Only a Liberal…

And enemy combatants. And a couple other things, but who’s counting.

It appears the Obama honeymoon is near its end for the Press. In this video, a reporter calls Obama on his pledge to not raise taxes on any American making less than $250,000. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’s answer is SO lame the press corps laughs at him.

Barack Obama is a lying scumbag. He promised he wouldn’t raise taxes one cent for people making less than $250,000 and couldn’t make it 6 months before breaking his promise.

And from the Washington Post:

Obama administration officials are crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.

Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that an order, which would bypass Congress, could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.

See his promises on video. So he lied about raising taxes, he lied about giving Gitmo detainees their day in court, he lied about letting Americans look at legislation online for 5 days before voting, he lied about preventing congressmen from slipping in pork barrels. To quote Ted Kennedy, “lie after lie after lie after lie.” Senator Kennedy, Obama would like you to know, yes we can.

***Click here for FREE updates from OnlyaLiberal.com.

delusion - A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence

He has several delusions, but one easy one is his ostensible belief that lowering “carbon” emissions will save the planet. CO2 was 10 times higher than today in an ice age, and the amount of carbon emissions we could decrease would be greatly outweighed by non-American countries, thereby making our efforts fruitless. He, as well as Gore, is delusional.

lunatic - someone who is insane

And the definition of insanity according to Albert Einstein…

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

I refer you to one of my previous posts, where Obama was confronted about the fact that history shows capital gains tax increases result in a tax revenue decrease, and capital gains tax decreases result in tax revenue increases.

“Well, that might happen or it might not.”

He plans to do the same things others have done, and he expects a different result. Obama is, therefore, insane.
This is not a political discussion. I chose my words carefully, and provided evidence and definitions. There are plenty of delusional lunatics in all political parties. I do not classify President Bush as a delusional lunatic, though I am open to someone giving me a specific example of him being one. Bush bailed out banks and companies like Obama, which makes him a fiscal socialist (in 2008), but not a delusional lunatic.

I welcome well-thought out constructive criticism. If you don’t like me being mean to Obama, I have a simple response. There are plenty of people spreading niceness. I’m here to spread truth.

Now there is one counterargument… Obama is not a delusional lunatic, but rather a congenital liar. Those are the only two possibilities based on the evidence. We know he’s comically inept at appointments, as shown by his SIXTH pick with tax problems. I challenge you to find a hole in my logic.

***Click here for FREE updates from OnlyaLiberal.com.

Oh, that’s just ridiculous! How could anyone want to do something like that?

From Reuters: Barack Obama announced that in order to help pay the huge tax bill he’s charging on Uncle Sam’s credit card, he’s gonna reduce the tax deduction that rich people get to claim when making charitable contributions. They used to be able to deduct 35% of their charitable donations: now they will only be able to deduct 28%. He actually accidentally supports the argument for a fair tax, but he supports both sides of an argument all the time. As you might expect, charity groups are worried this will decrease giving.

Obama’s response… “If it’s really a charitable contribution, I’m assuming that that shouldn’t be the determining factor as to whether you’re giving that $100 to the homeless shelter down the street.”

Mr. President, your assumptions are naive and irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what someone’s reason is for giving charity. The point of the tax credit is to create incentive to make charitable contributions. If you increase the cost of a charitable donation by one cent, you will decrease the amount of donations. Its just economics. Perhaps it won’t decrease very much, but to claim it won’t decrease is preposterous.

“It’s not going to cripple them. They’ll still be well-to-do,” he said.

When Obama says “them,” he is referring to rich people. You are certainly correct, Mr. President. You won’t and can’t cripple rich people by taxing them. Taxing rich people more doesn’t hurt rich people. It hurts anyone that rich people give their money to, like small businesses and CHARITIES. Barack Obama does not care if increasing taxes on the rich will decrease charitable contributions. Attacking the rich is more important to him.
It is obvious that Obama is relentless in his pursuit to attack the rich/productive members of society regardless of the casualties. Arguments by Charlie Gibson and others pointing out that increasing the capital gains tax will actually decrease federal tax revenue doesn’t penetrate the socialist ideology of Barack Obama. Allow me to remind you of their conversation:

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased.  The government took in more money.  And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.  So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair…

MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not.  [emphasis added]

Here are the key points to pay attention to.

1. Gibson cites empirical evidence citing the downside to increasing capital gains tax. Obama responds by talking about how much money 50 people made. This shows that he thinks his job is to tax the rich, not optimize federal tax revenue.
2. Obama then points out that making money off the stock market allows rich people to pay a lower tax rate than secretaries. What this observation fails to point out is that doesn’t mean the rich person is paying a lower amount of tax: just a lower rate.
3. Obama says its not fair that 50 people are paying lower tax rates than secretaries. Not lower taxes: lower tax rates. What he’s saying is its unfair that some people are making more money off the stock market than others. Are the secretaries prevented from making money off the stock market? No. So the hedge fund managers must have some expertise that allows them to make money off the market that the secretaries do not have. That means that the only thing Obama could be saying is not fair is that one person is making more money than someone else. He believes equality means equal outcome, rather than equal opportunity.
4. Gibson reiterates the historical truths of capital gains tax changes. Our President, the most powerful man in the world, ostensibly the best candidate for that office in all of America, responds with the old “maybe, maybe not” argument.

This guy is dangerously ignorant. I take that back… I can’t be sure he’s ignorant. I can believe he’s aware of everything I’m arguing for. I don’t think he cares. He has formed conclusions based on ideology, and ideology trumps evidence in his mind. He may not be ignorant, but he certainly is dangerous. I’m not the first to say this, but I predict he will either be impeached for his incompetence, or lose in a Reagan-esque landslide in 2012. You can fool all of the people some of the time…

Washington Times has an article on it. I tend to dislike Michael Savage’s pattern of calling a spade a vicious, evil, pedophile spade (I exaggerate a tad), but when he compared President Bush to Hitler when talking about all these bailouts, I find it very hard to disagree. Liberal kooks were right for the wrong reasons, and premature in their Bush/Hitler comparison. The argument that “I don’t want to bail them out, but extreme times call for extreme measures” could have easily come out of Hitler’s mouth. The notion that government politicians know how to help deal with extreme measures other than war should be dismissed at the door.

No, Bush didn’t kill any Jews, but is the word Hitler always off limits except when speaking of genocide? I think not. The government has shown time and time again it is incapable of solving problems. Everyone thinks that if a market crashes, the market is broken and something ostensibly outside the market has to fix it. This is kindergarten insanity.

Numerous television pundits say we have to bailout the auto companies. Why? If they failed, subsidizing failure solves nothing. Let them fail, and someone more efficient and profitable will fill that market niche. The government arbitrarily deciding who gets money and who doesn’t is breathtaking, and any American who understands the suicide of socialism needs to get angry. These bailouts are legalized robbery. Grand theft bank account.

***Click here for FREE updates from OnlyaLiberal.com.

Liberalism comes in many colors: not just Democrat blue, but Republican red as well. Republican Congressman Joe Knollenberg had this exchange with Neil Cavuto on Fox. Neil starts naming off different industries that may ask for money to keep from going bankrupt…

Cavuto: Where do you draw the line with our money?

Knollenberg: It is not your money. In fact…

Cavuto: IT IS!!!

A politician finally let slip what they all think taxes really are: their funny money to spend. Knollenberg’s comments should be an epic scandal, but will probably be downplayed by most media. Washington D.C. does not think the money you send them every paycheck or every quarter belongs to you. That is an enormous problem that explains most of the appalling fiscal behavior. I promise you that fiscal irresponsibility like this will literally bankrupt this country. This is not an exaggeration or hyperbole.
You should be livid about this. The founding fathers wouldn’t recognize this country, and that’s a problem. I expect this Marxist nonsense from a handful of Democrats, but you Republicans out there that always vote that way… you need to start wrecking shop and get rid of these RINOs that are destroying conservatism and slowly decaying America.

Congress should be totally recalled and staffed by a draft from now on. I’m 100% serious. Congress used to be a part-time job 100 years ago. We need to go back to that. Draft congress like you would draft an army, and you’ll have Congressmen who actually treat taxpayer money as though it belongs to the taxpayers.

Let Joe Knollenberg know how angry you are by going to his website.

Fred Thompson gave an amazingly substantive speech. The top policy highlight…

Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases.

They tell you they are not going to tax your family.

No, they’re just going to tax “businesses”! So unless you buy something from a “business”, like groceries or clothes or gasoline … or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small “business”, don’t worry … it’s not going to affect you.

This illustrates one of the main problems with liberalism. Only a liberal could have basic economics explained to them and still insist that taxing businesses is not taxing citizens.

Congressmen screamed bloody murder when Exxon reported their income rose 14% in the 4^th quarter of 2007. As a result of this “crime,” Congress even brought in the top executives of the five largest U.S. oil companies to reprimand and lecture them.

“Where is the corporate conscience? Is there anybody here that has any concerns about what you’re doing to this country with the prices that you’re charging and the profits that you’re taking?” Sen. Dick Durbin

So what are the profits? Exxon earned $11.6 billion, which is a record for U.S. companies. In 2004, they had profits that freaked out the masses as well. Their gross margin that quarter was 9.8 cents per dollar of revenue. But financial institutions such as commercial banks, are routinely more profitable than Exxon. 9.8 cents is laughable in comparison to Citigroup’s 15.7 cents per dollar in 2004. The makers of Marlboro made 22 cents for every dollar. Merck made 25 cents.

If your company grosses 6 billion, and your expenses are only 1 billion, you just made 5 billion. If you gross 150 billion, and your expenses are 140 billion, you made 10 billion. Ask yourself which company is more “evil”: the one whose income was twice as much, or the one who’s ROI was 600%? Profit margin is the more relevant statistic.

Looking at Moneycentral.msn.com, Exxon’s gross margin is 21.6%. Check out the gross margin of these other companies that haven’t been scolded by congress:

• MoSys: 81.1%
• Microsoft: 79.3%
• Google: 59.8%
• Yahoo: 59.5%
• Apple: 34.4%
• Safeway: 28.6%
• Walmart: 23.5%
• Amazon: 22.5%
• Exxon: 21.6%
• Disney: 20.3%

Walmart is also attacked with its gross margin of 23.5%. Walmart and Exxon aren’t being attacked because of their profits. That’s just the excuse. If profits were the real crime, Bill Gates and Larry Page might as well live in Washington to make their daily scoldings more convenient. Why don’t we stop bothering Exxon and start demanding Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo decrease their obscene profits? Google didn’t exist 10 years ago, and we were doing just fine.

* I don’t really believe we should go after Google’s profits. They earned it fair and square, just like the oil companies. There is no difference. Just be aware of the hypocrisy.

What goes into the price of a gallon of gas? There’s a nice explanation here. At the pump, only about 4% of the price represents oil company profits. So if you wiped out all oil company profits, the price of a $4 gallon of gas would become $3.84. That doesn’t explain the dollars of increase in recent years. Did you know that while Exxon gets 16 cents from that gallon, 60 cents goes to taxes? “A thief is more moral than a congressman; when a thief steals your money, he doesn’t demand you thank him.” Walter Williams

You can’t tax a corporation

“You can’t tax a corporation. It’s a lie. There’s no such taxpayer. Tax the corporation and you tax the people that work there, or buy its products, or own its stock. If you can’t have dinner with it, you can’t tax it.” - Kelly J. Maguire

Senators like Dick Durbin and Charles Schumer would solve this “problem” of high oil company profits by instituting a windfall profits tax. Maxine Waters actually admitted what Washington really wants to do. When Exxon makes a boatload of money, that boatload will be taxed more than their usual profit. But what does a company do when its expenses increase? It increases the price.

A windfall profits tax actually taxes gas users. This is just basic economics. If you add a tax to a corporation for high profits, their bottom line will decrease, which decreases their stock price and dividends. This is completely unacceptable to shareholders, so to prevent that, the corporation must increase its prices or decrease its expenses by the exact amount of the tax. BASIC ECONOMICS. So either prices will go up or some people will get fired.

This article at lossofsanity.com puts it best:

An increase in corporate taxes increases the cost of producing goods and services and leads to a higher price for the consumer.

Politicians know the secret and fear that the public will learn it too one day. Thus politicians continually demonize business with words like greedy, anti-consumer, socially irresponsible in order to keep people’s anger focused on business instead of the true practitioners of greed… politicians.

BIG Farm

I mentioned earlier that people were hopping mad about Exxon’s 14% increase in profits. What if I told you there was another company whose profits rose by 86%? Would you be 6 times as mad? Cargill Inc.’s profits went from $553 million to $1.03 billion. How did an agriculture business increase profits by that much?

They didn’t. Congress passed the Energy Policy Act in 2005 which required use of ethanol in U.S. gasoline. As a result the price of corn nearly doubled, which increased their profits. The increased profits gave incentive to stop growing other crops to make room for corn, which lowered the supply of those other crops and therefore raised the prices. The price increase in crops like corn has caused “Tortilla riots” in Mexico, and violent protests have occurred in 33 countries. Artificially messing with energy has literally made people hungrier. Perhaps everyone should stop worrying about Big Oil, and start worrying about Big Farm and Big Government.

I am so sick and tired of listening to people whine and complain about oil companies making too much money. The ignorance is staggering so here we go…

A CNN article claims oil companies have a profit margin of 9.7% which Ill round up to 10% for simplicity’s sake. Assuming a $4 gallon of gas, that’s $0.40. That means the other $3.60 is completely, utterly out of their hands. If you take away Big Oil’s profits, your gas will only go down by 40 cents. By the way, Google’s post-tax profit margin is more than twice that of Exxon, but you’re not mad at them for gouging.

Taxfoundation.org has an article linked in the above graph that states in the last 25 years Big Oil has sent $2.2 trillion (adjusted for inflation) to state and local governments. That is 3 times what they collectively earned. How can they send more money to the government than they themselves make? Simple, they make you pay for it.

When you get excited that the government is gonna punish oil companies, you are the one getting punished. When you increase the costs of providing a gallon of gas, the price will increase. You morons feel so much better sticking it to oil companies when in reality you’re sticking it to yourself.

Most of the criticism of Michael Moore you find on the internet doesn’t bother to analyze his claims; instead they attack his character without explaining the specifics of his character deficiencies. His new movies Sicko puts for the hypothesis that the American health care system is screwed up, and that socializing it, or having the government run it, is the solution. He backs up his assertions with evidence of the success of such healthcare programs in other countries.

Testimonials can only DISPROVE, not prove an assertion

Pretend I show you a video of Padres pitcher Jake Peavy hitting a homerun. I then claim that the logical conclusion is that all national league pitchers hit a homerun every time they come up to bat. Your likely response would be, “That’s ridiculous. You can’t base a conclusion like that on one at bat.”

On the other hand if I make that claim, you could show me one at-bat by one national league pitcher where he does not hit a home-run, thereby disproving my assertion with only one piece of evidence.

Moore attacks the subject of privatized health care with the intellectually dishonest tactic of omitting information in his evidence. He only puts forth the evidence that supports his conclusion. This is not a documentary. Documentaries document reality. He presents his “reality” by only showing the worst testimonials. I don’t even have to analyze the specifics of the testimonials. The testimonials can be broken up into two groups:

• Those without insurance
• Those with insurance that are denied claims or have trouble paying the bills

Those without insurance generally claim they could not afford it. Moore does not analyze their reasons at all. One sob-story shows a couple that goes broke because of copays and decutibles. Interestingly enough this is the only story with that plotline. More evidence is needed to consider this proof. Also, we would need to analyze the full financials of this couple to determine if the copays and deductibles were the sole, or main, cause of their financial problems. The couple owns two cars and wasn’t living in the poorest of neighborhoods. Did they have any credit card debt? Leaving all these details out and only showing one testimonial is certainly not proof. This testimonial, without supporting evidence, could easily be a ridiculous anomoly, or a flat-out lie.

But the testimonial is so convincing!

A friend of mine dismissed my criticism of such testimonials: “He’s not making this up. You can tell it’s real.” Folks, his movie is unsubstantiated hearsay. You can never tell if a testimonial is really true without research. Statements like this are why I write this; you MUST inoculate yourself from propaganda. Here’s an example reported by NewsMax: Joseph Testa was president of the Dallas Vietnam Veterans of America chapter. He had been drafted in ‘67 and served 18 months in Saigon. He often wore fatigues with sergeant stripes, sometimes wearing a Silver Star, and was one of the better volunteers.

Never went to Vietnam

The truth is Joseph Testa enlisted in ‘67, went AWOL twice, and received court martial sentences of 9 months hard labor. He never went to Vietnam, nor did he receive any valorous decorations. To top it off, he hs 4 credit card abuse and theft by check convictions. He waltzed around as a veteran, representing all Dallas veterans as their leader, but he was a total, utter fraud.

But Moore has lots of testimonials, they can’t ALL be liars

Short answer… yes they can. Allow me to illustrate with the story of Agent Orange. Agent Orange was a defoliant designed to clear area for landing, etc. during the Vietnam War. Some veterans claimed that an “orange powder” or mist sprayed out of a plane descended upon them, and later caused them to develop an astonishing number of different sicknesses, with an endless list of symptoms. To this day, veterans can apply for aid for Agent Orange symptoms. Terrible tragedy, right?

Agent Orange is not orange, it is clear

So all those people are lying? Yes, they are. Agent Orange was given that name, because the label on the barrel it was stored in was orange. They also had Agent Blue, Agent Red, etc. They heard what it was called, and made up a story that seemed feasible. Their ignorance illustrates their fraud. It’s true that not all claims of Agent Orange side-effects cited an orange powder as the source of their exposure. On top of the fact that no scientific study has ever been able to link contact with Agent Orange to any sickness, the Air Force unit that handled it on a daily basis had no increased incidence of any disease. Operation Ranch Hand had 1200 members over the course of the entire war, and as initiation, the unit would drink a glass of Agent Orange.

Fake or unrelated symptoms

So how did all these people contract all these symptoms? Some of them probably have some sort of sickness, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the trace dioxins in Agent Orange. Perhaps a combination of Munchausen and pure greed. Read the details in Stolen Valor by B.G. Burkett. If you search for Agent Orange in google images, you will find ENDLESS pictures like the one to the left. Sad pictures, but NOT ONE OF THEM has anything to do with Agent Orange. The federal government, despite the presentation of evidence that there is no connection between Agent Orange and sickness, still pays for care of the non-existent diseases. This should make everyone angry; it is criminal.

9/11 volunteers denied care

A large portion of the movie is devoted to a handful of people claiming to be people who volunteered at ground zero of the 9/11 site. They all have breathing problems, and no healthcare. A fund was setup after 9/11 to handle claims by such people, and yet these people claim to have been denied care. Moore is unconcerned with why they were denied care, simply that it was wrong to deny them. Ask yourself… should every claim be filled, no questions asked? The fund was not a bottomless pit, so measures to prevent fraud were put in place. How else would you prevent people that didn’t volunteer from claiming they did?

The people in the movie appear to have very real symptoms, one telling the story of how he must sleep sitting up because he can’t breath when he’s laying down. Mr. Moore, please provide all the documentation you have on this man so that we may truly see the injustice that is being done to him. I submit that Moore will make excuses for why he can’t do that, and will never let anyone scrutinize his claims.

So, those of you who believe the movie, based on the history laid out above, is it possible that someone went to Ground Zero to volunteer and to this day is still faking a cough they developed from the air they were breathing that day? If people are willing to lie and fake symptoms of the time they didn’t spend in Vietnam, why is it such a stretch to suspect these 9/11 volunteers? Couldn’t they just be looking for a handout?

The undeniable economics of healthcare

He praises that the health care in Canada, UK, and France are better than here. Everything is free. In the UK, the cashier GIVES you money, not takes it from you, so that you can take a cab to and from the hospital.

Folks, a quick lesson on economics. Government gives away free stuff… so how do they do that? Where does the government get the money? From taxes… and where do taxes come from? YOU. Nothing is free, even from the government. I give Moore credit for not cutting out the scene where an American goes into Canada and lies about her address to get health care. The clinic gets suspicious so she leaves. The reason she left is because she’s not allowed to get health insurance unless she’s paying taxes. And remember taxes are what pays for the free health care… so she is DENIED MEDICAL ATTENTION BECAUSE SHE DIDN’T PAY. Even Canada understands economics. If you can explain why the government rejecting people is different than an HMO, I’m all ears.

In the movie, a Canadian went golfing in Florida, tore his bicep, and the hospital wanted $24,000 to fix it. This is framed as ridiculous by Moore… how cheap does he think hospital equipment is? If an American goes overseas, it is very easy to get the coverage extended internationally. This Canadian did not seem to bother, or he did and left out that the charge would be reimbursed. Why would you reward those who didn’t bother to plan ahead and tell people who had the foresight to plan ahead that they were idiots for doing so?

Free care = emergency rooms closed

So what happens when you don’t make sure everyone is paying into whatever system your country has? Emergency rooms go bankrupt. Between 1993 and 2000, 20 emergency rooms were closed in Ontario, Canada. In 2004, Los Angeles county lost 6 emergency rooms, or the ability to treat 75,000 patients. A public health study showed that in a ONE MONTH period in Los Angeles County, the cost of uninsured patients “unable to pay” was $39.6 million. Who pays for that?

Michael Moore points out all the advantages of Universal Health Care but NONE of the disadvantages. He ignores the economics of it, showing a positive anecdote here and there, with no proof to back up his anecdotes. He correctly points out that Americans are behind almost 10 other countries in life expectancy, which he attributes to not have national health care. Hawaii has a life expectancy that is more than those other countries (except Japan), yet Hawaii is only ranked 19th in the United States for income. So what causes people in one area to outlive those in another? There are COUNTLESS reasons, and health coverage may be one of them, but to pretend it is the ONLY factor, as Moore does in his movie, is preposterous, and obviously agenda-driven. Having more vacation time in Europe probably contributes to lower stress levels, and therefore longer life. Perhaps that is the answer. So, we have lower life expectancy than other countries… he’s right about that.

Capitalism applied in socialized medicine?

He pointed out a doctor in the UK that described merit-based salaries for doctors based on the healthy habit changes of their pages. I am not against that if data backs up that it is a good thing. Unfortunately, the legal system as currently set up, doctors would be sued for that sort of thing, how dare they benefit from doing their job, GASP! The other point he made that got me thinking, “Why don’t we have that anymore?” was house-visits by doctors. They used to do it all the time, but not anymore. My suspicion is that it was not cost-effective, meaning it just takes too many years and too much money to find someone LICENSED as a doctor to be willing to travel from place to place like a plumber. The hospitals have probably found it more cost-effective to make patients come to them, or pick them up in ambulances.

All of this leads to a totally different conclusion than Mr. Moore comes to. His claim is that evil HMOs dont care about patients and THAT is the problem with private health care. The fact is private health care is just fine, but legal issues make it impossible for them to run at optimal efficiency, thereby making it easy to find fault with them. LEAVE THE HMOs ALONE, and competition will create the greatest health care possible.

Everyone understands this in other areas. If you want cheap life insurance, you go find the cheapest life insurance. Car insurance is REQUIRED in order to register a car in most states, let alone drive one, yet we don’t feel compelled to get our car insurance from our employer or the government. Why is that? We all need it if we drive a car, so why don’t we all get it for free from the government? For any of you who respond with, that’s ridiculous, I agree and it is NO DIFFERENT with health insurance.
This movie is a commercial, not a documentary. If he believes Universal Health Care is hands-down the way to go, fine, I’d love to hear his evidence. “Sicko” does not stand up to the test. Moore is an extremely good salesman, but you shouldn’t believe everything he tells you because he tugs on your heart strings. He says big business is corrupt, so they can’t be trusted with healthcare, but he wants to hand it over to the government?! Because they’re NOT CORRUPT?! I’ll take corrupt and cheap over corrupt and expensive ANY DAY.

Anti-capitalism, not pro-socialized healthcare

Conclusion: Stop applying jury room logic to the mostly privatized healthcare system of America. Of course it’s not perfect, but its as good or better than anywhere else in the world. If it weren’t people would leave in droves. Instead, people are coming here in droves. And the problems with it are CAUSED by government and our over-litigious legal system, not FIXED by them.
On a side note… here’s a response from the webmaster of MooreWatch.com whom Moore claimed he wrote a $12,000 check that saved the webmaster’s wife’s life. He points out each instance of Moore taking emails and comments out of context, and out of chronological order to misrepresent the events involving them. Moore did this is a previous film with some video of Charlton Heston.
Question everything.

Before the Bush tax cuts that the liberals so hate, the top 5% of the rich paid 56% of the total tax bill. Now they pay 60%. You would think they’d be happy, but only a liberal would turn down more money in the effort to “appear” like they are soaking the rich. Isn’t class envy great?