Answer: When a Politico writer ends his piece on "Obama's Budget Gamble" with this doozy:
"Even if we're busting the budget, we've got to solve some of these problems," said a member of his inner circle. "I'd rather live with a debt than have people go without health care."
Mickey Kaus (whom I like more and more) snarks:
Aha. ... And here I almost believed Obama's health care plans were all about lowering costs and getting the budget under control.
Republicans, if you are looking for a smoking gun, a "gotcha" quote, a sound bite that perfectly illustrates what we will be in for during the next eight years, here it is.
Budget-busting government spending, prolonged recession, high inflation (as a result of our massive debt load) which combined with pitifully low interest rates will wipe out virtually all of the weak investment gains of the next five years, rising unemployment, massive new tax increases (because when the first one comes up short, more are sure to follow), massive government control of our health care system, and the possibility of free speech over the airwaves or through the Internet being severely limited. Welcome to the Kingdom of Obama.
(h/t Instapundit)
ADDED: (chucking ...) Okay, OKAY "...next FOUR years..." My bad. Thanks, commenters.



Comments (15)
Please refrain from using t... (Below threshold)1. Posted by moseby | March 3, 2009 9:50 AM | Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Please refrain from using the term "during the next 8 years". Please. "During the next 4 years" is more upbeat and positive. Thank you.
1. Posted by moseby | March 3, 2009 9:50 AM |
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Posted on March 3, 2009 09:50
2. Posted by Pretzel Logic | March 3, 2009 9:55 AM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
8 years?? NFW
2. Posted by Pretzel Logic | March 3, 2009 9:55 AM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on March 3, 2009 09:55
3. Posted by JLawson | March 3, 2009 9:56 AM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
This may be a case of the remedy causing more problems than the disease did. If, in order to 'cure' the health care system, we FUBAR the economy - is that really a better solution than growing the economy so there's more private sector jobs available with decent benefits?
3. Posted by JLawson | March 3, 2009 9:56 AM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on March 3, 2009 09:56
4. Posted by OLDPUPPYMAX | March 3, 2009 10:05 AM | Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Three cheers for Mr. Laprarie. Finally, someone who "gets it." Hussein is not out to fix the economy, the markets, the housing "crisis" or any other problem which suddenly and magically appeared a couple of months prior to a presidential election. All of these current "national emergencies" have been carefully planned and deliberately initiated to create panic in both the public and private sectors. WHY? Because happy, secure and profitable people/businesses are poor takeover targets for a Marxist dictatorship. So stop listening to Husseins laments and his hand-wringing concerns about the poor, unfortunate public. This thug and his brownshirt minions have deliberately created every "disaster" we currently see for the purpose of allowing Big Brother to ride to the rescue and take over. Don't be surprised when you wake up one morning to find your liberty stolen for the "greater good."
4. Posted by OLDPUPPYMAX | March 3, 2009 10:05 AM |
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Posted on March 3, 2009 10:05
5. Posted by Bruce Henry | March 3, 2009 10:18 AM | Score: -8 (12 votes cast)
See what you got started, Mr Lawson?
You got OldPuppyDog all riled up with your conspiracy theories. Now the reason McCain lost the election is because these "disasters" were "created by this thug and his brownshirt minions."
Kinda like Pelosi being bribed by evil A-rabs to spike the price of oil last summer, huh?
5. Posted by Bruce Henry | March 3, 2009 10:18 AM |
Score: -8 (12 votes cast)
Posted on March 3, 2009 10:18
6. Posted by MPR | March 3, 2009 10:33 AM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
The markets have never believed Obamalala's policies will fix our economy. It's about his idea of re-making America no matter what or who suffers.
6. Posted by MPR | March 3, 2009 10:33 AM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on March 3, 2009 10:33
7. Posted by tomg51 | March 3, 2009 10:40 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
The Last Word for the budget could be Peter Orszag going before the House Budget Committee today, armed against assertions that the CO2 cap & trade will increase taxes on everyone poised to say, per AP, Fox News:
"Orszag has acknowledged that the energy proposal would increase costs for consumers, but he argues that the vast majority of consumers will get tax breaks elsewhere in Obama's budget package".
A revenue neutral tax break for 95% of Americans. big wup.
7. Posted by tomg51 | March 3, 2009 10:40 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on March 3, 2009 10:40
8. Posted by JLawson | March 3, 2009 11:28 AM | Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Lying again, Bruce? Shall I ask you for another non-apology?
No, you attempted to fake up something I didn't say in the first place. That's being dishonest, Bruce. What do you sell, used cars?As far as what I said about Pelosi - let's look at it again. You're accusing me of making up conspiracy theories. Here's what I wrote.
A truther would have a friggin' field day with those coincidences. I'm saying Pelosi made political hay while she could. And likely got a lot of donations due to her anti-drilling stance. AND she's an idiot who's letting her eco-ideology cheat California out of a lot of revenue which it badly needs.8. Posted by JLawson | March 3, 2009 11:28 AM |
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 3, 2009 11:28
9. Posted by moseby | March 3, 2009 11:50 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
nancy pelosi...oofah!! everytime I see her mug I reach up to pull off the sunglasses cuz I just don't want to "see" anymore....heh heh.
9. Posted by moseby | March 3, 2009 11:50 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on March 3, 2009 11:50
10. Posted by Bruce Henry | March 3, 2009 12:23 PM | Score: -5 (7 votes cast)
Let me apologise one more time for stating something that wasn't true. I must have got you mixed up with another commenter, or just dreamed it up, or something. As I said, I thought you said it, but I must have been mistaken. Is that an abject enough apology for you, Mr Lawson?
And my last comment was supposed to be funny, kind of a ribbing, as it were. I suppose now I have to apologise for that, too. Shheeeesh. You're sensitive.
"A truther would have a friggin' field day with those coincidences.".....But you're NOT a truther, right?
10. Posted by Bruce Henry | March 3, 2009 12:23 PM |
Score: -5 (7 votes cast)
Posted on March 3, 2009 12:23
11. Posted by JLawson | March 3, 2009 12:58 PM | Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Correct, Bruce. Oh look, over there! Something shiny!
(Backs away slowly from Bruce...)
11. Posted by JLawson | March 3, 2009 12:58 PM |
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Posted on March 3, 2009 12:58
12. Posted by Bruce Henry | March 3, 2009 1:21 PM | Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
Seriously, dude, my sincere apologies.
12. Posted by Bruce Henry | March 3, 2009 1:21 PM |
Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 3, 2009 13:21
13. Posted by Falze | March 3, 2009 1:46 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
1. Obama wants the government to pay for more peoples' health care.
2. Obama knows he needs to limit health care costs.
3. Obama and the Dems have put hundreds of millions into the 'stimulus' to study 'effective treatments'.
4. The Administration claims it doesn't plan on rationing health care.
One of these things does not belong...sing with me...
13. Posted by Falze | March 3, 2009 1:46 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on March 3, 2009 13:46
14. Posted by _Mike_ | March 3, 2009 1:57 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
I've got no problems with that. However, it's when the speaker starts FORCING their decision on the rest of us that I have a problem.
The likely result is huge debt and people without healthcare. Having the government mandate 'universal healthcare' doesn't mean that there will suddenly be more to go around - simply that government will be the allocator rather than individuals.
14. Posted by _Mike_ | March 3, 2009 1:57 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on March 3, 2009 13:57
15. Posted by JLawson | March 3, 2009 5:18 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
The LIKELY result will be huge debt?
Might have been cheaper just to buy everyone who wasn't insured already a catastrophic coverage policy with Blue Cross, and a prepaid 5-visit card to the local Doc-in-the-Box at your local pharmacy. (Offer void where prohibited.) Heck - get WalMart to set up little clinics nationwide. (Some already have them.)
Seems to me like the losses inherent in having the government take care of this problem are far going to exceed any imagined savings.
15. Posted by JLawson | March 3, 2009 5:18 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on March 3, 2009 17:18