https://twitter.com/TheFriddle/status/358736154813669376

Boom indeed. Sen. Cruz’s bam-tastic tweet has been retweeted over 1,000 times and counting.

https://twitter.com/JoeInscore/status/358918199963697154

https://twitter.com/MelissaTweets/status/358771037388816384

https://twitter.com/Arnodo64/status/358753753693827072

https://twitter.com/dennygirltwo/status/358916989164593154

https://twitter.com/Mb50Blog/status/358760547858120705

Sen. Cruz is a master at summing things up in one epic tweet. Keep it coming, sir!

Related:

Sen. Ted Cruz marks moon landing: America should lead world, not apologize to it

Double bam! Cruz, Laura Ingraham slam spineless GOP; Ingraham has idea for future surrender

Sen. Ted Cruz: Today Republicans preserved their right to surrender in the future

Truth ache! Sen. Reid: Obamacare ‘wonderful for America’; Ted Cruz shreds with one question

‘Like this?’ Sen. Ted Cruz tweets license plate with IRS message [photo]

Fixed it for ya! Ted Cruz dings Obama with caption on Facebook pic

Zinger of the day! Sen. Cruz blasts Obama with one ‘blogger-grade sarcasm’ question

Full Twitchy coverage of Sen. Ted Cruz

  • TYPE O NEGATIVE

    Oh Snap!

    • Elaine

      IF Obama & Co .keep talking about RACE they don’t have to talk about ECONOMIC failures!

      • TsT

        thats right . all we the people need to do is build a bigger garage . i wonder if we can air condition it ? might upset Barry ! A/c it is .

        • 3seven77

          According to Obama “We the People” don’t build anything.

  • PatriotRG

    One can see why the libtards fear TC.

    • AceTrace

      You’re right. They are scared to death of him. Of course, he has more functioning brain cells in 1% of his right hemisphere than they have in all of their collective brains put together. Silly tools.

      And this tweet is the most brilliant tweet I’ve read all year!

    • Demoivre

      He’s a legal Hispanic immigrant, so the liberals can’t play their card of ”he’s a typical racist southern white supremacist” so they hate him even more.

  • Stephen L. Hall

    That’s a soundbyte even a liberal could understand.

    • TocksNedlog

      Understanding and acceptance are two different things. And as we all know, liberals are like Cleopatra — queens of denial.

    • David

      Look for a democrat-sponsored bill subsidizing the building of more garages.

    • stuckinIL4now

      As they’re listening to it in their parents’ garage.

    • AceTrace

      LOL, but are you sure about that?

      Seems like “Justice for Trayvon” and “Hoes before Embryos” is about their comprehension level. Anything related to basic economics is way over their heads. But if it’s race-baiting and hoe-glorifiying — well, they get that.

      • Stephen L. Hall

        Okay, you may be right. Point taken.

    • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

      Anyone could understand it. But it’s false.

      • Stephen L. Hall

        Of course, under Obamanomics your parents will not have a garage either.

        • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

          Oh, our parents will have garages. But if the GOP House doesn’t get off its collective burro, our parents’ children won’t have a garage, nor any automobile to put in one, if they had one.

  • TocksNedlog

    That’s out Ted! Tellin’ it like it — unfortunately — is.

  • eaglechick

    Will trade McCain and Flake for Cruz..will give boot !

    • TexSizzle

      No thanks. We do support you booting out McCain & Flake, and voting in someone like Ted.

    • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

      BETTER: Trade McCan’T for J.D. HAYWORTH! He was an excellent Congressman/Rep. Jawamax 8<{D}

  • John Bibb

    ***
    Reagan=Success!
    Comrade Obama (PBUH!)=Epic Failure!
    ***
    Rocketman
    ***

    • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

      Can you name any business that got going in a garage while Reagan was president?

      • John Bibb

        ***
        HI E.D.–I seem to remember a few businesses starting up when Reagan was president. Probably not in garages like H.P. did. Dell? Staples?
        ***
        My comment is based on comparing 2 Government statistics–the Labor Participation Rate and the U6 under / unemployed numbers. Reagan from 1980–1985, and Obama from 2008–2013. Within 2 years there had been considerable improvement under Reagan–pretty much lower LPR and higher U6 unemployment under Obama. We are in a “new normal” flatlined economy now–5 years into President Obama’s Great Recession II. The graphs tell the tale.

        ***
        The entrepreneur who started Home Depot a decade ago says that “It would not be possible in today’s economic / regulatory environment.” HD employs tens of thousands of people now, and provides a very useful service to our communities.
        ***
        Rocketman
        ***

  • TexasMom2012

    Really happy Cruz is one of my Senators!!! Master of Twitter Boom!

    • mickeyco

      Now stop it, Mom. I’m getting tired of you Texans bragging about Cruz. I live in IL and have never had a politician to brag about.

      • The Penguin

        My heartfelt condolences bud.

        • mickeyco

          Thanks so much. I feel better now.

      • DirtyDave

        Boy, you should move to Texas. You would do well down here.

        Is calling you boy racist? Most good ol’ boy Texans call each other boy or son.

      • Charles Hammond Jr

        I was like you for a long time: a person trying to get a job and make a living in Illinois.

        It didn’t work, so I gave up and moved to Utah. Its working here.

        I truly suggest you pack up and go somewhere else… preferably somewhere where the leeches won’t mooch off of your tax money.

        • AceTrace

          Translation: Move to a red state.

      • MNWoman

        I just replied something similar in a post above.

        Wanna compare senators? Franken/Klobuchar vs Durbin/Kirk?

        • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

          Franken should’ve gone back to the Improv… ‘Nuff said. Jawamax 8<{D}

      • lainer51

        Try living in Pennsylvania! You would cry yourself to sleep every night.

      • Exodus2011

        your State is the one in which Ronald Wilson Reagan was born though

        ^5!

        THANK YOU Illinois!

        **__**

        • lainer51

          maybe so, but try dealing with Philly, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg and Bob Casey!!!!

          • Exodus2011

            I think Tea Party America should study carefully what Conservatives in so-called ‘blue’ WI have achieved in the last 3 years:

            WI (2010, 2011 (recalls) and 2012) has shown us that some blue/purple States could well become ‘red’ *if* the right TRUSTED Conservative Reformer Candidates are found to stand for office

            people are reluctant to volunteer for Liars or corrupt Permanent Political Classers even if they have an (R) by their name

            The Tea Party was very active in Wisconsin in 2012 (as well as 2010, 2011) ….notice they returned all their Conservative Reformers to the State Govt so that their Proven Reformer Gov Scott Walker could continue advancing WI in the right direction

            also notice that those same Tea Partiers did not elect R/R, or Tommy Thompson to the US Senate

            (they also dumped the proggy hero US Senator Feingold in 2010! and also that long-standing corruptocrat chair of the ways and means committee in the US HOR, defeating BIG LABOR there!)

            WI Tea Partiers and Tea Partiers in general will not work and volunteer for Candidates THEY DON’T TRUST

            I believe that WI has shown us what is possible nationwide … in WI there are clearly dormant Conservative voters who have been disconnected, unengaged from politics, due to disgust with BOTH private political parties …. UNTIL … they found Scott Walker

            they not only elected him and Kleefisch, (AND defeated Big Labor backed Recall attempts) but they also gave them a controlling Conservative State House and Senate, PLUS they made sure that Prosser made it through to the Judiciary (in 2011 V. the Big Labor Kloppy woman) because they KNEW Walker’s reforms would be challenged in Court

            We need to reproduce WI in as many States as possible (blue, purple, red, whatever)

            #BeClingers ————-> #AmericaRISING

          • Scorpion

            Philly, where instituting a lap dance tax trumps dealing with unsolved murders. I kid you not.

  • JeffWRidge

    Reaganomics gives you freedom, prosperity and pride.

    Obamanomics gives you dependence, debt and shame.

  • The Penguin

    Awesome! Tellin’ it like it is….what it is, not so awesome.

  • David

    He’s the Man. Thank you Mr. Cruz!

  • nc

    Cruz has so many great quotes he could publish a book full of them.

    • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

      E.G. “Cruzisms”, like “Yogiisms” #YogiBerra Jawamax 8<{D}

  • Ty in TX

    My senator, must say I’m quite pleased with his performance so far.

    • MNWoman

      Ugh, must you brag? I am in MN, and well, you know…

      I love MN, but not so much its politics. I know people say move to a red state, but we need conservatives to fight the good fight in blue states, too 😉

      • Ty in TX

        I’m sorry MNW…..I’ll try to contain myself in the future. :)

        • MNWoman

          Nah, no worries :) You and your fellow Texans did an awesome job getting Cruz elected. I occasionally send him emails thanking him for his good work. He may represent Texas, but when he fights for conservative causes, I benefit from his efforts, too.

      • richard40

        Winsconsin is starting to move toward sanity, thanks to Gov Scott Walker. Maybe MN will wake up eventually as well. At east you still have some hope to turn your state around, unlike CA or IL. Even Michigan is starting to turn around thanks to their repub gov and legislature, at least Michigan other than in hopelessly dem Detroit.

        • MNWoman

          I think there is some hope. Governor Pawlenty was a two term governor. Norm Coleman only lost his bid for re-election against Franken in 2008 after a court battle and multiple re-counts. Granted, I hardly think Coleman could be considered a true conservative (he used to be a Democrat). Pawlenty was a good social conservative and had some good economic policies with a few that were questionable.
          I know an election result map isn’t really a reliable indicator for determining if a state is “red or blue” due to population differences geographically, but if you notice, Romney did win more counties in MN, but Obama won more of the high poplulation areas. I am not confident we can really turn Hennepin County (Minneapolis) and Ramsey County (St. Paul) into Republican leaning counties. Until that happens, I just don’t see Republicans winning more elections. I do think Republicans might have better mid-term results or at least I hope so.

  • ObamaFail

    Reaganomics means you don’t have to be ashamed to be successful, and self-reliance is to be admired.
    Obamanomics means that successful people need to be destroyed, and self-reliant people need to be beaten down so bad that they end up needing to leech off of the taxpayers.

    • AceTrace

      “Obamanomics means that successful people need to be destroyed, and
      self-reliant people need to be beaten down so bad that they end up
      needing to leech off of the taxpayers.”

      Except when those successful people are rich, loud-mouthed, hypocritical Liberals (JayZ, Beyounce’, Warren Buffet, et al) who are funding his campaigns and pushing his agenda. Those people get special perks like trips to Cuba, WH-party invites and a nice shielding from the clutches of the IRS.

      • richard40

        Good point. Obama only dislikes rich people that dont support Obama. Once they support Obama they become pampered cronies.

  • JeffreyFuller

    Wow! we could start a book of these types of ‘isms.

    How about:

    Reaganomics: You earn a living from working hard and making a profit.

    Obamanomics: You earn a living off of other people’s hard work and profit.

    • Robert Smith

      wow!….well put and clearly understandable for people with eyes to see and ears to hear.

  • https://www.facebook.com/ritchietheriveter Ritchie The Riveter

    Reaganomics: you solve the problems you face, and others can learn from your experience to solve theirs.

    Obamanomics: you wait for the government to solve your problems FOR you, while others are taxed to support you until that happens … as in, never.

  • DirtyDave

    And that putz Rubio is in hiding. Compare and contrast.

    • Exodus2011

      yep

      poor ole McRubio … took the advice of the racketeering GOPe Consultancy Class, and look at the result

      he gets BOOED by the Tea Party who busted a gut to get him past the Orange Man in FL

      thus a new truth becomes manifest:

      Tea Partiers will not work for LIARS … people who cannot be TRUSTED

    • AceTrace

      Yeah, and I hope he stays there.

  • Benjamin Dover

    Help secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0094KY878

  • Bill Haley

    great quote! Bill with Haley2024.org

  • http://willcate.com Will Cate

    Love Sen. Cruz, but this is an old joke — can’t recall who said it first, but it wasn’t Ted

  • David Govett

    For millions of Democrats, jobs are what one does between welfare checks.

  • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

    WISDOM, TED! Or….
    REAGANOMICS:You start a business in your basement.
    OBAMANOMICS:You live in your parents’ basement XD LOL Jawamax 8<{D}
    Fixed it..A little..

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

    Cruz is such a screw up. Does he ever get anything right?

    Famous garage start ups:

    1. Hewlett-Packard, 1939 — FDR was president.
    2. Apple Computer, 1976 — last year of Ford administration; Apple grew to viability during Jimmy Carter’s years.

    Ted Cruzonomics: Never let the facts or the patriotic truth get in the way of a stupid punch line.

    • in_awe

      “Reaganomics: You start a business in your parents’ garage.
      Obamanomics: You move into your parents’ garage.” Ted Cruz

      “FDR was President”
      “Ford was President”
      “Never let THE FACTS or the patriotic truth get in the way of a stupid punch line.”
      Ed Darrell

      I guess Ed bought that meme that Obama was the second coming of FDR…still trying to figure out how Obama can be transformed into Gerry Ford though.

      Speaking of FACTS, I do enjoy the ability of the WH (and its sycophants) to spew “FACTS” daily that are the least untruthful way of claiming anything that brings glory to the One.

      • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

        Wait a minute: You’re saying that FDR was Reagan? You’re saying Ford was Reagan? What a clever way to get around the 22nd Amendment! Who knew?

        Can you name a company that was started in a garage during the Reagan years?

        • in_awe

          Ok, thanks for the response. Let me help you here:

          There have been 2 recent Presidents with major economic policies named after them: Ronald Reagan (“Reganomics”) and Barack Obama (“Obamanomics”).

          Reaganomics was based on free market principals, lower taxes, encouragement of entrepreneurship and the thought that a rising tide lifts all boats. Obamanomics on the other hand is about central planning by a leftist elite, income redistribution and sharing the pain.

          Reagan’s economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.

          This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.
          During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.

          Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.

          The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed. Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently. The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.

          Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled
          in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade.

          You’re probably right – certainly nobody successfully started a business during the Reagan Recovery. I stand corrected.

          And I guess all those charts covering the Obama economy showing unconscionably high unemployment and underemployment, net decreases in household income and wealth, record welfare and food stamp enrollments, and the slowest, weakest economic recovery in American history are figments of my imagination. Got it. Thanks for letting me play in your fairytale land.

          —–
          And you are the one conflating Obama with FDR and Ford for some unfathomable reason.

    • DirtyDave

      In neither of the instances you cited was Barack Obama president. It only seems as if he has been around that long.

      Even under FDR and Ford the notion of free men pursing their own best interests prevailed. If you didn’t, you went hungry. (Okay, FDR was not really a fan of that, but that’s the way it was then.)

      Now, not doing anything but showing up is reward enough: free Obama phones, food stamps, EIT credits, which is not earned, ironically.

      Yet under such rigorous demands that prevailed under FDR and Ford, we as a nation grew rich and powerful and successful and broadly middle class. Now we are just living on the success of past generations, just as Detroit did for the past several decades. Look at how that turned out, which I guess is okay with you.

      • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

        Tell the whole truth, Dave: In no instance anyone has cited where a business got going in a garage, was Ronald Reagan president. We remember Reagan for doing things he didn’t do, and forget the things he actually did (selling rockets to Iran? Really?).

        Cruz’s Tweet is historically inaccurate (on both ends, really), as well as misleadingly snarky.

        Free “Obama phones,” by the way, were Reagan’s idea. (You could look it up; bet you won’t.) Food stamps prevent good people who work from going hungry (do you know tens of thousands of kids, families of active-duty U.S. soldiers, get food stamps? GOP says they don’t need more pay . . .; did you know that GOP argues that there are enough jobs now, and that no one needs food stamps, even though all facts tell a different story?).

        Obama keeps trying to make America great. In June, he ran up the largest one-month budget surplus in the history of the nation.

        But Ted Cruz says our nation is broke (he’s lying about that, too), and we can’t afford to be great anymore.

        Don’t complain about Obama. Tell Cruz to get off his Twitter account and pass a highway repair bill, a bridge repair bill, a National Forest restoration bill, and a general jobs bill for the victims of Cruz’s favorite tax cuts.

        It wouldn’t be so galling, were Cruz not such a huge part of the problem.

        • DirtyDave

          Oh, come on Ed, Obama isn’t trying to make American great, he’s spreading around the success from past generations. If he’s trying to make America great, he isn’t doing very well. He’s at best a shabby imitator of Europe and how is Europe working out?

          Do you seriously believe the canard that Obama phones started under Reagan. That is a Think Progress/Gawker desperate delusion. Under Obama, a modest program that should never have started in the first place when AT&T was broken up became a gaudy spectacle of government waste and abuse, kinda like how a modest government program started in the Depression to help blue collar families buy a house became a gaudy spectacle that for all intents and purposes brought down the country’s financial system. It remains on life support to this day and it’s not improving.

          I have sold to companies started under Reagan that began in the owner’s garage. Also in a spare bedroom or even on the kitchen table. Not the size of Apple or HP, but they are successful if small. Or does size only matter to you, Ed. Kinda of big government socialist, aren’t you?

          • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

            Oh, come on Ed, Obama isn’t trying to make American great, he’s spreading around the success from
            past generations. If he’s trying to make America great, he isn’t doing very well. He’s at best a shabby imitator of Europe and how is Europe working out?

            Be specific. Which of Obama’s actions lead us to Europe? The stock market that is setting records? Great bond yields? Federal deficits smaller than Bush’s? Decreasing the size of government?

            You’d do well to subscribe to a newspaper. I gather you’re not much aware of what’s going on in America right now. Rich are getting richer. It’s the middle class and poor who are taking the hits.

            If Obama’s a socialist, then he’s the worst one since Calvin Coolidge.

            Or are you saying that the Super-rich have devised socialism that benefits only them?

            Do you seriously believe the canard that Obama phones started under Reagan. That is a Think Progress/Gawker desperate delusion. Under Obama, a modest program that should never have started in the first
            place when AT&T was broken up became a gaudy spectacle of government waste and abuse . . .

            I was a Reagan appointee, and I well remember the start of the program. Obama has done nothing serious to modify the program.

            On the GOP side, we advocated the phones because the phone companies looked like they were in line for windfall profits (still true), and we had grave difficulties in providing 911 service to some people in generally-tough-to-wire areas.

            What expansions of the program can you point to that Obama had anything to do with? Reagan phones have been around for about 20 years — but like a lot of the good things Reagan did, modern Neofascists like to disclaim Reagan’s real legacy in favor of a false, historically-revised Reagan who believed in destroying U.S. government.

            You don’t know Reagan.

            Nor, I gather, do you know much about the Lifeline phone plans (hint: Notice Obama-era LIMITATIONS): http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/lifeline-compliance-plans-etc-petitions

            .. . .kinda like how a modest government program started in the Depression to help blue collar families buy a house became a gaudy spectacle that for all intents and purposes brought down the country’s financial system. It remains on life support to this day and it’s not
            improving.

            Okay, you’re bellyaching about Bush stuff now. I agree, Bush let things get way out of hand.

            I have sold to companies started under Reagan that began in the owner’s garage. Also in a spare bedroom or even on the kitchen table. Not the size of Apple or HP, but they are successful if small. Or does size only matter to you, Ed. Kinda of big government socialist, aren’t you?

            Name the companies, as I asked earlier. Let’s celebrate them, the few that are there.

            But let’s not make up false history to justify our biases.

            Reality is that Reagan was no great friend to small businesses, and his administration did a lot to promote big business over small business, and stodgy old-line companies over innovation (remember Reagan tried to kill the internet). Ted Cruz is no better — he’s voted against almost every possible policy that would help out garage start-ups that he’s had a chance to vote for. He favors giant agricultural interests over small family farmers, and over poor food stamp recipients. He favors the rich over the poor, the already-got-the-mansion guys over those working in their garages.

            As you well know, if you’re out there selling to those guys.

            See here: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/ted-cruz-shows-off-his-ignorance-of-free-enterprise-history-with-bad-joke-on-garage-startups/

          • richard40

            Bond yields are hardly good, the rates of return on newly issued bonds are so low they are almost not worth holding, and bank deposit interest rates are even worse, because the fed is pumping so much money into the economy. That is the only reason why stocks and older bonds are doing well, because they are the only place the excess fed money can go that offer any decent yields at all. But they are also an overpriced bubble that could produce another crash once the fed returns insterest rates back to historical levels.
            And Obamacare definitely moves us to European style Socialized medicine.
            Welfare, disability, unemployment benefits, and food stamps are also exploding, also moving us toward Europe.
            Permanent low growth and underemployment also move us toward Europe.
            Extremely hig gov spending vs GDP also moves us toward Europe.

          • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

            And Obamacare definitely moves us to European style Socialized medicine.

            Better care at half the cost, no bankruptcies due to health emergencies — Europe’s got us beaten badly on all counts on health care. Too bad ObamaCare doesn’t move us much farther in that direction. We could sure use the economic boost now.

            Welfare, disability, unemployment benefits, and food stamps are also exploding, also moving us toward Europe.

            Well, the explosion in food stamps is a symptom of the problem. Europe responded absolutely wrongly (except Germany), by cutting government spending, especially on stuff that makes jobs. Austerity programs, it turns out, promote welfare, disability, unemployment, and food aid, because people need help.

            Since you’re so familiar with Europe’s condition, surely you know that their budget cutting was exactly the wrong thing to do.

            In short, it’s Paul Ryan moving us toward Europe. I agree, we should throw every GOP member out of the House, and prevent the Europeanization of our recession.

            Permanent low growth and underemployment also move us toward Europe.

            Yes, you’re right — we badly need a jobs bill. The biggest drag on employment right now is the massive cuts to teachers, cops and firefighters, and other government employees, insisted on by the GOP in the House, and in Texas, Wisconsin, Ohio, South Carolina, and Florida. But for those stupid cuts, we’d have at least a million more jobs — maybe as many as five million with indirect employment.

            And for what? They’re giving that money to the rich in Wisconsin. Government welfare to the wealthy. If you know anything about economics, you know that’s exactly the wrong place to put government spending.

            Extremely hig gov spending vs GDP also moves us toward Europe.

            But of course you’re joking, there. We’re in no danger. America is not broke, and our government has a very healthy cash flow. Obama’s cut government more than anyone since Eisenhower, and he’s been astonishingly frugal in spending — so we probably ought to listen to him when he calls for more spending in key areas, like roads, bridges, education, and conservation.

            That would cut the need for food stamps, and swell tax take from all the wages paid.

            We’re a long way from becoming Europe, but we should deracinate and defenestrate the GOP Members of Congress pushing us that way, with their calls for “austerity,” the poison that killed the European golden-egg-laying gees.

          • richard40

            “Better care at half the cost, no bankruptcies due to health emergencies — Europe’s got us beaten badly on all counts on health care. ”
            First you deny obama is moving us toward Europe. Now you back off that untruth and claim europe is better.
            Less cost maybe, due to rationing, but better care definitely not. Exremely long wait periods fo routine operations. Sometimes so long for older people that they die of a treatable condition. Old people dying in wards due to lack of attention and incompetant overworked staff. That is hardly better. Why do Canadians come to the USA for operations, because they cant get them in a timely manner from their socialized system. Yet for those with political connections there is no wait. I do not want a system where my health care depends on my political pull.
            And the problem with european austerity was not spending cuts, but huge tax hikes and overegulation, stiflying private sector job creation. Gov spending does not create net jobs, it merely moves them, from the more productive and efficient private sector, to the less efficient and less productive public sector, with an acompanying loss of efficiency, which costs net jobs, productivity, and compeditiveness, rather than creating them.

            Welfare is not produced by gov spending cuts, it is produced by an inadaquate private sector job engine, and engine Obama has crippled, just as Europe has long crippled their private sector. And our welfare system is now also rife with fraud, encouraged or at least tolerated by obama.

          • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

            We’re not moving toward Europe on health care. It would be good if we did.

            Europe has government-sponsored health care and universal coverage. Care in most European nations is at least as good as the U.S. In France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Scandanavia — and often in Greece, Spain and Portugal — care is much better than care in the U.S. Single payer plans — the government does it.

            Contrast that with ObamaCare: By GOP demand, at least 30 million people will be left out. About 80% of the population will get health insurance from their employers, from about 100 different private, profit-making companies. Care is delivered by private physicians (compared to the French national health service, or Germany, or Britain), in their private offices; hospitalization occurs in private hospitals. Medical devices and pharmaceuticals come from private companies who price what the market will bear, giving us much higher prescription drug costs than European nations — delivered through private pharmacies.

            What part of ObamaCare do you claim drives us toward the high-quality, low-cost care Europeans enjoy? Please be specific. I don’t see it in the law.

            European nations don’t have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars convincing people to sign up for insurance, for starters. I’ll be waiting to see what you claim to be similar to Europe.

            I said it would be a good idea. You assumed that anything that is a good idea is something Obama proposed. I wish it were so — but that tells me that you reflexively oppose ideas you know to be good for America.

            And in the end, you’re railing against something you “know” to be true, which simply isn’t. Will Rogers and Kin Hubbard warned us against thinking such things, and Bertrand Russell predicted you and your fellow travelers would be there anyway.

          • richard40

            So you are disappointed that Obama did not move far enough toward europe. You actually another thing I always beleived, Obamacare was never designed to actually work, it cant, it was designed to destroy our private health care system, so socialized medicine was the only other logical choice. But I prefer a return to real arket based halth care. I do not support European style socialized medicine. While it may help some poor, i beleive it leads to rationing that harms middle class health care, and also leads to a system where care is determined by political pull, not by our own choices.

          • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

            ObamaCare is designed to function on the current system. It locks in private care, locks in insurance company participation. Markets are left unregulated, federal participation must be at the mercy of local markets for the most part.

            You should study the law — I don’t apprehend that you know much about what it really does.

            European care works better, gets better outcomes, and costs people half as much as we pay. The only reason anyone wouldn’t want that is because they really hate Americans and want more of us to die fast.

            Which is to say, your claims about European care and ObamaCare are wholly irrational. You must have gotten a George W. Bush commemorative lobotomy, no?

          • richard40

            It hardly locks in market forces. The exact coverage is completely dictated from DC, to the extent that the catholic church is required to pay for contraceptive coverge, against their religion. And the companies are also completely regulated onwhere they can spend their money. That is hardly an unregulated market. It is nore like making health insurance companies into publically controlled unilities, with everything centraly dictated. If you loved phone service under Ma Bell, you will love Obamacare.

          • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

            Richard, interesting how you run smash into the truth, then pick yourself up and walk away as if nothing had happened.

            It hardly locks in market forces. The exact coverage is completely
            dictated from DC . . .

            With all current health insurance companies left operating in private hands, PLUS invited to expand into insurance exchanges in the 50 states, D.C., Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories. ObamaCare makes the market more competitive, and presents more products to open it up to millions more families.

            Price regulation? Zero. It’s market-based.

            . . . to the extent that the catholic church is required to
            pay for contraceptive coverge, against their religion.

            That’s not accurate. ObamaCare merely requires that all reproductive services be included in a health plan offered. It’s the employees who pay, by the way, and who purchase and used the contraceptives (though, you may have a point that the Catholic Church may have considered purchasing barrier contraceptives; let’s not go there).

            The Catholic Church didn’t care about this provision for 40 years under ERISA. No church should be dictating the sex methods of its non-clerical employees.

            Your position is highly hypocritical here, to the point of being immoral. Oddly, the Catholic Church didn’t object to paying for Viagra and Cialis. Discrimination against women without cause is also a goal of the Affordable Care Act — and only monsters and idiots oppose that.

            And the
            companies are also completely regulated on where they can spend their
            money.

            Companies that offer health plans now have a wider selection of private plans to choose from. That’s not more regulation, and not at all what you describe.

            Health plans ARE regulated, in that they must offer preventive care — proven to save money and save lives at less money — and they cannot kick out cystic fibrosis kids who need care, they can’t kick out anyone just because they got a cancer diagnosis, they can’t disallow pre-existing conditions, and they can’t claim silly pre-existing conditions, like “female.”

            Oh, and insurance companies are restricted on the bonuses they pay top executives, and they must spend a reasonable amount of their insurance premiums on health care, and refund money to the insured if they don’t — I forget if it’s 80% or 85%.

            What sort of monster opposes any of that?

            Contrary to your claim, more companies have asked to compete in the state health exchanges. Sounds like a healthy market to me.

            That is hardly an unregulated market. It is nore like making
            health insurance companies into publically controlled unilities, with
            everything centraly dictated. If you loved phone service under Ma Bell,
            you will love Obamacare.

            Phone companies are still regulated by the government — but there are a lot more of them, more like ObamaCare.

            My phone service costs dropped dramatically when wireless came along. Ma Bell fought wireless.

            My annual health costs dropped dramatically last year with the few preventive care mandates that went into effect from ObamaCare — no copay inoculations, flu shots required to be covered, etc. I expect those savings to add up. Our employee chip-in went up about 5%, and we were able to keep our recently-graduated son on the plan — so that alone saved us about $600 in inoculations and upper respiratory infection calls.

            I gather you never use any preventive care, you have no children under the age of 26 — or you’ve already put them to work in the mines — you have no women in your family, and you do no activities that require an annual physical like skiing, Scouting, hiking, running, or any form of competitive racing. You have no arthritis and you think you’re immune to shingles, and you have no allergies.

            Yeah, it must gall you to be so healthy and slothful at the same time.

            For the rest of us, the Affordable Care Act is a good deal.

          • richard40

            Your line on the catholic church is complete garbage. They are required by law to pay for a policy that covers birth control, thereby forcing them to indirectly pay for birth control. You statement would only be corect if they could pay for a policy that did not provide free birth control, but each employee had an option to pay extra for a birth control rider, which was the compromised the catholic church prposed, and obama rejected.
            Actually I have an employer that provides my health insurance, but doe to obamacare their costs may go up enough they will decide not to, thus throwing me on the mercy of the exchanges. When I was ot working, I had saved enogh to pay for my own health insurance, its called being responsible.
            And in many states there is now only one company applying at the exchange, with all their coverage dictated from DC, making my Ma Bell comparison completely apt. you lines abut the insurers being subject to strict price regulations, as well as dictated coverage, amkes my Ma
            Bell comparison even more apt. If both their prices and their coverage are totally dictated by big gov, they are no longer private companies, they are regulated utilities. What that will elad to is everybodies health care being dictated by political pull, not market forces and competition.

          • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

            Here are links to what ObamaCare really does. A good site for you to study:

            http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2013/06/24/got-questions-about-obamacare-check-out-this-site/

          • richard40

            To get the “facts” abut Obamacare you send me to a WWH propaganda site, no thanks.

          • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

            The law’s actual language, and the actual instructions for signing up.

            You call real information “propaganda?” Are you communist, or fascist? Whose government are you REALLY working for?

          • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

            So you are disappointed that Obama did not move far enough toward europe.

            As I noted, most European health care systems, especially Germany and France, deliver better care than you can get in the U.S. 99% of the time, at less than half the cost.

            I’m disappointed the GOP has blocked better care and less expense, yes. Any sane person would be.

          • richard40

            Socialized medicine is crap, I support anybody that wants to ensure we dont get it.

          • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

            Socialized medicine doesn’t happen in the U.S., especially under ObamaCare. If you want to fight it, you’ll have to move to Canada, or Australia, or Japan, or England, or France, or Germany. If you do, you’ll have wonderful health care, cheap — but you can fight it if you wish.

            I support public flogging for people who tell whopping fibs to prevent Americans from getting health care, on the other hand. You support truth-telling, too, don’t you?

          • richard40

            Once obamacare fails spectacularly, the leftists will then propose full socialized medicine, I am preparing for that fight.

          • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

            And the problem with european austerity was not spending cuts, but huge tax hikes and overegulation, stiflying private sector job creation.

            Bullfeathers. The problem is that in a recession, only governments can spend money to keep things going, and fools (present company excepted, I wish) decided not to spend government money, even for essential services and recession relief.

            When classic Austrian School economics say “time for government to spend money,” Europeans cut spending instead — same thing the GOP asks that we do. (You just know those GOP guys never read European newspapers; they avoid even the Times of London because they don’t speak or read foreign languages.)

            Europe’s economic doldrums now are the result of no one spending money, no demand. Consequently, no one is hiring to expand — why would they do that if there is no demand?

            (Yeah, I know; you believe in Jesus, not the laws of supply and demand.)

            Gov spending does not create net jobs, it merely moves them, from the more productive and efficient private sector, to the less efficient and less productive public sector, with an acompanying loss of efficiency, which costs net jobs, productivity, and compeditiveness, rather than creating them.

            That happens if the economy is already functioning at a good clip, and if the government competes with private industry for money in borrowing, and for employees in hiring.

            Of course, the symptoms that tell us government spending is not creating net jobs are high inflation, low unemployment, and tight credit.

            Doctor, you need to check the symptoms. I don’t see any of those symptoms in the U.S. economy now.

            Low inflation means it’s a time to stimulate the economy. High unemployment means government programs to create jobs are necessary. Loose credit — interest rates are still 0% for banks! — means private industry has no interest in creating jobs, and government can borrow at fantastic rates to do critical infrastructure work like fixing roads, bridges, sewers, dams, parks and other public infrastructure.

            Now is the time to invest in America’s future with infrastructure.

            You are fighting against America’s future. Whose side are you really on?

            Welfare is not produced by gov spending cuts, it is produced by an inadaquate private sector job engine, and engine Obama has crippled, just as Europe has long crippled their private sector.

            You were asleep five years ago, Rip? Obama has done NOTHING that could colorably be called “crippling” job creation. Interest rates are low. Obama’s cut government spending (instead of expanding it); government is shrinking (and killing us in that shrinking), and Congress won’t appropriate money to invest in America.

            Welfare is made necessary by stupid, economy-killing and nation-crippling “austerity” programs.

            Tell us the truth: Are you working for Fidel Castro? Putin? China? Which of our national enemies has you on their payroll?

            And our welfare system is now also rife with fraud, encouraged or at least tolerated by President Obama.

            Dunning Kruger syndrome, QED.

            Open your eyes, take your fingers out of your ears, and see what reality holds for you. The Atlantic still separates the U.S. from Europe — in fact the gap has widened during the Obama years — and that is true economically, too.

            America is hurting. People who advocate cutting cops, teachers, firefighters, road construction, bridge repair, sewer construction and repair, certainly do not plan to help America in any way.

            Why do you hate America and Americans so? If you really hate us, why not go somewhere you’d be more comfortable — Greece, maybe, or Russia?

          • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

            Printed from the Charlotte Observer – http://www.CharlotteObserver.com

            Posted: Monday, Jul. 22, 2013

            Americans pay world’s highest price for childbirth

            By Elisabeth Rosenthal

            LACONIA, N.H. Seven months pregnant, at a time when most expectant
            couples are stockpiling diapers and choosing car seats, Rene Martin was
            struggling with bigger purchases.

            At a prenatal class in March, she was told about epidural anesthesia and
            was given the option of using a birthing tub during labor. To each
            offer, she had one gnawing question: “How much is that going to cost?”

            Though Martin, 31, and her husband, Mark Willett, are both professionals
            with health insurance, her current policy does not cover maternity
            care. So the couple had to approach the nine months that led to the
            birth of their daughter in May like an extended shopping trip though the
            American health care bazaar, sorting through an array of services that
            most often have no clear price and — with no insurer to haggle on their
            behalf – trying to negotiate discounts from hospitals and doctors.

            When she became pregnant, Martin called her local hospital inquiring
            about the price of maternity care; the finance office at first said it
            did not know, and then gave her a range of $4,000 to $45,000.

            “It was unreal,” Martin said. “I was like, How could you not know this? You’re a hospital.”

            Midway through her pregnancy, she fought for a deep discount on a $935
            bill for an ultrasound, arguing that she had already paid a radiologist
            $256 to read the scan, which took only 20 minutes of a technician’s time
            using a machine that had been bought years ago. She ended up paying
            $655.

            “I feel like I’m in a used-car lot,” said Martin, a former art gallery manager who is starting graduate school in the fall.

            Costs have tripled since 1996

            Like Martin, plenty of other pregnant women are getting sticker shock in
            the United States, where charges for delivery have about tripled since
            1996, according to an analysis done for The New York Times by Truven
            Health Analytics.

            Childbirth in the United States is uniquely expensive, and maternity and
            newborn care constitute the single biggest category of hospital payouts
            for most commercial insurers and state Medicaid programs. The
            cumulative costs of approximately 4 million annual births is well over
            $50 billion.

            And though maternity care costs far less in other developed countries
            than it does in the United States, studies show that their citizens do
            not have less access to care or to high-tech care during pregnancy than
            Americans.

            “It’s not primarily that we get a different bundle of services when we
            have a baby,” said Gerard Anderson, an economist at the Johns Hopkins
            School of Public Health who studies international health costs. “It’s
            that we pay individually for each service and pay more for the services
            we receive.”

            Those payment incentives for providers also mean that American women
            with normal pregnancies tend to get more of everything, necessary or
            not, from blood tests to ultrasound scans, said Katy Kozhimannil, a
            professor at the University of Minnesota who studies the cost of women’s
            health care.

            Financially, they suffer the consequences. In 2011, 62 percent of women
            in the United States covered by private plans that were not obtained
            through an employer lacked maternity coverage, like Martin. But even
            many women with coverage are feeling the pinch as insurers demand higher
            co-payments and deductibles and exclude many pregnancy-related
            services.

            From 2004 to 2010, the prices that insurers paid for childbirth – one of
            the oldest and most universal medical encounters – rose 49 percent for
            vaginal births and 41 percent for Caesarean sections in the United
            States, with average out-of-pocket costs rising fourfold, according to a
            recent report by Truven that was commissioned by three health care
            groups.

            The average total price charged for pregnancy and newborn care was about
            $30,000 for a vaginal delivery and $50,000 for a C-section, with
            commercial insurers paying out an average of $18,329 and $27,866, the
            report found. (The accompanying chart covers delivery only.)

            Women with insurance pay out of pocket an average of $3,400, according
            to a survey by Childbirth Connection, one of the groups behind the
            maternity costs report. Two decades ago, women typically paid nothing
            other than a small fee if they opted for a private hospital room or
            television.

            In most other developed countries, comprehensive maternity care is free or cheap for all, considered vital to ensuring the health of future generations.

            Billing for every item

            Only in the United States is pregnancy generally billed item by item, a
            practice that has spiraled in the past decade, doctors say.

            Each new test is a new source of revenue, from the hundreds of dollars
            billed for the simple blood typing required before each delivery to the
            $20 or so for the splash of gentian violet used as a disinfectant on the
            umbilical cord (Walgreens’ price per bottle: $2.59). Obstetricians, who
            used to do routine tests such as ultrasounds in their office as part of
            their flat fee, now charge for the service or farm out such testing to
            radiologists, whose rates are far higher.

            One factor that has helped keep costs down in other developed countries
            is the extensive use of midwives, who perform the bulk of prenatal
            examinations and even simple deliveries. Obstetricians are regarded as
            specialists who step in only when there is risk or need.

            Sixty-eight percent of births are attended by a midwife in Britain and
            45 percent in the Netherlands, compared with 8 percent in the United
            States. To control costs in the United States, patients may also have to
            alter their expectations, including the presence of an obstetrician at
            every prenatal visit and delivery.

            “It’s amazing how much patients buy into our tendency to do a lot of
            tests,” said Eugene Declercq, a professor at Boston University who
            studies international variations in pregnancy. “We’ve met the problem,
            and it’s us.”

            Starting next year, insurance policies will be required under the
            Affordable Care Act to include maternity coverage, so no woman should be
            left paying entirely on her own, like Martin. But the law is not
            explicit about what services must be included in that coverage. “Exactly
            what that means is the crux of the issue,” Kozhimannil said.

            If the high costs of maternity care are not reined in, it could break
            the bank for many states, which bear the brunt of Medicaid payouts.
            Medicaid, the federal-state government health insurance program for the
            poor, pays for more than 40 percent of all births nationally, including
            more than half of those in Louisiana and Texas.

            But even Medicaid, whose payments are regarded as so low that many
            doctors refuse to take patients covered under the program, paid an
            average of $9,131 for vaginal births and $13,590 for Caesarean
            deliveries in 2011.

            Expected bill: $32,000

            Martin, who busied herself making toys as her due date neared, could not
            stop fretting about the potential cost of a complicated delivery. “I
            know that a C-section could ruin us financially,” she said.

            On May 25, she had a healthy daughter, Isla Daisy, born by vaginal delivery. Mother and daughter went home two days later.

            She and her husband are both overjoyed and tired. And, she said, they
            are “dreading” the bills, which she estimates will be more than $32,000
            before negotiations begin. Her labor was induced, which required intense
            monitoring, and she also had an epidural.

            “We’re bracing for it,” she said.

            COMPARE HOSPITAL COSTS

            Here are cost estimates from Aetna and Blue Cross and Blue Shield
            of North Carolina websites from 2012. Prices paid by insurance
            companies differ based on contracts negotiated with hospitals.

            Vaginal delivery, uncomplicated

            Aetna

            Carolinas Medical Center $8,242-$10,347

            CaroMont Regional Medical Center, Gastonia $5,414-$9,890

            Novant Health Presbyterian Medical Center $9,001-$11,362

            Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina

            Carolinas Medical Center $8,120-$9,023

            CaroMont Regional Medical Center, Gastonia $7,218-$8,120

            Lake Normal Regional Medical Center $5,598-$6,410

            Novant Health Presbyterian Medical Center $9,925-$10,827

          • DirtyDave

            Calvin Coolidge a socialist? No, Ed, Calvin was not a socialist. That would come under delusion.

            Why is the stock market setting records? Do you know? I bet you don’t.

            Decreasing the size of the government? How? When? Where? The deficit went down, maybe, a tiny bit from Obama’s sequester plan, but he had to be forced to follow his own rule for cutting the decrease in the size of the increase.

            Ed, you have to offer better than this.

          • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

            Oh, come on Ed, Obama isn’t trying to make American great, he’s spreading around the success from
            past generations. If he’s trying to make America great, he isn’t doing very well. He’s at best a shabby imitator of Europe and how is Europe working out?

            Be specific. Which of Obama’s actions lead us to Europe? The stock market that is setting records? Great bond yields? Federal deficits smaller than Bush’s? Decreasing the size of government?

            You’d do well to subscribe to a newspaper. I gather you’re not much aware of what’s going on in America right now. Rich are getting richer. It’s the middle class and poor who are taking the hits.

            If Obama’s a socialist, then he’s the worst one since Calvin Coolidge.

            Or are you saying that the Super-rich have devised socialism that benefits only them?

            Do you seriously believe the canard that Obama phones started under Reagan. That is a Think Progress/Gawker desperate delusion. Under Obama, a modest program that should never have started in the first
            place when AT&T was broken up became a gaudy spectacle of government waste and abuse . . .

            I was a Reagan appointee, and I well remember the start of the program. Obama has done nothing serious to modify the program.

            On the GOP side, we advocated the phones because the phone companies looked like they were in line for windfall profits (still true), and we had grave difficulties in providing 911 service to some people in generally-tough-to-wire areas.

            What expansions of the program can you point to that Obama had anything to do with? Reagan phones have been around for about 20 years — but like a lot of the good things Reagan did, modern Neofascists like to disclaim Reagan’s real legacy in favor of a false, historically-revised Reagan who believed in destroying U.S. government.

            You don’t know Reagan.

            Nor, I gather, do you know much about the Lifeline phone plans (hint: Notice Obama-era LIMITATIONS): http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/lifeline-compliance-plans-etc-petitions

            .. . .kinda like how a modest government program started in the Depression to help blue collar families buy a house became a gaudy spectacle that for all intents and purposes brought down the country’s financial system. It remains on life support to this day and it’s not
            improving.

            Okay, you’re bellyaching about Bush stuff now. I agree, Bush let things get way out of hand.

            I have sold to companies started under Reagan that began in the owner’s garage. Also in a spare bedroom or even on the kitchen table. Not the size of Apple or HP, but they are successful if small. Or does size only matter to you, Ed. Kinda of big government socialist, aren’t you?

            Name the companies, as I asked earlier. Let’s celebrate them, the few that are there.

            But let’s not make up false history to justify our biases.

            Reality is that Reagan was no great friend to small businesses, and his administration did a lot to promote big business over small business, and stodgy old-line companies over innovation (remember Reagan tried to kill the internet). Ted Cruz is no better — he’s voted against almost every possible policy that would help out garage start-ups that he’s had a chance to vote for. He favors giant agricultural interests over small family farmers, and over poor food stamp recipients. He favors the rich over the poor, the already-got-the-mansion guys over those working in their garages.

            As you well know, if you’re out there selling to those guys.

            See here: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/ted-cruz-shows-off-his-ignorance-of-free-enterprise-history-with-bad-joke-on-garage-startups/

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

    Anybody here know if Ted Cruz ever renounced his foreign citizenship, as Michelle Bachmann finally did?

  • mapache

    The garage is empty because you cannot afford gas for the old car or electricity for the new one.