Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

2009-12-14T22:04:08Z

RichardHertz:

The '''American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009''', called a "stimulus bill" by its supporters but branded a "pork bill" by its opponents, was passed by Congress on Friday the 13th of February 2009 after a vote sharply divided along party lines. The purpose was to invigorate the economy that was still spiralling downward in the ongoing [[Recession of 2008]]. Conservatives Republicans proposed a similar bill about one-third smaller in dollar terms, but were overwhelmed by solid Democratic control of the House. The Bill passed the Senate because three Republicans broke party ranks to vote for it; one of them<ref> Senator Spector of Pennsylvania</ref> soon switched to the Democratic Party.

It was supported by Democrats and by the [[Obama Administration]].
The bill passed the House and Senate with only three Republican senators voting for it and no Republican votes in the House and was signed by the president on February 17, 2009. Since the passage of the "stimulus" bill, over 4 million American jobs have been lost, in spite of Obama's false promise that 4 million jobs would be created or "saved".<ref>[www.bls.gov]</ref> In contrast, President Reagan's Economic Recovery Act of 1981 led to swift job creation, as opposed to a jobless recovery that was first seen in the 1990s after Bill Clinton's tax increase.<ref>http://www.heritage.org/research/labor/em917.cfm</ref><ref>http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2009/el2009-18.html</ref> Because of the size of the stimulus bill, President Obama is now currently unable to fulfill his utopian promise of [[universal health care]].<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-2913-Boston-Republican-Examiner~y2009m7d28-How-the-stimulus-and-now-the-Gates-affair-have-damaged-Obamas-credibility]</ref>

At $789 billion it is one of the most expensive proposals in world history. The Republican counterproposal was similar in scope but totaled only $500 billion.

It was promoted by Democrats as an "[[economic stimulus]]" package that will revive the ailing U.S. economy (see [[Recession of 2008]]). They promised it would add or save 3.5 million jobs, at a time when over 600,000 jobs are disappearing every month.

Conservatives complain that it is mostly spending to promote long-standing liberal causes.
:"The plan is primarily designed not to stimulate the economy, but the size and scope of government. More citizens will be dependent upon government largesse. This empowers the Democratic Party and its liberal elite."<ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/15/the-peron-pattern/]</ref>

In many ways the stimulus program resembled the [[Reconstruction Finance Corporation]] set up by [[Herbert Hoover]] and Congress in 1932 to deal with the [[Great Depression]]. Both were very large programs created to reverse a downward economic spiral by making loans to major financial corporations and other key sectors, as well as grants to cities and states, all designed to stimulate public spending to replace the freeze on spending and loaning by consumers and businesses. [[File:Varvel-11-19-09.jpg|thumb|310px|left|Gary Varvel pokes fun at VP Biden's outlandish claims]]

==Provisions==
The total of $789 billion includes $275 billion in tax cuts and $514 billion in new spending.

It includes $170 billion for infrastructure projects such as highways, internet broadband and public-housing repairs. Of that, about $40 billion will go to the Energy Department. The act will fund projects to create a "smart" electric grid, build electric automobiles, and make homes and buildings more energy efficient.<ref> Stephen Power and Neil King, Jr. "Next Challenge on Stimulus: Spending All That Money," [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123448815417580333.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy '' Wall Street Journal'' Feb 13, 2009] </ref>

There will be $275 billion in tax cuts, including a $800 cash rebate to most families that will be spread out over a year, and an extra $250 quick payment to every person over age 65. The spending provisions cover a very wide variety of projects.<ref> [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29assess.html?hp David M. Herszenhorn, "Stimulus Package’s Components Vary in Speed and Efficiency," ''New York Times'' Jan. 28, 2009]</ref>

Responding to public outrage against bankers who paid themselves billions of dollars in bonuses while their banks were collapsing and investors losing 95% of their money, the bill imposes tight restrictions on executive bonuses at financial institutions. The provision, inserted by Senate Democrats over the objections of the Obama administration, affects banks that have received financial bailout funds. It prohibits cash bonuses and almost all other incentive compensation for the five most senior officers and the 20 highest-paid executives at large companies that receive money under the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, or [[TARP]]. Bonuses are limited to one-third of salary and must be in a form that is paid out only after the banks repay their loans from the government.<ref> Edmund L. Andrews and Eric Dash, "Stimulus Plan Sets New Limits on Executive Pay," [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/business/economy/14pay.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Feb. 13, 2009]</ref>

[[Image:Stim1.jpg|thumb|380px|Cartoonist Chuck Asay summarizes the debate]]

==Conservative criticism==
"The strategy under this bill is to throw billions of dollars in every bureaucratic direction, and cross our fingers and hope for the best," said Rep. Ken Calvert (R., Calif.) during debate. Rep. David Obey (D., Wis.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, responded, "We need to compare the cost of this package against the cost of doing nothing. The cost of nothing would be catastrophic."<ref> See [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123315486943524321.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy Jonathan Weisman, Greg Hitt And Naftali Bendavid, "House Passes Stimulus Package; $819 Billion Jolt to Economy Aims to Reshape Education, Health Care; Deficit to Soar," ''Wall Street Journal'' Jan. 29, 2009]</ref>

Liberals supporting the measure say it is aimed at preventing the economy from "collapsing" and at "restoring it to normal" by spending money that the private sector is too frightened to spend. Conservative critics predict it will do little to help the economy recover and is filled with non-essential spending.

The Heritage Foundation says, "But government spending plans do not stimulate the economy. They are based on the idea that feeding “new” money into the economy will create economic growth. But the money isn’t new—it’s either taxed or borrowed. It's essentially redistributed from one group of people to another, and no new money is created."<ref> See [http://www.askheritage.org/Issues.aspx?ID=41 Heritage statement]</ref>

The [[Congressional Budget Office]] says $347 billion more in interest will be the result, which brings the total plan over 1 trillion dollars. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/28/special-groups-line-piece-stimulus/ "Special-Interest Groups Line Up for a Piece of Stimulus" Fox News, Jan. 28, 2009]</ref> According to the CBO analysis, timely spending of the money will be hampered by bureaucratic delays of up to two-years and the inability of state and federal agencies to efficiently and effectively spend the massive inflows of new money. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=42725 "Almost Half the Spending in Stimulus Bill Would Not Happen for at Least Two Years, Says CBO Analysis," CNSNews, January 29, 2009]</ref>

House Republicans proposed a bill tilted more sharply toward tax cuts, which they say will generate the most economic activity the fastest. Their substitute proposed cutting individual and business taxes as well as reducing much of the bill’s spending; it was rejected by a party-line vote of 170-266. The failed GOP measure totaled about $479 billion, a little more than half the total passed by the Democrats.
==Support from state governors==
Most Republican governors have broken with their GOP colleagues in Congress and are pushing for aid that would send billions to states for education, public works and health care. Since their state treasuries drained by the financial crisis, governors would welcome the money from Capitol Hill, where GOP lawmakers are more skeptical of Obama's spending priorities. The bipartisan National Governors Association called on Congress to quickly pass the plan, saying:
:"States are facing fiscal conditions not seen since the Great Depression — anticipated budget shortfalls are expected in excess of $200 billion. Governors support several key elements of the bill critical to states-increased federal support for Medicaid and K-12 and higher education; investment in the nation's infrastructure; and tax provisions to spur investment."<ref>Beth Fouhy, "GOP governors press Congress to pass stimulus bill," [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090201/ap_on_re_us/stimulus_gop_governors_6 Associated Press Feb. 1, 2009] </ref>

Several of the most conservative Republican governors have rejected one part of the stimulus, which increases amounts for unemployment insurance because it expands the coverage of the program and would be hard politically to reverse when recovery comes.

==Tax rebates==
The 2009 bill includes tax rebates that resemble in part the $152 billion stimulus law proposed by President [[George W. Bush]] and passed by Congress in Feb. 2008. However those 2008 rebates were mostly (85%) saved and used to pay down debts rather then make new purchases, so they may have failed to stimulate the economy in 2008. <ref>see [http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0631744820080208 Reuters, Feb. 8, 2008]</ref>
Some studies show that both the 2001 and 2008 tax rebates were both surprisingly effective. <ref>see [http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/christian.broda/website/research/unrestricted/Stimulus%20Payments%20and%20Spending.pdf The Impact of the 2008 Tax Rebates on Consumer Spending: Preliminary Evidence]</ref><ref>see [http://pennyhill.com/index.php?lastcat=19&catname=Economic+Policy&viewdoc=RS22790 Tax Cuts for Short-Run Economic Stimulus: Recent Experiences]</ref>

==Congress==
The House of Representative passed the bill January 28, 2009 by a vote of 244-188; all Republicans cast a no vote as did eleven Democrats. The Senate needed 60 votes to avoid a filibuster, and the bill won the support of all 58 Democrats and 3 republicans. (There is one vacancy.)<ref> On the final vote on Feb. 13, 2009, Senator Ted Kennedy, recuperating in Florida from brain surgery, did not vote.</ref>

[[Image:House09vote.jpg|thumb|550px|Final vote in the House<ref> See [http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/1/70 ''New York Times'' Feb. 13, 2009] for individual Congressmen</ref>]]

"We all understand the economy is in crisis," Republican Senator John Cornyn said. But he and numerous Republicans announced they would vote “no” rather than endorse a bloated bill that will be paid for by future generations of taxpayers.

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, countered by alluding to the deficits that accumulated during the Bush administration and asking rhetorically, "Where were my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for the last eight years?"

The final version easily passed the House, which requires only a majority vote and where the Democrats hold a 255-to-178 advantage. Seven House Democrats voted against the final bill; no House Republicans voted for the final bill. In the Senate, 60 votes are required to avoid a filibuster that can kill legislation, and the Democrats have the advantage 58-41, with one vacancy as Minnesota continues to count votes from the Nov. 2008 election. Therefore at least two GOP senators are needed, and the three voted yes (two from Maine and one from Pennsylvania.)

Conservative [[Charles E. Grassley]] of Iowa, the most senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, complained that 34 states and the District of Columbia will receive less Medicaid money than larger states. The stimulus package "shortchanges" Iowa by $185 million, he said. "It disregards the tough economic situation facing our state and others, and it fails to understand that the recession is hitting places like Iowa a little later than other states, but it is still hitting us."<ref> [http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=19319 Grassley Press Release, Feb. 12, 2009]</ref> Grassley's efforts to amend the bill were voted down by the Democrats.

We all understand the economy is in crisis,” Mr. Cornyn said. But he was among numerous Republicans who said they would vote “no” rather than endorse a bloated bill that will be paid for by future generations of taxpayers.

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, countered by alluding to the deficits that accumulated during the Bush administration and asking rhetorically, “Where were my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for the last eight years?”

There was no suspense about the outcome earlier Friday in the House, since the Democrats hold a 255-to-178 advantage in the chamber.

==Impact==
[[File:Varvel-09-11-16.jpg|thumb|300px|Cartoonist Gary Varvel ridicules the liberal argument]]
Unemployment climbed steadily month by month after the stimulus became law in February, reaching 10.2% in October 2009. Liberals said not enough money had been spent fast enough, and indeed the Obama Administration was very slow in getting the money spent.
==Non Essential items==
Conservatives, represented by House Minority whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., complained, “This was not a stimulus bill. It was a spending bill.” <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Stimulus_Democrats_GOP/2009/01/29/176427.html GOP Resisted as Stimulus Veered Off Target] NewsMax, January 29, 2009</ref>

Some of the "stimulus" proposals attacked by conservatives:

* $650 million for digital TV coupons
* $600 million for new cars for the federal government
* $6 billion for colleges/universities
* The plan establishes at least 32 new government programs at a cost of over $136 billion <ref>That means more than a third of this plan's spending provisions are dedicated to creating new government programs.</ref>
* $25 million for new [[ATV]] trails
* $400 million for the [[National Endowment for the Arts]]
* $400 million for global warming research
* $30 billion has been set aside for infrastructure spending
* $200 million for Dep. of Defense to acquire alternative energy vehicles.
* $1.5 billion for a CO2 Reductions
* $4.2 billion for community organizing <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/vitter_acorn_payoff/2009/01/29/176317.html Sen. Vitter: ACORN Getting ‘Political Payoff’] NewsMax, January 29, 2009</ref>
* $3.5 billion for higher education facilities
* $400 million for [[HIV]] and chlamydia testing
* $150 million for The Smithsonian
* $81 billion for [[Medicaid]]
* $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
* $20 billion for food stamps
* $83 billion for the earned income credit for non-taxpayers
* $54 billion to federal programs Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs
* $66 billion for education
* $650 million coupons to subsidize digital television conversion<ref>addref</ref>
* $572 million for Coast Guard improvements <ref>[http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/28/stimulus-stupidity-alert-460000coast-guard-job-15-bil-carbon-capturing-contest-more/ Stimulus stupidity alert] Michelle Malkin, January 28, 2009</ref>
* $1 billion to subsidize Amtrak
* $2 billion to help subsidize child care
* $2.25 billion for national parks
* $75 million for programs to help people quit smoking
* $44 million to renovate the headquarters building of the Agriculture Department
* $200 million for the National Mall, including $21 million for sod
* $53.4 billion for science facilities, high speed Internet, and miscellaneous energy and environmental programs.
* $32 billion for a "smart" electricity grid to minimize waste
* $13 billion for public housing, the homeless, renovate foreclosed homes
* $20 billion for quicker depreciation and write-offs for equipment
* $10.3 billion for tax credits to help families defray the costs of college tuition

Items removed from the House bill
* $200 million for new contraceptive service
* $20 million to renovate the National Mall

==External Links==
* [http://www.cq.com/displayfile.do?docid=3031034&productId=5 Official statement of tax effects], includes some spending on medical insurance and modernization
*[http://www.cq.com/displayfile.do?docid=3030932&productId=5 Official statement of new appropriations]
* [http://www.ourcountrydeservesbetter.com/issues/stopstimulus.html Stop The Stimulus!]
* [http://www.recovery.gov/ White House Recovery Website]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Business]]
[[Category:Finance]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Tiger Woods

2009-12-10T05:45:45Z

RichardHertz:

'''Eldrick Tiger Woods''' (born 1975), who goes by his middle name, is a professional [[golf | golfer]]. In 2006, he was #2 on Forbes's "Celebrity 100" of the biggest celebrity names, trailing only [[Oprah Winfrey]]. [http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/53/07celebrities_The-Celebrity-100_Rank.html] He earned about $100,000,000 in 2006 from endorsements and tournament winnings.

He has had three knee operations, including the removal of a benign tumor and also a cyst.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351418,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.golftoday.co.uk/news/yeartodate/news02/woods51.html</ref>

Tiger Woods, the first notable affirmative action golfer on the PGA tour, had been compared to [[Barack Hussein Obama]] for being a liberal "Magic Negro" that made liberal elitists feel OK about their past racism. However, perhaps ominously, Woods had been revealed to be just another athlete with no regard for [[family values]] after he was caught having multiple affairs.

== References ==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Woods, Tiger}}

[[Category: Athletes]]
[[Category: Golfers]]

Selfish ideologies

2009-11-26T03:24:10Z

RichardHertz: rv for now ...

'''Selfish ideologies''' are correlated with selfish behavior, or encourage it. It may be possible to quantify the degree of selfish conduct encouraged by an ideology. A name for this quantity could be the "selfish metric."

Characteristics of selfish ideologies include:

*reduced donations to charity, as a percentage of wealth or in absolute terms
*disproportionately large spending of taxes paid by others
*lack of charitable group activities, such as building hospitals, volunteering to teach, raising children (including adoptive and foster), and helping the less fortunate
*imposition of the self-interested desires of a few on a larger group in a manner that interferes with their enjoyment or values, as in a heckler's veto
*encouragement of self-centered, destructive behavior that causes harm to society or others

The first two points are easily quantifiable. The third and fourth points can also quantified, though less easily so.

== Homosexual ideology ==

== Feminist ideology ==

== Atheism ==

== Libertarian ideology ==

Selfish ideologies

2009-11-26T03:23:08Z

RichardHertz: /* Libertarian ideology */ The libertarian ideology is not selfish, lest you mistake what libertarianism truly is (hint, it is not anarachism)

ObamaCare

2009-11-26T03:06:58Z

RichardHertz: under the new Senate bill ...

[[File:ObamaCareSymbol.jpg|right|150px]]
'''Obamacare''' is the term some critics<ref>http://townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2009/08/06/welcome_to_gestapo-care</ref> use to describe Congressional [[Democrats]]' and the [[Obama Administration]]'s proposal through legislative mandates to require private citizens to purchase health insurance and involuntarily fund abortions, under the threat of legal sanctions if they do not. The new laws would impose as much as a $1000 fine on citizens for failure to comply.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/senate-democrats-trim-cost-health-care/</ref> The [[Congressional Budget Office]] (CBO) estimates the revenue generating device could produce as much as $36 billion over ten years.<ref>[http://allnurses-central.com/world-news-current/proposed-senate-plan-405168.html Proposed Senate Plan Would Involve IRS in Collecting Fines from Non-participants], ALLNURSES CENTRAL, Jul 03, 2009.</ref>

The fines are euphemistically dubbed "shared responsibility payments."<ref>http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/cbo-reports-entitlements-and-shared-responsibility</ref> Employers would be required to deduct the penalties from employees paychecks.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00421</ref>

The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] (AAPS) maintains there are no redeeming provisions of Obama's health care plan and offers a number of criticisms of Obama's health care plan. <ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00377</ref> The AAPS maintains that Obama's health care plan will significantly increase the overall cost of health care to United States public plus reduce the quality of care that the system provides.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00377</ref> Political analyst and
commentator [[Dick Morris]] has asserted that Obama's health care plan will lead to the significant use of rationing senior health care which will decrease the life span of senior citizens.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsImVGsFlmA</ref>

The State of [[Massachusetts]] has had a similiar program in place for several years.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00421</ref>

===Mandatory coverage===

One such proposal would create a system to require adults (over age 19, U.S. citizens, not incarcerated) to enroll themselves and dependent children in a plan through the state-wide Health Help Agency (HHA) unless they provide evidence of enrollment or coverage through Medicare, a health insurance plan offered by the Department of Defense, an employee benefit plan through a former employer (i.e. retiree health plans), a qualified collective bargaining agreement, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the Indian Health Service. There may by a religious exemption under this proposal. Each adult would have the responsibility to enroll each child in a plan. Dependent children include individuals up to age 24 claimed by their parents for deductions in the tax code.
[[File:Penalty.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|If an individual fails to purchase coverage and does not meet the exceptions or the religious exemption, then under Obamacare a financial penalty may be assessed for non-indigent individuals.]]

===Penalty for Failure to Purchase Coverage===

If an individual fails to purchase coverage and does not meet the exceptions or the religious exemption, then a financial penalty will be assessed for non-indigent individuals. Under this particular proposal for mandatory care, the penalty is calculated by multiplying the number of uncovered months times the weighted average of the monthly premium for a plan in the person’s coverage class and coverage area, plus 15 percent.

Fines will be paid to the HHA of the State in which the person resides. That agency also may establish a procedure to waive the penalty if the penalty poses a hardship. Each State would determine appropriate mechanisms to enforce the requirement that individuals be enrolled.<ref> http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/Healthy%20Americans%20Act/HAA_Section_by_Section.pdf</ref>

===Privacy rights===

Section 163 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would allow the government real-time access to a person's bank records - including direct access to bank accounts for electronic fund transfers.<ref>[http://www.infowars.com/obama-health-bill-allows-government-real-time-access-to-bank-accounts/ Obama Health Bill Allows Government Real-time Access to Bank Accounts], Kurt Nimmo, Infowars, August 3, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://kfyi.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=118695&article=5824042 Health Care Bill Would Allow Feds To Snoop in Your Checkbook], KFYI News.</ref><ref>http://www.littlegreenfootballs2.com/2009/07/22/inside-the-health-care-bill-aka-hr3200/</ref><ref>http://www.kfyi.com/cc-common/mlib/622/08/622_1249314906.pdf</ref>

===Disinformation===

A webpage at whitehouse.gov entitled "Reality Check" claims that the president's program "would be fully paid for over 10 years, and it would not add one penny to the deficit."<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq</ref> The [[CBO]] is mandated to prepare cost estimates and to show how individual legislative proposals would change spending or revenue levels under current law.<ref>http://www.cbo.gov/aboutcbo/budgetprocess.shtml</ref> A July 15 2009 letter from the CBO made this assessment,
{{Cquote|enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period."<ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10310/06-15-HealthChoicesAct.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=52306</ref>}}

However, CBO analyses of the House and Senate versions of the health care reform bills show that they would reduce the federal budget deficit by $109 billion <ref>http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=421</ref> and $81 billion <ref>http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=387</ref> respectively.

== Obama Administration health care plan and liberal elitism ==

''See also:'' [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism]] and [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]

[[File:arrogant_obama.jpg|right|125px|thumbnail|[[Barack Obama]] ]]
In 2007, when Obama was running for the office of President of the United States, he promised Americans "health care that is as good as the health care that I have as a member of Congress."<ref>http://www.emaxhealth.com/10/18430.html</ref> However, recently when a newspaper reporter pressed Obama on whether he would commit to Americans having the same health care as congressmen, Obama repeatedly refused to commit to his previous promise of Americans having the same coverage as members of Congress.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzLDb2igKM</ref> President Obama merely claimed Americans would have health care coverage that would "largely match up" with what members of Congress have.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzLDb2igKM</ref> President Obama also stated he is constantly followed around by a personal physician.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzLDb2igKM</ref> The Obama administration's [[Liberal Elite|liberal elitism]] is not unusual when it comes to health care. For example, [[Belinda Stronach]], a former Member of the Canadian Parliament, chose to have a surgical treatment in the United States rather than be treated in Canada for her condition ([[Canada]] has a [[socialized medicine]] system of health care).<ref>http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/09/14/canadian-official-refuses-canadian-health-care/</ref>

Congressman [[John Fleming]] has offered a legislative amendment that would require United States congressmen and senators to take the same health care plan they try to force on others (under proposed legislation they are curiously exempt). Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go to his website and sign his petition.<ref>http://fleming.house.gov/index.html</ref>

===Treatment of Elders===
Some critics, including former Vice-Presidential hopeful Sarah Palin, have accused Obama of planning on setting up "Death Panels" to judge the worthiness and "cost effectiveness" of keeping certain people alive, such as senior citizens.<ref>http://www.theonion.com/content/news/obama_health_care_plan_would_give?utm_source=a-section</ref>

== Also See ==
[[File:MedSybolBlog.jpg|right|160px]]
* [[Socialized Medicine]]
* [[Obamunism]]
* [[Essay:47 million Americans without health insurance lie]]

== External Links ==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzLDb2igKM The Obama health care press conference: The Public Option]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Totalitarianism]]
{{Liberalism}}
[[Category: Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category: Health]]

Congressional

2009-11-23T20:57:09Z

RichardHertz: Redirected page to United States Congress

#REDIRECT [[United States Congress]]

US Congress

2009-11-23T20:56:43Z

RichardHertz: Redirected page to United States Congress

#redirect [[United States Congress]]

U.S. Congress

2009-11-23T20:56:16Z

RichardHertz: Redirected page to United States Congress

#redirect [[United States Congress]]

Belinda Stronach

2009-11-23T20:16:59Z

RichardHertz:

'''Belinda Stronach''' is considered to be a [[Benedict Arnold]] in the Canadian Conservative Party. [[Stephen Harper]] had the votes for a a vote of no confidence, but Stronach switched to the Liberal Party after a promise for a leadership position.

Belinda Stronach

2009-11-23T20:16:39Z

RichardHertz: Created page with '''Belinda Stronach'' is considered to be a Benedict Arnold in the Canadian Conservative Party. Stephen Harper had the votes for a a vote of no confidence, but Stronach s...'

''Belinda Stronach'' is considered to be a [[Benedict Arnold]] in the Canadian Conservative Party. [[Stephen Harper]] had the votes for a a vote of no confidence, but Stronach switched to the Liberal Party after a promise for a leadership position.

User:RichardHertz

2009-11-23T20:07:23Z

RichardHertz:

My name is Richard Hertz and I am from the Great State of [[Texas]]. I am a former Wikipedia editor, but I've found that the liberal bias, especially from dedicated liberals on the site who partake in revert wars, make Wikipedia not worth the hassle. Any negative information about Obamessiah is deleted under BLP supposedly, but it apparently is OK to make unfounded insinuations about George W. Bush.

User:RichardHertz

2009-11-23T20:05:29Z

RichardHertz: Created page with 'My name is Richard Hertz and I am from the Great State of Texas. I am a former Wikipedia editor, but I've found that the liberal bias, especially from dedicated liberals on ...'