Posted on

Famous Presidential Lies

Famous Presidential Lies
Written by To The Point News
Friday, 22 Nov 2013


We were attacked (in the Gulf of Tonkin)


I am not a crook

GHW Bush:

Read my lips – No new taxes


I did not have sex with that woman… Miss Lewinski

GW Bush:

Iraq has weapons of mass destruction

I will have the most transparent administration in history.
The stimulus will fund shovel-ready jobs.
I am focused like a laser on creating jobs.
The IRS is not targeting anyone.
It was a spontaneous riot about a movie.
If I had a son.
I will put an end to the type of politics that “breeds division, conflict and cynicism”.
You didn’t build that!
I will restore trust in Government.
The Cambridge cops acted stupidly.
The public will have 5 days to look at every bill that lands on my desk
It’s not my red line – it is the world’s red line.
Whistle blowers will be protected in my administration.
We got back every dime we used to rescue the banks and auto companies, with interest.
I am not spying on American citizens.
ObamaCare will be good for America
You can keep your family doctor.
Premiums will be lowered by $2500.
If you like it, you can keep your current healthcare plan
It’s just like shopping at Amazon
I knew nothing about “Fast and Furious” gunrunning to Mexican drug cartels
I knew nothing about IRS targeting conservative groups
I knew nothing about what happened in Benghazi
I have never seen my Uncle from Kenya who is in the country illegally and that was arrested and told to leave the country over 20 years ago
And, I have never lived with that uncle. (He finally admitted today, (12-05-2013) that he DID know his uncle and that he DID live with him.
And the biggest one of all:
“I, Barrack Hussein Obama, pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.”

Posted on

LICH and again a doctor failure

LICH is supposed being developed by a private medical group to make a medical mall.
PERFECT IDEA – no unions!
So why did not the doctors ban together and do this? NY would have given them 10 years of no taxes, loans etc.. – instead they bitch how closing a hospital is “bad” yada yada
as stated, doctors have no right to be involved in anything other than treating patients – they have no understanding of business & legislation and deserve a smaller and smaller share of reimbursements for simple being STUPID!

You reap what you sow – and doctors sow noting……………….

Posted on

The true cost of Obama care and the ignorance of our president

6 cent tax imposed on taxi rides in ny – was SUPPOSED to goto health care costs but we find its going to pay navigators to get people to sign up – $13 million a year total

How much do we pay the navigators –  $34+ million a year?
How much did a web site cost – over a Billion dollars?
This waste alone if pumped into the health system would have ended the “crisis” for at least a year
And this is ONLY what we are told.

marines died in Afghanistan yesterday – not a peep from our esteems leader
spending budget approved – billions more to spend – and our elected officials all pat themselves on the back for a “job well done” – my god have we allowed ourselves to be such fools. Why have we allowed our ELECTED leaders to be unaccountable? This is all our doing and all our fault!
Will this folly ever end?

Posted on

Obama’s vs free market and competition

Think of this as a companion piece to “Poverty and Free Will” from yesterday, because now President Obama has jumped on Pope Francis’ remarks and used them to bash capitalism, so there’s more to say on the subject.

Obama loves to use the language of markets and choice, stealing the trappings of capitalism to conceal socialist compulsion and political corruption.  Challenged on the point, he would probably portray himself as a champion of capitalism… the right kind of capitalism, that is.  He doesn’t like the free-range variety.  He thinks it has to be hemmed in, limited, and controlled, made subject to the superior wisdom of the Ruling Class.  There are so many noble and important things free people must be forced to do, because they cannot be trusted to understand the vision of the Ruling Class and cooperate voluntarily!  But once that stuff is out of the way, you can enjoy your economic liberty in whatever portion of the heavily taxed, regulated, and mandated economy the government deems safe for its children.  To someone like Obama, the “free market” is a small playground surrounded by very high walls, chaperoned by an almighty State.

Obama-style socialism is particularly concerned with protecting the free market’s “losers.”  Individual welfare now reaches well into the “middle class” – it’s about protecting lifestyles, not feeding the hungry.  Corporate welfare on a mind-boggling scale takes care of politically favored companies that cannot compete effectively, from General Motors to the long string of hugely expensive green energy disasters Obama forced us to finance.

Virtually everything activist government does is anti-competitive.  The effort to ensure there are no “losers” is anti-competitive by definition.  No losers means no winners.  There’s a big difference between providing a safety net for the destitute and trying to outlaw failure, especially when the latter is done at the corporate level, with gigantic bailouts and subsidies.

Anti-competition is very valuable to big-money interests.  It’s how they prevent smaller competitors from muscling into their business.  One of the silliest fairy tales in American politics holds that Big Business supports small government.  That’s absolute nonsense.  Big Business loves Big Government – they do a lot of business with each other. Big Government imposes laws and restrictions that hurt small operations far more than they hurt Big Business, which makes the pain very tolerable for the latter.  Government can crush up-and-coming competitors merely by requiring they meet standards which large, established corporations already surpass, or can much more easily afford to comply with.  These standards are often sold as liberal-populist measures, but they’re music to the ears of big-bucks donors in corporate boardrooms.

For example, to turn back to the big story of the year, ObamaCare includes a provision that limits the profit insurance companies can realize in any given year.  This sounds like a populist exercise of punitive liberalism, which makes it appealing to the dupes and suckers the Left relies on for its power.  Yeah, sock it to those greedy corporate bastards!  Limit their profits!  Never mind what’s happening to me and my family – as long as some rich fat cat loses a million bucks, I’m happy as a clam!

But in reality, this rule is a godsend to large, established corporate players in the insurance industry, because it keeps new competitors out of the market.  Start-ups generally lose a lot of money in the early days.  Investors and entrepreneurs are willing to risk losses up front, in the hope of securing big profits later.  Cap the profit in any given year, and suddenly the big losses up front don’t make sense any more.  Large, entrenched interests, which are already long past the early, scary, money-losing days of entrepreneurial adolescence, are much more prepared to deal with profit caps.  The concept is almost overwhelmingly anti-competitive… and it hurts middle-class business people and their prospective employees far more than it inconveniences fat cats with old money in the bank.

President Obama has also begun touting a minimum-wage hike, in an effort to distract from the failure of ObamaCare.  That’s another anti-competitive boondoggle that hurts the people it’s supposed to be helping.  Employees are hoping to sell their labor, which involves some degree of competition with one another.  Minimum wages are a form of price control that interferes with such competition.  By raising the cost of labor, it strangles demand and leads to higher unemployment, but that’s only part of the story.

The minimum wage also hinders the ability of employees to win salary increases and promotion based upon merit.  You might think, “Well, who cares?  I’d rather start at $15 dollars an hour than work for less, and hope that maybe one day I’ll get a raise to $15.”  That attitude is poisonous to the work ethic, because it removes all incentives for employees to achieve and try harder.  If everyone gets hired for $15 and nobody gets a raise, it’s foolish to do anything more than the minimum necessary to avoid termination… which, as anyone who ever made a payroll will tell you, is a very difficult proposition.

That’s another reason higher minimum wages are anti-competitive: employment is a huge risk for the employer, made greater by the difficulty of terminating employees.  Each new hire requires a considerable investment in training up front.  It usually takes a while before new people are producing work value in excess of their salary cost (which is far higher than their gross pay, due to benefits and administrative expenses.)  Activists calling for a $15 “living wage” for fast-food employees should understand that workers hired for the current minimum wage – which they’re never stuck making for long, if they’re any good – already cost the employer more than $15 an hour.  Even in the lowest-skilled positions, a new employee must accumulate considerable experience before their work product is worth more than what they get paid.

When the minimum wage is raised, it therefore becomes more difficult for a competitive job seeker – an aggressive salesman of his own labor – to persuade employers to take a chance on him.  The difficulty is even greater for low-skill positions that cannot easily be won by flashing academic credentials and an impressive resume, which is probably one reason why ivory-tower academic theorists see nothing but upside to minimum wage increases.  It’s great to be a credentialed professional in high demand who has to fend off corporate headhunters.  But most of us go into a job interview with the basic goal of convincing the management to take a chance on us, make room for us, give us an opportunity to show them what we can do.  And we want them to hire more people than they absolutely need, because that’s how a job market grows.  We want vibrant and productive competition for jobs in an expanding marketplace, not today’s grim slog, in which every employer is trying to figure out how they can make do with fewer human resources.

With that in mind, I propose that competition is a vital component of prosperity, which means it’s an indispensable weapon against poverty.  Competitive capitalism is the best way to allocate resources – the Obama years are but the latest lesson in the hideous inferiority of ideology and Ruling Class diktats.  Competition matches supply to demand, terminates unsustainable business models, and produces healthy jobs that last, instead of make-work positions that disappear when subsidies dry up.  A competitive job market brings out the best in every person, giving us incentives to reach higher and achieve more… which, in turn, creates the wealth necessary to finance a safety net for the truly needy.

Furthermore, the notion that capitalism leaves nothing but excessively wealthy “winners” and destitute “losers” is a product of the limited socialist imagination.  That’s how their statist ideology works – the Ruling Class chooses winners who benefit, and extracts financing from submissive losers.  In the free market, “win” and “loss” are highly relative terms.  A scrappy competitor can do very well for himself without “vanquishing” anyone.  Look at Apple, a company often referenced in Obama’s speeches.  They’ve done good business in the computer world without coming anywhere near defeating or destroying Microsoft’s dominant position.  Apple, in turn, is the big dog in the world of iPhones and iPads, but plucky competitors are doing very good business by running against them.

Private investors have a keen eye for good opportunities.  That leads to the kind of business growth that creates voluntary employment, which is far superior to doing the bidding of the State, or living on a welfare allowance.  There’s really only one alternative to poverty: employment.  That’s never going to be a resource that can be re-distributed according to ideological whim, even under politicians who are as wise and selfless as all of them claim to be.

Posted on

Poverty and free will

Poverty and free will

            By: John Hayward  |          December 3rd, 2013 at 02:40 PM

Once again, Pope Francis has criticized what he perceives as the excesses of capitalism, offering a challenge that every champion of economic liberty should respond to.  In fact, we should be grateful for these challenges.  The Pope gives us a whetstone upon which our reason and moral arguments can be sharpened.

I don’t mean to be too critical of Pope Francis – whose comments, delivered both in writing and during interviews, have been misappropriated by socialists looking to claim him as one of their own.  He’s spoken out against the excesses of State power as well.  I believe he has a somewhat unfortunate habit of using the language of the Left, such as disparaging references to “trickle-down economics,” to express what is more properly understood as a call to greater individual responsibility, and a devotion to voluntary charity.  I wholeheartedly agree with that part of his message.  It’s one of the places where I diverge from philosophies like objectivism, and Ayn Rand’s caution against the “sin of altruism.”

However, it’s worth remembering that part of the “sin of altruism” critique is based on the tendency of statists to insist that everything good must be mandatory.  They derive power from their belief – quite literally religious in its intensity – that the State is the sole champion of social justice, the ultimate repository of national morality.  If charity is good, they argue, then everyone who does not receive it should be compelled to provide it… with an almighty government skimming a fat percentage off the top for its services as a broker, of course.  Likewise, everything socially desirable must be managed, subsidized, or even provided “free” by the government.  We cannot risk allowing the greed of private individuals and companies to jeopardize “access” to something the Ruling Class has decided everyone simply must have.

For this reason, I grow uneasy when a figure of great moral authority, such as the Pope, speaks in a way that makes him useful to the totalitarian Left.  Capitalism is inseparable from freedom – when one departs, the other does not long remain secure.  And freedom is the best possible antidote to poverty.

What is a moral and just society supposed to do about poverty?  Is our strategy to make it less common… or less unpleasant?  Those are mutually exclusive goals, in part because of human nature.  If poverty is made more comfortable, a sizable number of people will see no reason to lift themselves out of it, and they’ll find their decision eagerly accommodated by socialists looking to secure their vote.  It is an iron law of economics that a society gets more of what it subsidizes.  When it becomes politically profitable to subsidize poverty, no one should be surprised that the result is more widespread poverty.

Can poverty be eliminated by even the wealthiest society?  From a practical standpoint, yes.  Much of the Western world has almost completely eradicated what the rest of the globe would consider true poverty.  But the definition is a political construct, so it’s relative, and subject to revision.  The “impoverished” citizen of the United States is not starving, dying in the cold, or suffering for lack of vital medical treatment.  Truly impoverished people in other parts of the world – the suffering masses Pope Francis is most urgently worried about – would look in wonder upon the luxuries enjoyed by America’s poor.  But of course, the Left deliberately seeks to conflate the two, so when we talk about something like reducing the absurdly bloated food stamp program, we’re supposed to imagine withered skeletons littering the streets.

Using the relative definitions of “poor” and “middle class,” should people who don’t work be poor?  We may be largely united in the determination that people who cannot work should be provided for, with due protections against efforts to defraud the system – which, it should be noted, our immense super-government currently does not enforce very well.  It’s also a matter of consensus that people who lose their jobs in the short term should have a “safety net” that keeps them from tumbling into financial ruin.  But what about people who don’t work, or refuse to work, over the long term?  How can we sustain the expense of providing them with lower-middle-class lifestyles, and how can it be morally appropriate to require working people to cover those costs?

Once again, there’s a world of difference between “can’t find a job” and “refuses to work,” and it can be rather difficult to distinguish between the two, although job-hunting requirements for welfare recipients are a good step in the right direction.  It’s hard to design a safety net that cannot be used as a hammock.  But we can engineer an environment of entrepreneurship, investment opportunity, and labor demand that causes people on the margins to choose working for a paycheck instead of the safety net.  There are many factors contributing to such an environment, including regulatory barriers against business creation, the cost of labor, the burden of taxation, and the extent of welfare benefits.  Strategically, to return to the first question asked above, we must choose between aggressive reducing poverty (by reducing its primary cause, unemployment) and making the welfare state comfortable enough to keep its beneficiaries comfortable indefinitely.

“Welfare” is no longer confined to people who would meet any definition of poverty.  Working people with healthy income will receive tax subsidies to pay their ObamaCare insurance premiums, for example.  The notion of forcing everyone to pay extra, so that people who are not poor can receive “free” benefits such as contraceptives they could easily afford to buy, is built deeply into the Affordable Care Act.  The State decides what is “good,” and makes it compulsory.  This drains huge amounts of money away from the private sector, especially given the notorious inefficiency and graft of Big Government.  We are left with less freedom – a reduced ability to spend money in the pursuit of our individual ambitions – and also reduced resources to take care of the truly needy.  A weak society is less able to extend helping hands.

It’s plain common sense to say that a wealthy person has much more money to contribute to charitable endeavors.  This is true of society in general as well.  Rich nations have more to give, both internally and to suffering people around the world.  It could therefore be said that a compassionate nation has a responsibility to be as economically strong and productive as possible, in order to create the wealth necessary for benevolence.  (That includes environmental benevolence, incidentally.  Only wealthy nations can afford the kind of “responsible development” environmentalists praise… a point made by developing nations at every world conference.)

And wealth is inevitably, inescapably, universally a function of choice, which means freedom.  Command economies are sick and weak.  Political control is no match whatsoever for the distributed intelligence and energy of a vast free market.  That’s partly due to the superior ability of a large number of free people to locate and exploit profitable opportunities, which central planners in distant capital cities tend to overlook.  But it’s also because wealth is generated by the kind of mutually beneficial transactions people engage in voluntarily.  Compulsive force is not necessary to make people do what they wanted to do anyway.  Almost by definition, every mandated, hyper-regulated activity generates less total value than free people spending an equivalent amount of time and money.  Sometimes that’s necessary, as in the case of military defense, which is not an inherently profitable activity.  But only rarely is it necessary, or morally defensible.

We have grown sick from an excess of compulsive power, which drains away far more wealth than what it confiscates from us in taxes.  That leaves us very noticeably less capable of creating the jobs that would help the willing poor earn their way into the middle class, producing benefits for all along the way.  Every employer who cuts a payroll is doing battle against poverty, and together they’re winning far more ground than all the bureaucrats ostentatiously dedicated to winning the “War on Poverty.”  Actually, the bureaucrats are losing ground, because poverty in America – according to those highly subjective measurements I mentioned earlier – is currently more widespread than it has been since the early days of the Great Society.  And let’s not forget the incredible benefits brought to every level of society by the fruits of capitalist investment, which provides even modest households with wonders undreamed-of by the royalty of old.

If you would help the weak, you must be strong.  A strong society is wealthy and prosperous.  And if we would be prosperous, we must be free.  We might define poverty itself as a shortage of freedom, in which no resources are available to exercise choice or fulfill ambition; the most desperate people of the world are entirely concerned with the daily struggle to find food and shelter.  Conversely, people with a good supply of paper money, but few real choices in life, don’t feel wealthy.  It is the doom of the Western world that its elites have persuaded it to seek moral superiority in mandated, controlled poverty… while the elites themselves live in fabulous luxury, peddling the idea of “income inequality” as “people without the right Party credentials making too much money.”

Posted on

You will definetly lose your doctor under Obama care – except if your a frieind of the whitehouse

Now it makes sense why our politicians on capital hill excused themselves from Obama care and allowed their friends in business and the unions to also have this luxury – they KNEW that all would lose their doctor and the care would be less.

Make you think – no? But what is the purpose anymore? Our president is self absorbed and uncaring about anything but his “vision”. He views us as chattel that must listen to him – he will “never” repeal Obama care – we are all wrong except him! no matter how many lies he told, no matter how much money, our money he spent, no matter the disaster he is causing…………………

And yet again – no one takes him to task and keeps the pressure up – the means does NOT justify the ends in the case – You cannot trump our constitution and lie to the American people with out consequences – what precedent does this set for the future?

This folly will never end!

Posted on

Obama Care – The Working Failure!

Obama care – the web site, the cancellations, the lies, the push to single payer big government, the constant denying that its a failure and expensive – the new “health care is a right” mantra.

All the arguing, all the videos showing the lies, all the words and papers showing the deception – means nothing.
Its the law – as we are always told – this is the grand plan – once its law, it has to be – hence we are all forced into it – by design – by default – as intended.

We have succumbed to socialism. Hence why Obama never apologizes, hence why he never has to be accountable, hence why his supporters never answer to the lies, hence why they never will – he has brilliantly stacked the government deck in his hand to shove this down our throats – he has won and we let him. You were warned!

Now Deblasio in NY – wait till this communist gets into power – be even more afraid!

I hope this folly ends……………


Posted on

Obama – SIngle Payer System – Socialism

President Barack Obama made it no secret he was a proponent of a single payer health care system in America when he first came on to the national scene. However, he explained to his supporters over the years that a “potential transition” would be necessary to break away from the current system.

Interestingly, as the implementation of the Obamacare exchanges face problems and millions begin to lose coverage from their private insurers, something President Obama promised would not happen, Democrats and their liberal allies are now beginning to suggest a single payer system as a solution to the rickety exchanges.

Rep. John Larson (D – CT) told Breitbart News last Wednesday that under a single payer system Americans would not be losing their private health care coverage, claiming, “You would be covered automatically. But that’s not the law. The law is that it’s a free enterprise system and they have the right not to enter into the exchange or not to provide for you in the exchange. That is their right.”

The video below shows clips of Obama explaining to supporters  his views over the years about how he would transition a single payer system into the United States. At the same time he criticizes his detractors, saying the Affordable Care Act is not a “government take over” of American health care.


Obama – Remarks to AFL – CIO

“I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care plan. The United States of America–the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent–14 percent of its gross national product on health care and cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody and that’s what Jim is talking about when he says, ‘Everybody in. Nobody out.’ A single payer health care credit–universal healthcare credit. That’s what I’d like to see, but as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House and we’ve got to take back the Senate and we’ve got to take back the House.”

Obama – Remarks  – 8/4/07

“This is a two trillion dollar part of our economy and it is my belief that it’s not just politically but economically it is better for us to start getting a system in place–a universal healthcare system signed into law by the end of my first term as president and build off that system to further to make it more rational…”

“By the way, Canada did not start immediately with a single payer system. They had a similar transition step. ”

Obama- New Hampshire Public Radio 11/21/07

OBAMA: It’s a transitional system building on the existing systems that we have.

HOST: Transitional to what?

OBAMA: Transitional, hopefully, because the system is currently a patchwork of inefficiency that over time I would want to see Medicaid, Medicare, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)–all those integrated more effectively.

Obama – Public Remarks 4/3/07

“Let’s say that I proposed a plan that moved to a single payer system–Let’s say Medicare plus. Essentially, everybody can buy Medicare, for example…”

“Transitioning a system is a very difficult and costly and lengthy enterprise. It’s not like you can turn on a switch and you go from one system to another. So it’s possible that up front, you wouldn’t need not just– you might need an additional ninety or a hundred billion dollars a year.”

Obama – (SEIU Healthcare Forum) – 3/24/07

“But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out..”

Obama – Public Remarks – 1/27/05

“There’s no denying that part of the solution in the health care arena as we transition and deal with the legacy systems that we’ve inherited will probably require some additional money.”

Obama – Remarks to American Medical Association – 6/15/2009

“The public option is not your enemy. It is your friend…Let me also address an illegitimate concern that is being put forward by those who are claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single payer system.”

Obama – (SEIU Healthcare Forum) – 3/24/07

“My commitment is to make sure we’ve got universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as president…”

“I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can’t go through their employers to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort…but I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out..”

Rep. Barney Frank (D – MA) – 7/27/09

“I think if we get a good public option, it could lead to single payer and that’s the best way to reach single payer.”

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D – IL) – 4/18/09

“And next to me was a guy from the insurance company who then argued against the public health insurance option saying, ‘It wouldn’t let private insurance compete–that a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single payer.’ He was right. The man was right.”