Palin Warns of Obama’s “Death Panel”

225px-palin1250px-Palpatine_ROTJFirst there was the Death Star menacing humanity. Now, there is “the Death Panel.” Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called President Barack Obama’s health plan “downright evil” on her Facebook page and warned American of Obama’s “death panel” that will hold the power of life or death over average Americans. Indeed, the Obama Death Panel appears to have their sights on little Trig. Presumably, the chair will be Palpatine (aka Darth Sidious), the Dark Lord of the Sith.


Palin states in her first statement after quitting her job as governor that “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care . . .Such a system is downright evil.”

The following footage from one of the patient reviews of the Death Panel has been located:


The real news here is the disclosure that Palin’s page has 700,000 readers, making it the most popular comics page in the world.

For the full story, click here.

736 thoughts on “Palin Warns of Obama’s “Death Panel””

  1. Buddha,

    The program was meant as a band-aide.

    I’m starving. I come across a a small bit of food. Eating the food isn’t a failed tactic if a few hours later I’m hungry.

  2. buddha writes: here is no
    reason in this day that a dealer should have more than a handful of cars on the lot. Demos to show and then just in time systems for delivery. This all assumes consumer credit remains as tight as it is right now, but I promise, it’s a band-aid.

    I remember when the new cars came out in the fall. we’d go to the dealerships and kick tires and slam doors. we’d get the catalog and when my mom ordered her 1964 cadillac deville she picked out all the features and it came from detroit 6 weeks later. it was lipstick red with white leather interior and it was swank.
    when I bought my first jeep I had to go to 4 lots to get the one I wanted with the features I wanted and not ones i did not want to pay for. what a drag that was. i was baited and switched twice.
    I’d love to go back to the way things were in 1964 when you ordered the car you wanted and paid for what you got.

  3. GWLSMom,

    My brother works in the automotive distribution industry. I think I’ll go with his take. Even if the economy hadn’t tanked as hard as it did, dealerships have been staring down the excess inventory barrel for years. I also won’t argue there wasn’t a temporary uptick in dealership employment either. But temporary is all it is. When the CFC plan is done and the business slacks again, there will be an uptick in unemployment as dealerships let go sales personnel. All CFC did was ease their cash flow short term. Until the standing inventories are depleted and the new model of manufacturing worked out (that is what they are supposed to be doing in Detroit) and the incentive to retain large dealer inventories removed, there will be downward movement at worst and instability at best for new car sales as once prosperous but debt laden dealers have to close doors because they can’t maintain overhead. The product needs to improve AND the distribution needs to improve. There is no reason in this day that a dealer should have more than a handful of cars on the lot. Demos to show and then just in time systems for delivery. This all assumes consumer credit remains as tight as it is right now, but I promise, it’s a band-aid.

  4. Buddha writes: Your argument fails for one reason. The nature of dealerships and standing inventory. All that actually happened was a decrease to standing inventory. No new car orders were generated by CFC (or so few as to be insignificant) and ergo, no new jobs created. What it did do was slap a band aid on the larger problem to allow some people to keep their jobs. The primary problem of the automotive distribution networks is the standing inventory problem. Most dealerships have waaaaayyyyy too many new cars on the lot on any given day. The reasons for this are many, but the manufacturer’s haven’t help discourage it naturally. If we still used the older business model where small inventories were maintained and cars ordered like we used to use in up in to the 70’s, we’d be seeing far fewer dealerships in trouble and indeed the manufacturers would have been able to better hold down costs with a leaner manufacturing model. CFC was a boondoggle. It’s didn’t harm any thing, it did a
    little good, but any good it did was superficial. Under bread and circuses, this was a little of both.

    I can’t remember where, probably on MSNBC, I heard a pretty comprehensive series of interviews by all sorts of people in the auto industry who talked about how CFC created jobs. when people went to dealerships, they had to rehire sales people. some dealerships ran low on inventory and more new cars were ordered than in three previous quarters. auto parts ordering was also up. these people said that CFC was a good thing for them and hoped it would be extended again.
    I don’t think they were lying.

  5. GWLSM still complains about Bush’s Global War on Terror without regard to the fact that the military industrial complex is a major employer in the US benefitted to the point that it was able to order more parts, offer jobs to laid off workers and well, put money back into the economy

    ultimately Bush’s Global War on Terror worked and it worked well. you may not like some of the parts that did not work as well as you’d have liked or outcomes you disapprove of, but malcontents are everywhere.
    next time check your country’s Constitution. your individual rights may vary.
    _________

    Keynesian stimulus arguments like the one you made have no basis in reality. Imagine for a moment that the government knew about Bernie Madoff’s ponzi scheme, but the public at large did not know. Instead of arresting him, the government decides to give Madoff more cash with which to advertise for new clients… in the hope that they can keep the scheme alive and avoid harm to his existing clients. It just may work for a little while, but it just puts off the day of reckoning and makes the overall problem even larger! That is what our government is now trying to do through “stimulus” packages.

    Assets that are destroyed before the end of their useful life actually destroy wealth. What makes the Cash for Clunkers program even worse is that it’s so expensive to do so! The debt we racked up in the CFC program has to be paid back. That will either be done by the reducing the purchasing power of taxpayers today, reducing it tomorrow, or just printing more dollars which will add to future inflation, penalizing everyone.

    As I mentioned previously, the money consumers just spent on their new cars cannot also be spent on other goods, meaning that the government is practicing a favoritism of the auto industry manufacturers over other sectors of the economy that serve consumers! Where do they get that authority?

    I recommend reading the broken window fallacy:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

  6. GWLSMom,

    Your argument fails for one reason. The nature of dealerships and standing inventory. All that actually happened was a decrease to standing inventory. No new car orders were generated by CFC (or so few as to be insignificant) and ergo, no new jobs created. What it did do was slap a band aid on the larger problem to allow some people to keep their jobs. The primary problem of the automotive distribution networks is the standing inventory problem. Most dealerships have waaaaayyyyy too many new cars on the lot on any given day. The reasons for this are many, but the manufacturer’s haven’t help discourage it naturally. If we still used the older business model where small inventories were maintained and cars ordered like we used to use in up in to the 70’s, we’d be seeing far fewer dealerships in trouble and indeed the manufacturers would have been able to better hold down costs with a leaner manufacturing model. CFC was a boondoggle. It’s didn’t harm any thing, it did a little good, but any good it did was superficial. Under bread and circuses, this was a little of both.

  7. Puzzling still complains about Cash for Clunkers without regard to the fact that the auto industry a major employer in the US benefitted to the point that it was able to order more parts, offer jobs to laid off workers and well, put money back into the economy

    not for profits take cars in any condition whether they run or not. there is a natural ebb and flow to donations. when times are tough like they are now, 501C3’s report fewer donations. not for profits also raise money by investing, and their investments are way down due to the problems in the stock market.
    no one is immune from a near financial meltdown.

    ultimately CFC worked and it worked well. you may not like some of the parts that did not work as well as you’d have liked or outcomes you disapprove of, but malcontents are everywhere.
    next time check your mirror. your mileage may vary.

  8. I know this thread covered a lot of ground. Among other things there was debate about the effectiveness and unintended consequences of the government’s Cash for Clunkers program. I came across a few interesting points to close out my thoughts on this.

    First, reporting on the CFC program continues to mention the impact of rising used car prices on the poor, like this article, Clunkers’ raises prices, hurts poor, with coverage from Alabama.

    Second, charities nationwide continue to report significant drops in vehicle donations, dollars which in all likelihood will never be replaced. Even though the program has ended, these charities will still have to deal with the fact that some people already traded in cars they were only going to donate some months from now.

    Finally, a very interesting analysis has been done on the actual cost per incremental car sold in the CFC program. The actual cost to the taxpayer for each additional car sold in the program was $7200 (plus of course interest on the debt that we are taking out to pay for the program).

    In other words, CFC moved the needle in terms of cars sold, but if you measure how far the needle moved over where it was and divide out by the cost of the program, the true price is not $4500 per car, but $7200. For context, GM pays about $2300 in labor costs per car, so for the government to get this $2300 stimulus we pay $7200 plus interest. Of course, it’s not really even a $2300 stimulus because some of these cars would have just been purchased later anyway.

    Just food for thought as the government looks to extend homebuyer rebates and looks for the next CFC-styled program to “stimulate” the economy.

  9. bdaman,

    How can one argue with you when you cite an unimpeachable source like O’Rielly?

  10. Orielly says they are already doing it in Massachusetts

    A new law just passed in Massachusetts imposes fines of up to $1000 per day and up to a 30 day jail sentence for not obeying authorities during a public health emergency. So if you are instructed to take the swine flu vaccine in Massachusetts and you refuse, you could be facing fines that will bankrupt you and a prison sentence on top of that.

    The YouTube video below is of a news report about this disturbing new law. In particular, pay attention at the 1:40 mark when the anchor and reporter discuss the new penalties for not obeying the health authorities during an emergency…..

    If you have not realized it yet, the controversy over swine flu vaccinations is about to get very, very real. The authorities know that a lot of people are extremely concerned about the safety of the swine flu vaccine, and they are putting the infrastructure in place to deal with those dissenters.

    Let us hope that the worst case scenario with the swine flu does not take place, but the reality is that health authorities across the United States are gearing up for the biggest vaccination campaign in the nation’s history. It looks like this fall could be very, very interesting.

  11. Not Just Bad Legislation But Unconstitutional…
    Bill O’Reilly, the nation’s top-rated cable news host, with over 3 million viewers every night, just announced that Obamacare is Unconstitutional.

    O’Reilly told his audience that the government cannot force Americans to buy something they don’t want under the Commerce Clause in the Constitution:

  12. Mike Spindell:

    enjoy your vacation, hope you have fun.

    Do you mean this Milton Friedman?

    from wikipedia:

    “In 1975, two years after the military coup that toppled the government of Salvador Allende, the economy of Chile experienced a crisis. Friedman accepted the invitation of a private foundation to visit Chile and lecture on principles of economic freedom. He spent five days in Chile. Friedman encapsulated his philosophy in a lecture at Universidad Católica de Chile, saying: “free markets would undermine political centralization and political control.”[42]

    Friedman also met with the military dictator, President Augusto Pinochet during his visit. He did not serve officially as an advisor to the Chilean government, but did write a letter providing Pinochet with a shock program to end hyperinflation and promote a market economy[43]. Later, Friedman said he believed that market reforms would undermine Pinochet.[44] Chilean graduates of the Chicago School of Economics and its new local chapters had been appointed to key positions in the new government soon after the Coup, which allowed them to advise Pinochet on economic policies in accord with the School’s economic doctrine.

    According to his critics, Friedman did not criticize Pinochet’s dictatorship at the time, nor the assassinations, illegal imprisonments, torture, or other atrocities that were well-known by then.[45] Later, in Free to Choose, he said the following: “Chile is not a politically free system and I do not condone the political system … the conditions of the people in the past few years has been getting better and not worse. They would be still better to get rid of the junta and to be able to have a free democratic system.”[46]

    Friedman defended his role in Chile on the grounds that, in his opinion, the move towards open market policies not only improved the economic situation in Chile but also contributed to the softening of Pinochet’s rule and to the eventual transition to a democratic government in 1990. That idea followed from Capitalism and Freedom, in which he declared that economic freedom is not only desirable in itself but is also a necessary condition for political freedom. He stressed that the lectures he gave in Chile were the same lectures he later gave in China and other socialist states.[47] In the 2000 PBS documentary The Commanding Heights, Friedman continued to argue that criticism over his role in Chile missed his main point that freer markets led to freer people, and that Chile’s unfree economy had led to the military government. Friedman suggested that the economic liberalization he advocated led to the end of military rule and a free Chile.[48]”

    Seems to me he was trying to help the people, much like Bill Clinton did by going to North Korea and dealing with a trully despotic man and country. I did not hear that Bill tried to talk Kim into embracing free market policies that will eventually lead to the end of Kim’s rule.

  13. Hate to post and run everybody, but they just called boarding for my plane. On vacation, but I know our trolls will be left in more than capable hands, back in awhile.

  14. “Milton Friedman, F. A. Hyeck, L. Von Mises to name a few economists agree with my take on things contrary to your (pl) protestations.”

    IS,
    You mean the Milton Friedman of course who was the star of the University of Chicago Economics Department. I agree he’s your kind of guy. In 1973 when the legally elected President of Chile, Salvador Allende was murdered by a military coup backed by Richard Nixon’s CIA, the Junta was led by Agusto Pinochet. Pinochet was for years a brutal dictator, so bad that the US forced him to institute elections and he left in 1990. He was known for mass-murder, torture, kidnapping, illegal detention, and censorship of the press. He met personally with Milton Friedman in 1973 and the good Professor advised him on how to run his country economically. Many of Friedman’s U of C Chilean students came to work for the Pinochet Government and Friedman kept ties with both Pinochet and his ex-students throughout the reign of terror.

    So can we surmise from this that you would be happy with an America run by a military coup and violating the human rights of people? Well if you’re a Milton Friedman supporter I think we can and I think it shows where you’d really like America to go. By the was Friedman was romantically linked to……..Ayn Rand, great democracy advocate that she was.

  15. Good Mike I’m happy for you. All’s well that ends well.

    I’m having fun, me too. Life’s to short. Talk to you soon Buddy.

  16. “How do you know if I’m being sincere or not.”

    A liar is as a liar does and you’ve proven yourself a liar. By the way as to your concern for my health, I’m having fun. You are such an easy target. The gift that keeps giving.

  17. It looks like you were answering someone by confirming the answer, yes, I am aware. Like someone said, are you aware, and you said yes you were.

  18. Bdaman,

    I saw that comment and assumed that’s why you had taken it as a pseudonym. My comment about insincerity was just my opinion, so you can take it as and indication of how you are perceived.

  19. Sorry it was above by my friend Spinny

    I’m sure that’s just what IS need the support of a bigot, who copies and pastes.

Comments are closed.