Palin Hit Another Hard One

[concept]

She did it again! Sweet Jesus!

Here it is again in video, so its easier for you to digest. This is what happens when a Sarah Palin posting meets ObamaCare out on the horizon

"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."

"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 . . . ."" That means Death Panels! Remember Obama is partners with God in matters of life and Death!

YouTube - JAvelin anti-tank

Hmmmm....would this promise be anything like the one she gave when she was sworn in as Governor of Alaska? Pot, kettle.

What a desperate, wild grab for a deflection.


Basically pleading, "make it stop, make it stop".


Sorry, fail.

 

[Sinatra]

Palin's latest post now circulating most media outlets.

She has successfully refocused people's attention on the inherent dishonesty of the debte to this point on the very day Obama must go all-in on the healthcare issue.

Palin is dominating the President of the United States via Facebook! Remarkable!

It is going to be very interesting to see how Obama does this evening.

The stakes are high for the teleprompter!

 

[VaYank5150]

She did it again! Sweet Jesus!

Here it is again in video, so its easier for you to digest. This is what happens when a Sarah Palin posting meets ObamaCare out on the horizon

"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."

"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 . . . ."" That means Death Panels! Remember Obama is partners with God in matters of life and Death!

YouTube - JAvelin anti-tank

Hmmmm....would this promise be anything like the one she gave when she was sworn in as Governor of Alaska? Pot, kettle.

What a desperate, wild grab for a deflection.


Basically pleading, "make it stop, make it stop".


Sorry, fail.

Show me the difference dumbass. She wants to paint "Washington" as making promises they cannot keep. How is she any different? She took an oath to serve her term as Governor and she failed to keep it. Who the fuck does she think she is?

 

[Sinatra]

Palins OP ED in the Wall Street Journal is generating HUGE response numbers.

Reports indicating Obama "still working" on his speech for tonight...

 

[Sinatra]

The WSJ OP ED in its entirety...

By SARAH PALIN

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.


Sarah Palin: Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care - WSJ.com

 

[VaYank5150]

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.

I wonder what her ex-constituents in Alaska think of language such as this. Don't get me wrong, I know there is no way in hell Palin wrote this, but since she is acting as if she did, her hypocrisy is amazing and she doesn't seem to care who knows it.

 

[Si modo]

D: The R's have no ideas!

R: Yes. Here they are.

D: The R's just say 'no'

R: No to your proposal. Yes to ours. Here it is.

D: The no-idea party.

R: Here are our ideas.

D: R's just obstruct.

R: We obstruct proposals that are bad. Look at this.

D: The party of "NO"

R: Look at our plan.




I don't know if the GOP is stupid or not, but they are keeping an optimism in light of idiocy. The party of hope, perhaps.

I see your point, but the GOP really needs to step it up a little bit and not rely on a former Gov's facebook page.

The best ideas out of the RNC today come from Palins Facebook Page. That's says a lot about the RNC

Either Palin has no ideas (earlier rhetoric), or she has the best ideas. It is illogical having it both ways.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

I wonder what her ex-constituents in Alaska think of language such as this. Don't get me wrong, I know there is no way in hell Palin wrote this, but since she is acting as if she did, her hypocrisy is amazing and she doesn't seem to care who knows it.

How hard is it to find some Alaskan Lib pretending to be a "moderate" who is extremely disappointed by Sarah?

 

[Sinatra]

The WSJ OP ED in its entirety...

By SARAH PALIN

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.


Sarah Palin: Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care - WSJ.com

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I see your point, but the GOP really needs to step it up a little bit and not rely on a former Gov's facebook page.

The best ideas out of the RNC today come from Palins Facebook Page. That's says a lot about the RNC

Either Palin has no ideas (earlier rhetoric), or she has the best ideas. It is illogical having it both ways.

she has the best ideas and is the new voice of American Conservatism.

No doubt abiut it and that's what send Obama back for a rewrite

 

[VaYank5150]

How hard is it to find some Alaskan Lib pretending to be a "moderate" who is extremely disappointed by Sarah?

Palin was elected by all to serve all in Alaska. However, she broke her promise to serve them, so she could go make big money with a book deal etc. So please, tell me again who she thinks she is pointing fingers at "Washington" claiming they are making promises they cannot keep?

 

[xotoxi]

..
Good job Sarah.

what was her job again?

Conservative internet blogger.

 

[VaYank5150]

..
Good job Sarah.

what was her job again?

Conservative internet blogger.

Ok. Fair enough. Good job, then.

 

[Sinatra]

As Obama is indicating full ahead on endorsing a public option in his speech tonight, Senator Max Baucus D-Mont, is indicating a public option will NOT pass the Senate. For Baucus to announce this hours before the president is to speak to the nation on this very subject is telling.

It appears there are Democrat leaders fully prepared to stare down the president on this issue...

 

[Si modo]

How hard is it to find some Alaskan Lib pretending to be a "moderate" who is extremely disappointed by Sarah?

Palin was elected by all to serve all in Alaska. However, she broke her promise to serve them, so she could go make big money with a book deal etc. So please, tell me again who she thinks she is pointing fingers at "Washington" claiming they are making promises they cannot keep?

So did Obama and Biden. What's your point?

 

[VaYank5150]

How hard is it to find some Alaskan Lib pretending to be a "moderate" who is extremely disappointed by Sarah?

Palin was elected by all to serve all in Alaska. However, she broke her promise to serve them, so she could go make big money with a book deal etc. So please, tell me again who she thinks she is pointing fingers at "Washington" claiming they are making promises they cannot keep?

So did Obama and Biden. What's your point?

Dealing with you pea brains DOES get old from time to time.....Palin quit and broke her oath to serve. What was YOUR point?

 

[Si modo]

Palin was elected by all to serve all in Alaska. However, she broke her promise to serve them, so she could go make big money with a book deal etc. So please, tell me again who she thinks she is pointing fingers at "Washington" claiming they are making promises they cannot keep?

So did Obama and Biden. What's your point?

Dealing with you pea brains DOES get old from time to time.....Palin quit and broke her oath to serve. What was YOUR point?

So did Obama and Biden. They no longer serve those who elected them in their respective states.

It's a very weak argument, but feel free to continue. I'm sure you will have no problem convincing those who already agree with to to continue to do so. If that's helpful to you...woot! You go!

 

[Zoom-boing]

How hard is it to find some Alaskan Lib pretending to be a "moderate" who is extremely disappointed by Sarah?

Palin was elected by all to serve all in Alaska. However, she broke her promise to serve them, so she could go make big money with a book deal etc. So please, tell me again who she thinks she is pointing fingers at "Washington" claiming they are making promises they cannot keep?

She didn't break her promise to serve Alaska to make big money. She did it to point out Obama and the Dem's mistakes without being in a political office. She did it to rejuvenate the conservative base. She's doing a great job too -- she has all the little Demo-sheeple baa-baa-baaing.

 

[VaYank5150]

So did Obama and Biden. What's your point?

Dealing with you pea brains DOES get old from time to time.....Palin quit and broke her oath to serve. What was YOUR point?

So did Obama and Biden. They no longer serve those who elected them in their respective states.

It's a very weak argument, but feel free to continue. I'm sure you will have no problem convincing those who already agree with to to continue to do so. If that's helpful to you...woot! You go!

Whether you like it or not, Biden and Obama not ONLY now serve those who elected them in their respective states, but also those who didn't. What part of this simple logic are you struggling with?

 

[VaYank5150]

She did it to rejuvenate the conservative base. She's doing a great job too

So, her base appreciates her lying about "death panels"? That speaks volumes about the conservative "base"....