He's Not My First Choice, But He's Not the Worst Choice

By Grant Davies

Image courtesy of Ragwater Cat
A few days ago, I posted a short piece addressing whether presidential aspirant Herman Cain was as able as he is likable. I expressed that I liked the guy's style but held back on any commentary on the substance of his proposals, promising that I would do that in this piece.


His main policy initiative is what he calls his "9-9-9" plan. Essentially it proposes a substantive change in the tax code. Simply, it is a 9% flat tax across all income levels, a 9% corporate tax rate and a 9% national sales tax. On the surface, sans a lot of details, it sounds pretty good on several different levels.


Putting aside the notion that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for a new President to make such a proposal become law in a country with so many special interests working around the clock to see to it that it never happens, let's talk about some of the things about it that sound good before I tell you why I think it's not so good.

The first good thing is he is on the right path if he thinks that the country needs a new tax system. The one we have now has so many problems, is so huge, so complicated, and so non-tax related that it has simply become a national nightmare to all but government power mongers and the beneficiaries of their favors.

The second good thing is that any plan that simplifies the code by removing deductions (sometimes called loopholes) and flattening the rate will bring clarity to people and businesses so we can begin to get back to the basics and remove some of the uncertainties that cause paralysis in the economy.

The third good thing is that it addresses the double (and sometimes more) taxation that we all end up paying one way or the other. And, in theory, there may be other good things about it as well.

So what could be wrong with it? Well, as it turns out the problem is as old as a bible story. The problem for Adam and Eve was that their son Abel was too trusting of his brother Cain. He ended up getting murdered because of it. And I'm afraid that we will end up getting murdered in a tax sense by politicians who the modern day Cain trusts too much to leave his tax plan alone if he ever ends up getting it enacted.

Herman Cain's plan which adds a national sales tax to an income tax is just too trusting that future politicians won't just hike one or the other (or both) of them the second they get the chance. I guarantee it will happen, it's as certain as the taxes themselves. Then all of us become like a modern day Abel, that is to say, dead.

It all amounts to just tinkering with the system and like a lot of proposals, it sounds good on paper but it's not worth the paper it's written on. What we need is a new tax system, not more layers on top of the one we have now.

I like Herman Cain on several levels even though he supported the imbecilic TARP law which bailed out the banks and other crony capitalists. And according to a new Rasmussen poll just released it seems a lot of other folks do too since it shows him within 5 points of Obama if the election were held today. But there are no perfect candidates and Cain has his share of baggage from my perspective.

I'm not too big on polls in general and the above one is no exception. Nor is the one which came out today (9-28-11) showing Ron Paul actually leading Obama by 51% to 49%. There are too many variables. In my mind they are like snapping a picture without a flashbulb.

When it comes to tax systems, I like the flat tax best, and when it comes to early preferences for Presidential replacements, I like Ron Paul the best. But since there are no perfect candidates, when it comes to Herman Cain, he's not my first choice, but he's not the worst choice. (That would be Barack Obama.)

The video below explains very well why I prefer a Flat Tax to any other system currently being floated.



To read a great analysis on Cain and his plan please visit International Liberty and see what Dan Mitchell thinks.

(Editor's Note: A retired investment advisor and resident of Illinois, Grant Davies blogs from a liberty perspective at What we Think and Why)

Michelle Obama Shops at Target...

By Proof

...for a photo op and gets one!

Image and video hosting by TinyPic


On Sesame Street they used to (and still maybe do) have a little game called "One of these things is not like the others". Let's play!

Image and video hosting by TinyPic


Is it A) Michelle wearing her $600 sneakers to a charity event?

B) Michelle and her $6,000 alligator clutch?

C) Michelle wearing $42K+ diamonds to a DNC fundraiser?

or D) Michelle shopping at Target?

Take your time! There are only two obvious conclusions. One is that the Obama economy is soooo bad, that even millionaires and billionaires have to shop at Target. Or, 2012 is right around the corner and Michelle is trying desperately to lose the Marie Antoinette image she has so carefully cultivated over the last three years.

We report. You decide.

Cross posted at Proof Positive

Terrorist and traitor Anwar al-Awlaki assumes room temperature with the assistance of Predator Drone strike

By the Full Metal Patriot



This morning, Anwar al-Awlaki abruptly imitated the consistency of chunky salsa after a careful applications of Hellfire missiles.
Senior Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen early Friday morning by a CIA-led U.S. drone strike, marking the highest-profile takedown of a terror leader since the raid on Usama bin Laden's compound.

Fox News has learned that two Predator drones hovering above al-Awlaki's convoy fired the Hellfire missiles which killed the terror leader. According to a senior U.S. official, the operation was carried out by Joint Special Operations Command, under the direction of the CIA.

"AQAP has lost its ideological leader, which is a huge blow," a former intelligence official who has tracked al-Awlaki for years told Fox News.

Al-Awlaki was a U.S.-born Islamic militant cleric who became a prominent figure with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the network's most active branch. He was involved in several terror plots in the United States in recent years, using his fluent English and Internet savvy to draw recruits to carry out attacks. President Obama signed an order in early 2010 making him the first American to be placed on the "kill or capture" list.

The Yemeni government and Defense Ministry announced al-Awlaki's death, without giving details. But American sources confirmed the CIA and U.S. military were behind the strike on al-Awlaki, whom one official described as a "big fish."

The strike hit a vehicle with three or four suspected Al Qaeda members inside, in addition to al-Awlaki. The strike comes after a heavy presence of U.S. drones was spotted in the skies over the region over the last couple weeks, one source told Fox News.

The strike underscores the expanding nature of the drone program, which has migrated beyond the borders of Pakistan into Yemen, Somalia and other countries.

Yemeni security officials and local tribal leaders also said al-Awlaki was killed in an air strike on his convoy that they believed was carried out by the Americans.
In response, Uncle Nitwit Ron Paul jumped at the chance to beclown himself, criticizing the killing of an American traitor and terrorist, calling it an “assassination.”
Ron Paul aggressively criticized President Obama today for al-Awlaki's death.

"No I don't think that's a good way to deal with our problems," Paul said in a media avail after his remarks at the Politics + Eggs event here. "He was born here, Al-Awlaki was born here, he is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the underwear bomber. But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad.

"I think what would people ... have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn't assassinate him, who certainly he had done it. Went and put through the courts then executed him. To start assassinating American citizens without charges, we should think very seriously about this."

Does he feel the same about Bin Laden? "

Not exactly. Because he was involved in 9/11 and I voted for authority to go after those individuals responsible for 9/11. Al-Awlaki nobody ever suggested that he was participant in 9/11."
Those who conduct war against the United States should not be surprised when the United States returns the favor.

Al-Awlaki may have been born here, but he made a conscious and very public decision to wage war against America. He even left our country so he could train terrorists to conduct attacks against us. American soldiers didn't drag a U.S. citizen out of his house and shoot him in the street. He wasn't denied due process. This traitor was killed on the battlefield as he made preparation to murder American soldiers and our citizens.
---

Cross-posted at Full Metal Patriot

He is Likable, but Is Cain Able?

By Grant Davies

I don't think that we should pick a President because of his "Likability" factor. We already tried that with the executive failure that we have serving in that capacity right now.

I never liked him (Obama) personally very much because I thought he was a phony, and I still do. (Very similar to Billy Bob Lewinsky who is still the biggest phony out there.) But plenty of people did like Obama personally even if they think they made a big mistake by voting for him. And many still do. I keep reading comments, even from his detractors, that he is a nice guy and so on. Fair enough, different strokes for different folks and all that stuff.

Having said that, on a purely social level, there is one Presidential candidate that I find very likable. Herman Cain is a long-shot to be the nominee of the Republican Party to say the least. But in my personal poll (where I only poll myself) even if he isn't my first or even second choice, he wins the likability vote one to nothing.

The guy comes off as entertaining, refreshingly candid, upbeat and as someone who has enough wisdom to take his task, but not himself, too seriously. He smiles a lot, which makes me smile. It's a much needed commodity in these tense times.

Cain is a straight talker for sure. Just yesterday he called Obama out for his "Bullshit" ideas and said in no uncertain terms that he is a liar when he says "It's not a matter of class warfare but math." He also dressed down a Hollywood actor for jumping on the "Tea Party people are racists" bandwagon by saying, "C'mon man, this is real life." And he did all of that with a smile on his face. Good stuff from my perspective.

He also has some good ideas even if they aren't my first choice of all the ideas out there. And he seems to have caught on with a great many people who could influence the outcome of the upcoming election when he won the Florida Straw Poll by a wide margin over the media's darling boys.

So I thought I'd put a few videos up for those of you smart enough to focus your weekend energy on football and golf instead of politics. The last part of the first video is worth waiting for. A great Saturday Night Live skit brings some good laughs and the great question: "Can the Pizza Man deliver?"



(Editor's Note: A retired investment advisor and resident of Illinois, Grant Davies blogs from a liberty perspective at What we Think and Why)

Reason.tv: How Housing Policy and Public Pensions are Bankrupting America

By the Left Coast Rebel


From Reason:

"The day that facts start winning in Washington is the day I don't have to do my job," says Reason Foundation's director of economic research Anthony Randazzo. Randazzo and policy analyst Adam Summers spoke at a panel at FreedomFest 2011 called "Shooting Elephants: Government Pensions & Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac."

At the heart of the current economic crisis is a housing meltdown that Randazzo says was underwritten by misguided government policies designed to increase home ownership rates. When you look at the data, he argues, there's little reason to believe that owning makes more sense than renting from a variety of perspectives. Yet the government's push to create an "ownership society" ended up first inflating an unsustainable market.

Summers focuses on the role that public pensions play in state and local budget shortfalls. Routinely based on "wishful thinking rather than what is reasonably foreseeable," Summers says public-sector wages and benefits need to brought into line with the private sector and that states such as Utah are providing a workable model of reform.


Related: Via Memeorandum, CBS News, Joe Biden Admits that Obama admin owns the economy?

(VIDEO) Free Speech: Liberals Demand New Orleans Anti-Obama Signs Be Taken Down

Cross-posted at the Left Coast Rebel

If you really want to see what generations of the liberal mentality does to an individual's brain and soul simply (especially in the African-American community) watch this video:



So... a private citizen is displaying private property anti-Obama signs and local Jesse-Jackson-type libs want it taken down. Even shameless race-baiter Ray Nagin showed up to "discuss" the situation with the property owner.

Memorable quotes transcribed from the video:

Local media
: "what some say is in bad taste, others call free speech." (Could the media be any stupider? Bad taste = free speech. Good taste = free speech. Free speech = free speech. End. Of. Discussion).

Local citizen: "It disrespects the nation and President Barack Obama represents our nation... everybody, not some people." (In other words, I don't like it so it needs to come down).

Local citizen #2: "He wouldn't do dat to dah Bush, it's insulting and we mean that it's going to have to be taken down." (translated: Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton told me so).

Local citizen #3: "This is nothing but pure Raaaaaacism!" (but of course, the first and last refuge of libtard scoundrels).

Orwellian New Orleans city councilwoman Susan Guidry: "We have to determine that there is a zoning law that prohibits perhaps the size of the sign; the way that it is erected, perhaps that it is leaning over onto public property, whatever we can use, we will." (Translated: meet the pinched-face of fascism, her name is "zoning law").

These people are no different than the "home of the 1960s free speech movement" Berkeley-types here in California that scream "1st Amendment!" yet rabidly decry against anything their close-minded pea-sized brains can't comprehend, insisting that "hate speech" is not "free speech."

Not holding my breath for the ACLU to take up the Timothy Reily's case.

View photos of the anti-Obama signs here.

Hat-tip: Memeorandum.

America is Great Because….

By Frank Hill

A) We have great infrastructure; public education and public welfare systems, or
B) People have the freedom to make and create whatever products or services they want to and are only constrained by their creative energies.

Massachusetts Senate Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren fired the opening salvo in her campaign against incumbent Scott Brown last week with the following statement:
‘There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own -- nobody. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory -- and hire someone to protect against this -- because of the work the rest of us did.
Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless -- keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.’
One wag responded thusly: ‘Define ‘hunk’’.

Rich Lowry of the National Review responded: "Focusing on infrastructure as the crucial support of entrepreneurial activity is like crediting the guy who built young Bill Gates’s garage with the start of Microsoft."

This seems to be the fundamental difference between the two major parties right now, doesn’t it?

One side, the Democrats, consistently try to make the case that all we have to do to get out of this accursed recession is to build more bridges, roads, light and rapid rail systems; increase job training programs and keep extending unemployment benefits and we will be ok.

There is hardly ever any mention of the ‘entrepreneurial spirit’; ‘dogged determination’ or even the ‘enlightened self-interest’ (greed) that peppered so many of Ronald Reagan’s speeches and policies.

The other side, the Republicans, disagree. For the most part. Except for the ones who have used the federal treasury as their personal piggybank to get re-elected by sending pork back to their home districts and states for the past 30 years.

Some try to make the case that having no public works programs or government assistance program is the way to get back to prosperity. Tax cuts and more tax cuts, they say, will lead to such enormous economic growth that no one will need welfare or economic assistance because everyone will be able to find a job or create one for themselves.

We don’t think it is that clear of a divide between the two schools of thought. We think the answer needs to be more clearly defined with words that matter rather than words that are used to stir up division and strife.

How about this for a stab at some vestige of ‘reality’, if we can return to this planet for a few brief moments?

The strength and beauty of the American Experiment has always been rooted in freedom. Freedom for each individual. Freedom to choose whatever avenue of life, career, interest you care to follow. Freedom to pursue your goals as long as it doesn’t intentionally harm others.

The essential libertarian message of our Fore Fathers is embedded in the following nutshell: ‘Your ‘freedom’ to throw your fist through the air ends where my nose begins!’

It is also the essence of the Declaration of Independence in its purest form. Even with the internal conflicts over slavery back then. ‘All men are created equal’ pretty much trumps everything else in America, doesn’t it?

Capitalism and free enterprise appears to ‘hurt’ certain workers as technology improves and businesses are put out of work. Think of all the stenographers and clerical typists and White-Out manufacturers who were ‘put out of work’ by the advent of the PC run on Microsoft software.

But consider how many hundreds of millions of people around the globe who have been freed from the shackles of working in a huge nameless faceless corporate building and have struck out on their own because they can do it all on their laptop, PC, IPad or IPhone at home, in the plane or out in the park!

That is ‘Freedom. Version 1000GB.0’.

The Information and Technological Age was all born out of the creative genius of people such as Bill Gates and Steven Jobs of Apple Computer fame and thousands of others.

Did it ‘help’ any that the US government through DARPA funded the development of products such as microprocessors, silicon computer chips and a thing called ‘The Internet’ with federal taxpayer dollars, primarily for the defense and space programs, which are one in the same for all intents and purposes?

Sure it did. Just as the 363-mile Erie Canal helped double and triple the GDP of the entire nation when completed in 1825. It was financed with a combination of public and private debt that chewed up close to 2/3’s of all available credit in the US at the time. But it also returned enormous financial returns to the holders of the stock and bonds of the Erie Canal holding company over the years of operation.

We think, as a nation, we should charge a royalty for any commercial product that is developed AFTER the US taxpayer has footed the bill for all of the enormous R&D costs that eventually become widespread successful products such as microwaves, GPS, even TANG. (is that still made anymore?)

The revenues that would flow to the US Treasury as a result of those royalties could darn near balance the budget we think. In an economy of over $14.7 trillion, there has to be at least $1 trillion of residual fees that could be directly traced to US taxpayer investment through the DoD, NIST, DISA, SBA or SBIC programs.

So maybe it is time to re-define the debate between the ‘Lean Forward’ MSNBC view of infrastructure development in America and the FOX News view that all we gotta do is cut taxes and America will regain its economic superiority again.

How about this as a start?

  1. The federal government will only fund programs and projects that will benefit the entire population.
  2. Each and every federal public works project will be funded with some sort of public AND private sector financing to ensure proper oversight and review of the operations by professional managers in the ‘real world’, not just the government.
  3. If a state or locality wants to use public funds to build a Steam Locomotive Museum or a bridge that runs south-to-north up the Mississippi River from New Orleans to Memphis, they can do so…..with their own state and local tax dollars, not federal taxpayer money or federally borrowed money from the Chinese.

Great highways and bridges are essentially Egyptian Pyramids being built without a vibrant risk-taking economic engine purring along to push products through on them by businessmen and women.

Great innovations, products and services can not be sold if we do not have a modern transportation, communications and public safety sector. They go hand-in-hand, not 100% separate entities. We just happen to think that we will not be able to fund a great public sector unless we unleash the creative and dynamic powers of the American free enterprise system and we do it very soon.

We have to start drawing a very bright line between legitimate ‘national’ interests such as national defense and the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System and the truly ‘not in the national interest’ that can and should be handled by the states and localities.

That might help release the private sector from the crushing burden of having to pay federal taxes for everything we can’t afford any more.

And then maybe, just maybe, we will see the Next American Economic Explosion forming on the horizon.

(Editor's Note: Frank Hill's resumé includes working as chief of staff for Senator Elizabeth Dole and Congressman Alex McMillan, serving on the House Budget Committee and serving on the Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform. He takes on politics from a fiercely independent perspective at the blog Telemachus).

IBD: 38% of Independents Think Obama Deserves Reelection


By the Left Coast Rebel

Nothing more than the continuance of an overall trend -- The Won is Toast with independents:

(IBD)...only 38% of independents think he deserves to be re-elected, with 53% feeling that someone new deserves a chance.

These are key findings from an IBD/TIPP poll conducted in early September.

Independents are particularly harsh in their view of the president's economic stewardship. Job losses have hurt independent households, and jobs will be their primary concern when they pull the lever in 2012.

The ineffectiveness of the president's stimulus package has also diminished independents' confidence in the government's ability to grow the economy.

In 2008, Obama carried independents by a decisive 52% to 44% margin and took 30 states. In 2004, John Kerry narrowly won independents over George Bush 49% to 48%, reversing Bush's 47% to 45% win against Al Gore in 2000.

Discussion at Memeorandum.

Tea Party Activist Ali A. Akbar's Brilliant Letter to Morgan Freeman




By the Left Coast Rebel

Tea Partier Ali A. Akbar -- yes that actually is his real name (pictured above), writes a letter to moonbat Morgan Freeman:

My name is Ali Akbar. I’m a 26 year-old African-American small business owner and a tea party activist. I’m not writing to rake you over the coals in the way that many conservatives have done in the last 48 hours. Heck, I wrote a passionate open-letter refuting many of your claims already, but this is not that. This is an honest and standing invitation. I do believe that you are wrong in what you said about the tea party, but I would rather prove it to you than castigate you for your comments.

I also understand that your reflexive comments came from experience. You grew up in a different America than the one that I was blessed to be born into. We both grew up in the south, but I never saw ‘White Only’ signs. I’ve been called a name or two in my three decades, but racism has always been the exception in my life, not the rule, as it probably was in your youth. I understand your suspicion of conservative political movements. It is rooted in pain and fear and memory, and though I never saw the horrors of segregation that you did, we share that cultural heritage.

[...]

I’ve attended dozens of tea party events. I’ve helped organize them, and I’ve even spoken at a few. The tea party is not what is often depicted in the news. It is people of all colors who are terribly concerned about the direction that America is heading. We don’t trust big government to make decisions for us. And we fear that the present administration’s spending is going to lead our country down a path to insolvency, much like what Greece is currently facing.

Your comments about the tea party have caused me physical pain. You’ve rekindled the old painful paradigm of Uncle Tom – that any black man who votes Republican is some kind of sellout. It’s not true. I work hard, pay my taxes, love Jesus, and I’m good to my family and community. In effect, your comments have stereotyped an entire group of people. And I know in my soul that you must regret that on some level.

More at the link. Discussion at Memeorandum.

Coke CEO: China More Capitalistic than United States

obama china gm government motors general motors dream of china communist sad hill news


Image via SadHillNews.com

By the Left Coast Rebel

That's not exactly what Coke CEO Muhtar Kent said but it's damn close:

“In the West, we’re forgetting what really worked 20 years ago. In China and other markets around the world, you see the kind of attention to detail about how business works and how business creates employment.”
It's a horrifying fact that what Muhtar Kent speaks of is true. And to imagine that -- as he says -- we as a nation understood what makes markets -- and freedom -- work only 20 years ago.

To think that the "reformed" Chinese Reds are beating us at the capitalism game today is something that should make every American want to riot in the streets.

Will we as Americans have to move to communist China to find economic opportunity?

More at Politico.

Successful Businessman and Obama Supporter Ted Leonsis on Obama's Marxist Class Warfare Rhetoric

Ted Leonsis
Ted Leonsis. Image via Keith Allison/Flickr.

By the Left Coast Rebel

His name is Ted Leonsis, he owns the Washington Wizards, Capitals, and Mystics, is a net entrepeneur... one of those guys that takes from the "other half" and doesn't "pay his fair share."

Seems he's had enough of Dear Leader's Marxist saber rattling these days.

Pretty neat to see this from an Obama supporter:


Economic Success has somehow become the new boogie man; some in the Democratic party are now casting about for enemies and business leaders and anyone who has achieved success in terms of rank or fiscal success is being cast as a bad guy in a black hat. This is counter to the American Dream and is really turning off so many people that love American and basically carry our country on their back by paying taxes and by employing people and creating GDP.

This is a bad move all designed by some pollster who said this is the way to get votes during the re-election. It should be stopped. We should be healing and creating teams NOT dividing and pitting people against one another.

Lots more at the link.

The pressing question, though, from me to you, Mr. Leonsis, is this: why in the world after everything you say here would you still support the man that is tearing apart the national fabric, pitting one group of Americans (the earners) against another (those that have their hands out)?

That makes no sense.

Via Memeorandum.

Under Pressure, Ford Pulls Anti-Bailout Ad

By the Left Coast Rebel

Ford's provocative bailout ad (that we wrote about here) has been pulled, scrubbed from the net, vaporized; it's as if it never existed...

This doesn't come as any surprise given just how effective the ad was and by that measure how bad it makes the looters in the White House look.

Nevertheless I found the Ford bailout video in a roundabout way; someone taped a Fox News segment that plays the ad (starting at 1:20):



Apparently the White House pressured Ford Motor company to pull it and Ford folded under the pressure.

From Detroit News:

With President Barack Obama tuning his re-election campaign amid dismal economic conditions and simmering antipathy toward his stimulus spending and associated bailouts, the Ford ad carried the makings of a political liability when Team Obama can least afford yet another one. Can't have that.

The ad, pulled in response to White House questions (and, presumably, carping from rival GM), threatened to rekindle the negative (if accurate) association just when the president wants credit for their positive results (GM and Chrysler are moving forward, making money and selling vehicles) and to distance himself from any public downside of his decision.


I can only imagine the discourse that took place behind closed doors. After all, Obama and Co. essentially own and operate General Government Motors and the highly visible Ford ad sheds light on Obama's highly unpopular bailout/stimulus track record.

Can't have that.

Can't make Dear Leader look bad -- even one little lowly commercial during Obama's "Titanic" fight-for-his-life reelection effort.

Shame on you, Ford: Now step in line. You know your place, you can't survive without us.

Wink, wink.

Crony capitalism, corporate fascism...

UPDATED: Shikha Dalmia, writing at Reason.com:

President Obama had assured everyone that just because GM and Chrysler got close to $100 billion in government money didn’t mean that the government would start bullying the companies to do its bidding. But evidently bullying their rivals that didn’t take government money is just fine.

[...]

Ford’s campaign to sell cars has to yield to the president’s campaign to sell himself. How is that for free enterprise and free speech in America?

Petition to Repeal Obamacare posted on White House website


By the Full Metal Patriot

A petition to repeal Obamacare was posted on the White House website last week. (via: Verum Serum)

The White House launched a new site last week allowing the public to petition the Administration on various public policy issues. No doubt they intend to use this to mobilize the OFA-MoveOn-Kos armies around various election issues next year, to demonstrate how “popular” the Administration’s positions are. But at the moment the petition site seems to be largely dominated by various fringe issues, such as allowing the sale of raw milk, banning puppy mills, and of course…legalizing marijuana.

But some enterprising American managed to create and post a petition which I found just a little more worthwhile: to repeal ObamaCare.

Supposedly, if this petition gets to 5,000 signatures by October 22, then someone from the White House will issue some sort of response (if it doesn't mysteriously disappear before then). You have to register with the White House in order to vote – but all you need give is just a name and an email address. I think it’s worth it.

When I started this blog post, the counter was at 134. By the time I was registered and signed my name to this petition, the counter was already at 160 and is now listed on the White House site. We have a real opportunity to show the Obama administration just how unpopular their heavy-handed legislation is with We The People! Sign your name to the petition and then spread the word via Google+, Twitter, and Facebook!

Now we'll see if President Obama will actually listen to the American people, or if he will continue to behave like a tin-plated dictator with delusions of godhood.

---
Cross-posted at Full Metal Patriot

Ayn Rand... Why Progressives Hate Her and How Conervatives Intentionally Misrepresent and Use Her

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Ayn Rand


Almost thirty years after Ayn Rand's death she remains as controversial today as she did during her lifetime. Best known for her epic novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, which defined her individualism, ethics, and politics, she actually left a much larger body of work than is generally realized.

Rand, born in Russia under the bolshevik regime of terror escaped to America when she was a young women in her twenties. Having witnessed first hand the life sapping evils of progressive collectivism she became one of the 20th century's strongest advocate of  liberty, self reliance, and capitalism.

Ayn Rand believed Aristotle was one of, if not the greatest philosopher the world has ever known. In her view Aristotelian logic trumped the philosophies of Hegel, Kant, Engels, Marx, and a host of lesser known philosophers. Plainly put Rand believed logic and reason trumped emotionalism and or mysticism. A is A therefore A cannot be B. Something is what it is and therefor cannot be something else.

From her springboard of Aristotelian logic Rand developed her unique and non contradictory philosophy she named Objectivism. A dry read, as most books on philosophy are, it is however well worth the effort for those who have an interest in philosophy and believe Kant and Marx got it wrong.

Rand's interest were far reaching and she wrote {as well as spoke} much on subjects such as ethics, racism, altruism, fascism, collectivism, socialism, atheism, rational self interest, productive achievement, welfare, self reliance, capitalism... the list goes on and on. A good start for those who have little knowledge of Rand is to read The Ayn Rand Lexicon. It give a good, as well as brief overview on how she viewed concepts.

Rand, while having hundred of thousands who advocated her views, had as many, and perhaps more detractors. While the "you love Rand or you hate Rand" phenomenon encompasses a number of reasons perhaps the most notable are: 1) her atheism, 2)  those in the progressive movement, aka academia  worked to undermine any objective understanding of her views, 3) her fierce individualism, 4) her bold and vocal denunciation of any and all forms of collectivism, 4) her belief that man should work on behalf of his own rational self interest, 5) that a person should not sacrifice a higher value to a lessor value, 6) that altruism is a means to ultimately destroy the importance of the self, and 7) her staunch advocacy of true capitalism as opposed to socialism or the mixed capitalism the U.S has labored under for the past 120 years or so.

I started by saying Ayn Rand is as controversial today as she was during her lifetime. If one takes note of just the seven reasons highlighted above it is relatively easy to understand why this is. Simply put, her ideas were, and remains yet today, feared by progressives, collectivists, fascists, mixed market advocates, and modern conservatives and businessmen as well as  any other group that depends on the far reaching hands of government to provide them with special favors so that they may survive.

Anyone who properly understands and  practices Objectivist philosophy has concern for their own rational self interest, sees themselves as an individual possessing a strong sense of self, and believes self reliance is a virtue. Therefore they will have no need for a statist government to insure their well being and success. Be it progressive, collectivist, fascist, or any other form of liberty sapping social engineering Leviathan. In short they cannot be emotionally, intellectually, or physically controlled by another individual, or a group of thugs.

People who understand the preceding also live with the knowledge that liberty and freedom demands great personal responsibility. Which is... To respect the liberty and freedoms of all other individuals while asking nothing from them in return other than to respond in kind. As Rand would say, and I paraphrase... The only justification for the use of force is in response to the acts of an aggressor. To which I add, whether they be acts of physical or financial aggression.

Rand, were she alive today would be appalled by what she would suffer to witness. As much as she was opposed to Leviathan socialist collectivist government she would be equally as appalled by the crony capitalism, corporatism, pull peddling lobbyists, and Wall Street thieves suckling with great delight at the government's teat.

What amazes, and I am quite certain Ayn Rand would agree,  is what once was a nation built on hard work, self reliance, personal responsibility, innovative ideas, an attitude of  government get out of the way and let the competent doers get to work innovating and producing,  has turned into a nation of wimps and whiners. A montage if you will of individuals and groups that  EXPECT  government favors, subsidies, and special protections. In a nutshell to insure they succeed in whatever it is they do, or don't do.

Perhaps most puzzling is the fact that liberals ought to be the ones holding  Ayn Rand's philosophy and ethics up as examples of  how one should lead their lives. The reason they don't is quite rudimentary.  Progressives are really only interested in control. Control over your lives and your livelihood. Such power is the only thing that will satisfies the progressives insatiable power lust.

Which of course explains the progressives cultist obsession with destroying Ayn Rand the person as well as her philosophy.

Anyone, feel free to disagree with some or all I have written. By all means indulge in taking me to task and ask I support further that which  I have written. It shall be a delight to do so. For you see, I am tired of the progressives blowing smoke up everyone's a*ses by taking snippets of Rand's writings, quoting them out of context, and then twisting her words to support their fallacious accusations with respect to her character and works.

By the same token I am equally as puzzled by republicans and so called conservatives holding Rand up as a shining example, without understanding her philosophy, to support that which they are selling as the flavor of the month big government  remedy {Perry & Romney come to mind} for our nation's ills. I've got news for ya buckos, Rand is on record as being just as vehemently opposed to your brand of statism as she was to socialism and collectivism.

Here is what she said about conservatism...


Footnote: For those who may be interested in a deeper understanding of Rand's philosophy, ethics, and politics the following links will lead to what I believe would put your feet on the path to understanding the meanings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as our Founders understood them.

1) Anthem, 2) We the Living, 3) The Fountainhead, 4) Atlas Shrugged, 5) Objectivism, 6) For The New Intellectual, 7) The Virtue of Selfishness, 8) Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 9) Return of the Primitive, 10) The Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff

Further information may be found at The Ayn Rand Institute.

Cross posted  to Rational Nation USA

Via: Memeorandum

Warren Buffett Can't Count

By Grant Davies

I know it's hard to believe that the "Sage of Omaha" is mathematically challenged, particularly when many people have an image of him sitting at his kitchen table late at night poring over the giant stack of financial records of some huge corporation so he can decide whether he should spend a few billion to buy its stock or just write a check to the government to pay his "guilt tax."

We'll get to his math problem in a moment, but for now let's give him some well deserved credit for one correct calculation he made.

He correctly figured out a few years ago that people could spend their money more intelligently than the government could spend it. He had no use for his excess dough personally. After all, after twenty million or so, what could he spend it on that he didn't already have? The fun is in acquiring the money anyway.

So he knew he wasn't going to give it to the government to waste or pass around to their friends and he was too lazy or disinterested to pore over the books of charities to see which ones were more worthy than the others, so he passed it all along to Bill Gates to give away. I guess he figured that Bill Gates could spend it more wisely than the government even if he himself couldn't. He was correct about that.

I'm still puzzled about a few things though. If Buffett really thinks, as he claims, that he doesn't pay enough in taxes, why did he hire all those CPAs to find all the loopholes that allowed him to pay at the lower rate? I mean, couldn't he just have bought a copy of Turbo Tax, loaded it onto his laptop, entered what he earned, skipped all the deductions and paid the figure that appeared on the "Amount you owe" line at the bottom of the page? I'm confident that he wouldn't get a letter from the IRS threatening him for not taking all his rightful deductions.

The other way he could have paid more taxes was to just pony up the money that Berkshire Hathaway admits they owe from tax years 2002-2004. Instead his company has been fighting with the IRS ever since then to avoid doing that. Toss in the taxes they are quibbling over concerning "issues" with tax years 2005-2009 and he could make some headway towards his goal. Remind me again why so many people think he is so bright.

Which brings us to his "fuzzy math" problem.

According to one paper Buffett recently said that "he paid only $6.9 million in taxes last year -- just 17.4 percent of his earnings, compared to an income tax rate of about 36 percent paid by his employees." (Perhaps they used Turbo Tax software.) With that admission he went to the top of the Barack Obama admiration list and got a chance to get everlasting fame as the only dope ever to get a tax named after him as his life's legacy.

Regardless, it seems he can't do the math because he didn't take into account that he already paid taxes on the money he used to invest with. The corporate rate is 35% on that money and he paid 15% in capital gains taxes when he earned a profit on those already taxed funds. So his rate is north of 40% in total depending on the calculations of what money goes where.

I'm not an accountant or tax expert so I'm sure someone will challenge the numbers just cited with their own facts and figures but I do know a few things for certain. One is that the same money shouldn't be taxed twice and the second is that we shouldn't need accountants and tax experts to pay our taxes.

Buffett may not know how to count, but Barack Obama does. At least he knows what he can count on. Buffett is a willing recruit in Obama's class war and it's one of the few things the President can count on.

(Editor's Note: A retired investment advisor and resident of Illinois, Grant Davies blogs from a liberty perspective at What we Think and Why)

"Obama Sold Israel Bunker-Buster Bombs"

By Proof

Image and video hosting by TinyPic


In keeping with our policy of highlighting anything that President Obama does right, (counted on one hand with fingers left over), Obama has apparently sold Israel the weapons it may need someday to potentially defang its enemies. And take out a rogue nuclear program at the same time??

While publicly pressuring Israel to make deeper concessions to the Palestinians, President Obama has secretly authorized significant new aid to the Israeli military that includes the sale of 55 deep-penetrating bombs known as bunker busters, Newsweek has learned.

In an exclusive story to be published Monday on growing military cooperation between the two allies, U.S. and Israeli officials tell Newsweek that the GBU-28 Hard Target Penetrators—potentially useful in any future military strike against Iranian nuclear sites—were delivered to Israel in 2009, just several months after Obama took office.


As a member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, they regularly send me stickers, which say, "Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed".

In this case, the world is safer when surrounding neighbors know that Israel is. Although, that early in the Obama presidency, the deal was probably brokered by Bush. The fact that Obama followed through on it and did not obstruct it in any way, was the right thing to do.

Update : What was I thinking??? I'm supposed to be criticizing Obama, just because he's black!!! It totally slipped my mind! I apologize for any confusion or palpitations I've caused any liberals here.

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at Proof Positive

Elizabeth Warren's Quote Dissected

By the Left Coast Rebel

Text: green = what it means in real life; white = verbatim what Elizabeth Warren, former Obama official, now running for the US Senate actually (no joke) said.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-L7HMZARk7sk/TnzWDVqImsI/AAAAAAAAFSM/jUWgkoez81A/s1600/WARRENRESPONSE.png

About sums up the redistributionist-progressive mindset, don't it?

Hat-tip WC Varones.

"know-it-alls who have all the right answers."

By the Left Coast Rebel

It's not as bad as what Obama buddy Al Capone Jimmy Hoffa said, or what Vice President Joe Biden said, or what Maxine Waters said or what Jesse Jackson said, or what the lamestream press has been saying over and over and over...

Nevertheless, who do you think said this about the Tea Party?

-- "know-it-alls who have all the right answers."

Answer: Speak John Boehner.

Is John Boehner throwing the Tea Party under the bus?

Nope: he's just doing what what his record indicates he would do.

Hat-tip Think Progress (of all places).

Philip Klein: Damning Evidence that if Elected, Mitt Romney Will not Repeal ObamaCare

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-260Z7JD1MvE/Tcl5AyTblyI/AAAAAAAADio/rRAbAZu4lSg/s1600/romneycare.png
Ouch. Image c/o Humble Libertarian


By the Left Coast Rebel

The press -- left and right -- are collectively pronouncing liberal-statist Massachusetts ex-governor Mitt Romney the winner of yesterday's Fox News/Google GOP debate.

It's a foregone conclusion in their mind, now, that Mitt will rise to the top, be crowned the king-of-the-GOP, and receive the support of the nation's center-right groups (fiscal conservatives, Tea Partiers, evangelicals, etc.).

Philip Klein (via Memeorandum) splashes freezing-cold water on this illusion. Klein lays out the facts on Romney's smoke-and-mirrors promises on the most important issue of our time -- ObamaCare repeal.

First is philosophy. Romney's all-defining signature political achievement in Massachusetts was RomneyCare, which is just a state-run version of ObamaCare.

Writes Klein:


Romney's signature achievement was the passage of a health care law that was the forerunner to Obamacare. Both plans: expand Medicaid, force individuals to obtain government-approved insurance coverage or pay a penalty, and provide government subsidies to individuals to purchase government-designed insurance policies on government-run exchanges.
But, what about Romney's promised ObamaCare nullification executive order?

Klein:
As president, Romney could direct his administration not to implement some regulatory aspects of the law, but a future Democratic president could quickly reinstate them.
Hmm. That's certainly not very reassuring.

It gets worse:

Furthermore, he couldn't, through executive order, eliminate most of the major spending provisions in the law. For that to happen, we'd need to see a repeal bill passed through both chambers of Congress. Given the unlikelihood that Republicans would gain a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate, this would have to be done through the reconciliation process.
Where would we go from there, then, even if hypothetically under a Romney presidency?

Though some people have argued to me that a GOP Congress would obviously pass a repeal of Obamacare and Romney would be forced to sign it, there's no reason to believe that Congressional leaders would pursue a sure to be acrimonious reconciliation process unless the president were willing to stake political capital on it. So a President Romney couldn't passively sit back and wait for a repeal bill to appear on his desk, he'd have to show courageous presidential leadership, pounding the table on the issue for months. And it won't be just any months, but he'll have to stake the crucial early months of his presidency on it after taking office in January 2013, because the major provisions start in 2014, and it will be harder to unwind by then.
Uh oh. For anyone here that believes Mitt Romney would focus the first few months of his presidency on the sure-to-be contentious issue of repeal... I have a bridge in Ohio to sell you.

Or, perhaps you are misinformed enough to think that House republican leaders are interested in ObamaCare repeal as well? If so, Romney is your guy.

UPDATED: Aside from ObamaCare repeal, Romney's biggest hurdle may be convincing social conservatives that his outliberalling-Ted-Kennedy's record doesn't speak for itself (footage from the Romney/Kennedy Debate, October 1994).

ALSO READ: At American Thinker, "Mitt Romney: A Liberal's Liberal Republican"

UPDATED X2: Tania Patriot on Facebook posted a Freedomworks PDF listing all of Mitt Romney's transgression. It's a real eye-opener.

Today's Top Ten Decisions

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


I've decided the following... 1} That being an individual with the desire to achieve things in life based only on my efforts and merit is stupid, 2} that maintaining a strong sense of personal responsibility for my failures as well as my successes is by far too stressful, 3} that the individual is better served when a collective tells him or her what to think and value, 4] it is much better to allow the government to control my money than it is for me to maintain control, 5) that it is by far better to be concerned with the interests of everyone else than it is to be concerned with my own rational self interest, 6] that the concept of liberty is too old fashioned and therefore irrelevant to modern realities, after all... freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose... 7} that objective and rational thinking is much to tedious, emotionalism driven by a heightened sense of altruism should become the new order in America, 8} that reason no longer has a place in modern society, rather mysticism and a belief in the unknowable will provide by far better answers, if we just believe, 9} that the real conceptual meaning of the word minority today is... the smallest mob with the most political pull, 10} That believing in any, or all of the above is confirmation that the individual has ceased to exist and chosen the death of the self.

Anyone other than me see where progressive thought ultimately and logically leads to? Perhaps it is just late. Or perhaps it's just me...

Cross posted to Rational Nation USA

GOP Debate 9.22.11: The Grades Are In...



There's little room for doubt. As much as it pains me to say it, professional campaigner Mitt Romney won this one. As an honorary member of the "anybody but Mitt" club, I have to say that Mitt did exactly what he needed to do in this debate, which was to look presidential.

Mitt gave smooth, polished answers. He made no mistakes. He lied convincingly about Romneycare (i.e. "nothing" changed for people in Massachusetts who were already insured). Most importantly, Romney looked like someone who could go toe-to-toe with Obama and win.

Having said all that, I wouldn't necessarily say that "Obamney" performed better than everyone else in debate. He won with the inertia of several years of campaigning -- but he didn't say anything particularly powerful, original or inspiring.

Without further ado, the grades:

Bachmann C-
Cain A-
Gingrich B+
Huntsman C+
Johnson B
Paul B
Perry D+
Romney A-
Santorum B-


Details:

Bachmann said very little that will be remembered. Her prior comments on the HPV vaccine and retardation came back to haunt her again, and her defense of those remarks was thoroughly forgettable.

Cain: Great lines, great delivery, great defense of conservative principles. Cain got his mojo back.

Gingrich: His great intellect always shines, but he debated like someone vying for a VP nod. Whose VP does he want to be?

Huntsman: I can't think of anything interesting to say about Huntsman. Can anyone?

Johnson made a bigger dent in this debate. He also demonstrated that he has a sense of humor.

Ron Paul gave several very thoughtful answers to difficult questions. I'd say this was easily his best performance in a GOP debate this year.

Rick Perry barely passed this one. One of the reasons Romney looked so good is that Perry did so badly. Perry's answers were awkward and rambling. He seemed sleep-deprived and unprepared. He said nothing profound, interesting or memorable. He defended himself poorly on the issue of in-state tuition breaks for illegal aliens.

Being in the "anybody but Obamney" camp, I'd like to see Perry do better in the future. But Perry really lowered expectations in this debate.

Romney: see above.

Santorum made some good points, but did very little to stand out, aside from his very effective attack on Rick Perry for Perry's stance on in-state tuition breaks for illegal aliens.

*Speaking for myself only!

Discussion: Memeorandum

(VIDEO) Google/Fox News Republican Debate September 22, 2011; UPDATED with Full VIDEO Florida GOP Debate

By the Left Coast Rebel

UPDATED: Hot off the press, full Youtube video of tonight's Florida GOP debate:

Part I


Part II


Part III

For Those of You Who Think a Housing Recovery is Right Around the Corner

By the Left Coast Rebel

Spooky stuff.

Screenshot from a Freddie Mac investor presentation, total U.S. housing equity versus total outstanding debt:

Screen shot 2011-09-22 at 11.27.00 AM

No amount of bailouts or Keynsian intervention is going to fix the housing mess. It's simply going to take years. And at the rate of government intervention today (which thereby prolongs the downturn), perhaps decades.

Related: Crony capitalism update via the Washington Post, via Memeorandum: Solyndra employees: Company suffered from mismanagement, heavy spending

UPDATED: Not quite as scary as it seems? San Diego SLOB member, econo-blogger WC Varones corrects:


I don't think there's a $4 trillion shortfall -- what that chart is saying is total home values are $16.1 trillion of which $10 trillion is mortgage debt and $6.1 trillion is equity.
Whoops, my bad -- I see WC's point here. The total value of U.S. housing stock (real estate) is 16.1 trillion, of which 6 trillion is equity and 10 trillion is debt.

Of course, at the tippity-top-peak of the bubble, equity was over 20 trillion and debt was pretty close to today's 10 trillion.

UPDATED X2: Reader Nick, who blogs at It's Just My Opinion writes:

If real recovery isn't going to happen before consumer spending picks up (which, historically, is a fairly good guess), and consumer spending recovers when housing prices are "reasonable" and equity is increasing reliably, then we're certainly in for a long, drawn-out recession. To paraphrase our Dear Leader, though, let's be clear: this recession could have been over by now if the government had acted responsibly and in the people's greater interest. Instead, we had bailout after bailout, shifting the entirely predictable and obvious losses onto the public, and intentionally elongating this recession from perhaps a couple years to a decade or longer.

The government created the conditions for the bubble through tax policy, Fed rates and statements, and utter lack of anything resembling transparency in financial disclosure (a complete abject failure of all the "oversight" the Democrats like to say we need even more of). The government encouraged the bubble. The government wasted trillions of taxpayer dollars trying to keep the party going when it was over. The government bailed out the big banks, rewarding them for all the bad loans they had issued during the bubble. The government propped up the housing market with public money, turning a potential six month correction into a multi-year grinding halt to the housing market, with all the job and income losses that caused. There's a lot of fault to go around, to be sure, but there's a common thread which seems to run through everything which went wrong with the economy... I'll leave it to the reader to see if they can spot the singularly largest (by far) cause of the problems.

Another Reason (Of Many) That RINO Hacks John Boehner and Eric Cantor Need to Go

By the Left Coast Rebel

The Washington Post has it that "GOP Leaders Rebuked on Spending;" Politico has it that "Vote shows Boehner's Lack of Control."

Per usual, the lamestream press is missing the point.

I'll put it simply here: John Boehner and Eric Cantor think that they can "get along" with the Democrats, quietly pushing through destructive legislation that aids and abets the statist agenda.

They don't even put up a fight.

They just roll over and expect conservatives in the House and the Tea Party grassroots to go along.

No. And they must go.

CNS News has the real reasons behind House conservatives voting down the Boehner/Cantor continuing resolution (a fancy way of saying short-term) budget:

(CNSNews.com) - The Republican leadership tried to pass a continuing resolution through the House of Representatives on Wednesday afternoon that would have permitted funding for Obamacare implementation, Planned Parenthood, the United Nations Population Fund, and the Palestinian Authority to continue in the new federal fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1.

The bill was defeated 195 to 230 when 48 House conservatives joined with 182 House Democrats in voting against it.
Sweet. Attaboy for standing by your principles, House conservatives.

Republican leadership is known for saying one thing and doing the precise opposite. Limited government! Taxes! Ooohh, those wascally Democrats!

Then, they don't even put up a fight. How's this for throwing social conservatives under the bus:

An analysis of the CR published by the conservative House Republican Study Committee, said that it “continues funding for the United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA), the UN agency known for its involvement in China’s brutal one-child policy. It also continues $300 million in annual funding to the Title X family planning program, which is a prime funding source for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.”
And fiscal conservatives, too:

The failed CR, promoted by House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R.-Va.), was a temporary measure designed to fund the entire government through Nov. 18.

During that time, it would have funded the government at an annualized rate just $7 billion less than the level of federal spending for fiscal 2011--but $24 billion more than the Republican-controlled House approved in the budget resolution they passed earlier this year.

How about throwing all limited-government conservatives, independents, libertarians et al. under the bus?

Obamacare -- the same Obamacare that Boehner/Cantor rode into House majority status with, promising to repeal/replace/de-fund gets funded in Boehner/Cantor budget:

“Some conservatives may be concerned that the legislation does not block funding for Obamacare during the period covered by the legislation,” said the study-committee analysis.
Imagine that there isn't anyone railing against this abomination over at Memeorandum. "Conservative" bloggers and talking heads are too busy waving their 'R' red-white-and-blue flags to consider that they are being used and bamboozled by the very leadership that they put into power positions November of last year in the first place.

Boehner and Cantor have no interest in promoting or furthering the righting of our financial ship. Can we afford that right now?

Another question: What happens when we have a President Rick Perry or Mitt Romney and these two guys are still the leaders in the House?

Think about it.

Young Adults on ObamaCare: Winning The Future?



The number of young (i.e., mostly healthy) adults with health insurance has risen by 3.5 percentage points:
The Department of Health and Human Services is trumpeting new survey resultsshowing a huge increase in the number of young adults with health insurance as sign that [Obamacare] has been a success.

According to a survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, nearly one million adults under the age of 26 gained health insurance in 2011. As a result, the percentage of adults between the ages of 19 and 25 with health insurance rose from 66.1% in 2010 to 69.6 this year.

One of the major provisions of [ObamaCare] allowed young adults to remain on their parents' health insurance program until age 26. That provision went into effect last September.
On the other hand, the percentage adults over the age 26 with health insurance decreased by almost 5 percentage points over the same period. This is a fact that our liberal counterparts at Firedoglake have not missed:
...overall that improvement has not been large enough to make up for the steady loss of insurance coverage due to high unemployment and rising insurance premiums. The percentage of Americans without insurance has continued to climb since the passage of [Obamacare] and is now at 17.4 percent among all Americans.
Let's not forget that the chain reaction of Obamacare, rising insurance premiums andrising unemployment was painfully predictable.

Let's also remember that there's no such thing as a free lunch. One commenter looks at it this way:
Of course more young people are getting health insurance - people like me are paying for it. My insurance went up 17% this year because of the provision in Obama care where young adults, up to the age of 26, can be covered by their parents plan.
This is not merely an unproven anecdotal observation:
The annual Milliman Medical Index (MMI) measures the total cost of healthcare for a typical family of four covered by a preferred provider plan (PPO). The 2011 MMI cost is $19,393, an increase of $1,319, or 7.3% over 2010...

Employees' share of the total cost is at an all-time high, having increased from 36.8% in the first year of the MMI (2005) to 39.7% in 2011.
Unfortunately, young adults who aren't covered by their parents are particularly hard-hit by Obamacare's restriction on age rating of premiums. Mandated “rate compression” forces insurers to overprice coverage for younger individuals.

To summarize, health care costs for families (including young adults) are at an all-time high. And while more young adults now have a health insurance card to carry around, health insurance coverage for adults over the age of 26 has dropped by approximately 5 percentage points.

Is this what "Winning The Future" is supposed to look like?


ADDENDA:


The annual Milliman Medical Index (MMI) measures the total cost of healthcare for a typical family of four covered by a preferred provider plan (PPO). The 2011 MMI cost is $19,393, an increase of $1,319, or 7.3% over 2010:

ANNUAL MEDICAL COSTS FOR FAMILY OF FOUR



Medical costs for employees and employers continue to rise steadily:

MEDICAL COSTS BY SOURCE OF PAYMENT


Discussion: Memeorandum