Thread: MORE HOT WATER FOR SEBELIUS AND THE OBAMACARE CREW

ObamaCare Requires Stealing to Operate

Posted on October 30, 2013 by Gary DeMar

Tax cheat[1] New York Democrat Charles Rangel claimed that no Republican voted for Social Security legislation when it came up for a vote in 1935:
“It should give you some small comfort to know that, historically, the Republican Party always fought vigorously against these types of programs,” Rangel said. “I don't think that one Republican voted for the Social Security Act.”

Rangel was trying to make the case that Republican opposition to ObamaCare is similar to opposition to Social Security when it was proposed.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) corrected the aging congressman. “In fact, the 1935 law establishing Social Security passed out of the House with the support of 81 Republicans. Just 15 opposed it. On the Senate side, 16 Republicans voted for it, and five voted against.”
When Social Security was first implemented, more than 30 people paid into the system for every person receiving a benefit. The ratio is now around 3 to 1. These types of wealth transfer programs cannot be sustained. Socialism works until you run out of other people's money.

There were good reasons to oppose Social Security. If the law had mandated that people should be forced to save a certain amount of their income for retirement, that would have been one thing. It would have been wrong, but it would be much different from the system we have today. Social Security was more than just a forced savings plan.


Not only was a certain percentage of money taken for Social Security payouts, but employers were forced to pay an equal amount. For example, if you make $50,000 a year, you are paying more than $3500 in Social Security payments each year. Your employer is also paying the same amount in your name. He has to do this for all his employees. He's forced to do it.

This means that the Social Security system is built on forced compliance and stolen money. Someone who’s self-employed (as I am) pays the full amount (more than 12%).

ObamaCare is being built the same way. Large groups of people are getting inexpensive insurance because of subsidies. USA Today reports that “[a]lmost half of young, single, uninsured adults in 34 states could pay $50 or less a month for insurance through the online exchanges after receiving subsidies, according to a study released by the Department of Health and Human Services on Monday.”

Congress also created a subsidy sweetheart deal for itself. Fortunately, the subsidy provision is being contested since it was never part of the original law.

Where is the subsidy money coming from? Other people! The money is being taken from some people and given to other people. In another world, such an action would be considered stealing. But when government goes it, it's called economic fairness.

In fact, it’s a giant vote-buying scheme. This is why Republicans can’t compete with Democrats. There are too many people who benefit from getting other people’s money.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/13079/obamacare-requires-stealing-operate/#4woJj7Bv0ZPDTLWO.99


This coming from Rangel one of most "honest" politicians!!!!

Social Security History


This is an archival or historical document and may not reflect current policies or procedures.
1935 Congressional Debates on Social Security


Proposal Introduced in Congress
Shortly after the 74th Congress convened in January 1935, President Roosevelt sent his "Economic Security Bill" to Capitol Hill. The Administration proposal was transmitted to the Congress on January 17, 1935 and it was introduced that same day in the Senate by Senator Robert Wagner (D-NY) and in the House by Congressman Robert Doughton (D-NC) and David Lewis (D-MD). The bill was referred to Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee.

Hearings
The House Ways & Means Committee held hearings on the bill from January 21, 1935 through February 12, 1935. The Senate Finance Committee held hearings from January 22, 1935 through February 20, 1935.

Renamed the "Social Security Act"
During a Ways & Means meeting on March 1, 1935 Congressman Frank Buck (D-CA) made a motion to change the name of the bill to the "Social Security Act of 1935." The motion was carried by a voice vote of the Committee.

Committee Reports & Initial Passage
The Ways & Means Committee Report on the Social Security Act was introduced in the House on April 4, 1935 and debate began on April 11th. After several days of debate, the bill was passed in the House on April 19, 1935 by a vote of 372 yeas, 33 nays, 2 present, and 25 not voting. (This vote took place immediately followed a vote to recommit the bill to the Committee, which failed on a vote of Yea: 149; Nay: 253; Present: 1; and Not Voting: 29.)

The bill was reported out by the Senate Finance Committee on May 13, 1935 and introduced in the Senate on June 12th. The debate lasted until June 19th, when the Social Security Act was passed by a vote of 77 yeas, 6 nays, and 12 not voting.

Conference Report & Final Passage
Due to differences between the House and Senate versions, the legislation then went to a Conference Committee which met throughout the month of July. Final Congressional action on the bill took place when the Conference Report was passed by voice vote on August 8, 1935 in the House and on August 9th in the Senate.

Signed Into Law
On August 14, 1935 President Roosevelt signed the bill into law at a ceremony in the White House Cabinet Room.

Congressional Vote Totals By Party
HOUSE (4/19/35)	Democrats	Republicans	Farm Labor	Progressive/Other
Yes	284	81	1	6
No	15	15	2	1
Not Voting	20	4	0	1
Present		2	0	0
SENATE (6/19/35)	Democrats	Republicans	Farm Labor	Progressive
Yes	60	16	1
No	1	5	0	0
Not Voting	8	4	0	0

Recorded Vote Tallies on House & Senate Passage

House Vote- April 19, 1935

Senate Vote- June 19, 1935

http://www.ssa.gov/history/tally.html

Liberal Robert Reich: Obamacare Was Republicans’ Idea

Posted By Philip Hodges on Oct 30, 2013

If the Obamacare rollout had been a success, the Dems would be gloating and saying, “See? I told ya so.” They’d be talking about how they had immense opposition from the racists in the tea party, but after a long fight, they were victorious. And now, thanks to their tenacity, everyone has access to free healthcare insurance, and everyone’s fitter, happier and more productive as a result.

That may have been their pipe dream, but that certainly didn’t come true. The rollout has been such a disaster, such a waste of money, that Congress is subpoenaing those who were involved with the administering of the rollout. We want to know what went wrong. Why was this rollout such a disaster? And what’s the deal with the website?

So now that it’s being acknowledged even by the Obama administration that this program has had sort of a rough intro (to put it mildly), it’s all of a sudden not the Democrats’ problem. They didn’t ask for this mess. This was after all the Republicans’ idea all along.

That’s what former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich espouses in a piece he entitled, “The Democrats’ Version of Health Insurance Would Have Been Cheaper, Simpler, and More Popular (So Why Did We Enact the Republican Version and Why are They So Upset?).” He wrote:

While Republicans plot new ways to sabotage the Affordable Care Act, it’s easy to forget that for years they’ve been arguing that any comprehensive health insurance system be designed exactly like the one that officially began October 1st, glitches and all.

For as many years Democrats tried to graft healthcare onto Social Security and Medicare, and pay for it through the payroll tax. But Republicans countered that any system must be based on private insurance and paid for with a combination of subsidies for low-income purchasers and a requirement that the younger and healthier sign up.

Not surprisingly, private health insurers cheered on the Republicans while doing whatever they could to block Democrats from creating a public insurance system…

When today’s Republicans rage against the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, it’s useful to recall this was their idea as well…

So why are today’s Republicans so upset with an Act they designed and their patrons adore? Because it’s the signature achievement of the Obama administration.

Doesn’t it kind of remind you of quarreling children saying to the parent, “He started it!”

Yes, we all know that what the Dems really want is a single-payer system. But you can’t put this disaster on the GOP. They didn’t even vote for it. And it’s got Obama’s name all over it. Literally.

It was so good that we had to pass it to find out exactly what was in it. Pelosi said it would be “a liberation, a freedom.” They’re the ones who wanted it. They voted for it, their leader signed it into law, and the Supreme Court gave it a pass as well. It’s the “law of the land,” they keep telling us.

Oh, but not anymore. Since it’s been such a failure, they’re going to have to blame it on the Republicans.

Read more at http://lastresistance.com/3513/liber...lAggYCrfCZz.99

Obama Says: “It’s Your Fault!”

Posted By Frank Camp on Oct 30, 2013

Senior Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett Tweeted: “FACT: nothing in #Obamacare forces people out of their health plans. No change is required unless insurance companies change existing plans.”

For years, ever since the idea of Obamacare was widely announced, Obama has said that “if you like your insurance, you can keep it.” That little statement was a staple of his propaganda program to put people at ease. Many fewer people would have supported Obamacare if they knew that they would be kicked off their own insurance plans, and be forced to pay drastically higher prices for new plans.

Obama needed something to placate the masses. Unfortunately, all it took was a simple verbal promise. Despite all of our knowledge that politicians—especially Democrats—lie, many Americans still bought into Obama’s solemn promise. I suppose it helped that the media drooled over Obama’s promise like he was God promising the Israelites the land of Milk and Honey. Oh, how compassionate and amazing he is. How intelligent and thoughtful.

Now that it has been revealed that Obama knew all along that between 40% and 67% of Americans would lose their insurance plans, the administration is spinning faster than a dradle on Hanukah. I’ve seen it all over the news cycle: Dem strategists blaming the insurance companies, Americans, and everyone else besides the man responsible. On the Kelly File, Democrat strategist Mark Hannah said it wasn’t Obama’s fault, but that of the insurance companies. He claimed that it has been well understood that Obama’s only promise was that Americans could keep their insurance so long as their insurance company never changed even a modicum of their policies. If, after 2010, insurance companies made even the slightest alteration to insurance plans, they would not be grandfathered in. I guess Obama’s promise came with an invisible caveat. Gosh, I wish I was smart enough to understand Obama’s complexities.

This is yet another example in a long list of Democrats lying. Unfortunately, semantics generally win the battle. So long as Democrats use the right words, the masses will bow down in awe of their verbal mastery. It’s just a con.

How many revelations will it take to make people realize that Obama is a fraud? Can Valerie Jarrett just say this and get away with it? I guess so. I suppose that it is just our fault that we didn’t read in between the lines, that we didn’t understand “if you like your plan, you can keep it” to mean “if you like your plan, and there has not been a single change to it—even down to the minutia of the policy—you can keep it…for now. That is until fully government-run healthcare becomes the new law of the land.”

It’s so simple, how could we not have seen it?

Read more at http://lastresistance.com/3515/obama...QGc7Mdqm4Uu.99

Pelosi: Universal Daycare Would be a Great Addition to Obamacare

Posted By Philip Hodges on Oct 30, 2013

If you think Obamcare’s been great so far, just think how much better it would be if only we had universal daycare attached to it. That’s exactly what Pelosi is pushing for. She wants to add universal childcare as a component to the oh-so-successful Obamacare program. Perhaps we could call it Pelosicare. The Hill reported:

Pelosi and other Democrats have emerged from the shutdown fight with new confidence, and she vowed her party would “of course” pick up seats next year. It is the first time Pelosi has guaranteed that Democrats will cut into the GOP’s majority.

Atop her priority list as Speaker, she said, would be “comprehensive affordable, quality childcare” for working mothers, which she sees as a natural extension of ObamaCare.

“That would have the biggest impact on women, families and … job creation,” Pelosi said. “That was on President Nixon’s desk … in the ’70s, and he vetoed it for cultural or whatever reasons. And now we have to do that again.”… Of a federal childcare law, she said: “This is the missing link in so many things that we’ve talked about. It is not exhaustive of all the things we want to do or have done with regard to women, but I do think it would unleash the power of women.”

“Unleash the power of women.” Sounds scary.

Just what we need. Another disaster on top of an already existing one. Is this “comprehensive, affordable quality childcare” component going to have its own website too? Maybe they can link to it on the healthcare.gov website.

She’s promising “affordable” and “quality” childcare. But didn’t Obama promise those things about healthcare? And what did we get? A bunch of exorbitant rate increases, less coverage, and millions of insured being dropped.

And how is she proposing we pay for this whole new “free” program? If it’s the same program that Obama was pushing a few months ago, it’ll be paid for by smokers through a hefty increase in the tobacco tax. If that’s all they’ve got, it’ll run itself out of money.

You’ve got to start the government education young. Remember, as Melissa Harris-Perry said, our kids don’t actually belong to us. They belong to the “community.” It takes a village to raise a child.

And since the economy’s so bad right now that often both parents have to have jobs, who is left to take care of the kids? The government helped create this economic mess, and now it offers its “solution,” which doesn’t involve in any way fixing the economy, but only involves a taxpayer-funded nanny to take care of the kids.

Read more at http://lastresistance.com/3511/pelos...PaPb2JSvW75.99

Control from the cradle to the grave of you and yours but not theirs!!!!!