The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Archive for April 23rd, 2010

Obama Considers Job Killing VAT National Sales Tax

Posted by iusbvision on April 23, 2010

For those who are the working poor/students and retirees this  amounts to kissing almost 30% of your income goodbye in the form of lost buying power. In essence it will means that the dollars you have will buy you almost 1/3rd less.

Here is how a VAT works. We all know what t a state sales tax is. You see it on every receipt when you buy something. A VAT doesn’t work quite that way. It is a tax on an item at every stage of production.

A farmer grows the wheat 20% tax, sends it off to be ground into flour  20% tax, it gets turned into dough and baked 20% tax, it gets packaged 20% tax, it is sold to you at the store 20% tax.

That becomes one very expensive loaf of bread and none of the cost appears on your receipt, it just costs one hell of a lot more.

So how will businesses who produce good avoid the tax at each state of production for as many steps as it can? Easy, produce it in Mexico or China that way it is only taxed when it is sold to you. You wonder why socialist Europe has permanent 11% unemployment and 25% youth unemployment? This is a big part of the reason right here. Who would want to produce anything in such an environment.

These taxes lead to corruption as well. Industries will use their lobbyists and donations to get subsidies from the government at the threat of leaving. The subsidies will return much of the VAT a manufacturer pays to the government back to them and those smaller businesses without the political clout will not be able to compete.

This idea must be stopped as it is an economic declaration of war against those who work and those who produce.

Yahoo/AP News:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama suggested Wednesday that a new value-added tax on Americans is still on the table, seeming to show more openness to the idea than his aides have expressed in recent days.

Before deciding what revenue options are best for dealing with the deficit and the economy, Obama said in an interview with CNBC, “I want to get a better picture of what our options are.”

After Obama adviser Paul Volcker recently raised the prospect of a value-added tax, or VAT, the Senate voted 85-13 last week for a nonbinding “sense of the Senate” resolution that calls the such a tax “a massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed income and only further push back America’s economic recovery.”

The sense of the Senate resolution means nothing.  If the Democratic leadership wants it, they will buy off with bribes to get the votes it needs and use reconciliation to avoid the filibuster. The Democrats know they are sunk in November and have to go for broke soon.  The only hopes Democrats have to win is to pass amnesty for all illegal aliens, give them access to all services such as medicare, protected/preferred status in EEOC hiring rules, social security, unemployment, food stamps etc in hopes that it will translate into 12-20 million new votes for them. Of course, such an effort to rig the election could have unforseen consequences.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Is the cost of government high enough yet?, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

BROKEN PROMISES: CBO AND CMS CONFIRM HIGHER COSTS AND HIGHER TAXES FOR OBAMACARE!

Posted by iusbvision on April 23, 2010

And after the New York Times and the Dept of HHS confirmed that we conservatives were right all along…

Via Paul Ryan:

WASHINGTON – House Budget Committee Ranking Republican Paul Ryan (WI) highlighted the latest evidence that the recently enacted health care overhaul exacerbates the problems in health care and violates the President’s central promises.

Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] released an analysis that estimates large tax increases will hit millions of Americans making well below $200,000. The CBO findings stand in stark contrast to President Obama’s promise not to tax any individual making less than $200,000 a year. According an analysis analysis by the House Ways and Means Committee Minority Staff, the President has already signed into law 14 separate violations of his tax pledge.

Adding insult to injury, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services [CMS] issued another damaging blow to the President’s central case for health care reform: the need to get a grip on sky-rocketing costs. In a detailed analysis, the CMS Chief Actuary made clear that the new health care law will further drive costs upward, increasing national health expenditures by an additional $311 billion above projected costs. The new law would adversely impact Medicare providers and reduce Medicare Advantage enrollees by 50%, according the government report.

Following the release of the CMS and CBO reports, Ranking Member Ryan issued the following statement:

“As Washington is moving fast to takeover other sectors of our economy, we are learning more about the costly consequences of their most recent overreach on health care. President Obama reiterated a number of false promises throughout the partisan health care campaign, including a pledge that his overhaul would lower health care costs and would not increase taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year. This week’s double-whammy from CMS and CBO exposes the emptiness of the President’s rhetoric, confirming what Americans feared throughout the debate.”

“Rather than fix what’s broken in health care, this deeply flawed law will exacerbate the problems in health care. Two independent, nonpartisan analyses make clear that the onslaught of mandates, controls, taxes, and entitlement spending will impose a heavier burden on American families, including those already struggling to make ends meet. We must begin anew to mitigate the disaster from this health care debacle: let’s repeal this costly misstep and replace it with patient-centered, fiscally-responsible reform.”

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Health Law, Is the cost of government high enough yet?, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

OOPS AGAIN: IPCC scientists screeching about the cataclysmic effects of sea-level rises forgot to consider sedimentary deposits…

Posted by iusbvision on April 23, 2010

HotAir.com (via Yid with Lid) found out an interesting little tidbit that the elite media hid from us:

It’s hard to believe that it’s been more than a month since the latest example of intellectual collapse at the IPCC. Now added to the fraudulent claims about Amazon rain forests, African crop harvests, and Himalayan glaciers comes the exposure of a very large error in the UN body’s warnings about flooding in Bangladesh. Turns out that the scientists screeching about the cataclysmic effects of sea-level rises forgot to consider sedimentary deposits (via Yid with Lid):

Scientists in Bangladesh posed a fresh challenge to the UN’s top climate change panel Thursday, saying its doomsday forecasts for the country in the body’s landmark 2007 report were overblown.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), already under fire for errors in the 2007 report, had said a one-metre (three-foot) rise in sea levels would flood 17 percent of Bangladesh and create 20 million refugees by 2050.

The claim helped create a widespread consensus that the low-lying country was on the “front line” of climate change, but a new study argues the IPCC ignored the role sediment plays in countering sea level rises. …

But IPCC’s prediction did not take into account the one billion tonnes of sediment carried by Himalayan rivers into Bangladesh every year, which are crucial in countering rises in sea levels, the study funded by the Asian Development Bank said.

“Sediments have been shaping Bangladesh’s coast for thousands of years,” said Maminul Haque Sarker, director of the Dhaka-based Center for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS), who led research for the study.

Even if the sea level rises that far — a claim which is itself greeted with increasing skepticism — most of the coastline for Bangladesh won’t be affected. The study concludes that sedimentary deposits would rise in the same proportion as sea levels, providing protection for almost all of the coastline.

Ouch…

Ed Morrissey rubs it in with this:

That’s hardly the only error discovered in the IPCC’s claims and in the AGW industry over the last few months, either:

Pachauri continues to insist that the emperor wears clothes at the IPCC, when he’s been naked for months.

Posted in 2012, Alarmism, Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

End of Cultural Era: Spock Retires

Posted by iusbvision on April 23, 2010

Yahoo News:

Leonard Nimoy, the actor who has famously portrayed “Star Trek’s” original alien Spock for over 40 years, has announced he’s officially hanging up the pointy Vulcan ears for good.

Nimoy, 79, plans to retire shortly from show business and the “Star Trek” convention circuit, according to the Canadian newspaper Toronto Sun.

The actor, director and photographer will be attending the Calgary Comic and Entertainment Expo this weekend, and told the paper that beyond this event he only has a few more public appearances scheduled.

Nimoy also currently guest stars on the television show “Fringe,” produced by J.J, Abrams who directed last summer’s re-launched “Star Trek” film franchise chronicling a younger original series cast on their first mission on the starship Enterprise.

The retirement announcement all but guarantees that an elder, “from-the-future” Spock (at least played by Nimoy) will not make an appearance in the next “Star Trek” movie.

“I want to get off the stage. Also, I don’t think it would be fair to Zachary Quinto,” Nimoy told the Toronto Sun, referring to the actor who portrays young Spock in the new Trek film. “He’s a terrific actor, he looks the part, and it’s time to give him some space. And I’m very flattered the character will continue.”

Boldly going from Boston to the bridge

Nimoy, born in Boston, Mass. in 1931, began his acting career at the age of 20, taking on roles in a number of campy science fiction. In the early and mid-1960s, he appeared in episodes of major series including “Bonanza,” “Perry Mason” and “Get Smart” in 1966.

Also in that year, Nimoy landed a role in a new series created by Gene Roddenberry called “Star Trek.” Nimoy played Commander Spock, the half-human, half-Vulcan first mate and science officer aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise, helmed by Captain James T. Kirk, played by William Shatner.

Nimoy donned fake, pointy, elvish ears, some swooping eyebrows, an early-Beatles hairdo, and a poker face to play the half-human, half-alien character.

Spock – for the most part – maintained a stoic demeanor per his Vulcan ancestry and his green-tinted blood ran cool in his veins. But this uber-“logical” side of Spock occasionally struggled with his more emotional half and was torn at times between the two cultures.

“Star Trek” ran until 1969 and despite low ratings the show garnered a cult-like following on syndication in the years ahead.

Nimoy, for his part, went on to star in a number of made-for-television movies and theatrical productions in the 1970s, his Star Trek days apparently behind him. But when studio executives green-lit a proposed new television series instead as a feature film with the original crew, Nimoy found himself back in his Starfleet uniform. 

A career at warp speed

The character of Spock would continue his journey in all six original series movies, as well as episodes of “Star Trek: The Next Generation” episodes in 1991, and then in an alternate timeline established in last summer’s Abrams-directed flick. Nimoy also lent his voice to Trek-themed video games and other products over the years, adding to the legend of his character.

Nimoy also directed the third and fourth “Star Trek” movies, the latter of which, 1986’s “‘Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home,” has been roundly received by audiences and critics alike as perhaps the best Trek film of all for its humor and, oddly enough, humanity. (The plot involved time-traveling back to late 20th century Earth to bring humpback whales, extinct in the future, to the 23rd century when “Star Trek” takes place to answer the calls of a devastating alien probe seeking the intelligent makers of whale song whispers heard across space eons before.)

“I felt like ‘Star Trek IV’ was my personal statement on ‘Star Trek,'” Nimoy told the Toronto Sun.

In two autobiographies, 1975’s “I Am Not Spock,” followed by 1995’s “I Am Spock,” Nimoy shared his coming-to-grips of being constantly associated with his famous Star Trek character.

In addition to this work, Nimoy has also made musical recordings and done voiceovers for documentaries and as Spock and himself in cartoons such as “The Simpsons” and “Futurama,” and of course “Star Trek: The Animated Series” in the 1970s.

“Live long and prosper”

Among his many memorable on-screen moments as Spock, Nimoy came up with the now-iconic, V-shaped hand gesture often accompanied by the Vulcan axiom “live long and prosper,” both inspired by his Jewish heritage.

The albeit-less-friendly Vulcan nerve pinch – an incapacitating touch to a neck but more civilized than one of Kirk’s wildly exaggerated-for-TV haymaker punches – was also an on-set invention by Nimoy for his character.

Overall, Nimoy’s retirement is sure to leave a hole in many “Star Trek” fans and others’ hearts. But when pushing octogenarian-hood, retiring – as Spock himself might say – perhaps is the only logical thing to do.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Culture War | 1 Comment »

Limbaugh: Liberals and the Violence Card

Posted by iusbvision on April 23, 2010

Rush Limbaugh in Wall Street Journal:

The latest liberal meme is to equate skepticism of the Obama administration with a tendency toward violence. That takes me back 15 years ago to the time President Bill Clinton accused “loud and angry voices” on the airwaves (i.e., radio talk-show hosts like me) of having incited Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. What self-serving nonsense. Liberals are perfectly comfortable with antigovernment protest when they’re not in power.

From the halls of the Ivy League to the halls of Congress, from the antiwar protests during the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq to the anticapitalist protests during International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings, we’re used to seeing leftist malcontents take to the streets. Sometimes they’re violent, breaking shop windows with bricks and throwing rocks at police. Sometimes there are arrests. Not all leftists are violent, of course. But most are angry. It’s in their DNA. They view the culture as corrupt and capitalism as unjust.

Rush Limbaugh

Now the liberals run the government and they’re using their power to implement their radical agenda. Mr. Obama and his party believe that the election of November 2008 entitled them to make permanent, “transformational” changes to our society. In just 16 months they’ve added more than $2 trillion to the national debt, essentially nationalized the health-care system, the student-loan industry, and have their sights set on draconian cap-and-trade regulations on carbon emissions and amnesty for illegal aliens.

Had President Obama campaigned on this agenda, he wouldn’t have garnered 30% of the popular vote.

Like the millions of citizens who’ve peacefully risen up and attended thousands of rallies in protest, I seek nothing more than the preservation of the social contract that undergirds our society. I do not hate the government, as the left does when it is not running it. I love this country. And because I do, I insist that the temporary inhabitants of high political office comply with the Constitution, honor our God-given unalienable rights, and respect our hard-earned private property. For this I am called seditious, among other things, by some of the very people who’ve condemned this society?

Former President Bill Clinton broadened his warning that Tea Party protesters could fuel violence reminiscent of the Oklahoma City bombing. Video courtesy of Fox News.

I reject the notion that America is in a well-deserved decline, that she and her citizens are unexceptional. I do not believe America is the problem in the world. I believe America is the solution to the world’s problems. I reject a foreign policy that treats our allies like our enemies and our enemies like our allies. I condemn the president traveling the world apologizing for America’s great contributions to mankind. And I condemn his soft-pedaling the dangers we face from terrorism. For this I am inciting violence?

Few presidents have sunk so low as Mr. Clinton did with his accusations about Oklahoma City. Last week—on the very day I was contributing to and raising more than $3 million to fight leukemia and lymphoma on my radio program—Mr. Clinton used the 15th anniversary of that horrific day to regurgitate his claims about talk radio.

At a speech delivered last Friday at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C., the former president said: [T]here were a lot of people who were in the business back then of saying that the biggest threat to our liberty and the cause of our domestic economic problem was the federal government itself. And we have to realize that there were others who fueled this both because they agreed with it and because it was in their advantage to do so. . . . We didn’t have blog sites back then so the instrument of carrying this forward was basically the right-wing radio talk show hosts and they understand clearly that emotion was more powerful than reason most of the time.”

Timothy McVeigh was incensed by the Clinton administration’s 1993 siege on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. It’s no coincidence that the bombing took place two years to the day of the Waco siege. McVeigh was not inspired by anything I said or believe and to say otherwise is outright slander. In the aftermath of the bombing, I raised millions of dollars for the children of federal employees killed in that cowardly attack through my association with the Marine Corp Law Enforcement Foundation.

Let me just say it. The Obama/Clinton/media left are comfortable with the unrest in our society today. It allows them to blame and demonize their opponents (doctors, insurance companies, Wall Street, talk radio, Fox News) in order to portray their regime as the great healer of all our ills, thus expanding their power and control over our society.

A clear majority of the American people want no part of this. They instinctively know that the Obama way is not how things get done in this country. They are motivated by love. Not hate, not sedition. They love their country and want to save it from those who do not.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

New York Times Now Admits Conservatives Right About ObamaCare – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on April 23, 2010

…but only after they called us names, called us liars in the face of clear evidence that showed were were/are correct….and of course, after the bill was passed.

UPDATEBROKEN PROMISES: CBO AND CMS CONFIRM HIGHER COSTS AND HIGHER TAXES FOR OBAMACARE!

We said that the O-Care bill would raise premiums, health care costs and insurance premiums. We were not alone. Caterpillar, John Deere, AT&T, and all sorts of small businesses issued new reports (which in some cases are required by law after new tax legislation estimating the new costs of the law.

Its Starting Already – John Deere: We will take $150 million hit from healthcare reform; Caterpillar: We will take $100 million hit just this year. UPDATE AT&T says ObamaCare bill will cost $1 billion per year! – UPDATED!

Davanni’s Pizza: New ObamaCare taxes and mandates will cost us $200,000 a year. May have to close three locations to get around costly regs.

Joe Lieberman said it would raise taxes and some even listed all the new taxes for all of you to see. The CBO said that O-care would increase premium cost by an estimate of $2,100 a year.  The Oliver-Wyman study concluded that the bill would make premiums go up for some by as much as 54%.

If you believed the New York Times narrative we are all liars who were only interested in health providers insane profits. I am still waiting for my check. Of course the NYT wasn’t the first among Obama supports to realize that we were right.

Of course the NYT did not just come out and say we were right, instead they are now reporting all of these problems that we said are going to happen as if they had just discovered them; SHAZAM!

Read this carefully –

New York Times April 18, 2010:

New York’s insurance system has been a working laboratory for the core provision of the new federal health care law — insurance even for those who are already sick and facing huge medical bills — and an expensive lesson in unplanned consequences. Premiums for individual and small group policies have risen so high that state officials and patients’ advocates say that New York’s extensive insurance safety net for people like Ms. Welles is falling apart.

The problem stems in part from the state’s high medical costs and in part from its stringent requirements for insurance companies in the individual and small group market. In 1993, motivated by stories of suffering AIDS patients, the state became one of the first to require insurers to extend individual or small group coverage to anyone with pre-existing illnesses.

New York also became one of the few states that require insurers within each region of the state to charge the same rates for the same benefits, regardless of whether people are old or young, male or female, smokers or nonsmokers, high risk or low risk.

Healthy people, in effect, began to subsidize people who needed more health care. The healthier customers soon discovered that the high premiums were not worth it and dropped out of the plans. The pool of insured people shrank to the point where many of them had high health care needs. Without healthier people to spread the risk, their premiums skyrocketed, a phenomenon known in the trade as the “adverse selection death spiral.”

“You have a mandate that’s accessible in theory, but not in practice, because it’s too expensive,” said Mark P. Scherzer, a consumer lawyer and counsel to New Yorkers for Accessible Health Coverage, an advocacy group. “What you get left clinging to the life raft is the population that tends to have pretty high health needs.”

Since 2001, the number of people who bought comprehensive individual policies through HMOs in New York has plummeted to about 31,000 from about 128,000, according to the State Insurance Department.

At the same time, New York has the highest average annual premiums for individual policies: $6,630 for single people and $13,296 for families in mid-2009, more than double the nationwide average, according to America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry group.

Read carefully:

The new federal health care law tries to avoid the death spiral by requiring everyone to have insurance and penalizing those who do not, as well as offering subsidies to low-income customers. But analysts say that provision could prove meaningless if the government does not vigorously enforce the penalties, as insurance companies fear, or if too many people decide it is cheaper to pay the penalty and opt out.

Under the federal law, those who refuse coverage will have to pay an annual penalty of $695 per person, up to $2,085 per family, or 2.5 percent of their household income, whichever is greater. The penalty will be phased in from 2014 to 2016.

Now here are the main problems that we and many others who understand economics have reported for a year:

1. Since the sick and those with pre-existing conditions cannnot be denied coverage, they can drop the coverqage and pay the much smaller fine till thyey need treatment, buy coverage, have the coverage pay the bills and then drop the coverage.

2. While on paper this makes it so that more people with pre-existing conditions have access to coverage, in reality they have less access because much fewer people can afford the skyrocketing premiums this law forces on the system. Just as has happened in New York, the amount of people with coverage dropped dramatically.

3. Mandating that people buy a commercial product (health insurance) as a condition of citizenship is unconstitutional and about half the states are challenging the new law in court.

New York Times April 19, 2010:

William Mann of Pittsburgh earns just enough to get by. He is 46, doesn’t own a car, hasn’t taken a vacation in three years and hasn’t had health insurance for most of his adult life.

He is just the kind of person who should benefit from the health care overhaul, and he is, in fact, eligible for heavily subsidized insurance that will cost him an estimated $1,845 a year, while the government contributes about $2,756.

But Mr. Mann says he still can’t afford it. He lives too close to the edge, and won’t be buying insurance, even though he will face a fine under a provision called the individual mandate, which penalizes most Americans who don’t buy coverage starting in 2014. The requirement is one of the most controversial aspects of the overhaul.

“I just can’t put that kind of money out for a ‘maybe’ — maybe I’ll get sick and use it,” said Mr. Mann, who makes just over $25,000 a year as an administrative assistant at a small wine distribution company. “That’s a lot of money.”

“The people who make all these decisions don’t live like the way I do,” Mr. Mann added, echoing other uninsured people in his income group. “They don’t live like the rest of us.”

Legal questions about the individual mandate aside, the choices made by people like Mr. Mann are crucial. One reason the individual mandate was created was to attract as many healthy people as possible to the individual market to offset the demands of the many sick people who will be buying in, and who have medical needs that drive up costs.

 

Amazing isn’t it? Where have the been for the past year. This is classic journalistic malpractice.

On Wednesday HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified to congress that the doesn’t know how much a kep provision of the ObamaCare plan will cost. Just 4 weeks ago they were absolutely certain and now they are already expecting massive shortfalls. See the testimony HERE at Breitbart News.

New York Times April 21, 2010:

Senate Bill Sets a Plan to Regulate Premiums

WASHINGTON — Fearing that health insurance premiums may shoot up in the next few years, Senate Democrats laid a foundation on Tuesday for federal regulation of rates, four weeks after President Obama signed a law intended to rein in soaring health costs.

After a hearing on the issue, the chairman of the Senate health committee, Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, said he intended to move this year on legislation that would “provide an important check on unjustified premiums.”

Mr. Harkin praised a bill introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, that would give the secretary of health and human services the power to review premiums and block “any rate increase found to be unreasonable.” Under the bill, the federal government could regulate rates in states where state officials did not have “sufficient authority and capability” to do so.

Now why do we need that after all Obama told us that premiums for a family would end up costing $2,500 less per year:

So insurance costs are going to go up big time, because of government imposed anti-market forces and new taxes across the spectrum of health care. Democrats promised that this wasn’t the case, but they knew that was a lie because now they are moving into slap price controls on health providers.

So what happens when you drive up the cost with new taxes and an inability to expand the risk pool? The cost of medical insurance and care goes up, so now the government will impose price controls. This will drive providers out of business leaving the government to say “see we told you that free markets and capitalism fails, now we will impose the public option”.  

First, we here at IUSB Vision said that the ObamaCare bill was designed to raise costs and blow up the system so that the people would “cry out for a public option“, then Real Clear Politics echoed the same and confirned we were right.  

Then Nancy Pelosi herself said that the bill would make them cry out for a public option. See the video at the bottom of the page HERE.

Today the AP has a story about an analysis from the Department of Health and Human Services Medicare Actuary. AP left out the most damning parts of the report but still reported a key component:

President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.

Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama’s aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president’s twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.

It’s a worrisome assessment for Democrats.

In particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, “possibly jeopardizing access” to care for seniors.

Hmmm, and when they start going out of business and/or when more and more health providers stop accepting any payment from of government health care and government pools because of the costs, mandates and restrictions, people will cry out… Just like we told you so many months ago. They will blame freedom as the culprit and a leviathan state as the cure.

Now I am waiting for the elite media to tell us how ObamaCare creames public university education because the unfunded mandates to state run Medicaide which are so expensive that education is getting a very painful squeeze. That goes double for California.

UPDATE –  NY Times April 26, 2010,

When major companies declared that a provision of the new health care law would hurt earnings, Democrats were skeptical. But after investigating, House Democrats have concluded that the companies were right to tell investors and the government about the expected adverse effects of the law on their financial results.

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Medved on the Top 5 Capitalist Myths

Posted by iusbvision on April 23, 2010

Posted in Chuck Norton, Culture War, Economics 101 | Leave a Comment »