Texas Rainmaker

When your message is too weak to support your own station and you’ve admitted your supporters are stupid, what’s left to do but spoon feed them talking points and walk them to debates, holding their hands?

The Democratic National Committee’s Organizing for America has quietly launched an initiative aimed at making Obama supporters’ voices heard on the largely conservative airwaves.

The online tool presents users with a radio show discussing political topics, to which supporters can listen live, and the phone number for that station, for when health care comes up. It also offers tips for callers and talking points on the issue.

Given that most of their constituents are probably exploring careers in the telemarketing industry, this is probably a good strategy.

But it still doesn’t address the bigger issue… that most Americans don’t want to hear what liberals are peddling, hence the market forces of supply and demand leave them no other viable avenue to spew their socialist agenda. It does, however, show that liberals realize that the audience in talk radio land is too large to ignore… while they simultaneously ignore the reason behind the size of the audience.

And unloading a bunch of uninformed drones into grown up discussions of important issues will only further expose the idiocy that runs rampant on the political left. So I say, bring it on, seminar callers. Why think for yourself when you can have the White House think for you?

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
divider
Of Course He Would… He’s a Democrat
January 18th, 2010 12:05 am

What happens when Democrats find themselves behind in elections?

They cheat, of course. (audio)

SCHULTZ (23:02): I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I’d try to vote 10 times. I don’t know if they’d let me or not, but I’d try to. Yeah, that’s right. I’d cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. ‘Cause that’s exactly what they are.

The more we hope, the less they change.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (1) Comment
divider
Scott Brown vs. ObamaCare
January 12th, 2010 9:02 pm

One man potentially stands as the last line of defense against a disastrous monstrosity of legislation that threatens the United States. That man is Scott Brown. On January 19th, voters in Massachusetts will go to the polls in a special election to fill the Massachusetts Class I Senate seat (formerly held by Ted Kennedy), for the remainder of the term ending January 3, 2013. The election has become a referendum of sorts on the healthcare fiasco currently being crafted through backroom deals and shady bribery among the Democrat-controlled Congress. If Republican Scott Brown can pull off an upset in the blue state, he would become the 41st Republican in the Senate, ending the Democrat super majority.

Brown’s campaign had a goal of raising $500,000 today. So far, he’s raised $1.3 million and counting. Click here to raise that total.

By the way, here’s Brown during a recent debate reminding people just whose seat is up for grabs in this election.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
divider


I’ve been saying all along that the provisions in the Obamacare plans that force individual citizens to purchase health insurance under penalty of fine or imprisonment is unconsitutional and unprecedented. (See Sec. 1501: REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE on page 320)Never before has the U.S. government forced citizens to engage in a contract or purchase goods or services…. nor should they. Ever.

Senators DeMint and Ensign have raised a Constitutional Point of Order on the Senate floor against the Democrat health care takeover bill on behalf of the Steering Committee, a caucus of conservative senators. The Senate will vote tomorrow on the bill’s constitutionality.

And I’m glad to see them address the car insurance red herring as well.

“Forcing every American to purchase a product is absolutely inconsistent with our Constitution and the freedoms our Founding Fathers hoped to protect,” said Senator DeMint. “This is not at all like car insurance, you can choose not to drive but Americans will have no choice whether to buy government-approved insurance. This is nothing more than a bailout and takeover of insurance companies. We’re forcing Americans to buy insurance under penalty of law and then Washington bureaucrats will then dictate what these companies can sell to Americans. This is not liberty, it is tyranny of good intentions by elites in Washington who think they can plan our lives better than we can.”

There’s nothing Democrats hate more than being on the record with their votes. As evidenced by their three midnight/weekend/holiday votes on this current healthcare fiasco, they would prefer to do things behind closed doors so they can come out spinning… rather than promote their policies publicly where they can be held up for scrutiny and debate.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (3) Comments
divider
Cash for Cloture
December 21st, 2009 10:54 am

Introducing the Obama Administration’s newest pay-for-play federal program. Seedy Chicago politics and backroom bribery are all it takes for the federal government to take over the healthcare industry.

UPDATE: A list of the payoffs Harry “Boss Tweed” Reid secured to bribe his way into a cloture vote…

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (1) Comment
divider

If you really want to know what Democrats are up to… ignore their words and watch their actions.

Democrats are claiming that $500 billion in cuts to Medicare won’t cut healthcare benefits… But the proof that they’re lying is in the legislative pudding. Democrat Senator Bill Nelson of Florida insert language into the legislation that exempted three counties in his home state from the cuts.

And the political makeup of those three counties tells you all you need to know about the true impact of the legislation. The three counties specifically carved out with Nelson’s language are Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach… all heavily Democrat).

If you’re simply going to use legislation to buy votes, at least have the balls to be honest with us about it.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (1) Comment
divider
A Healthcare Plan So Good…
November 9th, 2009 3:01 pm

They’ll throw you in prison if you don’t join it…

No, thanks.

UPDATE: Just a reminder… Nancy Pelosi thinks throwing you in jail for failing to buy her insurance plan is “fair”…

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (1) Comment
divider
Primum Non Nocere
September 25th, 2009 7:45 am

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
divider
Sarah Palin Dismantles Obamacare
September 9th, 2009 9:04 am

They asked for a debate, they got one.

Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans “talk with one another, and not over one another” as our health-care debate moves forward.

I couldn’t agree more. Let’s engage the other side’s arguments, and let’s allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats’ health-care proposals should become governing law.

Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that “no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds.” Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.

We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.

How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.

Common sense tells us that the government’s attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats’ proposals “will provide more stability and security to every American.”

With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it’s a promise Washington can’t keep.

Let’s talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats’ proposals “will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control” by “cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . .”

First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such “waste and inefficiency” and “unwarranted subsidies” in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn’t think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that “in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.”

Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He’s asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . .”

Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats’ proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through “normal political channels,” they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats’ proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we’ve come to expect from this administration.

Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats’ proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won’t reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure.

The economic effects won’t be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they’ll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats’ proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result. A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise “the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers.” Lower wages are the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times.

Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats’ proposals “will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable.” Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it’s true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats’ proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats.

Instead of poll-driven “solutions,” let’s talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let’s give Americans control over their own health care.

Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don’t need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats’ proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not “provide more stability and security to every American.”

We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we’re not buying it.

Democrats aren’t serious about actually improving the healthcare system… they want to create yet another bureaucratic dependency upon which they can manipulate and base future campaign promises and games to keep a captive voting block.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
divider

Not only are Democrats trying to introduce a government-takeover of the health industry, but now they’re proposing penalties for those who exercise their choice not to purchase health insurance.

A top senator is calling for fines of up to $3,800 on families who fail to get medical insurance after a health care overhaul goes into effect.
The plan from Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana would make health insurance mandatory, just like auto coverage.

Auto insurance is not mandatory, per se. Unless you operate a motor vehicle, you do not have to purchase auto insurance. You can choose not to carry automobile insurance by simply choosing not to operate a motor vehicle. The problem with comparing it to health insurance, is that there is no way to opt out of the “mandatory” health insurance option. There are plenty of people who can afford health insurance, but opt out of purchasing it, for a variety of reasons. Insurance is a legal agreement between two parties whereby one party agrees to pay premiums in exchange for a promise from the other party to cover future potential obligations. The government should never get into the business of forcing citizens into contracts.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (1) Comment
divider
Tourisme Dentaire Dental TourismTourisme DentaireProthese dentaireClinique dentaireFacette dentairesTourisme DentaireVoyage DentaireTourisme DentaireEscort BayanEscortTourisme DentaireTourisme DentaireTourisme DentaireTourisme DentaireDental TourismTourisme DentaireDental TourismMedical Tourism Tourisme DentaireTourisme DentaireAntalya Web Tasarim

Texas Rainmaker is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
Graphics by: Margolis Media Works | Style by: Lisa Sabin - E.Webscapes

Copyright © 2003-2006

Users Online


    •  

      sidediv




    • HuckPac.com



    • sidediv


    • sidediv



  • CATEGORIES

    Fatal error: Call to undefined function wswwpx_fold_category_list() in /home/texasrai/public_html/wp-content/themes/rainmaker/sidebar.php on line 62