Free Healthcare for Everyone

So, for the people who voted for Obama so that they could get free healthcare, I was wondering how you like your new government provided plan. Is it everything you'd hoped for? Is everything covered that you expect to be covered? Does your doctor like working with your new insurance? Is everything cheaper now?

If, on the other hand, you didn't get free healthcare, it might not be a mistake - you might be too rich to get it.  If you don't have insurance, but you have to pay a big penalty next year, that's also probably not a mistake - you're just probably rich enough to pay for other people's health insurance even though you don't need any. If your boss raised your insurance premiums, it's not his fault - it's just that because he pays you such a huge amount, the government knows that you can pay for a lot of this yourself, and we might have leftover money for people who aren't as rich as you.

That's how it works!  Congratulations on your new-found wealth.  I bet that before today you didn't even realize how well-to-do you really were.  Never take it for granted again.

I might have observed that gas prices are higher!

I seem to remember that when gas prices rose during the Bush administration, the liberal media traced the cause to a series of secret meetings between Dick Cheney and oil company CEOs. So, what is the cause of the recent increase in gas prices under the Obama administration? Is the Obama administration allowing these secret meetings to continue? If so, where is the outrage? Maybe Joe Biden is having secret meetings - I think we all agree that if this is the case, they should stop immediately.

I think that liberals who are forced to pay higher gas prices should do what they did when Obama fell down on his promise about closing Guantanamo - they withheld their votes until he closed it like he said he would.  They should do the same thing here - vote Republican until Obama lowers these gas prices.

After all, he's rich - plus he has somebody to fill up his limos and jets with a credit card that is paid for by the taxpayers. So, he might not even KNOW that gas prices are high - a lot of rich people don't notice that sort of thing. He's too busy fulfilling his campaign promises, like closing Guantanamo.

To the Republicans who stayed home last November

The election of 2012 was a rare occurrence - President Obama was the first President since George Washington to be re-elected with fewer votes than he got the first time around. This happened in spite of the admission by at least one Obama supporter that she voted for Obama 6 times last year in Ohio.

So, if you are a Republican, and you did not vote for Romney because he wasn't aligned with you on your favorite issue... How's Obama doing on your favorite issue? Do us all a favor... Remember this the next time around. They vote up to 6 times for their guy. We need to at least show up and vote once.

You see, the thing about a Republican president is, no matter what his position on the issues, he kinda has to listen to the other Republicans (like you) to stay in power. And politicians want to stay in power. Do you feel like Obama is listening to your position on your pet issue? Probably not. He doesn't need you.

And you're part of the reason he's President again - whether Romney's too rich for you, too white for you, too male for you, too religious for you,  or just from Massachusetts - By staying home, you turned Melowese Richardson's 6 votes for Obama into 7.

Thanks.

Liberals and the commitment to equality

I couldn't help but notice that when President Obama jetted off to a pricey golf resort for his vacation, the press complained. They complained about not being allowed to take pictures of the $1,000 per hour golf lessons, or the round with Tiger Woods.

They did not complain about the 'inequality' - you'll notice that people from the President's old neighborhood in Chicago don't play with Tiger Woods much.

So, we can now see that liberals only oppose 'inequality' when their political opponents have the advantage. This is an important observation, because that's how it's done in places like Cuba and North Korea. The SUBJECTS are equal. The leaders play golf with celebrities. They pay for their $1,000 per hour golf lessons with money siphoned from the subjects.

To be clear - this is not where America is headed. This is where America currently IS.

A simple solution to gun control.

So that our liberal friends don't get confused, maybe we need a Constitutional Amendment that says that the right to have and carry weapons can't be interfered with. I guess I'm not picky about the exact wording. Just a thought.

Let me see if I got this straight...

...so, today I read that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulsen wants to temporarily expand the tax-exempt bond programs of state and local governments, so that they can refinance mortgages. Let me think about that for a minute.

We got into this mess because banks were lending to people that they shouldn't have, or lending more than borrowers could pay. It caused a high enough foreclosure rate that nobody could sell mortgage-backed securities because the buyers didn't know what they were worth.

Now, it will be tax-free municipal bonds backed by the same loan principal, lent to the same borrowers.

If it's done under the same (or similar) terms as the original loan, haven't we just done to the municipal bond market what we did to the secondary mortgage market?

If the new loan terms are substantially better than the old terms, aren't we penalizing people who were responsible, and have paid thousands more for a conservative, conventional 30-year fixed?

People like me?

I just bought a house. Big one. Nice one. I love it. But you know what? If I had taken what I currently pay on my 30-year fixed mortgage, and used that for an 80/20 interest only loan with a teaser rate, I could have afforded a much bigger, much nicer home. But I didn't do that. Wanna know why?

Because I knew I couldn't predict the future, and I might find myself in a situation where I was being forced to refinance, and I either didn't want to (high rates), or I couldn't (no job).

Now, it sounds like people who weren't as cautious as me are getting a do-over.

Can I have a do-over please? I'd like to be qualified for a loan the way people were over the last few years (no income verification, liberal repayment schedule), and I'll buy a much bigger house. 80/20 interest-only with a teaser, please. Where I'm at, the housing market is still very strong, but in the event I can't sell my old house, I want to be bailed out by the government. If my circumstances change, and my payment goes up, and I can't afford the loan that I agreed to, I want to be bailed out by the government.

And why stop at homes? Can we do this with my mutual funds, too? If I invest all of my money in a precious-metals fund, and gold stops its historic run, can the government make up the difference for me? And what about bonds? What if GMAC goes bankrupt, and my GMAC bonds are near-worthless? Can the government cover my cost? Even better, can the government cover my expected gain?

I think you can see where I'm going with this. Taken to the extreme, these government bailouts of risk-gone-wrong are simply unsustainable.

While I am sympathetic to those who agreed to terms that they could not understand, and to those who were manipulated by unscrupulous lenders or brokers, I simply cannot ignore reality and conclude that the government should wave its magic wand and make the problem go away.

Here's a Reality Check: turning a private-sector problem into a government problem DOES NOT solve the problem.

A Historic Day in Totalitarianism

Wow. Big news in the dictatorships of the world over the last couple of days. First of all, Russian President Vladimir Putin won a sweeping victory in his election, amid charges of rigged votes, coercion and intimidation. You know, like you're SUPPOSED to vote in a totalitarian state.

Now, we move on to Venezuela, where President Hugo Chavez, whom even Nancy Pelosi has publicly referred to as a thug, lost.

Yep. He LOST. He had proposed a never-look-back socialist paradise, with him at the helm for all eternity, and his people said NO THANKS. Well, about 51% of them said no. And he accepted the decision of the people. For now, anyway.

When Putin first came on the global stage, I will admit that I was suckered. I genuinely believed that he understood that free markets were the best thing for his people, and that KGB-era stifling of creativity was a big part of the demise of the U.S.S.R. Sadly, he seems to want to have his cake and eat it too - economic entrepreneurship right up to the point of profit, at which point the government snatches your business and crushes your dreams. Let the people vote, but only if you can know, and control, the outcome.

He's probably laughing at Chavez right now. After all, in Russia, losing by 2% is just a paperwork problem. But you know what? As hard as it is for me to admit this, this week, Chavez was the better man.