Do you remember Solyndra? This is the solar panel manufacturer that went bankrupt after receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in government money. The Obama administration was blamed for the program. Loosing and wasting your tax dollars on left wing liberal projects that were supposed to help lower our carbon foot print. So, was it really as bad as you remember?
This is a short post in reply to a FB post where I'm talking about how peoples views are often distorted by misreporting and out right lying by not only Fox News but most media outlets. To often people latch on to this stuff and don't let go. I still hear people make comments about Solyndra and frankly most people have no real clue what happened or even what "Solyndra" was. They just use it as a "buzz word". When people bag Obama there are a few "go to" terms. Solyndra! Benghazi! Obama Death Panels!
The reality is most often very different from the shit that is in people's heads. Yes "shit". It is a very apt word to describe the "information" it is largely all the stuff that wasn't useful and probably just out right fake. Much like what you flush down the toilet every day from your previous days meals.
Did you know that the program that gave Solyndra money was supposed to loose hundreds of millions of dollars. $780 million dollars has been lost by 4 companies including Solyndra. The Department of energy factored into the loan program these types of losses. The whole program was supposed to loose money over all. The costs was deemed acceptable because of the innovation it was expected to spur. So Solyndra lost about 528 million dollars. Three other companies folding lost the program another 150 million dollars.
Before I go on let me talk a bit about the DOE's renewable-energy loan program. Normally we would hope that private equity providers, like Mitt Romney has made so much money off of, would be the source of funding for programs like this but people like Mitt Romney don't like these "risky" investments do they. He doesn't actually like investments full stop when you talk about building up companies. He's more for going in, transferring debt then dumping or dismantling the companies. So the government had to step in. The government has been doing this type of stuff for a long time. Obama's administration isn't the first and it certainly won't be the last to issue loans like these. Hell the banks get loans like these all the time from the government and they loose hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars.
Anyway what is the state of the renewable-energy loan program that was budgeted to actually loose money. Well turns out that the program is going to make any were between 5 and 6 billion dollars. Not bad aye. Have you heard Fox News or any other news organization talk about that? Did they explain that the program was supposed to loose money but ended up being a bit of a cash cow? Probably not. Doesn't work well with the view that the vocal right wing want to push that Obama wants to destroy America.
It is crazy. Our government is being held hostage by Americans voted for to run our government. There is blame going both ways and there is normally 2 sides to every story and this one does too. The difference here is that one side is very definitely lying about the situation which involves the Debt Ceiling and the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
So if you live in a cave here is what is being said by both sides.
Many republicans including the leadership:
"We want to fund the government and we want to give the American people what they want with regards to the ACA."
What a few republicans and all democrats are saying:
"We want to fund the government and will not let a few republicans hold the entire nation hostage in a attempt to kill the ACA."
Now what is the situation?
Well there are 2 parts to this. One is funding the government by raising the debt ceiling. This involves allowing the government to get the funding they need to pay bills they have ALREADY incurred. This has happened, automatically many times. The only times it hasn't is when the republicans try to hold the country hostage over some legislation that they don't like but still passed. This isn't new spending. This isn't money for new stuff. It is paying the bills you already have.
It would be like going and getting a mobile phone that isn't pre paid. Signing a contract saying you'll pay $25 a month for a certain plan. Using your phone for that entire month using all the benefits of the plan you signed up for. At the end of the month when you get your bill you then refuse to pay and tell the phone company that you won't pay unless they provide you electricity in the Antarctic.
Sadly this is what to many American's think ...that not raising the debt ceiling now is the way you stop spending later. This is like thinking by not paying your bills now that you won't buy that new toy tomorrow. How about pay the bills we've incurred, stop fighting wars we can't afford, stop buying tanks our military doesn't want, start asking the extremely wealth to actually pay their fair share!
The second demand has nothing to do with your phone plan. The second part being the affordable health care act which the republicans claim most people don't want. What is the reality tho? The fact is that Obama was re-elected on a platform that was clear that the ACA was going to be implemented. Citizens voted and he was placed back in office. The law was legislated and even challenged as unconstitutional but the highest court of the land ruled that it is constitutional. It has been challenged over 40 times in congress, costing the American tax payer about $2.5 million each time it has been, and won every single time. The president is willing to talk about sensible changes to the ACA but will not have the government held hostage over it.
The talking heads in the republican party would have you think they are willing to "compromise" but this is like a hostage taker saying they'll compromise on how many millions of dollars they'll get while they hold a gun to your child's head. All of the "compromises" equate to the same thing. Death of the ACA.
The republicans are lying when they say they say they will compromise and the democrats are unwilling.
Too many American's don't understand even the basic premise of the ACA. Many American's don't even know that "Obamacare" and the ACA are one and the same. No wonder with the smear campaign using misinformation against the ACA. One can argue that the ACA is complicated and you would be right. But the issue is complicated. How can you unfuck a broken health care system that leaves out so many Americans with a "simple" system. It is like complaining that you can't cure a genetic disorder by taking an aspirin. The executive branch hasn't explained the program very well either. Some of the confusion arises from introduced bits as "compromises" that republicans asked for.
Here is the ideal ACA premiss.
Health care should be attainable by all American.
Most American should be able to pay for private health insurance.
Insurance companies should not be able to deny health insurance to those that need it most.
Insurance companies should not be able to stop providing insurance to those that need to use the insurance they supposedly have.
The government should subsidise health care for those that are of lower income status.
Women shouldn't have to pay more for health care then men.
Health care should not have their costs artificially and arbitrarily inflated.
For those that want specifics and more detail then go here. Just don't complain that it is to complicated. If you want to know the mysteries of the universe then you can't complain that you have to understand things like quantum physics, general and special relativity.
This is achievable because insurance companies that previously denied benefits to individuals either for pre-existing conditions or cut off benefits to individuals that end up needed said benefits now can offset that risk by knowing that everyone will be covered.
Many people complain that they shouldn't have to be covered medically. But we require people who drive to have insurance. Some might say that people can choose not to drive and thus not pay car insurance so some people should be able to choose not to receive health care and not pay insurance. The difference is somebody that doesn't drive doesn't all of a sudden find themselves behind the wheel of a car. People who are healthy DO find themselves faced with an unexpected illness or injury. People don't often just agree to lay down and die but will seek medical attention.
The biggest cause of bankruptcy is from medical bills. This means that the bills remain unpaid. People without insurance also end up using forms of care that are inherently more expensive like emergency rooms. Going to a general practitioner to get looked at is much less expensive then going to the emergency room and taking up a spot that is geared up for situations that are more life threatening.
Another part is getting the cost of health care down. Right now in the USA health care is the free market gone crazy. Do you know you can pay 20x or more for medication in the USA then you would in other countries. Same medication! Why is this? Well in places like Australia, England and Canada the government says "Hey we'll put medication x on our pharmaceutical benefits scheme but you have to make the cost reasonable!" The government then will subsidise the cost of the medication a bit. People still have the choice to use medication that is not on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme if they choose. So what happens is the pharmaceutical companies still make money and the people don't get ripped off unless they choose to be.
This doesn't just happen with drugs. It happens all over the place. Sure this does mean that you might end up paying more if you choose to use something that isn't on some government benefit scheme but that is your choice. For example the government goes to companies and says "We want product x with these specifications" and those companies come back with their solutions and a the cheapest ones that meet the specifications are chosen to go on a benefits scheme. Those companies know that they'll sell more so their margins can be lower. This doesn't stop other companies from making more expensive products and does not stop you, the consumer, from using those companies. What it does do allow most American's to access that product at a reasonable price. In health care this is especially important because if you are told "You need medication x to stay alive." you shouldn't be held to ransom to pay 20x the reasonable cost of that medication. Really what are you going to say? "No I refuse to pay!" which in reality many people are forced to do when they can't afford to access the health care they need. Others access that health care but end up going bankrupt and the rich just pay the costs and move on.
Health care shouldn't be a luxury. If governments can say that "Internet access" is a basic human right I'm sure that basic health care should be one too!
Watch this video. There is a lot of humour in it but it is very informative too. You'll find yourself laughing then a bit disgusted when you realise that while some of it sounds ridiculous it is actually all true.
What the republicans need to do is let the government be funded no strings attached because it is a bill the government has already incurred. Then if they want to make changes to the ACA then that is another matter that can be handled separately. Note almost every other time they've done this they've just tried to kill the entire thing not make it better. Also note that the basic plan is THEIR PLAN! The individual mandate is a republican idea. Many people might not like it but, at present, it is the most logical plan on the table. The government is all about doing what is best for the citizens as a whole even if they don't understand it. Ask all Americans if they would like medical care if they are injured. See how many people say "no". That should be the same number of people that support reform in the health care sector.
Then you aren't even "middle class" according to Mitt Romney. Don't feel sad because 95% of American house holds don't make enough to be labeled as "middle class" according to Romney.
In a flash of honesty and for the first time Romney is putting some numbers to his economic plan. He states that he considers the middle class to be 200k-250k per year. We already know he wants big tax breaks for those that earn 250k+. He want to keep middle income earners tax burden "low" and well he won't talk about poor people except to say "not concerned about the very poor" despite the fact that his economic policy would require most of the safety nets low income earners depend on to go away.
This is the world Mitt Romney lives in. In an America where 83% of house holds earn under $100,000 a year. Where 72% of house holds earn under $75,000 and still over 54% of house holds earn under $50,000 a year, Mitt Romney will look after the 1.37% of Americans that qualify as "middle class" by his definition by keeping their tax burden as low as he can. He's got one interesting thing going for him. There are less households that earn $200,000-$250,000 a year then there are that earn over $250,000.
Wait oh sorry...I've used figures from 2005. The latest census data has that number of Mitt Romney's "middle class" has drop by over 15%.
Again the GOP show they don't understand basic maths. Do you really want a Mitt Romney as President when he thinks that:
97% of American households are defined as "poor"
"not concerned about the very poor"
Plans to increase the tax rate paid by the "poor" by about $1,600/year.
Watch Romney and Obama both describe who they think is "middle class"
My cousin say " If you live in California 250k is middle class and Obama is an idiot. He is a socialist and should move to Europe."
Lets look at the mean household income of California. Seems people can be ignorant of what it is like in their own state.
Not surprisingly the GOP stands firmly against tax cuts for people making less then $250,000/yr. 46 of 47 republican Senators voted against S3412 Middle-class tax relief. The 1 republican that didn't vote no, Senator Mark Kirik, didn't actually vote. It passed 51/48 with one abstaining.
Reason for this? The republican's will not pass this bill, which benefits all American's by providing tax relief for the first $250,000.00 of income, because they want further tax cuts for people earning over $250,000.00/yr.
Do you find this right? Should rich people get even more tax breaks then poor people? Already our tax code allows the rich to pay significantly lower tax rates then low and middle income earners by providing many tax shields and incentives that are only accessible by the wealthy. Tax breaks that Mitt Romney exploits to the fullest often moving income over seas to evade taxes here.
If you had an income of $100,000/yr do you think it would be nice if you could shield it from taxes by moving the income over seas? Who would pay for our schools? Who would pay for our roads? Who would pay for our emergency services? Who would pay for our wars?
The GOP blame President Obama for the current rate of unemployment. Saying "his [Obama] economic plan has failed". Yet every time President Obama tries to implement any plan he is confronted with this partisan blockade. Obama has made some hard compromises and brought spending increases to a low not seen since 1953. Obama policies, many implemented by executive order because republican congressmen refuse to vote for any bill that might make make the President look good., stopped an unemployment rate that was rising into the double digits.
President Obama has said all along that the recovery is coming to slow. That it isn't good enough. That we still have a lot to do. He's made hard compromises in hopes the republicans would also make similar compromises but at every opportunity republicans refuse. Even to compromises they agreed to in the past.
They want to privatise education giving more support to rich families sending their children to private schools at the cost of low and middle income families, that can not afford high priced schools, to attend schools that get even less funding per student. Choice is easy for those that can afford it. I sent my son to a private school up until year 8. That was my choice and that choice didn't rip funding away from public schools in the process. How does the GOP expect a low income family that is struggling to put food on the table to be able to come up with more money to send their kids to a school that is properly funded? A school which is probably further away then their local public school. A school which may have many other hidden costs like uniforms and "building fees". How do they expect struggling families to come up with thousands of dollars more a year for each one of their children when the GOP plan to take away safety nets like food stamps. When the GOP plan to roll back the Affordable Health Care Act leaving the low income families with no affordable medical insurance and no guarantee that if they do keep their health insurance that the insurance company won't drop them as soon as someone in the family gets ill?
If you vote for the GOP this coming election be assured that the unemployment rate we saw at the end of the Bush administration will only be the start. The GOP are great at saying democrats hate America but the GOP only like the rich and they'll lie to all the low and middle income Americans to get into power.
The phrase "I'm proud to be an American" will be a joke unless you are in the top 2%.
Obama's administration has the lowest increase of spending since President Eisenhower. That is over 50 years you have to go back.
How does Obama stack up to other presidents?
Regan's 1st term - 8.7%
Regan's 2nd term - 4.9%
Bush Snr - 5.4%
Clinton's 1st term - 3.2%
Clinton's 2nd term - 3.9%
Bush Jr's 1st term - 7.3%
Bush Jr's 2nd term - 8.1%
Obama 1st term - 1.4%
Do you really trust that The GOP will make the cuts needed? Oh they'll make cuts.
They'll make cuts that will cost seniors $6,500 more a year in out of pocket expendatures do to allowing insurers to refuse coverage which increases the strain on Medicare forcing out many seniors from even recieving benefits.
They'll shift medicare onto the states that isn't designed to keep up with actual health care costs.
They'll repeal the Affordable Care Act and let the insurance companies go back to business as usual where they can deny you coverage when ever they want which would effect tens of millions of Americans not to meantion the more than 30,000,000 Americans who would loose their coverage right away.
They'll slash education. Ryan and Romney won't tell you where exactly they'll make the cuts within education but the reduction is there...they just don't want to be pin down to so they can claim make claims like "Pell grants don't have to change". But the truth of the matter is that cuts would have to be made some where.
They'll slash programs for the very poor and disadvantage. Programs like food stamps. Programs that help poor children get the nutrician they need.
They'll also make the rich get richer. 3 Trillion dollars in tax cuts that will benifit only the top 2%. Mitt Romney would end up paying less then 1% in taxes under the Romney-Ryan plan. Ironically 1% might be more then Romney has paid in some years in the last decade. But until he releases his tax returns we'll not know.
Romney claims that President Obama plans to take $716 billion dollars in benefits from Medicare and that he, Mitt Romney, would leave Medicare as is.
So what is the truth? The $716 billion dollars isn't taken from benifits unless you consider things like duplicate payments to insurance companies "benifits". So let get this clear the $716 billion dollars is from cost savings like slowing the inflation of medical costs, eliminating waste, fraud, abuse and stopping over payments to private insurance companies under the Medicare Advantage program.
Romney wants that $716 billion dollars to stay when in the end the only people they benifit is people, including corporations, defrauding the system.
Romney claims that President Obama is cutting the work requirement for welfare. This is out right false and even after being shown it Romney and his campaign answer is to continue the lie with as much advertisement as possible.
Romney wants to put in over 5 trillion dollars to tax cuts for the rich. Those tax cuts have to be paid for and they will be. They will be paid by low and middle income earners paying higher payroll taxes. By teachers, fire fighters, policemen loosing their jobs. By students paying higher costs for university. By Seniors paying an average of $6,500 a year more, out of their own pocket, for medical care because Romney wants to go to a voucher system.
Note that the lies are not only being spread by ads endorced by Mitt Romney but by Mitt Romney when he stands on the podium when he gives speeches. This isn't an add produced by someone else, not endorced by President Obama and run only once.
Back in 1949 Adlai Stevenson said this
“If the Republicans will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.”
and it is more true today then ever. The GOP thinks it is hateful for the democrats to point out their lies. What do you think? Mitt Romney's ads and speeches show they they either don't understand how Medicare works or are wilfully making shit up or even worse...both!
