Unread Lips - By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, August 03

Unread Lips
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, August 03, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Trustworthiness: The media savaged President George H.W. Bush for breaking his tax pledge. Will President Obama instead get a pass for breaking trust on middle-class taxes and medical care?

Could Obama have been elected president without promising not to raise taxes on the middle class? Would Americans have trusted him with the highest office in the land if he had proposed replacing all private health insurance with a Euro-style, socialistic, single-payer system?

As Ben Stein put it in his American Spectator diary, "The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust . . . wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith."

Did the president shrewdly mislead Americans last year regarding his true intentions?

"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., in September. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." He vowed: "You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

Over the weekend, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, when asked about new taxes on those with moderate incomes, told ABC that reducing the deficit is "going to be difficult, hard for us to do." And "we're not at the point yet where we're going to make a judgment about what it's going to take."

National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers, meanwhile, when asked Sunday about funding ObamaCare with such tax increases, responded that "it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what."
And the president, appearing before the American Medical Association in June, scoffed at the supposed "illegitimate concern" that "a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system."

But Breitbart TV this week posted an astonishing montage of clips prepared by the Naked Emperor News Web site, placing the president's assertion into serious doubt.

One was from a March 2007 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) health care forum, at which candidate Obama spoke of ending private coverage, stating that "I don't think we're gonna be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately"; it might take 10, 15 or 20 years, he said.
In another, from an AFL-CIO "civil, human and women's rights" conference in 2003, the future president described himself as "a proponent of single-payer universal health care coverage. . . . That's what I'd like to see."

Another clip featured Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., stating last week that "I think if we get a good public option, it could lead to single payer, and that's the best way to reach single payer."
It should not take alternative news sources to bring the president's multiple "read my lips" reversals to public awareness. Isn't it obvious that if such inconsistencies — suggesting calculated untruthfulness — had come from a Republican president, the establishment media would have unearthed them long, long ago?

---------------------------------------------------------------
See but why do they care? Why should they when they will never have to go on it? You know socialized healthcare is marginally decent as long you dont grow old and you don't get too sick, then you are a liability and are gonna be more likely to suffer delays in getting treatment if you can get it at all. I have read so many stories from Canada and England that bear this truth out. A poll was released today that said 48% of Amercians are happy with their healthcare AND I AM ONE OF THEM. Only 19 % are unhappy. This bears thinking about don't you think? Really if they wanted to change things one of the biggest things they could is TORT reform. However, I doubt very much Obama will ever do that even though I believe it would make a big difference. The trial lawyers are just too much in bed with the liberals for that to ever happen. They just have too much influence and clout. I heard today that Texas had a bad problem with malpractice suits and so doctors were fleeing the area, esp the good ones. Tort reform has taken place there to some extent and the doctors are coming back. Premiums are going for the people because the doctors are paying less for malpractice insurance and as a result people are getting better care. Why in the world can our federal government not do this instead of trying to socialize it which would only make things so much worse? We cannot afford to do what Obama wants to do. He can't keep printing money like its monoply money. Why must he like so many liberals just think if you throw enough money at a problem that that will fix it? And why must they always think raising taxes is the answer? It just makes things worse. Its common sense economics that the more you take from people, esp a ever growing smaller portion of people, the less money you are going to end up getting. This truth is already becoming quite to anyone with a working set of eyes and a brain in their head (and that thinks for themselves)
I just want people to start thinking a little bit more for themselves and stop believing all the crap that is being flung about (on both sides I might add).