Deficits.

Today whenever I opened up my web browser to FoxNews.com, the leading story was entitled, "$9,000,000,000,000.00 in the Hole (Give or take a few trillion)." In the next ten years, due to Obama's spending plans, the Federal deficit will reach $9,000,000,000,000.00, or if you do not want to count zeros, that is $9 trillion dollars. Now the CBO says that in ten years the $7,000,000,000,000.00, i.e., $7 trillion dollars.
But wait a minute here. How can the deficit goes so high since Obama promised to half the deficit within his first term? Back on February 23rd, 2009, President Obama vowed to half the deficit (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/23/politics/100days/main4821499.shtml). The Federal deficit whenever Obama took office was expected to spike to $1.6 trillion dollars, which for that I will blame President Bush for allowing the Federal bailouts. Be that as it may, we are facing exponential increases in the Federal deficits due to Obama's spending programs and here we have Obama saying that the Federal deficit is going to hit $9 trillion dollars in ten years. Therefore, the only conclusion that I can come to is this, Obama has failed in his promise. Let us not cower under political correctness surrounding the Obama Administration; Obama has failed to fulfill his promise.
Some may be objecting right now saying that Obama has not even come close to the end of his first term. This is true; however, with him admitting that the Federal deficit is going to hit $9 trillion in ten years, we have a very serious inconsistency--how can Obama half the deficit and yet say that it is going to hit $9 trillion dollars? If the Federal deficit was in fact going to be halved, we need not expect Obama to say that the Federal deficit to be considerably lower than it is now? The cartoon above I believe illustrates my point.
Obama cannot have it both ways in that he is spending money that we, as America, do not have, the Administration has authorized the Federal reserve to print because it is does not have the money necessary to pay for all of the spending that the Administration is doing and has plans to do. And yet, Obama vowed to half the deficit, and here is where the inconsistency rests. Obama's plans are causing the deficit to increase exponentially and he wants to half it; one cannot exponentially increase government spending exponentially and half the deficit at the same time. It would be like running up a huge credit card debt and while vowing to half that debt without cutting the amount of debt one is accumulating. This is simple commonsense. Basically, Obama's policies are founded upon a contradiction; "We are going to double the deficit and half it."

Psalms 119: An Introduction

Psalms 119 is the longest chapter in the Bible and is found in the largest book of the Bible, Psalms. The book of Psalms is a collection of ancient prayers and hymns written by various individuals throughout Israel’s ancient past. One of the most notable psalm writers, called Psalmists, was King David, ancient Israel’s second King, and many of the psalms in this book are accredited to him.

Unfortunately we do not know who wrote Psalms 119 for the author never identifies them self. Nevertheless, 119 is special in that it has a single unifying theme, the importance of God’s Word. Within the context of 119, whenever the Psalmist discusses the Word of God or God’s Word, they are most naturally referring to the written law given to ancient Israel which is given to us in Biblical books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. However, we should not restrict God’s Word solely to what has been written down by Biblical authors, but we must also take into account God’s spoken Word which is given to us either by the Holy Spirit or by other individuals such as Pastors, teachers, discipleship mentors, etc. God is still speaking to His people every day and if the written Word of God is to be highly regarded, obeyed, and esteemed, how much more should we regard, obey, and esteem the spoken Word of God.

Now there may be a bit of confusion here whenever the Psalmist is talking about God’s law. While he is referring to the Law of ancient Israel, we as Christians no longer practice many of the actions prescribed by the Law (whenever you see the “Law” in the Bible, particularly in the New Testament, that refers to the Law in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy). So, whenever we are to consider God’s Law within the context of Christianity, I believe we must look to what Jesus said to the Pharisees and Teachers of Law during His day whenever they asked Him what the greatest commandment was found in the Law.

Jesus said in Matthew 22:34-40:

³⁴Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. ³⁵One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with his question: ³⁶“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment?”

³⁷Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ ³⁸This is the first and greatest commandment. ³⁹And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ⁴⁰All of the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

This commandment was not foreign to those who were listening to Jesus that day for God had made this declaration back whenever the Law was given for Deuteronomy 6:4-6 states: “⁴Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. ⁵Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. ⁶These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts.”

If we consider the Ten Commandments, which was given to Moses before the rest of the Law, the Ten Commandments form part of the foundation of ancient Israel’s Law, but the Ten Commandments are themselves built upon the two greatest commandments: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ ³⁸This is the first and greatest commandment. ³⁹And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ⁴⁰All of the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” That is why Jesus says in verse 40 that, “⁴⁰All of the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” This statement is universally quantified which means that for every Law given in the Old Testament can be reduced to the two greatest commandments. If we take the Ten Commandments found in Deuteronomy 5:1-21, we can see how this reduction to the two greatest commandments espoused by Jesus works. Because we love God with all of our heart we will love our neighbors as ourselves. God loved us first. Jesus says in John 13:34-35: “³⁴A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. ³⁵By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

1^st John 4:8-12 states:

⁸Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. ⁹This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. ¹⁰This is love: not that we loved God, but that he love us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. ¹¹Dear friends, since God loved us, we also ought to love one another. ¹²No one has ever seen God; but if we love another, God lives in us and his live is made complete in us.

If we love God then we will love each other. This is absolutely essential to Christianity. What is love? In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote 1^st Corinthians 13 which is his treatise on love. Here I will quote 1^st Corinthians 13 in entirety:

¹If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging symbol. ²If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. ³If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

⁴Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. ⁵It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no records of wrongs. ⁶Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ⁷It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

⁸Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. ⁹For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfect comes, the imperfect disappears. ¹¹When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. ¹²Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

¹³And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.

So, returning to Psalms 119, if we think about the two greatest commandments, I believe that those are the hardest to follow and whenever the Psalmist says that they long to obey God’s Word and law, we can think of obeying the two greatest commandments.

One thing that God requires in addition to love is obedience. We can say that we love God, etc., but if we do not obey His Word then our words are without validity. We cannot claim to love God if we do not obey what He commands us to do. Jesus said in Luke 6:46, “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord’, and do not do what I say?” This is extremely important because we cannot claim God or Jesus as our Lord and Savior if we do not obey His Word. Now we come full circle back to the importance of God’s Word as espoused in Psalm 119.

How can we obey God’s Word if we do not know what it says? We cannot; if we do not highly regard God’s Word then we will not obey it. Therefore, Psalms 119 is a treatise on the importance of God’s Word, why we should highly regard it, and how we should apply it.

Recent Developments on Health Care

With all of the outrage over ObamaCare, Democrats and the White House have now backed off the idea of having a "public option" in their nationalized health care plan. However, here's the interesting thing; if there's no public option then what is the point of having the health care legislation whenever the public option was the whole point of the legislation in the first place? Removing the public option from the health care essentially make the legislation "worthless" since the creation of a public option was the whole thesis of it.

So, with ObamaCare on the ropes, the Democrats are now considering just voting on the issue and passing it without Republican support. The Democrats have the 51 votes necessary to pass ObamaCare without the Republicans but I find this interesting because whenever the debate began the Democrats were saying they needed to Republicans. Now, however, the attitude has changed, but why? Some Democrats are thinking about just passing ObamaCare despite the political consequences. While I salute their resolve, I think that this move, while valiant, is not the move they should make. Essentially they know that voting for ObamaCare is political suicide but I do not understand how any politician can vote for ObamaCare. While I have no problem with Democrats (or idiot Republicans) committing political suicide, but ObamaCare is just terrible legislation. It is one thing to go down fighting over good legislation, but another to go down over bad legislation.
However, the Democrats have had the votes to pass ObamaCare all along. They have majorities in both the House and Senate; so why did the Democrats insist on having Republican support? Simple; they do not want to take sole responsibility for ObamaCare. Basically, they want joint responsibility for ObamaCare so if the American people get angry over ObamaCare passing the Democrats can say, "Republicans voted for it too!" That is one of the reasons why they wanted (and still want) Republican support. Spokesman for the Republican National Committee Ken Spain said:

"Apparently having a filibuster-proof majority, a 40-seat advantage in the House, and a president who was once really popular isn’t enough. [...] Maybe if people actually liked the bill, Democrats’ wouldn’t have such a tough time whipping up bipartisan votes, much less vulnerable Democrats within their own party."

Here is another reason why they want Republican support. Whenever Obama was campaigning the Democrats and media were touting Obama as the individual that was going to end partisanship; Obama was the great unifier, etc. But, the exact opposite is true. Obama is not a unifier has people touted him to be because in many cases, Obama/Democrat legislation has passed but without a single Republican vote. Why is this? Simple; the Republicans do not like Obama/Democrat policies.

Excerpt from "Why Christianity": Christianity vs. Other Religions

There have been hundreds, maybe even thousands of religions throughout the history of humanity and many have long since been forgotten and are no longer practiced. I doubt that there are individuals still worshipping the Egyptian sun god Ra, or Zeus, or Poseidon. However, there is something interesting about Western civilization, many religions of the past, such as those practiced by the Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Celts, and Romans are no longer practiced; instead throughout Western history we have seen various types of supplanting another until finally Christianity came out on top driving all other Western religions into the past. In contrast, if we examine the religions of the Far East such as Hinduism and even Buddhism, these religions have been practiced for thousands of years, tracing their origin long before the advent of Christianity. In the grand scheme of human history, Christianity is fairly young religion, only really coming onto the world stage in the first century AD and yet here I am arguing that Christianity, one of the youngest religions in the world, is the correct religion. Prima facie this seems like an utterly foolish to argue; it also like arguing that a certain generation has the right fashion style of clothing, until the next generation comes along and invents their own fashion style and supplants the previous generation’s style. In such a case, insofar as fashions styles are concerned, there is no absolute right or wrong answer to which style is the correct one, and most of the time each generation thinks that their style of the correct one. Perhaps a better analogy would be music; every generation has its own style of music and majority of the time the next generation’s music rebels against the previous generation’s style thus inventing its own. Which generation has the correct style of music; in fact, neither, for music is a matter of personal and societal preference. Is that the way religion works, a given religion is ‘fashionable’ for a time until another more ‘fashionable’ religion comes along and supplants it? If this is the case then no religion in the world can really make the claim that they are the correct religion because, like a generation’s taste in fashion or music, no one is really correct, but it is just a matter of personal and societal preference. Are religions throughout history subjectively on a par with music and fashion or is there something more to them?

Or, are religions more on a par with the sciences? Arguably religions last longer than fashions or music styles; despite the many changes within a given society, a society’s religion can remain unchanged. In the same way, a society’s scientific theories and hypotheses can remain unchanged throughout societal shifts unless a new scientific theory or hypothesis comes along to supplant them. In the case of the sciences, the new scientific theory supplants the older theory because it explains phenomena more precisely than the older theory did; for example, when Aristotelian theories of the universe were supplanted by Copernicus and then Copernicus was replaced by Galileo. Each specific theory was based upon the evidence that each scientific figure had at the time and they based their theories off of that but when more evidence was gathered and new explanations were given, the older scientific theories were disregarded for newer and more accurate theories. Despite this constant shift in scientific theories, hypotheses, and the explanations, science still holds claim that it is truly the only objective enterprise in the course of human history. Only science is truly objective; everything else is subjective. However, if religions are subjective because religions come and go, are accepted at one point in time and then rejected in another future time, why does science claim that it is purely objective given that science has a very similar track record as the history of religions?

A scientist could reply to my question by saying, “The evolution of science is due to the progress of science itself; the reason why certain scientific theories have been discarded was due to their inability to accurately explain natural phenomena. Science is always working towards understanding what is true. Religions, on the other hand, do not work towards what is true; religion is humanity’s attempt to explain and understand various types of natural phenomena outside the purview of science.”

However, I believe we should accept such a response because it assumes that only science, despite its evolution, is correct. Such a response involves in a paradox that while science can evolve over time and still be objective, religions cannot evolve and be considered objective. This response is correct in its claim that religions provide explains for various types of phenomena outside the purview of science, but that by no means entails that religions are subjective. So, again, science cannot lay claim to be objective despite its evolutionary history and yet deny religions the same courtesy.

Furthermore, which brings me to Christianity, a scientific theory’s age really places no role in its objectivity. There are many scientific theories within the world that are young in comparison to the various types of theories that scientists have held in the past. If we consider String Theory and while I do not pretend to know anything about it insofar as how String Theory actually works, compared to the theories of quantum mechanics, relativity, etc., String Theory is a young theory and yet many scientists hold String Theory to be the theory that will one day unite quantum mechanics and theories of relativity. However, we do not fault scientists for holding String Theory solely on the basis that it is a young theory; we say that it is the latest scientist theory which will someday lead us to form new explanations, theories, etc. So, if the age of theory does not affect its validity, why should we discredit Christianity on the basis that it is a young religion?

Equilibriums and the Market

I'm not sure about many people but whenever the mainstream gets all excited about how lay-offs in the US are slowing, I get leery. The reason why I am leery is that even though lay-offs are decreasing in number does not entail that the economy is rebounding. The important statistics that we need to pay attention to is not the slowing lay-off numbers but the numbers of created jobs. Whenever lay-offs slow down what that entails (at least in my little understanding of economics) that companies are finding their operating cost equilibrium within the economy, i.e., companies are no longer laying off employees because they have found the number of employees they need in their workforce in order to "turn a profit". Whenever lay-off slow, companies are finding their profitable equilibrium within the contracting economy. However, if lay-offs slow but a majority of those laid-off employees are not being hired, then relying upon the statistics of slowing lay-offs as a sign of economic expansion is not a reliable indicator.
Consider the following example:

Conglomo has 10,000 employees and Conglomo makes red tape. In a shrinking economy Conglomo's profits begin to drop and so in order to remain in business Conglomo lays-off 2,000 employees in the month of January and another 1,000 in February, thus bring their employee workforce to 7,000 and afterwards starts a hiring freeze (i.e., they will not being hiring new employees for a time). Of those 3,000 laid-off employees, let us say that 500 of them find new jobs; therefore, there remains 2,500 ex-employees who are out of work and are not able (or are too lazy) to find a new job. So, between the months of January and February, Conglomo's lay-offs has slowed by 1,000 but does that entail that the overall economic system that Conglomo is a part of is on the "rebound"? No, it does not, because despite the slowing of lay-offs, in the end we are still looking at a net loss of 2,500 jobs in the economy (this is derived by substracting 500 from 3,000, i.e., (3,000 - 500 = 2,500)). If 2,500 new jobs are not created in order to employ those remaining 2,500 laid-off employees, then there will no economic "rebound". The overall economy will continue to contract until new jobs are created.

If we consider this thought-experiment and then consider the US economy, the application (at least I think) is clear. Even though US companies are slowing (i.e., decreasing) the number of employees that they are laying off, if those laid-off employees cannot find jobs somewhere else, then the economy will not "rebound" but will continue to contract. Essentially the US economy is still trying to its equilibrium; what slowing lay-off numbers indicated that the job market is reaching its sustainable equilibrium, which unfortunately appears to further down, which entails more lay-offs in the future.
Now for some numbers in order to substantiate my argument. According to the CBO, tax revenues in the last quarter have fallen dramatically. From the CBO July Monthly Budget Review (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10454/08-2009-MBR.pdf):
"According to CBO’s estimates, receipts were about $8 billion (or 5 percent) lower in July 2009 than they were in July 2008, marking the 15th consecutive month in which receipts were lower than those in the same month of the previous year. Withholding for income and payroll taxes was about $11 billion (or 8 percent) less than that in July 2008, CBO estimates; about half of that decline resulted from provisions in ARRA, primarily the Making Work Pay tax credit. [...] Receipts from corporate income taxes have declined sharply, falling by $141 billion (or 57 percent). Continued weakness in corporate profits, recently enacted legislation (most notably provisions allowing more-rapid depreciation), and the ability of firms to use current-year losses to reduce tax liabilities from previous years all contributed to lower corporate receipts. Other tax receipts declined by about $15 billion (or 10 percent); almost half of that drop is attributable to lower receipts from the Federal Reserve, which primarily resulted from lower interest rates and losses on some assets acquired from Bear Stearns and American International Group (AIG)" (1, 2).

With tax revenues shrinking that entails that economy is not rebounding but is continuing to contract. Therefore, using slowing lay-off numbers as a way to entail economy expansion is a false negative.

Introduction: Proximal and Distal Stimuli

The central premise of empiricism is knowledge is obtained through our senses but the debate concerning the evidence and what type of sensory stimuli is necessary for our empirical knowledge still rages on . In order for one to be justified in what they believe or claim to know then they must have some type of evidence for their justification to have any sort of validity; therefore, in the case of empirical knowledge the evidence must be sensory evidence of some sort but exactly what type of sensory evidence provides justification for our beliefs and knowledge has puzzled epistemologists down through the ages. Within the analytic tradition, for a considerable amount of their philosophical careers W.V. Quine and Donald Davidson debated back and forth about what kind of sensory stimuli was evidence for human empirical knowledge. For W.V. Quine empirical knowledge was gained via sensory stimulation such as our retinas being irradiated by various wavelengths of visible light whenever a rabbit runs by and this type of proximal stimulation which is stimulation which occurs at the point at which the stimuli comes in contact with human sensory receptors and it was this type of stimulation that counts as evidence. Donald Davidson, on the other hand, argued that evidential stimuli should not be located proximally but with objects out in the external world which cause our experiences and this he called distal stimulation. The reason behind Davidson’s theory of distal stimuli was that he believed Quine’s proximal account led to skepticism because even though our sensory organs are being stimulated, if our evidentiary stimulus is purely proximal then we will encounter the ‘brain-in-a-vat’ problem. While I agree with Davidson that our evidentiary stimuli must be distal, proximal stimulation can be easily dismissed because, as I will argue, without proximal stimulation objective empirical knowledge would be impossible. It is my thesis, therefore, to provide an account which can account for both types of stimulation which in the end can (if not avoid skepticism) at least provide a plausible answer to possible skeptical worries about the evidential bases for empiricism knowledge.

The Community vs. the Community Organizer

Watching the recent events surrounding Obama-Care, particularly the Town Hall Meetings that are being held throughout the country while the Congress on their August recess. Individuals are outraged over the Obama-Care and they are letting Congress and those in the Obama Administration know their discontent and anger over what the Administration wants to do. The interesting thing, however, is that now the Administration is attacking American citizens for coming to these Town Hall Meetings and airing their discontent. These individuals are utilizing their First Amendment rights to assemble and free speech.

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

However, there is an interesting contradiction that exists within America, and this contradiction exists within the Democrat Party and goes as high as the President. Whenever the American people protested the Iraq War and other policies during the Bush Administration, the Democrats and the media praised the American people for exercising their Constitutional rights to assemble. But, whenever the American people stand up against Democrat policies and a Democrat President, the American people are mobs, ignorant, manufactured, paid for by insurance groups (at within the context of the Obama-Care debate). The media is saying that the people expressing discontent with Obama-Care are 'too well dressed'. So, are we to conclude that in order to be a 'legitimate' individual voicing decent against a policy one must be poorly dressed? Since when does clothing disqualify someone from voicing legitimate decent? This is an absolutely terrible argument; it is an attempt to disenfranchise the American public. The Democrat Party and Obama are holding the American people in contempt on the basis that the American people are against them.
I remember whenever President Bush was advocating immigration reform and the American people outright rejected his plan. Whenever the plan failed to pass, Bush did not blame the American people, he did not blast those who voiced decent; instead, though disheartened, praised the America saying that people voicing decent and Congress hearing that decent is how America was designed to function. Bush praised the American people and the Republican system of government (not talking about the political party but the very structure of our government).
But now if one watches the current Congress and Administration, anyone who voices decent against Obama-Care are ignorant and ridiculed. The American 'community' is organizing against Obama-Care and yet Obama and the Democrats are not praising the 'community', they are defaming it. Interesting because Obama was a community organizer and now he blasts the community for organizing. The key element, however, is that the community is not organizing under his flag, they are organizing against him, and instead of seeing this as a good thing, he views it as a threat and must be quelled. So, the community can organize so long as it is not against what Obama wants to do. This should give us considerable pause. Obama ran on the platform that he was going to unify America, and that the days of division were past us, but he is attacking the American people.

So, again, we see a blatant contradiction within the Democrat Party and the Obama Administration. The community can organize but they cannot organize against Obama, the Community Organizer.

Deficits, Health Care, and Taxes: Part I

Some in the Federal government are saying that taxes needs to be raised. Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner answered affirmatively to the question that taxes well have to raised in order to counteract the raising deficits that will be created by Obama Care. From FoxNews.com:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/02/obama-officials-end-recession-near/

President Obama may have to raise taxes to pay for public health care and the growing deficit, an eventuality that administration officials touched lightly on Sunday as they promoted an economy emerging from recession. [...] "We will not get this economy back on track, recovery will be not strong and sustained, unless we ... can convince the American people that we're going to have the will to bring these deficits down once recovery is firmly established," Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said on ABC's "This Week." Asked point blank whether it was right to suggest it is a matter of when, not if, taxes will be raised, Geithner responded, "It is absolutely right."

This is extremely interesting to me. In one of my previous posts I discussed how Obama and some in the Administration that if we pass Obama-Care the government will produce a profit. However, this should give us pause because if Obama-Care will create a profit, then why are some of the individuals in the Obama Administration talking about raising taxes due to rising deficits? According to the CBO, the health care spending that Obama is proposing to absolutely sustainable due to the raising cost of health care. From the Heritage Foundation:

The CBO says the current House plan would increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years. And that number will likely continue to rise over the long term. Similar entitlement bills in the past, including Medicare, have scored much lower than their actual eventual cost.

Therefore, in order to pay for health care (also from FoxNews.com):

As Democratic lawmakers evaluate options to provide government-run health insurance, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said tax cuts will only hit the wealthiest business owners. "Under our statistics, 96 percent of small businesses would not be hurt by this tax. It's less than 1 percent of the wealthiest people in the United States that would be taxed, and that's at a 1 percent tax," he said.

Interesting. I thought that Obama-Care was going to produce a profit. In my previous "Government Health Care and Profits" I said:

If the government was actually going to create a profit via health care then why is the government going to raise taxes? If the government was going to create a profit via health care then the government would not need to raise taxes at all because profits would entail money being earned on behalf of the government. If the government was going to make a profit then raising taxes would not be even considered because it would be absolutely unnecessary to do so. Government profits would totally negate the need for raising taxes, but again, as I have been arguing, the government cannot create a profit by design.

Therefore, in order to pay for Obama-Care, the government by necessity will have to raise taxes. This consequence is absolutely unavoidable if Obama-Care is passed into law, and the statements made by Geithner and Rangel only prove this point. So this much is true:

1. Government will not produce a profit via Obama-Care.

2. Obama-Care will cause the Federal government to raise taxes.

3. Obama-Care will increase the Federal Deficit.