Why does Obama hate poor people?

Obama’s EPA is banning cheap asthma inhalers.  They’re banning them for relatively small of amount of those ozone hurting chemicals, literally a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the CFC’s that may have caused the hole in the ozone layer.


So to stop a truly negligible portion of ozone hurting chemicals the Obama administration is going to triple the cost of asthma inhalers.  Why is this a truly stupid move?  Because probably, with the exception of weight related diseases, there is no disease more related to income level.  Poor people are vastly more likely to have asthma than the middle class.  I don’t know the reason, no one else agree on them, but this is still a fact.


This price increase is going to hurt the poor.  A lot.  Asthma inhalers are not optional, they are as critical to quality of life as anything you can imagine.  Have you ever had pneumonia, that feeling of being unable to take a full breath?  The fear, the hurt, the panic?  Imagine your whole life like that?  Now ask yourself, if it costs three times as much.   If you’re poor that means having to make choice of ‘”do I use the inhaler now?   Or do I suffer?”  Thanks Barrack, for making poor people suffer through that.  Usually I’m not one to speak about the plight of the poor because usually I believe their plight is all too often caused by their bad choices, but this is  a disease that has nothing to do with bad choices made during life.  Nor is this the kind of disease where it’s a question of spending a huge sum of money that will extend a person’s life but not increase their quality of life.  This is as close as you get to a quality of life issue.  And Obama just make their quality of life go down.


Why would Obama screw poor people like this?


Answer: Class warfare.


Most people will probably not know that reason their inhaler has tripled in cost is because of an EPA and Obama call.  They’ll think it’s the drug companies are intentionally screwing them over.  (Yes I fully admit that the economies of scale will probably bring it down from triple the cost, but probably not back down to the old prices).  Which will secure the base in A. hating those evil evil drug companies and B. supporting Obama and his stand against those evil people who raised their health care prices for no reason (to hell if it’s actually Obama and his administration who is the bastard who did that).


A brilliant political move to secure his basse.  An evil move.


Filed under Economics, Environmentalism, Evils of Liberalism, Obama, Tyranny, Unjust legislation

5 responses to “Why does Obama hate poor people?

  1. mike

    You are a complete moron. Do you really your t bullshit? Please spare me the class warfare, Republicans are concerned with poor. The only time Republicans care about the poor is when it is time to get elected.

    • You’re absolutely right…or at least you would be if it weren’t for little things like economics, facts and history….but I understand for liberals those aren’t important things.

    • Cathy

      Mike, did someone force you to read Cris’ blog? I mean really why tax your brain unnecessarily. I would avoid reading things like truth and facts.

  2. mike

    You want facts, here you go. I call to your attention a study done in December 2006 by Elliott Parker, Ph.D., who is a Professor of Economics at the University of Nevada-Reno. Using data from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, Dr. Parker first compared the economic performance of Republican and Democratic presidencies from 1929 through the end of 2005. He found that the Real GDP Growth Rate (annual average) was 1.9% for Republican administrations and 5.1% for Democratic administrations during this time. Real GDP Growth Rate Per Capita was .7% for the Republicans and 3.8% for the Democrats. However, the professor pointed out that the years comprising the Great Depression and WWII should probably be excluded from the comparison. So economic performance from 1949 (end of Truman administration) to 2005 was compared, which showed Real GDP Growth Rate (annual average) under Republican administrations now stood at 2.9% and Democratic administrations at 4.2%. Real GDP Growth Rate Per Capita was 1.7% for the Republicans and 2.9% for the Democrats. These results prompted Dr. Parker to conclude that “the economy has grown significantly faster under Democratic administrations, and more than twice as fast in per-capita terms.”
    The University of Nevada-Reno economics professor also uncovered the following while conducting the economic comparison between Republican and Democratic presidential administrations from 1949 to 2005:
    • Unemployment Rate- Republicans 6.0%, Democrats 5.2%
    • Change In Unemployment Rate- Republicans +0.3%, Democrats -0.4%
    • Growth of Multifactor Productivity- Republicans 0.9%, Democrats 1.7%
    • Corporate Profits (share of GDP)- Republicans 8.8%, Democrats 10.2%
    • Real Value of Dow Jones Index- Republicans 4.3%, Democrats 5.4% (in logarithmic growth rates)- Republicans 2.8%, Democrats 4.4%
    • Real Weekly Earnings- Republicans 0.3%, Democrats 1.0%
    • CPI Inflation Rate- Republicans 3.8%, Democrats 3.8%

    • I love the lack a link to actually read said study, in this day and age that’s very suspect. Also I love how you quote a study that cherry picks information. Don’t include the Republican presidencies of Hoover and Coolidge which would throw all this daft off–oh and since FDR did a crappy job let’s not count him.

      But it’s also fun how your comment shows no understanding of economics. First it really matters more than whether someone is more capitalistic or socialistic in their policies. We use Republican and Democrat as short hand because, now, right now in history these lines are fairly well drawn between the two parties, but this has not always been the case. Eisenhower’s economic policy was neutral at best, but a Democratic Kennedy was quite capitalistic whose policy was to cut taxes and regulations, meanwhile Nixon was anything but capitalistic in his moves to expand government power over industries. Second it is not the President who has the most control over economic policy, while this is also partly dependent on the policies of the Federal Reserve (which operates in a pseudo-independant fashion), it is Congress not the President who chooses what the tax-rate and laws will be. Now if you actually read the study (http://www.business.unr.edu/econ/wp/papers/UNRECONWP06008.pdf) Parker suggests that he tested this theory of Congressional control, but that it didn’t yield any results…but strangely he doesn’t show the math on this….which is something I’ve never seen in an academic economic paper. “It didn’t work…how much didn’t it work…umm….just trust me.” In fact whereas a real academic study would show you all the tables and variables tests for all the different possibilities, this only shows you the data that proves the author’s point. One begins to see why this guy is teaching at Reno and not the Chicago School of Economics. (Of course if you actually did your research this guy’s field of study is the Chinese economy http://www.business.unr.edu/faculty/parker/bio.html not the U.S. economy, which makes him a really credible source).

      Also a decent understanding of economics suggest that somethings can have an immediate effect (like when the economy jumped the day after Obama left office…oh wait I’m getting ahead of myself) and other things take a godawful amount of time. Now again our professor does give lip service to this and says ” For example, many economists believe that the recession of 1981-82 was caused more by the change in monetary policy enacted by Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker, a Carter appointee, rather than any specific policy of President Reagan” So he is granting that there are obvious examples that there is a lag effect so what did he do… he calculated for a lag of up to 10 quarters. Yes there he admits that there is a lag of 2 years (8 quarters) but certainly not 10 quarters (2 years six months is as far as you need go). He does say that “Even with up to four years of lagged effects, there is thus no evidence that the economy performs better under Republicans.”…which is a statement that utter boggles the mind. Gee it would have been nice if he had shown the data he was using to conclude such a thing. (Also if Congressional control and lags were important than you would see what the lag effect on Republican congresses would be…but again this man fell short of even the low end of academic standards…maybe because this was a hit piece that was designed to be quoted to prop up Democratic arguments rather than real scholarship).

      And then, of course this doesn’t look at bubbles. For instance I think that we would all agree the during the later years of the Clinton administration, the economy was artificially propped up by a tech-bubble (caused by the stupid policies of Alan Greenspan) and a housing bubble (caused by the policies of Democrats in Congress). These bubbles resulted in positive effects in all of the statistics areas you quoted, but we know that they are not real economic growth as the bubble always bursts. There was nothing for that taken into effect.

      The fact of the matter is that economies do better in the long-run (defined as 10 years+) when free market principles are put in place. Few regulations, low taxes, small government, just court systems, private property and contract law held sacrosanct. Right now it is the Republican party advocating these principles (although there are some socialists still in the GOP ranks) and the Democratic party is (for the most part) very much opposed to those principles. https://conservativenewager.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/more-proof-in-favor-of-free-markets/
      I would suggest you also familiarize yourself with the writings of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek (both Nobel Prize winners in economics…and I might point out that only free market advocates have ever won a Nobel for marcro-economic theory) and Thomas Sowell.

      Of course, my critique of your understanding of economics may be a little hard…as you didn’t write theses comments…you copied them off of someone else’s page…it kind of fun that you plagiarized your comment, you must really believe in what you’re talking about and know it inside out. http://survivalandprosperity.com/tag/elliott-parker/

      Now your original comment, which I and Cathy were responding to, was about class warfare (thank you for changing the topic). I was stating that the Democrats have historically been the party of class warfare (FDR, LBJ, Carter and Obama being the worst among the Presidents, but certainly a healthy portion of every Democratic contingent of Congress). My point was that the policies of Obama (who is a socialist first and Democrat second) are ones that are hurting poor people and his administrations new rule is only one of those examples. My point is not engage in class warfare per se, but 1. to show that socialist policies hurt EVERYONE and 2. to show that his class warfare tactics (please tell me that he isn’t engaging in class warfare with his “top 1%” and “fair share” bullshit) were not legitimate as his policies were hurting poor people. But I don’t think he’s just hurting poor people, he’s hurting the middle class and the rich. Socialist policies hurt everyone.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s