Obamacare Infographic

Infographics are often a great way to explain complicated concepts without walls of text.

Here’s a good one that was shared with me describing some of the fundamental technical problems with Obamacare.
Colors to Die For
Source: Healthcare-Administration-Degree.net


Obama Administration Debates Dying Cancer Patient

Obama’s senior adviser, Dan Pfeiffer, just called a terminal cancer patient a liar, blaming her insurance company for being driven out of business by Obamacare.

At least Obama wasn’t lying when he said, “I’m really good at killing people.”

Do the Math: The Second Great Depression

I’ve posted versions of all of these charts here at one point or another, but it’s nice to have them all in one place to give a full picture of the Second Great Depression that we are currently in. What these numbers show is that the Obama “Recovery” is the worst post-recession period since the Great Depression, and is the second-worst post-recession period in American history. This is quantified through a number of measures:

  • This is the worst post-recession job growth since the Great Depression.
  • This is the worst post-recession GDP growth since the Great Depression.
  • The unemployment rate has only improved through people dropping out of the workforce. If you include those people, we’re worse off than we were at the peak of the depression. The Keynesian models have been tested and proven to fail.
  • To get a true measure of how many jobs are out there, we need to look at the civilian employment ratio. This number has been fully stagnant since Obama’s “Recovery” began.
  • And of course, we can actually show how many people are dropping out of the workforce by looking at the labor force participation rate. It’s dropping very fast. Under Obama’s policies, we’re becoming a nation of government dependence with a large permanent welfare class.

I’m surprised they didn’t include a graph showing the declining median incomes as well, but that would be implied by the persistently high unemployment.

It’s time to face the facts. Obama has brought our country into a new Great Depression. America has been losing its economic strength, its prevalence of opportunity, and its philosophy of individual achievement under Obama. Franklin Roosevelt’s original experiment in Keynesianism, the New Deal, led to an era of economic stagnation and financial hardship. Now, Obama has repeated the experiment with his stimulus and “New Economic Patriotism” plan, and achieved the same results. The conclusion we can draw from this should now be very clear: Trickle-Down Government is not the solution to recessions. It only draws them out and increases hardship for everyone while forcing us to pay off its debts in the future.

To encourage rapid recoveries from recessions, we need to restore the free-market focus of our economy. There are millions of innovators and entrepreneurs out there who want to start businesses and create jobs, but can’t because of the maze of regulations, licensing laws, labor laws, government fees, taxes, and incentives not to work that threaten to crush their attempts. Additionally, their large competitors are all receiving government assistance, making it impossible for a new business to compete.

Let’s get the government out of the business of picking winners and losers in the economy. As Mitt Romney pointed out in his first presidential debate, Obama has a habit of only picking losers, simply because the winners don’t need any help. That’s how we end up with such monumentally expensive failures like Solyndra and the Chevy Volt. The government should not be using taxpayer money to invest- let us keep our money so that WE can choose where to invest it. We know better how to handle our own money than the government does. Romney made an excellent case for his election when he demonstrated that he understood this.

Obama claims to believe in the free market, but every policy he seeks to enact seeks to restrain the markets and put more of its resources in his own personal control. This is the path to national failure.
It’s time to get the failures out of office and replace them with people who actually trust the capabilities of the general public to make their own investments without the government being an eternal middleman. Through liberty, we can return to the path of rising prosperity.

Breaking: Obama fought for race-based subprime loans

As most should know by now, the financial crash of 2008 was caused by the housing crisis of 2007, which happened because banks were putting out so many subprime loans. There are many reasons why so many banks were putting out all these risky loans, from the Clinton version of the Community Reinvestment Act (which required banks to lower their lending standards for minorities), to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (who were required to buy up these risky loans to insure against losses), to the Federal Reserve (which lowered lending standards by keeping interest rates low).

But now we know of another direct contributor to the subprime lending culture that has torn economies apart across the world: Barack Obama

In 1995, Obama led a class action lawsuit against Citibank, claiming they were racist because they weren’t issuing enough subprime loans. Yes, that’s right. According to (now President) Barack Obama, it is racist to not put out enough subprime loans, because such a cautious policy disproportionately hurts African Americans. This is the same argument he uses against Voter-ID laws and to fight cuts in welfare programs.

So Obama won that case in 1998. He and his fellow lawyers profited to the tune of nearly a million dollars. The plaintiffs got a $60,000 pittance. And Citibank was forced to institute a policy of lowered lending standards with more subprime loans, so that African Americans can have greater access to loans and mortgages. Yes, Barack Obama personally forced Citibank to embrace the subprime loans that would spell doom for our financial sector.

But do you think it stops there? When a class action suit like this is settled, every other similar company in the country will rush to adjust their own policies to avoid being the targets of similar lawsuits. Without a doubt, most other banks in the nation would have increased their subprime lending activities to avoid being sued.

In other words, Barack Obama, through the cries of racism that he is so fond of, helped push our entire financial system over the edge. And then we made him President. And gave him a Nobel Prize. All because people were afraid of being called racist.

Those cries of racism have caused a financial crisis, have gotten one of the men personally responsible for the crisis elected president, and are now being used to try to reelect that same man. I think it’s time to treat those who cry “Racist!” as they deserve to be treated: as pariahs in our society. No person who tries to racialize an issue should be given any better treatment than absolute disdain.

Barack Obama represents everything that is wrong with America, and he must be defeated.

Barack Obama, the Communist

Certainly, everyone has someone to thank for helping them get to where they are. As Isaac Newton once said, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” However, we still give Newton credit for his work. Certainly, others laid the foundation that Newton built off of, but he still pushed mathematics and physics to, at the time, unimaginable heights. Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein, and Richard Feynman can claim similar distinctions. For that, we recognize them as geniuses.

We can apply this sentiment to other fields of science as well- Linus Pauling won the Nobel Prize (twice- once in Chemistry, and once in Peace) for his contributions. We don’t offer the Nobel Prize to the people who started the project- we offer it to the person who found the answer and finished it. That’s why Watson and Crick were so excited when they beat Pauling to the finish in elucidating the structure of DNA.

And this sentiment extends to the business world. We give patents and the accompanying profits to the person who actually develops something useful for us, not to the people who tried, but didn’t get quite far enough. We can extend this concept to every human endeavor: People deserve credit for what they offer to society. This is a fundamental aspect of morality, and is the defining feature of Capitalism.

And yet, not everyone agrees. Notably, just last night, President Obama said, “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” He’s taking a page out of the Communist Manifesto by declaring that Society deserves credit for all of your accomplishments, and you don’t. This is consistent with his previous statements that, despite the weak economy, “The private sector is doing fine. Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government.” This also matches the sentiments expressed when he said, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

These statements should offend anyone who believes that individuals deserve credit for their own accomplishments. Barack Obama’s rhetoric speaks towards a complete rejection of Capitalism altogether. He will continue to lie and pay lip service to Capitalism when it’s demanded of him. But it’s clear that his view of individual accomplishment is purely a Communist one.

The Laboratories of Democracy

Federalism is a beautiful thing. Under a federalist system, mixing decentralization with national principles of freedom, people are free to choose the state which best fits their lifestyle without giving up the defensive power of a large national government.

However, the freedom of choice is not the only benefit of decentralization. With differences in state-by-state policy, we get to see the effects of different policies under the same national setting. Comparisons between two different countries with two different cultures, and very different legal structures in many ways can be like comparing apples and oranges. On the other hand, states within the same nation are a bit more culturally similar while having an identical national governmental structure, controlling for certain factors. This can be helpful in determining through empirical data which policies are truly the best at bringing about certain goals.

So what are the effects of the different economic policies throughout the US? Art Laffer and Steve Moore have investigated this question and found an interesting result.

Apparently, the states with no state-level income tax have been growing rapidly for the last 40 years, whereas the states with the highest income tax rates have all either stagnated or are in decline. States like California, New York, Michigan, and Illinois achieved prosperity back in the 1960’s, but haven’t actually gained much since then. The blue-state model has brought about economic decline. Meanwhile, Texas and other zero-income-tax states are catching up in economic output and prosperity due to strong GDP growth and high job creation numbers. If we’re trying to restore economic growth and job-creation in the US, shouldn’t our national government be looking to follow the examples set by Texas, Florida, and Tennessee? The scientific approach would be to accept the data and modify policy according to the direction it leads us.

Furthermore, shouldn’t the European nations and others be looking at the results out of these laboratories of democracy and trying to learn from them?

Here’s what Obama is gonna do if he stays for 4 more years

He will continue doing much of what he’s done for the last 2.5 years. That means:

:bulletblack: More indefensible bureaucratic expansion. [link]
:bulletblack: More regulation of company mobility to prevent profitable enterprises from fleeing Democratic majority states to search for more freedom elsewhere. [link]
:bulletblack: More economic failure, leading to Carter-style stagflation. [link]
:bulletblack: More debt growth, as he resists all attempts to steer the country away from an imminent Greek-style crash. [link]
:bulletblack: More moralistic nationalization, enforced through militarization of the US police forces, pushing us towards a Soviet-style police state. [link] [link] [link]
:bulletblack: More corrupt abuses of executive power, bordering on illegality. [link] [link] [link]

If you want to continue these disturbing trends, to disregard liberty in favor of a Soviet-style socialist nation under a government with totalitarian control over your personal life and endeavors, then by all means, vote for Obama in 2012. But if you want change- economic recovery and the restoration of the values of liberty -then for your own sake, vote against the Democrats!