That looks bad: 1,001 reasons to vote for Barack Obama

posted at 4:01 pm on July 18, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

Here’s Firewall‘s Bill Whittle with an excellent reminder of all of the fantastic reasons why you should vote for President Barack Obama in November. The terrible policies, the hypocrisies, the broken promises — so many broken promises — there are just too many justifications to choose from for giving this stupendous leader a second term in office! Enjoy:


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I luvs me some Bill Whittle. I want to have Bill Whittle’s love children! (cough-cough–don’t let my spouse read that.)

Anyway, it is absurd, insane and nightmarish that people will still vote for this guy, simply because he’s so cooool and all that stuff. Like the sickening fawning going on in the Chris Matthews video. Gag.

Either that or they’ve just bought into all the liberal crap lies about how conservatives and Republicans are eeeeevil bigoted homophobic slack jawed religious nuts who keep their women barefoot and pregnant, so they wouldn’t vote Republican if you paid them to.

theotherone on July 18, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Please get the facts straight. Mass. health care is NOT bankrupting the state. Please read the article at masstaxpayers dot org from April of this year that debunks that claim.

Mitsouko on July 18, 2012 at 5:05 PM

You mean this article?

The one that states “Massachusetts has achieved near universal health care coverage with only modest additional costs to state taxpayers“, and then cites that “state spending directly attributable to the health reform law grew from $1.04 billion in fiscal 2006 to $1.95 billion in fiscal 2011”?

Why that’s only an increase of 87.5% in 5 years! That’s not so bad is it? Oh…

But, but, but… it’s not that bad when Mass voters get other taxpayers idiots from other states to bail them out of their f-ups. When Mass voters got others to foot 3/4 of the bill, it only came out to $453 million! See how fiscally responsible it is!

Good Lord. It’s amazing you’re even qualified to use a computer with that lack of reasoning skills…

If it was fiscally responsible, they wouldn’t have needed $1,497 MILLION Federal dollars to cover up their screw-up! Maybe Mass should try taking the Federal training wheels off their STATE budget and then report how well their healthcare system is doing.

Remember, that healthcare costs are on a whole other percentage increase. It doesn’t matter whether they can afford them now. Annual increases are compounded… literally! Mass will NOT be able to keep up with the costs PERIOD. Go ahead and argue. I have math on my side… unless you think the Mass tax revenue increased by more than 87.5% over those same 5 years.

Hmmm… looking here, it looks like Mass tax revenue only increased from $19.5 billion (2006) to $22.1 billion (2011)… an increase of 13.3%.

Please explain how tax revenue increases of 13.3% over 5 years can continue to support healthcare increases of 87.5% over 5 years.

dominigan on July 18, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Chances are outstanding if you don’t think Bill Whittle is brilliant, you’re a leftist or as Whittle himself suggests, an idiot. : )

Bmore on July 18, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Brilliant! Bill Whittle does it again

sadsushi on July 18, 2012 at 8:00 PM

But remember that HotAir is blessed with many fine commenters from Canada — our dear canopfor being IMHO first among them.

{{{{hugs the Canadians}}}}

Mary in LA on July 18, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Don’t buy it, Canada! She just found out you’re rich! :)

Axe on July 18, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Dominigan,
I am tired so I will be brief.
First, if you read correctly the report I cited, there is no ongoing 87.5% increase in health costs. Those were startup costs were expected and accounted for. In fact, in 2011, the increase accounted for 1.4% of the state budget for 32B.

I will leave it to you to argue the wisdom of the Mass. Health care program, I live with socialized medicine so I am no fan of it. I just think it is important to be accurate in our critiques.

Lastly, your snark is neither necessary nor appreciated. Your interpersonal skills need an 87.5% increase..ongoingly!

Mitsouko on July 18, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Mitt Romney is no conservative. Masscare/Romneycare was not a work of genius and was/is not conservative. Romneycare may or may not literally bankrupt the state of Massachusetts, but it is a settled question that Massachusetts is fiscally worse off now than they were before its institution. That is all.

gryphon202 on July 18, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Saw this earlier and it’s brilliant.

Bill Whittle for VP

workingclass artist on July 18, 2012 at 10:22 PM

What a shame that Bill mumbles his way through the delivery and drops all the punchlines.

Jaibones on July 18, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Um, can we get Bill on the ticket for veep president?

What a shame that Bill mumbles his way through the delivery and drops all the punchlines.

Jaibones on July 18, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Seriously? That classic mode of comic delivery flew right over your head? Wow.

Midas on July 18, 2012 at 11:45 PM

HALLIBURTON!

Case closed, baby.

/Leftists

mankai on July 18, 2012 at 11:59 PM

Mitsouko on July 18, 2012 at 9:24 PM

I apologize for my snark.

But I worked the numbers myself, and did not rely on a one paragraph summary. The 87.5% increase occurred over 5 years. Any startup costs should have been absorbed by now, and the 2011 numbers should have been lower.

And while you and the article writer like to throw around the 1.4% of budget, that was only because the Federal government picked up 3/4 of the cost of the healthcare system, instead of the state that implemented it.

And no matter how you excuse it, the state will be insolvent under the current plan when the costs are currently increasing at 87% every five years, while the tax revenue is increasing at only 13%.

I’m sorry that I offended you. I should not have been so rough on you. I took the time to work the numbers, and cited sources so that you could examine them. I think you should dig a little deeper instead of blindly quoting the numbers that others feed you. More often than not, the numbers provided by those seeking to justify more intrusive government are blatantly lying to their constituents about the costs. Yes, they are low now… and it can be afforded now… but name a single government program that stayed within the same cost increase rate as the tax revenue increase rate. There are none that I can think of… which is why our entire government structure is hurtling into insolvency.

dominigan on July 19, 2012 at 12:10 AM