She's probably hoping BO's death panels deny her further treatment so she doesn't have to endure her loser son any longer...
Apparently you don't if you think this was appropriate. Were you ok with Nixon spying on his political enemies?
If that's the truth, she is fortunate she lives in the US where we have the best Cancer survival rates of any country on the planet.
This dramatic drop in economic freedom in America helps explain today's sluggish economy and slow job creation.
But liberals, like our president, insist government is the solution rather than the problem. We need more of it, according to them, not less. Then when jobs disappear, they said it's not fair.
What about individual realities?
According to Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution, “Kids in single-parent families are about five times more likely to be poor as children in married-couple families. Yet the share of children in single-parent homes families has been rising for decades.”
And liberal government policies have been contributing for decades to marriage breakdown.
Now Obamacare gives Americans a new reason not to get married.
Kaiser Health News reports that two low-income earners, say one earning $30,000 and one earning $40,000, would each qualify for health insurance subsidies. But if they married, their combined $70,000 would disqualify them.
The president told his black audience in southeast Washington that “we need to set aside the belief that government cannot do anything about reducing inequality.”
You’re right, Mr. President, it can.
Government can start protecting rather than violating our freedoms.
And our leaders can start promoting policies consistent with rather than in violation of traditional biblical values, like marriage and personal responsibility, so that our citizens will be in good shape to take advantage of their freedom, if we can ever get it back from our government.
Is this the message those trying to get their lives together really need to hear?
Maybe they do need to hear it if it is true. But it’s not.
There are indeed unhealthy trends in America today that undermine opportunity and the chances of many to get ahead.
But they are not the things the president talked about. In fact, the trends that are reducing opportunity are the things Obama and his liberal friends love to promote. And the things that increase the likelihood of improving one's life are the very things the president and his liberal friends fight.
There are today reams of data, piles of studies that show that more economically free nations grow faster and create more wealth.
What is economic freedom? It means citizens can run their lives and do their business with minimal government interference. It means keeping taxes, government spending and regulation low. It means more powerful citizens and less powerful politicians.
In 2000, the United States was No. 2 in the world as measured by the Economic Freedom of the World Index. By 2011 it dropped to No. 19.
When presidents give speeches, the affair is choreographed like a Broadway production. The message is not just the words of the speech, but where it is given and who happens to be the chosen audience.
So it was not by accident that President Obama chose a theater in a poor black neighborhood in Washington, where the average income is barely half the national average, to speak this week about economic opportunity and fairness.
What exactly was the president trying to achieve by sharing with a low-income black audience that “today's CEO now makes 273 times more” than the average worker?
Did he want to inspire hope that one day they can earn money like this? I don’t think so. The point was to create despair and convey that America is not fair.
Even though the president doesn't deny there are many American success stories (he knows -- he raises lots of money from them), he implies that somehow they are the exceptions to the rule. His core message is that average Americans are not getting ahead, and the reason is because America is not fair.
I can’t find a word in the president’s remarks that would do anything but reinforce the sense of helplessness, meaninglessness, and disenfranchisement that already exists in generous doses in low-income neighborhoods.
Is this leadership?
BO is busy trying to change the subject...let's talk about income inequality! No matter what, the IRS story just won't disappear. Last week, Rep. Darrell E. Issa, chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, had simply had enough. He called out the IRS' chief counsel, William Wilkins, for saying "I don't recall" a staggering 80 times during his congressional testimony last month.
"Your memory consistently failed when you were asked about information you shared with the Treasury Department," the lawmaker wrote. "Your failure to recollect important aspects of the Committee's investigation suggests either a deliberate attempt to obfuscate your involvement in this matter or gross incompetence on your part."
Year 5 and BO is totally fine with "gross incompetence." Like with Obamacare, all they can say is it's not our fault. Worse, no one seems to know anything. Ignorance is no excuse.
"If, on the other hand," BO says, " you've got an office in Cincinnati in the IRS office that, I think for bureaucratic reasons, is trying to streamline what is a difficult law to interpret about whether nonprofit is actually a political organization, deserves a tax exempt agency [sic], and they've got a list. Suddenly everyone is outraged.
"And I'll point out there are some so-called progressives and, you know, perceived to be liberal commentators who during that week just were outraged at the possibility that these folks, you know, had been at the direction of the Democratic Party, in some way discriminated against tea party folks. You know, that is what gets news. That's what gets attention."
Ok dude...this is also what gets presidents impeached...Watergate anyone?
Revert to the typical reply of the BO administration - no one ever knows anything. They had three years to build the Obamacare website, and when it didn't work, well ... No one knew! Sheesh, quit your complaining!
Anyone see this? Truly comical. Let's go through the facts before we begin:
- The IRS targeted conservative and tea party groups requesting tax-exempt status in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election.
- Congress held hearings, 3 top IRS officials resigned. Even White House apologist Jay "Circus" Carney called the IRS' actions "inappropriate.".
But now BO states this whole thing was made up in an interview last week with sycophant Chris Matthews. Hilarious...
"When we do things right, they don't get a lot of attention," the president said, no doubt sending a thrill up the MSNBC host's leg. "If we do something that is perceived at least initially as a screw- up, it will be on the nightly news for a week."
Hmmm - deploying the nation's tax watchdog to target political opponents is Just a "screw-up."?
I read that quote today - this guy's such a dou*chebag. It's amazing how little they care about the American public.
That's exactly what BO did - save the unions while scr*wing the bond holders which breaks bankruptcy law.
I believe your concern is valid. That's one thing I have been talking about when debating this subject with friends. Salaries will come down for physicians. The government will ultimately decide what is billable and what is not, what is a necessary procedure or test, and what is not. This takes away the power of our doctors as well as their earning potential.
Let's face it, one of the many reasons you become a doctor is to make a boat load of money. Same reason we are investing in NTI and other stocks. It is a long and very expensive process to get your medical license. I believe this policy will push more young brilliant minds into other fields. We will lose students to law, business, engineering, etc.
The higher minimum now being considered in Congress effectively would require companies to find inexperienced, unskilled workers capable of producing at least $12.71 per hour in value from Day One on the job. That's a very heavy lift - for companies as well as people hoping to enter the workforce. In practice, therefore, there will be fewer entry-level job openings available to unskilled workers.
But inexperienced workers cannot become skilled workers without the experience and on-the-job training that entry-level positions provide. Adding the proposed minimum wage hike to Obamacare's employer penalty would cut the bottom rung off of many disadvantaged workers' career ladders. To help unskilled workers, Congress and the president should concentrate on pro-growth economic strategies instead of job-killers.
Or consider American Samoa. The low-income Pacific Island chain used to have its own - lower - minimum wage. In 2007, Congress decided to align the U.S. territory's rate with the mainland rate in 50-cent annual increments. By May 2009, the third increase raised Samoa's minimum wage to $4.76 per hour - almost 50 percent more than the old minimum.
The new minimum raised wages for two-thirds of those working in the islands' tuna canneries. And, soon, the tuna canning industry started losing money. One cannery shut down. The other laid off workers, cut hours and benefits, and froze hiring. Samoan unemployment went from 5 percent to 36 percent. American Samoa Gov. Togiola Tulafona, a Democrat, begged Congress to stop raising the minimum wage.
Minimum-wage jobs are entry-level jobs that give unskilled workers the experience they need to become more productive and merit higher pay. Two-thirds of minimum-wage workers earn raises within a year, without the government interfering. Employees who work more hours earn those raises faster.
Good read from the Heritage Foundation on how raising minimum wage kills jobs.
Congress soon will vote on raising the federal minimum wage to more than $10 per hour. Few realize that, from the perspective of many employers, the government has already done this.
Although the administration has announced a one-year delay in enforcing the Obamacare employer mandate, come 2015 the penalty for not offering employee health benefits will add thousands of dollars to hiring costs. Coupled with existing minimum wages and employer- side payroll taxes, the Obamacare mandate will raise the minimum cost of employing a full-time worker to $10.30 per hour.
Under Obamacare, businesses that do not provide "qualifying" health coverage must pay a $2,000 penalty in after-tax dollars for each full-time worker they employ. (There is an exemption for the first 30 workers.) In pre-tax dollars, this works out to $3,279 per employee, or $1.64 per hour.
Very few minimum-wage employers can afford the expensive policies Obamacare requires, so most will pay the penalty instead. Though the penalty does not directly benefit workers, it does boost the cost of employing them.
Please site a website that confirms this. I know we can't post links, but I would like to know a reputable source that shows this was a hoax and it was this guy's error and not just another glitch in Obamacare. I would seriously like to see that.