A female Democratic lawmaker in footage released Sunday said Congress could pass healthcare if female lawmakers “sent the men home.”

“We go to the ladies room and the Republican women and the Democratic women and we just roll our eyes,” she said. “And the Republican women said when we were fighting over the healthcare bill, if we sent the men home…” at which point she was interrupted by loud applause.

“You know why? I’m not trying to diss the men but I’m telling you it’s the truth that every single woman there has been responsible for taking care of a [relatives] and so we think we can find a common ground there,” she said.

Boy, they sure are getting desperate.

Simon Jonson has suggested that (ultra liberal inflationist and debt multiplier) Paul Krugman be made Fed Chairman – instead of the bankster Bernanke.  Bernanke definitely needs to go …but to replace him with Krugman?  Simon Johnson has gone nuts and his sidekick Kwak has such a liberal political bias that it gets in the way of economic common sense.  Even Krugman says it’s a crazy idea. The guy just fell several notches in credibility advocating that sort of dribble…

Much cyber ink has been used lately predicting significant house and senate seat losses for the Democrats in the 2010 elections.  But a piece in American Thinker points out that Dems can’t be voted out if they control the election process through vote buying and other corruption.  Giving the vote to millions of illegal aliens in return for keeping them in power is a very real and sinister plan that explains why the Dems are not so worried…

From  firedoglake.com

For almost the entirety of the health care debate, the Obama Administration has relied on economist Jonathan Gruber to make the public case for its idea of reform – even the most unpopular parts. But as Firedoglake revealed on Friday, the Obama Administration has failed to disclose that it paid the same economist more than $780,000. Jonathan Gruber’s work has been cited by the White House, Members of Congress, and countless media outlets, but not once did the Obama Administration disclose it was paying him more than $780,000 in tax dollars.  This is a huge ethical violation that undermines the entirety of health care reform.

Once we broke this scandal, The New York Times, Washington Post, Time Magazine, and other publications all said they should have disclosed Gruber’s lucrative contracts if they were aware of the conflict of interest. Dozens of Members of Congress cited Gruber’s work in their floor speeches. The White House pushed Gruber hundreds of times to the press and on its website.  While Gruber’s ethical lapses are his own personal and professional issue, the true problem here is that the White House used Gruber and his research as a seemingly unbiased source in support of its unpopular reforms. When Obama wanted to tax middle class health care plans, Gruber defended the tax. When Obama wanted to force people to buy private insurance, Gruber defended the individual mandate. When Obama did not want a public option, Gruber said a public option was not important. When Obama needed to pretend the bill had cost controls, Gruber said it had the greatest cost controls ever. It is simply not right for the White House to cite Gruber’s analysis to illustrate the benefits of the bill they support without disclosing that Gruber is on the government payroll. A biased insider can’t be an unbiased outside observer. But that’s exactly the approach of the Obama Administration, to the tune of $780,000 in tax dollars.

The Obama Administation’s $780,000 “buy-an-economist” scandal threatens to shake the foundation of health care reform. We need to get to the bottom of this.

Sign our petition to Obama: come clean on tax dollars used to pay any other undisclosed contracts.

http://action.firedoglake.com/gruber

Where there is smoke- there’s fire. Where there is obfuscation – there is something to hide.  Bloomberg’s effort to make the FED disclose firms benefiting from the bailouts is being dragged out by the guilty FED and its chief, Ben Bernanke.   This is why we need to pass Paul’s Audit the FED bill post haste.  We need to know what’s going on with the FED.

This list provides a brief but we know, incomplete description of the corrupt deals for special treatment of SOME states for their senator’s support of the Obamacare takeover of 17% of the US economy.  If these deals are not unconstitutional, we need to amend the constitution so that they are.

From YAHOO:

The top prosecutors in seven states are probing the constitutionality of a political deal that cut a funding break for Nebraska in order to pass a federal health care reform bill, South Carolina’s attorney general said Tuesday. Attorney General Henry McMaster said he and his counterparts in Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas and Washington state – all Republicans – are jointly taking a look at the deal they’ve dubbed the “Nebraska compromise.” “The Nebraska compromise, which permanently exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs that Texas and all other 49 states must pay, may violate the United States Constitution – as well as other provisions of federal law,” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said. McMaster’s move comes at the request of Republican U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint of South Carolina. In a letter to McMaster, Graham singled out the deal to win Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson’s vote on the massive health care bill the Senate is expected to adopt Thursday. Nelson held out as fellow Democrats worked to get 60 votes to foreclose a GOP filibuster and the bill was amended to shield Nebraska from the expected $45 million annual cost tied to expanding Medicaid programs. “We have serious concerns about the constitutionality of this Nebraska compromise as it results in special treatment for only one state in the nation at the expense of the other 49,” Graham and DeMint wrote. Nebraska wasn’t alone in getting Medicaid breaks. Vermont, Louisiana and Massachusetts also got help with their programs. Along with Texas, officials in Washington, Alabama, Colorado and Michigan confirmed they were working with McMaster. North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said he wasn’t sure what could be done while the federal legislation remained under debate. Officials in the other states did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Meanwhile on Tuesday, Tennessee’s Republican Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey called for his state’s attorney general to investigate the deal. Ramsey, McMaster and Michigan’s Mike Cox are running for governor in their states. “Whether in the court of law or in the court of public opinion, we must bring an end to this culture of corruption,” McMaster said. The negotiations “on their face appear to be a form of vote buying paid for by taxpayers,” he said. McMaster is encouraging a South Carolina citizen to step forward to sue to challenge the measure if it is signed into law. “We’ll assist anyone to the extent that we’re able,” McMaster said. Also Tuesday, U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said Republicans need to stop complaining about deals their colleagues made. “Rather than sitting here and carping about what Nelson got for Nebraska, I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Let’s get together and see what we can get for South Carolina,” Clyburn said. For instance, Clyburn expects states will get more help covering Medicaid expansion costs. Critics say the federal government’s coverage of 91 percent of those future costs will disappear, leaving states with huge holes in their budgets. Clyburn says the legislation the federal share should be 95 percent, with states picking up no more than 5 percent. South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford said the federal legislation is “well intended,” but called it “fundamentally flawed in the same way the stimulus efforts were in that the states and the taxpayers are left footing the bill. “Sanford this spring was the nation’s only governor to take a state legislature to federal and state court to block federal stimulus money…

The Weekly Standard:

The Democrats are irresponsibly and disingenuously claiming that the bill would cost $871 billion over 10 years. But that’s not what the CBO says. Rather, the CBO says that $871 billion would be the costs from 2010 to 2019 for expansions in insurance coverage alone. But less than 2 percent of those “10-year costs” would kick in before the fifth year of that span. In its real first 10 years (2014 to 2023), the CBO says that the bill would cost $1.8 trillion — for insurance coverage expansions alone. Other parts of the bill would cost approximately $700 billion more, bringing the bill’s full 10-year tab to approximately $2.5 trillion — according to the CBO.

In those real first 10 years (2014 to 2023), Americans would have to pay over $1 trillion in additional taxes, over $1 trillion would be siphoned out of Medicare (over $200 billion out of Medicare Advantage alone) and spent on Obamacare, and deficits would rise by over $200 billion. They would rise, that is, unless Congress follows through on the bill’s pledge to cut doctors’ payments under Medicare by 21 percent next year and never raise them back up — which would reduce doctors’ enthusiasm for seeing Medicare patients dramatically.

And what would Americans get in return for this staggering sum? Well, the CBO says that health care premiums would rise, and the Chief Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says that the percentage of the Gross Domestic Product spent on health care would rise from 17 percent today to 21 percent by the end of 2019. Nationwide health care costs would be $234 billion higher than under current law. How’s that for “reform”?

Even MoveOn.org says that the bill is “a massive giveaway” to private insurance companies. The CBO estimates that, from 2015-25, private insurers would receive $1.0 trillion in subsidies from the American taxpayer — the insurers’ apparent price for giving up their freedom and being controlled by the government. Congress would mandate that Americans buy the insurers’ product and would redirect massive sums of taxpayer money to make that mandate more feasible. So, if insurance companies are your idea of a worthy object of philanthropy, then Obamacare is for you.

This Obamacare vote is a clear indicator that our country has really taken a turn for the worst.  Can we undo this? Can we get these bums out of office now?  Any incumbent, Republican or Democrat who voted for any two of these three measures: the .700 trillion TARP, the $.787 trillion Pork Stimulus or the $2.5 trillion Obamacare … should be removed from office.

First Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana is bribed with $300 million in pork to support Obamacare, then Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas “suddenly” removes her objections. Lincoln appears to be resigned to being voted out of office and likely has cut a deal to be hired by the Obamunists once she is removed from the Senate.  Landrieu is unashamed for taking the bribe for her state, but she should be, and we expect, Louisianians will increasingly be outraged. And what was the bribe Senator Nelson agreed to for Nebraska?  Time will reveal this mystery. This also makes us wonder what the going state bribe will be for making Obama President for Life...$500 million, maybe $1 billion?   The Obamunists don’t care how much these bribe schemes cost since it’s all newly printed money anyway and a hidden inflation tax on the American public and further, their ideology trumps all public welfare considerations.

Obama’s personal network, ABC, has an interview of Obama in which the president warns that unless we pass his health care reform bill, “the US will go bankrupt”.  Well, then we will go doubly bankrupt if we DO pass it – ’cause Federal spending – and the deficit will indeed mushroom if the communist’s Obamacare becomes law.  What a lowlife threat.  WHEN the US goes bankrupt —we surely do hope Mr. Obama has the lack of a health care bill to blame for it.

« Previous Page | Next Page »