Barack Obama

Critics call for the opposite of a “clean” deal on debt ceiling

debt ceiling

President Barack Obama has made himself clear: he will not sign a debt ceiling bill unless it’s “clean,” meaning that he will not negotiate.

Under President Obama, the total federal debt increased by 57 percent. Once he took oath, the federal debt stood at $10.6 trillion. The total debt now stands at $16.7 trillion. Under President George W. Bush, the total federal debt rose 38 percent. President Bill Clinton’s term saw a 32 percent increase of the total federal debt.

Due to the current federal debt, critics of this administration’s pursue of an increase in the debt limit have been pressuring lawmakers to ensure that Congress does not allow for an increase. Expanding the amount of money the U.S. can borrow means one thing in the long run: that the money we now have will not be spent on useful programs that need the funding, and that more money will be necessary in order to have some, if any, of what we owe paid back.

Reason’s Nick Gillespie points out in this video for Reason TV that because of the significant growth of the federal government’s net interest payments, the government will have to find a way to obtain more revenue in order to pay some of its debt, which will inevitably lead to a reduction of private investment in productive resources, stifling the economy and keeping potential business owners from dedicating themselves to their ventures.

ObamaCare will cost more than expected, study suggests

ObamaCare, or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is a bad idea, according to a recent study carried out by researchers at Stanford University.

The report indicates that ObamaCare could cost much more than previous estimates. According to the study, employers may choose to drop worker health coverage once ObamaCare kicks in. That’s because the employer may find it more affordable to let employees obtain their own health insurance through the Affordable Care Act’s insurance exchanges, which places households with an income that falls anywhere between 133 and 400 percent of the federal poverty line in a group that may be benefited by publicly funded subsidies.

Once the number of people depending on publicly funded subsidies for health coverage goes up, the law becomes more costly to maintain.

The study also determined that about 37 million people could end up benefitting once the law is implemented, since employers would then give workers cash instead of paying for their health care coverage. By switching, employees could save by simply obtaining help from the government to get subsidized coverage, which is guaranteed by the exchanges.

While some households could benefit from that system, the law could be more costly to sustain, causing the Affordable Care Act to cost about $132 billion more than what was expected.

According to the study, an even greater number of employees could benefit from being dropped by their employers if premiums rise unexpectedly, which would add 2.25 million of people to the list of individuals receiving subsidized health coverage. Over 2 million people added to this list would increase the overall cost of the law by $6.7 billion.

Rand Paul delivers response to Obama’s Syria speech

Rand Paul

In an effort to win over the antiwar liberals standing in his way and scare conservatives into taking his side, President Barack Obama delivered a speech regarding Syria that might have left millions of Americans wondering whether their President was just trying to play tough to intimidate critics.

The calls for action as the President described the horrors Syrians have been exposed to during the attack with chemical weapons were powerful, but somehow misleading in light of recent reports regarding the source of the gas used in the attack. According to The Guardian, high-level German intelligence agencies investigated the sources of the chemical attack near Damascus and found no conclusive evidence connecting the strike to Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

His speech was also notable for some of his remarks regarding our role in the international community. After concluding that the United States should act as a global security force and make sure international agreements are being observed, President Obama also claimed he did not wish to see America as the world’s police force. While some skeptics might have felt compelled to back Obama and support U.S. interference with Syria after the speech, some lawmakers remained unconvinced.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was one of them.

Rand Paul made a video response to the President’s speech to remind the nation of this administration’s failure to identify a real solution to the conflict in Syria. According to the Senator, attacking Assad could lead to dreadful consequences, pushing the regime to “resort to chemical weapons in an expanded fashion.”

European countries offer asylum to Syrians, Obama pushes for strike

President Obama’s quest for support in what would be an air strike against Syria has taken much of our attention during the past several weeks.

Since the number of Syrians fleeing the troubled country is increasing, countries like Italy and Sweden have found peaceful, meaningful ways of offering aid without being directly involved in conflicts. Sweden has recently announced that the country is admitting all Syrian refugees who apply, which is a solution to thousands of Syrians whose lives are at a greater risk now that rebel forces are gaining support of radical Islamist groups. On Friday, Italian coast guard rescued hundreds of Syrian and Egyptian refugees off the coast of Sicily. German Chancellor Angela Merkel also announced that 5,000 Syrian refugees would be welcomed next month. The EU member that has offered over 340 million euros in humanitarian aid to Syrian victims is now granting refugee status to fleeing Syrians.

Dems admit supporting war in Syria is for loyalty to Obama

Cliff1066™ (CC)

For those that are not familiar with our nation’s Capital, that is the Peace monument pictured in front of the Capitol building - something that Democrats on the Hill probably should take a moment to consider. As they approach the time when they will vote on whether or not we will become involved in the civil war in Syria, it seems that the real issue isn’t what Bashar al-Assad has done, or which Syrian rebels are honestly friendly to our nation - if there are any. The real issue is that we could end up going to war simply because Democrats feel that they must vote for it, to save face for Barack Obama.

Obviously, that isn’t remotely close to a good reason, but if anyone is expecting an uproar from the public or the press, it’s not very likely that it will happen. The peaceniks of Secretary of State John Kerry’s generation have long-forgotten those roots, and some of them, like Kerry himself, are probably on the side of the administration. Perhaps their excuse will be “it’s for the children,” since we saw the horrific photos and videos of dead and dying children in the wake of the latest chemical attack.

Secretary Kerry’s Senate testimony basically undermined the entire Syria narrative

John Kerry testifies on Syria

Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to justify the Obama administration’s proposed strike on Syria. Hagel was typically unclear and confused, Dempsey provided a few strategic details, but to nearly everyone watching, Kerry contradicted himself, tripped over his own feet, and significantly undermined most of the arguments for a strike.

One of the primary motivations Kerry gave was that a strike on Syria’s chemical weapons would help keep them out the hands of terrorists. Then when asked whether Hezbollah already had chemical weapons, he said he would answer in a classified briefing scheduled the next day. As with an invocation of the Fifth Amendment, this doesn’t necessarily confirm that Hezbollah already has chemical weapons, but if they don’t it begs the question why he couldn’t have just said so. He mentioned several other sensitive details about the situation on the ground in Syria, including composition of the rebellion and our tactical assistance to them, so I don’t see how the fact that terrorists don’t have chemical weapons would be classified. That is…unless they do. And if they do, then the primary situation the strike is supposed to prevent is already the status quo.

Health insurance is a right? Nice try.

In President Obama’s weekly address delivered on Saturday, he regurgitated the many tired talking points about how smoothly the implementation of Obamacare is going, despite all evidence to the contrary. But the kicker came at the end when he made the claim, free of any previous argument or support, that “health insurance isn’t a privilege – it is your right.”

What?

Liberals have long argued that health care is a right, but as they continue to nudge language and policy in the progressive long war, this may be the first time they’ve claimed that health insurance itself as a right. But how can it be? Health insurance is a commercial product.

In a free market we certainly have the right to acquire commercial products, but do we have a right to them on a fundamental level? Did we have the right to health insurance before it was created in the mid-20th Century? What if once we eventually are subject to a single-payer universal healthcare program, health insurance no longer exists? Will we still have the right to it?

ObamaCare will undo itself

If something isn’t done to stop the train wreck known as Obamacare before next year, the healthcare system and the economy will suffer. Tea Party Republicans in the House and Senate have vowed to “defund” Obamacare even if it means shutting the government down.  Obviously, opponents of this law should do everything possible to stop this from happening…right?

Maybe it’s not so obvious.

Obamacare cannot truly be defunded because the spending is built into the law itself but for the sake of argument, lets say there was some loophole that would make defunding possible. Why would Republicans want to bail the Democrats out? The Democrats own this legislation because not a single Republican voted in favor.

Let the Democrats suffer the consequences at the ballot box in 2014 and 2016. If the Republicans somehow managed to delay, add exemptions from some of the laws worst aspects, or alter Obamacare’s implementation, the Democrats would then have an out. President Obama could resort to his usual demagoguery in the campaign season the “Affordable Care Act would have worked if the Tea Party extremists hadn’t screwed it up!” The Obama media would be more than happy to echo this party line.

There is a better way. What if allowing Obamacare to be fully implemented as scheduled would lead to its ultimate demise? Far from trying to soften the blow or delay the law’s implementation, opponents of the bill, especially Republicans in positions of leadership should call the president’s bluff and let the train wreck occur. Over the many objections from many of us, Obamacare passed, failed numerous repeal efforts, and prevailed in the Supreme Court.

Obama assures public he believes in the free market, outlines government-sponsored housing reform

It seems like the liberty movement has accomplished far more than what most of us ever expected: it got President Barack Obama to admit he believes in the free market.

The statement was made before a crowd in Phoenix, Arizona while President Obama outlined the first four principles of his new plan to govern the housing reform.

The new plan includes facilitating credit for what the president calls qualified buyers, who “want to get a mortgage but keep getting rejected by the banks,” and offering a solution to “address the uneven recovery” by restoring rundown homes and vacant property.

While summarizing his government-run plans to restore the economy by stimulating the housing market, which is nothing out of the ordinary when it comes to this administration’s policies, President Obama reassured Arizonans that steps must be taken to avoid yet another bubble.

The solution, President Obama says, is to do precisely what he wants to do with Obamacare, which is to set up ”clear rules for insurance companies to protect consumers,” thus making housing more affordable. He claims that his plan would offer a market-based solution still under the government’s watch that would ensure home value would go up for everybody.

McCain joins Obama in push to encourage states to review stand your ground laws

In light of Zimmerman’s acquittal, countless protests have been held across America. While some of those participating in the protests might not be quite aware of how a trial process takes place, most are definetely unaware that stand your ground laws had nothing to do with the shooting that took the life of Trayvon Martin on February 26th, 2012.

While it’s easy to see why most Americans prefer to keep from distancing themselves in order to arrive at a more logical and less passional conclusion, and fail to avoid politicizing the event and holding on to arguments that promote the type of change that restricts an individual’s right to self-defense, it’s hard to comprehend how a Republican senator and former GOP Presidential contender would act in a similar fashion.

According to Senator John McCain (R-AZ), states must review their stand your ground laws amid the racial profiling debate the Zimmerman case has stirred over the past couple of weeks. During CNN’s “State of the Union”, McCain claimed he’s “confident that the members of the Arizona legislature will [review] this very controversial legislation.” While the Senator representing Arizona reported he trusts the jury’s judgment, he also said that stand your ground rules must be evaluated.

 


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.