The number of Americans who have fallen into poverty rose to 15.1 percent in 2010, according to a new report. For children under 18, the poverty rate was 22 percent.
Also in the news, the Obama’s cost the taxpayers an extra $100,000 for taking separate flights to Hawaii last year for the family vacation. This year they went to Martha’s Vineyard, but Michelle Obama wanted to spend a little extra time there, so she took an advanced flight by herself. With the extra security, flying in a specially designed USAF plane the additional expenses are probably close to $80,000 paid by the taxpayers. The Obama’s total travel expenses to date, all charged back to the taxpayers is estimated to be in excess of $20 million.
AND THIS JUST CAME IN….
A source in The White House has reported that Michelle Obama is not only a vacation junkie who lives from one vacation to the next and plans the next vacation even as the current one is finishing but has spent more than $10 millions dollars of tax payer money for her personal getaways in 2011 alone and there are still four months left for her vacations.
The source stated that her five star hotel visits include the most expensive wines and vodka, a personal favorite, tax payer funded shopping sprees, massages and of course separate travel plans for her and Barack. On this current trip they were only four hours apart to Martha’s Vineyard since Michelle just could not wait for her husband and Bo for a measly few hours. As a result, two jets were used with separate motorcades.
While the Obama’s pay some of their expenses the source stated that it is dwarfed by tax payer monies used for the Obama vacations especially Michelle’s spending habits. Below are just a few of the tax payer funded extravagances for Obama vacations.
SOURCE: http://theliberalslies.blogspot.com/2011/08/michelle-obama-abusing-office-shes.html
The poverty rate increased 6% from 2009 to 2010 according to that same article.
I think it is time that the American taxpayers determine the perks for elected officials including the POTUS. There should be a cap on spending for personal trips. The amount of money allocated for travel would be known in advance. This is simply called a budget. If there are any deviations then the additional expense would need to be paid by that individual i.e. Mrs. Obama. Unless there is a valid reason for the POTUS and family to leave at different times, the additional cost for security should not be borne by the taxpayers.
We lost 8.75 million payroll jobs in the slump; so far, we’ve regained only 1.9 million…even with the miraculous Obama stimulus plan that was supposed to keep unemployment under 8%.
We were told the economy would be humming along quite nicely by now….instead it is dying na slow painful death!
Likewise we were told that passing Obamacare would keep healthcare costs down (they are up), premiums would be lower (they are higher), and more people would be covered (they are not).
The cover story is bizarre.
Interestingly, the census also reports that “If unemployment insurance benefits were excluded from money income, 3.2 million more people would be counted as poor in 2010.”
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf
The CBO has also concluded that extension of unemployment benefits–a policy favored by the president, and opposed by Republicans–prevented the poverty rate from getting even worse.
Tina: “SOURCE: http://theliberalslies.blogspot.com/2011/08/michelle-obama-abusing-office-shes.html”
Well, there’s a reliable source.
I have a hard time believing any claims made about the Obamas’ travel expenses after the many that have been proven false. Remember India?
“We lost 8.75 million payroll jobs in the slump; so far, we’ve regained only 1.9 million…even with the miraculous Obama stimulus plan that was supposed to keep unemployment under 8%.”
The stimulus plan did not have as great an effect as projected…this isn’t surprising to me. However, it did create millions of jobs and the economy would have been much worse off without it; some argue that it helped avert another Great Depression.
Some excerpts from FactCheck.org:
“The truth is that the stimulus increased employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million people, compared with what employment would have been otherwise. Thats according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office…
“…But its just false to say that the stimulus created “no jobs” or “failed to save and create jobs” or “has done nothing to reduce unemployment” or similar claims that the stimulus did not produce any jobs…
“Simply put, more people would be unemployed if not for the stimulus bill. The exact number of jobs created and saved is difficult to estimate, but nonpartisan economists say theres no doubt that the number is positive.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs/
Tina: “We were told the economy would be humming along quite nicely by now….”
I don’t recall anyone using such rosy language, but I agree that this would be a very naive statement.
“Likewise we were told that passing Obamacare would keep healthcare costs down (they are up),
Can this really be attributed to “Obamacare?” How can it be, when so few of its provisions have gone into effect?
Healthcare costs have been going up for years. That’s the whole reason this bill was passed.
“premiums would be lower (they are higher),”
Only if you ignore the government subsidies that the majority of Americans are eligible for. From Politifact:
“The CBO reported that, for most people, premiums would stay about the same, or slightly decrease. This was especially true for people who get their insurance through work. (Health policy wonks call these the large group and small group markets.) People who have to go out and buy insurance on their own (the individual market) would see rates increase by 10 to 13 percent. But more than half of those people — 57 percent, in fact — would be eligible for subsidies to help them pay for the insurance. People who get subsidies would see their premiums drop by more than half, according to the CBO. So most people would see their premiums stay the same or potentially drop.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/28/nancy-pfotenhauer/health-care-reform-does-not-increase-premiums-and-/
“and more people would be covered (they are not).”
I’m not sure this is true. Certainly one group–young people–are more covered now then ever, thanks to one of the few parts of the ACA that have actually gone into effect. From, of all places, FOX Business:
“That age group saw the biggest change in insurance coverage in 2010, the Census report showed. About half a million more Americans aged 18 to 24 received healthcare coverage last year, an increase touted by the Obama administration Tuesday and attributed to the provision.
“It’s the only aspect of health reform that you can possibly point to,” said Elise Gould, director of health policy research at the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute think tank in Washington. “(The numbers) would be worse without health reform, for sure, since it’s not like young adults are getting jobs at a higher rate.”
http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/09/13/more-americans-turned-to-public-health-insurance-in-2010/#ixzz1Y4Zrg3hf
Chris: “Well, there’s a reliable source.”
Chris you must have mistaken me for someone else…one ringy dingy…two ringy dingy…snort…snort…
“However, it did create millions of jobs and the economy would have been much worse off without it; some argue that it helped avert another Great Depression.”
Most of the jobs bought with stimulus are temporary…when the money dries up, or the company goes belly up as with Solyndra, or the project is completed, the jobs are gone.
The private sector has been kicked to the curb and pi**ed on!
Corporations and investors are under threat of higher taxes and stringent expensive regualtion.
Energy cost are high and will go higher.
Healthcare is a big question mark.
Some argue that this is the model that CAUSED the great depression…we’re right on track to prove that ten years of holy hell!
“Simply put, more people would be unemployed if not for the stimulus bill.”
Oh goodie…unemplyment at 12% instead of 9%…or, real unemployment at 26% or 27% instead of only 25%!
“Only if you ignore the government subsidies that the majority of Americans are eligible for.”
Yeah, because everyone knows that those subsidies are FREE!
YOU have ignored the cuts to Medicare (accounted for twice by Sebelius-dirty tricks accounting often used by congress critters):
http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/04/hhs-secretary-sebelius-admits-to-double-counting-in-obamacare-budget/
You have also ignored the reports that Obamacare, just like other entitlements have, will cost a lot more than is being projected with the rosie snow job.
Repeat after me…NO FREE LUNCH…EVER! (It is your future, Chris)
“I don’t recall anyone using such rosy language, but I agree that this would be a very naive statement.”
all I can say is much more was promised than was delivered:
http://www.mrc.org/bmi/articles/2011/Here_We_Go_Again_Networks_Back_Obama_Replay_on_Infrastructure_Spending_Stimulus.html
“I’m not sure this is true. Certainly one group–young people–are more covered now then ever…”
Young people are one of Obamas easiest to accquire constituents…no surprise there.
But Obama was the candidate of hope and change…all of his speches were about the glorious new world his presidency would create. (And nothing about the practical ways that such dreams would need to make them manifest)
His acceptance speech for the nomination: “…tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of anothera journey that will bring a new and better day to America.
We’ve had anything but a better day at nearly 3 years in we are worse off…he has actually set records.
http://www.examiner.com/finance-examiner-in-national/record-number-of-americans-living-poverty-and-without-health-insurance
Generally speaking the young don’t require or need much in terms of medical care. But this redistribution really buys a lot of votes.
I realize that there are competing positions about how to imrove the economy and put people back to work. What Obama believed in and tried has not worked. I suspect his agenda is more important than the state of the economy or the suffering that so many are experiencing. I believe his ideology is getting in the way and his commitment to it will not allow him to question or change course.
That is what needs to be done, however, not more of what he did before.
Tina: “Chris you must have mistaken me for someone else…one ringy dingy…two ringy dingy…snort…snort…”
My bad, Tina; I realized after I posted that the article was attributed to “Post Scripts,” which usually means Jack. Sorry.
“Oh goodie…unemplyment at 12% instead of 9%…or, real unemployment at 26% or 27% instead of only 25%!”
Well, yeah. I wouldn’t say “goodie,” but I will say “better.”
You have every right to be disappointed that the stimulus and other efforts didn’t quite live up to the promises made. We are all frustrated with the way things are right now, but that doesn’t mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. The facts show that we are better off with these stimulatory efforts than we would otherwise be. Without them, millions of jobs, even if those jobs are temporary, would be gone. More people would be unemployed, and would be without unemployment insurance to help them out.
“Yeah, because everyone knows that those subsidies are FREE!”
I never said that…of course they come from tax revenue. But how does that change the truth or falsity of the matter? You claimed that premiums are higher than before, but for the majority they are actually lower.
“YOU have ignored the cuts to Medicare”
I thought Republicans were for cuts to Medicare? Paul Ryan’s budget kept those cuts while also proposing the repeal of the ACA, which makes up for the cuts in several ways.
“Repeat after me…NO FREE LUNCH…EVER! (It is your future, Chris)”
I never said it was a free lunch. I’m saying it will be worth the cost in the long run.
“Generally speaking the young don’t require or need much in terms of medical care. But this redistribution really buys a lot of votes.”
Hm…I don’t know the reason for this being the first part of the healthcare plan to be implemented, and I suspect neither do you. Your theory sounds pretty cynical.
Intentions aside, this part of the plan is working. And since it’s the only part of the plan that has kicked in, I don’t see how you can say that the healthcare plan as a whole is a failure. It is far too early to say that.
“What Obama believed in and tried has not worked.”
The stimulus created millions of jobs…you may not approve of the number, or the type of jobs, but it’s better than nothing. Extending unemployment benefits worked as well. These are facts.
Chris, you said, “The facts show that we are better off with these stimulatory efforts than we would otherwise be. Without them, millions of jobs, even if those jobs are temporary, would be gone.” Sorry to disagree, but that is not a fact. This is a supposition based on what, FDR’s WPA projects in the 30’s? Most economists I’ve read believe FDR prolonged the depression by such Keynesian policies. In my opinion it was WWII that brought this country out of the depression.
Chris: “that doesn’t mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.”
It wouldn’t if we were treading on new ground. We are not. We have been here before. This doesn’t work. 2 years and 31 months into this presidency, give or take, is too long to stay the course when other methods have a better track record. Close to one quarter of our population is unemployed and getting unemployment (which will eventually end), have given up looking and are now on food stamps and other poverty programs, or are working part time jobs or jobs not in their field for less pay. This is not recovery…it is a fast track to depression.
“The facts show that we are better off with these stimulatory efforts than we would otherwise be..”
How do you know…what facts…by what measure. How do you measure “than we would have been” had we done something else or nothing? Think!
“Without them, millions of jobs, even if those jobs are temporary, would be gone.”
People grow the economy…people create wealth. Creating an atmosphere that encourages investment in the private sector would have worked much better and provided permaneent employment. Government creates debt, prints inflation causing money, and takes from the private secotor…nothing is created and nothing is stimulated. Projects have been paid for, some of them going bust (waste and/or fraud), jobs have been temporarily saved (what happens when the money stops?).
“You claimed that premiums are higher than before, but for the majority they are actually lower.”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/4569-obamacare-brings-insurance-rate-hikes
Anyone that thinks costs will go down isn’t thinking.
http://www.themoneytimes.com/featured/20100912/obamacare-raising-health-insurance-premiums-id-10127966.html
Reasons behind rising premiums
There is a price for all of this, Chris. Think!
“I thought Republicans were for cuts to Medicare?”
Republicans are for reforms to Medicare, reforms that would bring market principles into the system. You’re going to have to get past the idea that Republicans are cruel in order to understand what is being proposed.
“I’m saying it will be worth the cost in the long run.”
That’s a pretty safe opinion to hold for someone that hasn’t had to pick up the tab. What I don’t unbderstand is why, when it is pointed out that this will cost too much, create debt in the long run, lead to rationing, result in less innovation, lead to lower quality of care but there is a better way to address problems you on the left aren’t interested. One has to assume that debt, higher costs and low quality of care is fine with you just because everyone gets covered (which it turns out is also not happening). Why does the left not concern itself with these very important real world issues? It’s like you live in a fantasy world…where everything is free…or like you have never had to grow up.
“Your theory sounds pretty cynical.”
It doesn’t just sound cynical…it is cynical. It comes from investigating the various programs that the government has put in place saying it will only cost $X.xx and then twenty or thirty years down the road it actually costs $XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.xx, adjusted for inflation. Young people haven’t been around long enough to experience and see this for themselves. Telling them about it doesn’t have the same effect as learning it through living. I don’t think you are Marxist in your thinking; I think you just have a big heart. I do think that those who put these programs together are Marxists and they know exactly what they are doing…and it ain’t America…and it ain’t going to work as you imagine it will. The less fortunate will be hurt most of all.
The best way to help the less fortunate, including with health care, is to raise the overall quality of life for all citizens. That can only happen when the private sector is set free to invent, invest, and work to create wealth, opportunity, and prosperity. More government controls, bigger government, blunts and minimizes that private sector urge.
“…but it’s better than nothing”
If nothing were the only option you’d be right.
Think!
Tina: “How do you know…what facts…by what measure. How do you measure “than we would have been” had we done something else or nothing? Think!”
Tina, I am going by the measures used by the Census Bureau and the CBO.
If you don’t think these sources are reliable, then you shouldn’t use them yourself. And you certainly shouldn’t use them to prove a point that your sources actually disprove.
“Republicans are for reforms to Medicare, reforms that would bring market principles into the system.”
And many of these reforms are done through cuts. Did you think changing the wording around would somehow disprove my point?
“You’re going to have to get past the idea that Republicans are cruel in order to understand what is being proposed.”
I never said or implied that. I made a statement of fact, that Republicans are in favor of cuts to Medicare as well. You didn’t seem to like that.
“What I don’t unbderstand is why, when it is pointed out that this will cost too much, create debt in the long run, lead to rationing, result in less innovation, lead to lower quality of care but there is a better way to address problems you on the left aren’t interested.”
Uh…how about because it’s not true? Because the CBO and many other economists have concluded that these measures will actually lower costs and lower the deficit? Because your rationing claim is completely bogus?
There’s also the fact that much of what you are trying to “point out” is born out of your extreme anti-government philosophy that says our country was better off before the 1930s…you insist that government programs never work, and that government intervention in healthcare especially doesn’t work. But the facts don’t support that. Sweden is doing better than us by every possible economic measure, and here at home, Massachusetts is doing better than practically any other state. But you can’t accept this, because it goes against your near-religious faith in free market absolutism.