Senate bill) are unconstitutional.
I was listening to a conservative constitutional law professor on the radio this morning and I agree with him that you are dead wrong. This says taxes must be uniform, not spending. Spending was never uniform. Never. Just think about it. Would the Constitution insist that because costal states get more Naval spending they must get less spending on postal services? The founders were not idiots.
Yours,
Tom
March 19th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
The people who passed it knew EXACTLY what they were doing
So Perfidy is not a recent invention. Thanks for the confirmation.
March 19th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Prohibition….yea, because it was an amendment the proponents knew exactly what they were doing. No need to repeal anything there. Were in the very best of hands.
March 19th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
That’s not a fact, that’s an opinion based on this status quo.
Medicare has an unfunded liability of 38 TRILLION dollars. You go back to 1965 and find the speech or newspaper article quoting the politician’s saying, we coud be wrong.
The government has NEVER accurately forecast the cost of an entitlement.
They’re going to “help” people all right.
If they are so confident in their estimates, why are they sending out memos like this?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/03/025871.php
March 19th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
The government has NEVER accurately forecast the cost of an entitlement.
True; in fact the CBO has repeatedly underestimated the savings from health reforms.
March 19th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Medicare has an unfunded liability of 38 TRILLION dollars.
Isn’t that a pretty strong argument for the cost control efforts in the health reform bill?
March 19th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Jim.
Explain to us who are obviously a bit slower than you exactly how increasing the demand for something without increasing supply brings down the cost? Medical care requires a lot of (expensively educated) labor and a lot of (very expensively developed and manufactured) technology. Those are fixed costs. Nothing in this bill changes that.
March 19th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Isn’t that a pretty strong argument for the cost control efforts in the health reform bill?
The implicit assumption here is that the cost control efforts of this bill, admittedly which do exist in some form, are sufficient to overcome the cost inflation efforts of this bill. I don’t see that happening. My view is that government screwed up Medicare and this is some larger, more ambitious attempt. I see no evidence in place that government knows what it is doing or that its actions will improve things rather than make them worse.
March 19th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Here’s more on those “savings”
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/19/cbo-confirms-obamacare-with-doctor-fix-will-actually-add-billions-to-the-deficit/
March 19th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
This is going to sound nuts, but….
What if the final vote taley is close, say, 218 against, 214 for, and Pelosi bangs down her gavel to announce that it passed?? And then Obama signs the thing?
Crazy? Yes. But if anyone had said six months ago, we’d been seeing some of the nonsense we’ve already seen.
Would the above be consitutional? No… but then again, neither is the Slaughter maneuver, and that’s not stopping them.
I’m not exactly predicting this will happen, but I sure can’t rule it out, not with the insanity I’ve already seen.
March 19th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Arizona,
Nothing crazy about that at all. It is very likely how it will go in fact. The bill gets passed, it is done. Obama declares victory and those who voted thinking of the changes get left holding the bag.
March 19th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
My tax claim was based on the following logic: if there’s no change to the debits/credits that apply to me but not to everybody else, then the change in my taxes must be due to a change in the 1040 that everyone fills out.
But looking over my taxes, the culprit is not tax rates – in 2009 my salary was a little bigger but my withholding is 10% smaller than last year’s. I’d have an explanation if I had worked a bunch of overtime in 2008 (the withholding rate is a lot bigger on overtime pay and bonuses), but that’s not the case.
Income taxes are so complex we don’t know how much we’re paying in taxes.
It galls me how much of my paycheck (6.2%) goes down the Social Security ponzi rathole. I could use that money *now*.
March 19th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
After eight decades, can we declare the War On Poverty a hopeless quagmire? Let’s end that war, simply declare victory and extricate ourselves.
March 20th, 2010 at 5:52 am
After eight decades, can we declare the War On Poverty a hopeless quagmire?
First of all, the War On Poverty was declared in the 60s, or about five decades ago.
Second, it has succeeded in dramatically reducing poverty. We should be pleased, not discouraged.
March 20th, 2010 at 5:56 am
Medical care requires a lot of (expensively educated) labor and a lot of (very expensively developed and manufactured) technology. Those are fixed costs.
They are not fixed. Every other developed country spends less and gets more. Our system is spectacularly wasteful.
March 20th, 2010 at 6:00 am
The implicit assumption here is that the cost control efforts of this bill, admittedly which do exist in some form, are sufficient to overcome the cost inflation efforts of this bill. I don’t see that happening.
Even the CBO, which is very skeptical of the cost control efforts, disagrees with you.
March 20th, 2010 at 6:02 am
But if anyone had said six months ago, we’d been seeing some of the nonsense we’ve already seen.
You wouldn’t have been surprised, because you’d seen all the same things (and much worse) between 2001 and 2007.
March 20th, 2010 at 6:06 am
Here’s more on those “savings”
Yawn, the doctor fix argument again. The doctor fix isn’t part of ObamaCare — it was passed every year that Bush was in office, and it was going to be passed whether ObamaCare passed or not. You might as well tag ObamaCare with the expenses for treating vets from Afghanistan — that’s health care too!
March 20th, 2010 at 6:15 am
But looking over my taxes, the culprit is not tax rates – in 2009 my salary was a little bigger but my withholding is 10% smaller than last year’s
That’s the ARRA Making Work Pay tax credit. In the past the government has issued temporary tax credits by mailing out checks, but research shows that the recipients would often save them, which defeats the purpose. By reducing withholding rates instead, the government quietly put the tax credit directly into people’s pockets, which makes it more likely to be spent, spurring economic activity.
March 20th, 2010 at 6:23 am
Jim, can’t you just write one long post and then press “submit”? It’s really irritating to see a large post count and then realize it’s nothing but a long string of mini-comments by the same person. Then again, I realize that the opening between our universe and yours could possibly be a bit wonky, so maybe that’s the reason.
March 20th, 2010 at 7:28 am
“Yawn, the doctor fix argument again. The doctor fix isn’t part of ObamaCare..”
You can put your condescension where the sun don’t shine. Obama made Medicare part of his program when he announced 500 billion in cuts to help pay for it.
March 20th, 2010 at 8:36 am
Jim,
Other countries spend less because they are giving less. Are you suggesting that doctors here are giving care they should not be giving? If so, how does this bill fix that?
March 20th, 2010 at 8:52 am
Barack Obama’s book, “The Audacity of Hope,” features a appealing title. It has a taste of bravery mixed confidently. You’ll find nothing Pollyanna regarding it. I might not support every little thing he tells, but he’s our president, and for me, he inspires confidence. That will do more for a nation than any volume of backroom deals. Hope gives us energy, and energy sustains us through trying times. Boy, we’ve had them.
I call this emotion “gullibility”. You’re basically telling us that because you read a book, you’ll thoughtlessly follow Obama anywhere.
The fight for progress and laying the foundations of prosperity is not over. I have seen the quips of those that don’t believe Obama is capable of doing it. But step back a moment. Would anyone have most of us fail in order to tarnish the star of an incumbent for whom they didn’t vote? Attempting to keep our priorities straight, let’s work together with our president and build our future.
After four years, I bet you will agree with us too. Obama hasn’t done much so far. He’s squandered considerable political capital on health care change (and more on ARRA, cap and trade, etc). While I’m willing to do my part to insure he has a lame duck presidency, we all need to keep in mind that his administration has demonstrated such rank incompetence and supported such vile and self-destructive legislation that even his own party won’t unite behind him in Congress.
March 20th, 2010 at 9:15 am
“Devin Weiss” is either an Obama shillbot or a somewhat more sophisticated comment spammer. I doubt he’s even a real person — his name links back to a Twitter page of someone called “joselembardo” whose profile has no info or links. His latest twitter entry is this: “Breast Augmentation – A Gaze At The Signs Of Healing.” (I removed the link in the entry.) Audacious hope indeed!
March 20th, 2010 at 9:33 am
I think you’re right, Andrea. I sent it to the spamhole.
March 20th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Andrea Harris,
Jim is limited to a maximum number of characters per message by the type of BlackholeBerry Account he pays for. That’s why he does the split string comments.
March 20th, 2010 at 10:13 am
Obama hasn’t done much so far.
Perhaps the biggest, under the radar, damage he has accomplished are direct appointments and appointments by his appointees. This could result in lingering damage to this country years after B.O. is gone.
March 20th, 2010 at 10:42 am
That’s the ARRA Making Work Pay tax credit. In the past the government has issued temporary tax credits by mailing out checks, but research shows that the recipients would often save them, which defeats the purpose. By reducing withholding rates instead, the government quietly put the tax credit directly into people’s pockets, which makes it more likely to be spent, spurring economic activity.
In other words, the tax credit is designed to create a temporary boost in consumer spending, which is more of a psychological ploy than anything else.
Economic recovery hinges on long-lasting changes that increase net income for every month and not just one – and for businesses and individuals alike. Kemp-Roth was such a change.
March 20th, 2010 at 11:43 am
Ingrid the Unemployed Insurance Agent confronts Obama after his healthcare rally speech. This could possibly be another Joe the Plumber moment.
It’s sad that Obama’s approval rating is actually one point lower right now than Bush’s was when he left office. Only took him 14 months to get there compared to Bush’s 8 years. Which pretty much tacks right along with the crazed out budgets and spending of this administration. Whatever realized saving of Obamacare after 10 years are going to be consumed in one quarter of spending under this administration, that’s 3 MONTHS. But Obama doesn’t appear to be swayed one bit by his dramatic drop in popularity. In fact, he seems to be determined to pass this immensely unpopular healthcare bill “based on the assumption that the American people like a winner even if the victory comes at their expense.”
March 20th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Now I’m watching the Massachusetts Treasurer, Tom Cahill, on Glenn Beck and he say that if Obamacare passes the country will go bankrupt in 4 years. The only way that Massachusetts has been able to provide their comprehensive healthcare for so long is because the federal gov’t has been propping it up through Medicare reimbursements. The only problem is that the gov’t has only been paying .70 cents to the dollar forcing a number of suburban hospitals to sue the state of Massachusetts because they are going bankrupt. Who bails out the federal government’s health insurance exchanges when they run out of money in 4 years. My guess is that they are purposely trying to bankrupt insurance companies and hospital systems deemed superfluous to clear way for a total universal healthcare system. This is why Obama was so adamant about getting this legislation passed in his first year so that he could set the stage for universal healthcare before the end of his term. This is just absolute madness to consider it necessary to bankrupt 1/6 of the economy. I really am afraid that this thing is gonna pass tomorrow. *checks clock to see if it is too early to start drinking.
March 20th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Der Schtumpy — I forgot about that explanation. Probably because I’ve never been able to afford fancy phones with full keyboards like Blackberries. (Though Jim strikes me as more of an iPhone guy. Aren’t most Obama fanatics Mac and Apple product people?)
March 20th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
If this evil monstrosity passes, future historians will mark it as the beginning of the Second American Civil War. Bank on it.
/I love Macs
March 21st, 2010 at 2:01 pm
It’s sad that Obama’s approval rating is actually one point lower right now than Bush’s was when he left office.
Where are you getting those numbers? Rasmussen (the most anti-Obama pollster) has him at 45% approval; Bush left office with 35%.
Now I’m watching the Massachusetts Treasurer, Tom Cahill, on Glenn Beck and he say that if Obamacare passes the country will go bankrupt in 4 years.
Which is ridiculous on its face, because the insurance subsidies (i.e. the expensive part) don’t even start during that period.
Though Jim strikes me as more of an iPhone guy
Guilty as charged, though I don’t usually post comments from my iPhone (the iPhone lacks a quick way to scroll to the bottom of a long web page, and I’m a lousy iPhone typist).
Aren’t most Obama fanatics Mac and Apple product people?
I’m not sure about that. Obama himself is a Blackberry fanatic, not an iPhone fan. Back in 2000 it was Mac user Bush vs. IBM user Gore. Gore has since joined Apple’s board, so I presume he uses a Mac these days.
In short: taste in computers and phones is a poor predictor of political ideology.
March 21st, 2010 at 2:01 pm
If this evil monstrosity passes, future historians will mark it as the beginning of the Second American Civil War. Bank on it.
I’ll bank all of my Confederate Dollars on it.
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:16 am
“Jim, can’t you just write one long post and then press “submit”? It’s really irritating to see a large post count and then realize it’s nothing but a long string of mini-comments by the same person. Then again, I realize that the opening between our universe and yours could possibly be a bit wonky, so maybe that’s the reason.”
Andrea, Jim could save himself even more trouble by writing one post–”Me lovey the Statey! Me lovey force!”–and simply compy-and-paste that repeatedly. That’s essentially what he does, only less efficiently.
March 23rd, 2010 at 7:36 am
I’ll bank all of my Confederate Dollars on it.
This is one of the reasons you have such great credibility on this site. You back your statements up with assets.