Rick Perry’s Idiocy Strikes Again as he calls the Implementation of “Obamacare” a Criminal Act

rickperry5There’s no polite way to put it—Rick Perry is an idiot.  In fact, he’s so totally clueless that he actually believes he has a real chance at becoming president in 2016.  Outside of a handful of his supporters, and probably his family, no one in their right mind believes he has any legitimate shot at even winning the GOP nomination, let alone the presidency.

The key part of that last sentence is “in their right mind”—which Perry clearly is not.

A perfect example of this can be seen in his comments about the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”), where he said that to implement the law would be a “criminal act” to our future generations.

His exact words were:

“If this health care law is forced upon this country, the young men and women in this audience are the ones who are really going to pay the price.  And that, I will suggest to you, reaches to the point of being a felony toward them and their future. That is a criminal act, from my perspective, to put that type of burden on them, to mortgage their future like that. America cannot stand that. America cannot accept that.”

First, the law isn’t being “forced” upon them.  I love how Republicans feel that elections apparently don’t matter.  Last November, the American people had their chance to “reject Obamacare.”  But what did they do?  They overwhelmingly re-elected the president who signed the bill into law and gave back more seats to Democrats (the party that supports the law) in both the House and Senate.

If the “American people” were rejecting the law, Mitt Romney would be president right now and Republicans would have full control of Congress.  And even at the very least, it would be one or the other.

But guess what?  Republicans didn’t gain more power in Congress and Romney not only lost—he was crushed.

Besides, what the hell does Rick Perry know about health care to begin with?  Texas has the most citizens without health insurance of any state in the country.  The last governor I’d turn to when it comes to thoughts on fixing our health care system is Rick “Texas has more uninsured citizens than any other state in the country” Perry.

But let’s not forget that Rick Perry is a giant hypocrite.  Recently, he was caught seeking $100 million from “Obamacare” to expand Medicaid for the elderly and disabled in Texas.  You can tie in that hypocrisy with his opposition to the 2009 stimulus, where he aggressively opposed it—while using funds (the second most of any state in the country) from it to balance his budgets.

Balanced budgets which he used as a catalyst for his 2010 re-election.

It seems every time Rick Perry opens his mouth, he proves how utterly clueless he is about everything.  He’s an absolute hypocrite and a pathetic excuse for a “public servant.”

Maybe before he worries about the implementation of “Obamacare,” Rick Perry might want to solve his own state’s health care problems.

Because if anyone has proven to be an absolute failure on anything to do with health care—it’s him.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Matthew Reece

    “Laws” in a democracy are forced upon everyone. That is the nature of democracy; three rapists and their victim voting on whether to gangbang.

    • Richard Phillips

      so, if you don’t like democracy, what kind of process of decision making would you prefer? …a monarchy, so long as you agree with the royal family?, dictator, so long as you agree with the dictator? Communist, so long as you’re in charge? or no government at all….no police, no firefighters, no roads, no schools……?

      • spookiewon

        Well, we’re not actually a democracy, we’re a constitutional republic. The purpose of our constitution is exactly to protect the minority from the “tyranny” of the majority. Laws are passed and “forced” on the people. The courts are tasked with deciding whether or not the laws are “constitutional;” to protect the minority interest. And they have–the judicial branch found the ACA constitutional. Had they not found this, the law would not be enforced. But it has been, and Perry is wrong; It is NOT a “felony” for a law passed, challenged, and found constitutionally sound to be implemented–even if he doesn’t like it.

      • Matthew Reece

        I am a free market anarchist, so I want no government at all. You are making the positive claim that the state is the only way to provide certain necessary services, and positive claims carry a burden of proof. So, prove the case.

      • Justin Bowerman

        So then the way the cartels run mexico, an absolute free market without any government intervention to speak of. that is your idea of a well run free society?

      • Matthew Reece

        Mexico still has a government which intervenes in the market, and the drug cartels violate the non-aggression principle, so that is not a free society.

      • Kenneth C. Fingeret

        Hello Matthew Reece,

        In that case prove it by leaving on the next whatever your choice of transportation you want. You can’t live here due to the fact we have no free market! If you want to be an anarchist join the TeePee Party! If they are not anarchist enough for you I recommend “Sunny Somalia”! It is most like what you want and desire!

      • Matthew Reece

        Somalia is not an example of free market anarchism. They have many warlords violating the non-aggression principle and trying to become a government.

        The Tea Partiers are not anarchists. They want a government that does at least as much as what the Constitution authorizes.

        As for your “love it or leave it” argument, let us apply that logic to a different situation. Consider a woman in an abusive relationship. Her husband steals half her income, tells her what she can and can’t do, and beats and cages her if she disobeys him. If she tries to defend herself, she gets it even worse. By your logic, she should not be able to divorce him and be single; she should be forced to either immediately enter a marriage with another abusive man, or be unable to leave the house where her current abusive husband lives.

      • Jillian Christine

        ***The Tea Partiers are not anarchists. They want a government that does at least as much as what the Constitution authorizes.****

        Yet, the Tea Party continues to try to use government restrictions on women and their bodies. They continue to try to pass laws to force women to lose control of their bodies and turn women into brood mares. They attempt to de-fund inner city programs that help women with health issues and repeatedly makes claims of Christianity, their God and their religion in their decisions.

        Their actions and words in relation to women are the polar opposite of the claim that they want less government involved in the lives of the people.. They only want less government control on liberties when it suits their purpose to impose a religious theocracy on the American people, most of their ire seems to be aimed at women and their words about women are atrocious at best.

        Most Tea Partiers have a very poor view of American history that seems to come directly from a mixture of debunked author David Barton and the Bible.

      • Matthew Reece

        You have provided a good summary of why a free market anarchist should be against the Tea Party movement. The only point of agreement I have with a Tea Partier in the above is the de-funding of inner city programs, which should be replaced by private sector efforts.

      • Kevin Koehler

        Whether you want any government or not, you will are involved in the United States form of government which is a plutocracy. We have lost democracy with Citizens United, and a few other bad decisions. You voted for this plutocracy by buying from the top 1%, which gave them the power. To change this, is to not only vote against bad politicians, but to boycott those that are pumping money into the government to win favor.

      • Matthew Reece

        I didn’t vote for this plutocracy. I have only ever supported third party candidates, and I don’t vote anymore because I realized that the real purpose of voting is to give the illusion of a choice while manufacturing the illusion of consent of the governed. I also don’t buy from people who do things that I know about which are morally reprehensible.

      • Janice Pushinsky

        Why not just move to an island? Why are you here enjoying the benefits that is brought to you by the government we live under? The reason for government is to make it’s citizen’s lives better and safer.

      • Matthew Reece

        Why shouldn’t a woman in an abusive marriage be forced to marry another abusive man to divorce her current husband, or be kept inside the house?

        There is nothing wrong with depriving statists of their ill-gotten gains. Such an action is a re-homesteading of stolen property that cannot be returned to its proper owners.

      • Janice Pushinsky

        Because a woman is not property she has her own mind and body and her own rights.

      • Matthew Reece

        Good, you understand. Now apply that logic to a person in an abusive relationship with a government.

      • Janice Pushinsky

        The government is not abusing you, you cannot expect to live in a free country and not pay anything in return. And except for the 1% that get a free pass we are all paying our part.

      • Matthew Reece

        The government abused me for 13 years, 180 days a year, 7 hours a day. Some people call this “public school;” I call things what they are. Today, the government is violating my privacy through the NSA, murdering children with drones in my name, stealing the value of my money through debasement to give favors to criminal bankers, the list goes on. This is absolutely an abusive relationship.

        There is no such thing as a free country. A country is a concept, not an entity that exists in reality. Only an individual person can be free.

      • Janice Pushinsky

        All I can say is just go find yourself an island.

      • Matthew Reece

        Which means I win the argument, because you are engaging in argumentum ad nauseum.

      • Janice Pushinsky

        I had no idea we were in a pissing contest.

      • Like many ppl, I believe if you didnt vote, you dont have a voice. Shut the hell up! No vote, no right to complain.

      • Matthew Reece

        “That a man is free to abandon the benefits and throw off the burdens of citizenship, may indeed be inferred from the admissions of existing authorities and of current opinion.

        Unprepared as they probably are for so extreme a doctrine as the one here maintained, the radicals of our day yet unwittingly profess their belief in a maxim which obviously embodies this doctrine.

        Do we not continually hear them quote Blackstone’s assertion that “no subject of England can be constrained to pay any aids or taxes even for the defence of the realm or the support of government, but such as are imposed by his own consent, or that of his representative in parliament?”

        And what does this mean?

        It means, say they, that every man should have a vote.

        True: but it means much more.

        If there is any sense in words it is a distinct enunciation of the very right now contended for.

        In affirming that a man may not be taxed unless he has directly or indirectly given his consent, it affirms that he may refuse to be so taxed; and to refuse to be taxed, is to cut all connection with the state.

        Perhaps it will be said that this consent is not a specific, but a general one, and that the citizen is understood to have assented to everything his representative may do, when he voted for him.

        But suppose he did not vote for him; and on the contrary did all in his power to get elected some one holding opposite views – what then?

        The reply will probably be that, by taking part in such an election, he tacitly agreed to abide by the decision of the majority.

        And how if he did not vote at all?

        Why then he cannot justly complain of any tax, seeing that he made no protest against its imposition.

        So, curiously enough, it seems that he gave his consent in whatever way he acted – whether he said yes, whether he said no, or whether he
        remained neuter!

        A rather awkward doctrine this.

        Here stands an unfortunate citizen who is asked if he will pay money fora certain proffered advantage; and whether he employs the only means of expressing his refusal or does not employ it, we are told that he practically agrees; if only the number of others who agree is greater than the number of those who dissent.

        And thus we are introduced to the novel principle that A’s consent to a thing is not determined by what A says, but by what B may happen to say!

        It is for those who quote Blackstone to choose between this absurdity and the doctrine above set forth.

        Either his maxim implies the right to ignore the state, or it is sheer nonsense.”

        -Herbert Spencer, “The Right to Ignore the State”

      • Janice Pushinsky

        Matthew Reece, just make sure to put a sign on your house stating that the fire fighters and policemen should just keep going since you don’t need them reguardless that your house my be on fire while you are being held hostage in the house.

      • Matthew Reece

        Most firefighters are private (almost 80%), so your argument there is very weak. Private security could also be hired to replace government-run police forces. You cannot legitimately assume that if something were not done through the state, then it would not be done.

      • Janice Pushinsky

        State is still government,

      • Matthew Reece

        True, and a red herring to my point.

      • JS

        I don’t think he said he didn’t like democracy. He said there are laws. This idea of la la la I can be “free” to do whatever I want and nobody can stop me is not democracy. Your freedom ends when it messes with someone else’s freedoms. Laws.You have that same over-inflated view that you and your friends comprise some huge body that is the “rest of us.” It’s like all these people that voted for the president don’t even count for you.

    • disqus_6AeSbMRBY2

      Sorry you feel that way, but you’re free to leave if you don’t like it. No one is forcing you to stay in such an apparently distasteful situation. Go get gang raped somewhere else.

      • Matthew Reece

        Let us apply that logic to a different situation. Consider a woman in an
        abusive relationship. Her husband steals half her income, tells her
        what she can and can’t do, and beats and cages her if she disobeys him.
        If she tries to defend herself, she gets it even worse. By your logic,
        she should not be able to divorce him and be single; she should be
        forced to either immediately enter a marriage with another abusive man,
        or be unable to leave the house where her current abusive husband lives.

      • leeTuc

        Mathew – Your repeated analogy of a woman being beaten in an abusive marriage is simplistic and self-serving. Saying it over and over doesn’t establish credibility; it merely confirms your inability to think beyond the superficial surface of complex issues. Despite your insistence that this scenario is a logical extension of the very concept of government, it’s nothing more than an expression of your limited understanding of government in any form.

      • Matthew Reece

        I use it often because it is a correct rebuttal to “love it or leave it” arguments. Government steals about
        half of a person’s income, tells people what they can and can’t do, and beats and cages those who disobey. Those who defend themselves from the state’s thugs usually get murdered. You can renounce your citizenship, but if you don’t get citizenship somewhere else, you cannot legally go to another country.

      • disqus_6AeSbMRBY2

        Apples and oranges; just because the logic does not apply to an abused wife makes it no less valid. Our relationship to our government is in no way similar to an abusive marriage. I don’t understand why republicans insist on comparing domestic relationships with governmental ones; there is no comparison to be made.

      • Matthew Reece

        I am a free market anarchist, not a Republican. The comparison is actually quite strong because government steals about half of a person’s income, tells people what they can and can’t do, and beats and cages those who disobey. Those who defend themselves from the state’s thugs usually get murdered. You can renounce your citizenship, but if you don’t get citizenship somewhere else, you cannot legally go to another country.

  • Rob Bowman

    I disagree with the explanation of why the ACA wasn’t ‘forced’ on the American people. The American people did not solely reelect Obama in acceptance of this act. There were no viable alternatives to Obama, especially Romney, Perry, or Santorum. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary’s and Gary Johnson in the general election. You couldn’t have paid me to vote for Romney as an alternative to Obama, nor did I want to reelect a president who multiplied our national debt exponentially. Make your argument for Perry being an idiot, but don’t insult us by saying if we didn’t want ACA we would have voted for Romney.

    • Matthew Reece

      Exactly. Saying that Obama won and Romney lost because Americans like Obamacare is a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Romney was not even consistently against Obamacare, and even if he had been, there were many other factors which led to Romney’s defeat.

    • FormerTexan

      I agree that the people did not solely reelect Obama in acceptance of this act. He won because Romney chose Ryan as his running mate. People forget the power of the female voter.

    • ojp4president

      It seems you don’t know the meaning of the word exponentially… Unless you meant an exponent of 0.2.

    • Kenneth C. Fingeret

      Hello Rob Bowman,

      Do you know what exponentially means? I don’t think so!

    • disqus_6AeSbMRBY2

      Do you not read the news? The deficit is going down, and has been. And the repealing the ACA was a primary campaign cry of Romney’s, which was soundly rejected.

    • jonathan

      Sad thing that you saw the debt exponentially rose, which it didn’t, it went way up but in no way exponentially did anything under Obama. Let alone the amount of money (the deficit) that we put into the debt every year has been cut in half. Quite an amazing fucking feet when you’re spending 1.6 trillion more than you have to run your government.

    • Janice Pushinsky

      As you remember there were millions of people who were forced to stand in line hours and hours and even some people were given the wrong addresses on purpuse (another tactic by the teaparty faction) so they would give up and go home. But many stood there and waited to vote for Obama. I doubt anyone would stay in line 9 hours to vote for someone they didn’t want in office.

  • FormerTexan

    I grew up in Texas. Last weekend I went there for a wedding and spoke to some of the clueless residents. I informed them (as an outsider looking in) that they are being laughed at by other states and the world. Plus their governor is portrayed as a clown. Those people had no idea. It is like they live in some weird type of bubble in Texas. I used to miss it, but not so much anymore.