Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their kinsmen were at their command — 1 Chronicles 12:32
The only thing that can possibly vie for Obama’s out of control spending tally is the sheer number of times conservatives are able to say “we told you so.”
Get ready, they’re coming. As the costs of health care soar even faster because of the corrupt boondoggle known as ObamaCare takes over a system that had already been rendered inefficient by excessive government interference, the costs will skyrocket. And it will become a rather painfully obvious fact that old people consume the vast majority of health care resources. And the next inevitable step is to say, “Time to die with dignity, Grandma.”
The ObamaCare snowball is going to very quickly become an avalanche. And the most demonic policy (abortion) in the history of the human race will spread like a plague – just as it did in Nazi Germany, and just as it is doing in China as we speak.
Here’s yet another one: do you remember that moment in history when Sarah Palin said she didn’t want ObamaCare to pass because she wouldn’t want her disabled son Trig to have to stand before a death panel?
Remember the rabid, frothing at the mouth, unhinged denials by the left???
A few years go by, and then one of the premier liberal journalists actually began to publicly call for the EXACT DAMN THING that Sarah Palin warned America about:
Nobel Prize winning “economist” Paul Krugman spoke at Sixth & I Historic Synagogue in Washington, D.C. last week. During the Q&A session following the lecture, an audience member asked him about the rising national debt.
Earlier in the evening, Krugman had already vocalized his satisfaction at President Obama’s apparent lack of concern over the exploding cumulative deficit. However, in a moment of brutal honesty, the esteemed Princeton professor revealed his long-term prognosis. According to the professor,
Eventually we do have a problem. That the population is getting older, health care costs are rising…there is this question of how we’re going to pay for the programs. The year 2025, the year 2030, something is going to have to give…. …. We’re going to need more revenue…Surely it will require some sort of middle class taxes as well.. We won’t be able to pay for the kind of government the society will want without some increase in taxes… on the middle class, maybe a value added tax…And we’re also going to have to make decisions about health care, doc pay for health care that has no demonstrated medical benefits . So the snarky version…which I shouldn’t even say because it will get me in trouble is death panels and sales taxes is how we do this.
Years of accumulating debt and expanding government programs only moves us down the “road to serfdom.” As Krugman surmised, the consequence is government confiscation of wealth and government control over health care. Rarely are Leftists so candid in articulating their hopes. “Death panels and sales taxes” is the mantra of those seizing power in the nation founded on the rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” What a difference two centuries makes.
Apparently, Barack Obama is not the only dangerous and lethal liberal fool who needs a teleprompter lest the truth blurt out of his lying lips.
The concept of the death panel is as old as liberalism and its identical twin socialism. Hitler had his, Stalin had his. And famous liberal progressive George Bernard Shaw once put it marvellously:
“You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world; who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there, and say, now sir or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence; if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat; if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then clearly we cannot use the big organisation of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us, and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.”
“I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”
He wrote:
“Other things being equal, a program that protects young people seems far better than one that protects old people, because it delivers greater benefits.”
That’s why liberal intellectual and Obama advisor Robert Reich had this to say:
“Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I’m so glad to see you and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that’s true and what I’m going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people but that means you, particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people…you’re going to have to pay more.
“Thank you. And by the way, we’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”
What was it that the Nazis called it? They had a term for this, you know.
That’s right: Lebensunwertes leben. Life unworthy of life. The Nazis literally had “mercy wagons” driving around picking up all the people that the government had decided were a burden to the system after they socialized their health care system just like Obama socialized ours.
We ALLdeserve to stand in front of one of Obama’s death panels and justify our existence – and be deemed unworthy of life. We are a wicked people and we deserve judgment. God is patient, but this is a nation that must either be brought down or God must declare Himself unjust. Thomas Jefferson famously wrote, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
I cower in fear for my country. And when I look around at this nation, the bull’s eye for judgment is all around me.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – that’s what the demonic Democrat Party called their socialist takeover that will crush millions of Americans in its gears of bureaucracy.
And yes, we now know that death panels were part of this demonic package of lies. The entire ObamaCare bureaucracy is one giant death panel:
160 bureaucracies equals one giant death panel for you to stand in and justify your right to live to a panel that will treat you just like the 55.7 million babies they’ve ruthlessly murdered.
You want a terrifying prediction? Old people are about to become the “rich people” that Democrats constantly demonically demagogue now.
More and more senior citizens – you know, the oldest and wisest – have turned Republican. And Democrats have responded by turning to morally stupid and intellectually ignorant young people. It is just a matter of a very short time before Democrats use the same avalanche of lies to demagogue the Social Security and Medicare systems that THEY created as they get the vote of young people by promising to turn on old people as the staggeringly insane bill for all the benefits they promised to that generation come due.
Admiral Yamamoto was said to have made a frightening prediction for Japan even as all of his fleet was celebrating their apparently wild success at Pearl Harbor:
“I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.”
Then there’s also this: ObamaCare just ignited the Romney base to white-hot anger and very terrible resolve:
Romney campaign donations hit $4.6 million following health care decision In a brief televised statement following the decision, Romney vowed that his first priority upon entering the White House would be repealing the so-called Obamacare law.
By Kristen A. Lee / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Friday, June 29, 2012, 1:17 PM
President Obama may have won the health care battle at the Supreme Court, but Mitt Romney is claiming a victory in the money wars.
Since the court released its stunning 5-4 decision upholding Obama’s health care law Thursday morning, the Romney campaign has taken in a flood of donations from Republican supporters angry about the ruling.
Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul tweeted Friday that the campaign received more than 47,000 online donations totaling $4.6 million in the 24 hours since the ruling.
The surge in small donations indicates that the decision may be an effective weapon for Republicans to mobilize conservatives for the general election.
The Obama campaign is asserting that they took in even more. The fact that they refused to produce any of their numbers to back those assertions up is evidence enough to refute their bogus claims.
[Consider] the sheer extent of the disaster Obama led the Democrat Party into: this wasn’t the worst election drubbing since 1994; it was the worst election drubbing since 1938 (and since 1928 in the state legislatures).
BARACK OBAMA: And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase – not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.
But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.
I will cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.
OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
STEPHANOPOULOS: “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?”
PRESIDENT OBAMA: “No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.
But Obama lied to you. It IS a tax increase. It is a supermassive tax increase, in fact. And now the middle class is burdened with the largest tax increase in American history and it won’t be single dimes, but lots and lots of dollars, that Americans will find themselves paying. Like everything this cynical, dishonest president does, it will be sneaky: it won’t be all that much in year one beginning AFTER the election in 2013, but it will be more in year two and quite a bit more in year three.
You just wait and see how much you are going to pay for this monstrosity as it increasingly starts to blow up as it gets implemented.
Obama fell in love with government health care; you’ll learn to hate it more than you’ve ever hated anything in your life:
Scandal of NHS ‘production line’ The number of NHS patients who have to undergo emergency readmission to hospital within a month of being discharged has increased by more than three quarters in the last decade, the Daily Telegraph can disclose.
By Robert Winnett, Political Editor
9:54PM GMT 29 Dec 2011
Hospitals have been accused by ministers of treating patients “like parts on a production line” after official figures suggested that hundreds of thousands of people every year are being sent home before they are well enough.
More than 660,000 people were brought back to hospital last year within 28 days of leaving, statistics show, sparking allegations that patients are being “hurried through the system” so the NHS can meet waiting-list targets.
The official figures show that some NHS trusts have seen their emergency readmission rate rise more than three-fold over the past decade – while some hospitals have seen only a modest increase.
Last night, Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, said that the “hugely distressing” trend must stop.
“Patients have a right to expect that when they go in for treatment that they are looked after properly and that the treatment they are given helps them to recover,” he said.
“Having to be readmitted and treated all over again is hugely distressing. These figures show how Labour’s obsession with waiting time targets meant that patients were treated like parts on a production line to be hurried through the system rather than like people who need to be properly cared for.”
The Department of Health has released detailed information on the number of emergency readmissions in every area across Britain.
The figures show that 620,054 patients had to be readmitted in 2009-10 – compared to just 348,996 a decade before, a 78 percent increase. Over the past five years, there has been a 31 percent rise and a five percent increase on the previous 12 months.
The data also highlights the widespread regional variations. The rate of readmission in the Kensington & Chelsea PCT area has risen by 287 percent over the past decade to 1,582 people.
However, North Lincolnshire PCT has only experienced a 3.37 percent rise over the same period.
Hospitals within the Hampshire PCT area readmitted 13,239 people last year. The nearby area covered by the Isle of Wight PCT only had to readmit 1,098 people.
The figures, do not include patients suffering from cancer or mental health problems or maternity patients.
Most of the areas with the highest increases in readmission numbers are in London and the south east, where pressure is greatest on the NHS. The Department of Health has analysed the social make-up of each area and concludes that the so-called “thriving London periphery” – the relatively wealthy commuter hinterland around the capital has suffered the biggest recent deterioration.
Some of the rise in readmissions may be due to the increase in population in these areas or changes in the way that the data is collected.
About 10 million people are admitted to hospital wards each year. Critics claim that government targets, such as the demand that patients be admitted to hospital for treatment within 18 weeks of seeing their GP, mean hospital managers are pressured into releasing patients early to make beds available.
Earlier this month, The Daily Telegraph disclosed that the Government is moving from a system of targets for hospitals based on waiting and treatment times – to a system of so-called “outcomes” which measures the success of treatment.
In a criticism of previous targets which he blames for the increase in emergency readmissions, Mr Lansley said: “Instead of focusing on the results which actually matter for patients, they focused on narrow processes to the detriment of patient care. That is why we have taken action to address these increases in emergency readmissions.
“One of the new goals we are setting the NHS is reducing emergency readmissions. In order to help achieve this we have created a re-ablement fund of £300 million and we have taken action to stop hospitals being paid when they readmit a patient after discharging them too early. These steps will turn Labour’s poor performance around.”
Under the Government scheme, hospitals will effectively be responsible for people’s care in the weeks after they return home and will be financially penalised for discharging patients too soon.
Ministers have also increased funding for so-called “tele-health” where people can “manage” their long-term conditions independently at home but are remotely monitored by doctors.
The official figures have been released as NHS managers claimed that one in four people being treated in hospital should be at home – which could lead to even more re-admissions if the programme is not properly monitored.
Mike Farrar, the head of the NHS Federation, said: “Hospitals play a vital role, but we do rely on them for some services that could be provided elsewhere. We should be concentrating on reducing hospital stays where this is right for patients, shifting resources into community services, raising standards of general practice, and promoting early intervention and self care.”
However, concerns are growing that GPs will be unable to cope with the demands of more people being treated at home. Earlier this week, it emerged that some GP practices now had up to 9,000 people registered.
Yesterday, Jacqui Davis, head of the NHS Consultants’ Association, said: “Why would you want to have people isolated in their homes? This is not going to save money and it is unfortunately the wrong message.
“GP’s are swamped, social services are having their budgets cut. While it may be more appropriate for more people to be treated within the community we simply can’t do it without making much better arrangements than we’ve got at the moment.”
Here’s another example of what will surely be “coming soon” unless ObamaCare gets repealed:
NHS delays operations ‘as it waits for patients to die or go private’ NHS managers are deliberately delaying operations as they wait for patients either to die or go private in order to save money, according to an official report.
By Martin Beckford, Health Correspondent
10:00PM BST 28 Jul 2011
Health service trusts are “imposing pain and inconvenience” by making patients wait longer than necessary, in some cases as long as four months, the study found.
Executives believe the delays mean some people will remove themselves from lists “either by dying or by paying for their own treatment” claims the report, by an independent watchdog that advises the NHS.
The Co-operation and Competition Panel says the tactic is one of a number used by managers that “excessively constrain” patients’ rights to choose where to be operated upon, and damage hospitals’ ability to compete for planned surgery.
It claims unfair practices are “endemic” in some areas of England and pose a “serious risk” to the Government’s drive to open up the health service to competition.
But managers, who are already rationing surgery for cataracts, hips, knees and tonsils, say they must restrict treatment as the NHS is under orders to make £20 billion of efficiency savings by 2015.
Lord Carter of Coles, chairman of the panel, said: “Commissioners have a difficult job in the current financial climate, but patients’ rights are often being restricted without a valid and visible reason.”
Katherine Murphy, chief executive of the Patients Association, said: “It is outrageous that some primary care trusts are imposing minimum waiting times. The suggestion that it could save money because patients will remove themselves from the list by going private or dying is a callous and cynical manipulation of people’s lives and should not be tolerated.”
Since 2006, NHS patients who need routine elective care have had the right to choose between at least four hospitals including privately-run units. But there have been claims that trusts, the local bodies that pay for treatment, restrict choice and favour some hospitals to balance their books. The panel investigated whether the allegations were true.
It found “many examples of PCTs excessively constraining patients’ ability to choose, and providers’ ability to offer routine elective care services”.
Managers restricted GPs’ ability to refer patients to some hospitals by imposing “caps” on the number a provider would be paid to treat and by imposing minimum waiting times, its report said.
Under government targets, patients should be treated within 18 weeks of referral by a GP. But even when surgeons could see them far sooner, the study found that some trusts made hospitals wait as long as 15 weeks before operating. The tactic forced private hospitals, which were more likely to be able to treat patients quickly, to operate as slowly as overcrowded NHS units in an “unfortunate levelling down”.
Some managers insisted that longer waiting times would lead to overall savings as “experience suggests that if patients wait longer then some will remove themselves from the list”. Interpreting this statement, the panel noted: “We understand that patients will ‘remove themselves from the waiting list’ either by dying or by paying for their own treatment at private sector providers.”
It said that minimum waiting times should only be used as a “last resort” and told trusts to publish their policies on the home page of their websites.
The panel also found that trusts tended to give elective business to their local NHS hospital, rather than allowing choice, in order to ensure its other services such as casualty departments remained financially viable.
The findings come as the NHS is under pressure from increasing demand and tighter budgets. Waiting times have lengthened since last year’s general election and more trusts are increasing the number of procedures of “low clinical value” they turn down or insisting that patients’ conditions worsen before they are seen.
Labour yesterday unearthed Treasury figures that show health spending totalled £101.985 billion in 2010-11, down from £102.751 billion in the last year of Labour, despite David Cameron’s pledge that “the money going into the NHS will actually increase in real terms”. The Tories pointed out that the fall represented the last part of the previous government’s five-year spending plan.
Ministers welcomed the competition panel’s study. Paul Burstow, the care services minister, said: “This report illustrates exactly why we need to modernise the NHS and increase choice for patients.
“Trusts will want to take a hard look at practices in light of this report and ensure they are always in the best interest of patients and the taxpayer.”
Under the Health and Social Care Bill, which has been watered down in the face of opposition from the medical profession and Liberal Democrats, power to buy treatment will be handed from trusts to new bodies led by GPs.
The new Clinical Commissioning Groups are intended to be more accountable to patients, while the number of sectors where choice and competition apply is being extended. David Stout, director of the NHS Confederation’s primary care trust network, said: “Today’s report rightly acknowledges that each situation will be different and the extent that any benefits outweigh the loss of choice should be considered on a case-by-case basis.”
He added: “Commissioners will still be left to decide the right course of action when faced with trade-offs between patient choice and value for money. The suggestion that many current trust decisions are not justifiable on these grounds is largely unsubstantiated by the detail in the report as the CCP has not investigated specific cases in detail.”
A wise woman once looked at what she saw coming under ObamaCare, looked at the hell that such socialized medicine was based on, and saw “death panels.”
There are actually about 160 death panels created by ObamaCare:
When you see NHS (or “National Health Service), just think “ObamaCare for England.” And then think about the hell that you voted for your parents to experience in voting for Obama.
The beast is coming – that is, if you’re still healthy enough after ObamaCare gets its fangs into you that you’re still alive to suffer under his tyranny.
Reports are emerging today that Chan Guangcheng, a prominent human rights activist who had led the fight against forced abortions under the one-child policy in China, may have been killed by Chinese officials.
Reggie Littlejohn, president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, informed LifeNews today that ominous reports regarding blind lawyer Chen Guangcheng have emerged this week and, according to Radio Free Asia, Chinese authorities detained a group of at least nine human rights activists trying to visit Chen.
On Wednesday, many members of the group were cut off from communication and, according to a report by Canyu, Shandong authorities shot at these activists. Voice of America reports that villagers told it “Chen is dead already,” but the media outlet is attempting to verify that claim.
“We are alarmed at the report that villagers are saying that Chen is already dead,” Littlejohn told LifeNews. “If Chen is dead, then the Chinese Communist Party is fully responsible for killing him through torture, denial of medical treatment and slow starvation. If Chen is alive, we urgently demand that he and his family be released immediately and unconditionally, for medical evaluation and treatment.”
Bob Fu, President of the China Aid Association, commented as well, and said, “We are concerned about the report that authorities have shot at the activists trying to visit Chen.”
“These netizens display the same brave spirit that Chen has, and they should continue in their courageous attempts to see him,” he added.
Fu said Gao Zhisheng, another human rights lawyer, has disappeared as well.
“Gao and Chen are shining lights for human rights in China. Their shocking torture and Gao’s disappearance demonstrate the CCP’s willingness to trample on the rule of law,” Fu continued.
Chen exposed the systematic use of forced abortion and involuntary sterilization in implementing China’s One Child Policy. Time Magazine named him in its list of “2006′s Top 100 People Who Shape Our World,” in the category of “Heroes and Pioneers.” He has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Earlier this year, the House of Representatives unanimously approvedan amendment to its appropriations bill that provides support for Chen Guangcheng, the blind attorney who has campaigned against forced abortions in China. Chen, as LifeNews.com has repeatedly profiled, was jailed for years after officials produced bogus charges. Since his release from prison, Chen and his family have been placed under house arrest and prevented from accessing the outside world and obtaining proper medical care. Human rights groups have been pressing Chen’s case with lawmakers in Congress and got help from pro-life Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey.
Smith proposed a successful amendment in support of Chen and his wife that lawmakers added to the State Department 2012 appropriation bill.
Chen exposed the fact that there were 130,000 forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations in Linyi County in 2005. The Chinese Communist Party imprisoned Chen for four years and three months and has kept him and his family under strict house arrest since September, 2010. His health has been declining because of malnutrition, intestinal illness, repeated torture and the denial of medical treatment.
We’re not that far away from similar policies and similar brutality.
Once you deny the essential value of an innocent human being – whether that human being is in the womb or anywhere else – it is a very fine line to cross to get to where China is today.
The Word of God can’t be any more clear:
“Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6)
What does it mean to be in “the image of God”? Does it mean to have a fully developed human body? Does God have a body?
Clearly it does not. God doesn’t have a body; God is too big to have a body. Rather, God is a soul. It was our souls that were created in God’s image. Our bodies that continue to form and develop are animal bodies that have nothing whatsoever to do with the imago Dei. And it is the imago Dei that makes murdering a human being a moral crime.
When exactly does the soul form in a human being? Christian philosophers who actually take the Word of God as being God’s Word are rather clear: the soul of a baby is present from the very moment of conception, when the seed of the man and the egg of the woman join and become one individual (or in the case of twins, etc., two or more individuals). It’s actually a fascinating discussion; DNA is akin to the words of a language, with the proteins serving as individual letters. A individual’s DNA is very much like an instruction manual that says how to put an organism together. But as any parent who has ever tried to assemble a children’s bike knows, the instructions can’t put anything together by themselves. You need something else to read the instructions and assemble the being. DNA needs a driver or it is useless.
Think of a marching band forming the letters of the university (e.g., “UCLA”). Does it simply happen by random chance? Obviously not. Somebody has to plan and coordinate and direct that process. And many philosophers such as J.P. Moreland, Scott Rae and others argue that this unfolding process is directed by none other than the soul. Something non-physical is directing and guiding this process. We are becoming what our souls direct us to become according to our unique DNA instructions.
That soul must exist prior to the body in order to perform that role.
The Democrat Party and every single Democrat who has ever voted for Democrats or the Democrat Party have murdered fifty-four MILLION innocent human souls who were made in God’s image. One day you will all pay for your moral crime the same way God demanded: with your own lives.
I have mentioned abortion several times in this article. What does science really say about abortion?
To put it simply, science properly understood tells us that human embryos are human by virtue of their parents, and beings by virtue of the fact that they are living things (they grow, feed,respire,excrete,respond to stimuli, and reproduce): they are human beings. Science further tells us that human embryos are NOT part of their mother’s bodies; rather, they are clearly unique genetic individuals, with their own unique human DNA. Moreover, scientifically, every single living thing is rigorously classified by the science of taxonomy into the categories of: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. And a human embryo – an unborn baby – is of the kingdom Animalia, of the phylum Chordata, of the class Mammalia, of the order Primates, of the family Hominidae, of the genus Homo, and of the species sapiens. Same as you, same as me, and same as any human being who has spent a lifetime living outside of his or her mother’s womb.
We recently took a giant step toward this in the passage of ObamaCare.
We don’t have “a death panel.” The fact of the matter is that we have 160 death panels:
D. James Kennedy prophetically explained what will happen next:
Get ready, they’re coming. As the costs of health care soar even faster because of the corrupt boondoggle known as ObamaCare takes over a system that had already been rendered inefficient by excessive government interference, the costs will skyrocket. And it will become a rather painfully obvious fact that old people consume the vast majority of health care resources. And the next inevitable step is to say, “Time to die with dignity, Grandma.”
The ObamaCare snowball is going to very quickly become an avalanche. And the most demonic policy (abortion) in the history of the human race will spread like a plague – just as it did in Nazi Germany, and just as it is doing in China as we speak.
(CNSNews.com) – There were only 1.75 full-time private-sector workers in the United States last year for each person receiving benefits from Social Security, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Social Security board of trustees.
That means that for each husband and wife who worked full-time in the private sector last year there was a Social Security recipient somewhere in the country taking benefits from the federal government.
Most state and local workers are part of the Social Security system and pay Social Security taxes; and, since 1984, all federal workers have been part of the system and pay Social Security taxes. However, unlike private sector workers who pay Social Security taxes with private-sector dollars, government workers pay their payroll taxes out of wages government pays them with tax dollars or with money that was borrowed by government and taxpayers must eventually repay.
In its latest annual report, the Social Security board of trustees reported that the federal government’s total revenue from Social Security taxes in 2010—$544.8 billion—was not enough to cover Social Security’s total benefit payments—$577.4 billion.
The board of trustees also reported that there were 156.725 million “covered workers” in the United States who paid some Social Security taxes during 2010. But these 156.725 million “covered workers” included all workers—including government workers—who were “paid at some time during the year for employment” on which Social Security taxes were due. People who worked full-time for 52 weeks during the year were included with people who worked only part-time for a month.
The Social Security board of trustees reported that there were 53.398 million Social Security beneficiaries in 2010.
That meant, as the Social Security board of trustees reported, that there were just 2.9 “covered workers” who paid some Social Security taxes in 2010 for each individual who received Social Security benefits.
(According to the Social Security board of trustees, there were 41.9 “covered workers” per Social Security beneficiary in 1945.)
However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has generated data indicating how many full-time workers there were in the country in 2010 and how many of these worked in government as opposed to the private sector.
According to BLS, there were 111.714 million full-time workers in the United States last year. Of these, 18.073 million worked for local, state or federal government, and 93.641 million worked in the private sector.
The 93.641 million full-time private sector workers last year worked out to 1.75 for each person receiving Social Security benefits.
These 93.641 million full-time private sector workers were the foundation of the tax base that supported both government at large and Social Security in particular.
Prior to 1983, states and localities could legally opt their employees out of the Social Security system. In 1981, for example, the employees of Galveston County, Texas, voted 78 percent to 22 percent to opt out of the Social Security system for a locally run retirement plan. Brazoria and Matagorda counties in Texas also opted out of Social Security.
You damned liberals are dead dumbass fools walking, aren’t you?
In 1960 there were 5.1 workers paying into the system for every 1 retiree. But liberals like to murder little babies, and 54 million aborted workers later things are really starting to suck.
Proverbs 8:36 describes all those who hate God “loving death.” And that fits Democrats to a “T”.
D. James Kennedy rightly warned us about the socialist takeover of health care (aka ObamaCare):
“Watch out, Grandma and Grandpa! Because the generation that survived abortion will one day come after YOU.”
Now Medicare will go bankrupt by 2017. And Democrats are going to MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE it goes bankrupt by refusing to allow the system to get the changes it needs to even possibly remain solvent.
And of course grandma and grandpa are going to find themselves standing in front of death panels to justify their existences.
GEORGE BERNARD SHAW, NOBEL PRIZE WINNER: I don’t want to punish anybody. (INAUDIBLE) an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill. I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly-appointed board, just as they might come before the income tax commissioner, and say every five years, or every seven years, just put them there, and say, “Sir, or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?”
But I didn’t have to go back that far in time to prove my point. I merely wanted to document that liberal progressives HAVE ALWAYS “loved death.” I can also cite recent stuff from liberal progressives, such as this beauty by liberal progressive Robert Reich:
“Thank you. And by the way, we’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”
Robert “Third” Reich isn’t the only one pointing out this actually quite obvious central tenet of the Democrats’ health plan. Obama has appointed at least two other “experts” to advise him on medical issues. Here’s White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s brother, Ezekiel Emanuel, whom Obama appointed as OMB health policy adviser in addition to being picked to serve on the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research:
“When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated… The Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.”
“Attenuated” means, “to make thin; to weaken or reduce in force, intensity, effect, quantity, or value.” Attenuated care would be reduced or lessened care. Dare I say it, in this context it clearly means, “rationed care.”
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel included a chart with his work (available here), which shows how he wants to allocate medical resources under a government plan:
When you’re very young, or when you start reaching your 50s and 60s, you start receiving less and less priority.
Then there’s Cass Sunstein, Barack Obama’s Regulatory Czar, who wrote in the Columbia Law Review in January 2004:
“I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”
Barack Obama’s Regulatory Czar explains:
“If a program would prevent fifty deaths of people who are twenty, should it be treated the same way as a program that would prevent fifty deaths of people who are seventy? Other things being equal, a program that protects young people seems far better than one that protects old people, because it delivers greater benefits.”
There’s a great deal more about Obama’s own advisers’ plans here.
“At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.”
We can sum it up quite nicely with the words of Obama’s former senior economic adviser: “So we’re going to let you die.”
Die with dignity. Or die without it. It doesn’t matter. What matters in the brave new world of ObamaCare is that liberals have finally succeeded in turning health care into a socialist boondoggle. And it will one day be your duty to die in order to sustain that boondoggle.
So when I call Democrats “fascists,” it’s not like I’m exaggerating or anything; it’s simply what those dangerous and toxic rat bastards are.
And old people are supposed to be afraid of Rick Perry because the man had the indecency to say the truth maybe – MAYBE – in time to do something to prevent a soon-coming holocaust of senior citizens???
Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff says U.S. government debt is not $13.5-trillion (U.S.), which is 60 per cent of current gross domestic product, as global investors and American taxpayers think, but rather 14-fold higher: $200-trillion - 840 per cent of current GDP. “Let’s get real,” Prof. Kotlikoff says. “The U.S. is bankrupt.”
Writing in the September issue of Finance and Development, a journal of the International Monetary Fund, Prof. Kotlikoff says the IMF itself has quietly confirmed that the U.S. is in terrible fiscal trouble – far worse than the Washington-based lender of last resort has previously acknowledged. “The U.S. fiscal gap is huge,” the IMF asserted in a June report. “Closing the fiscal gap requires a permanent annual fiscal adjustment equal to about 14 per cent of U.S. GDP.”
$200 TRILLION? That’s our unfunded liabilities, thanks to evil liberal progressvies who have been slowly killing us for the last seventy years setting up the day when the American people would die by the tens of millions. Do you got that in your pocket? Because I sure don’t.
I got bad news for you, grandma and grandpa. But you’re going to die. And you’re going to die because the same party that set up your death (the Democrats) are actively working to ensure that your future medical care gets its life support plug pulled so you can “die with dignity.” Which is another way of saying so Democrats who set up programs that were GUARANTEED to collapse can now wash their hands of you and walk away while you slowly and painfully die.
I support Rick Perry for president. The man who is honest enough to point out the problem is the only man who can even possibly have the courage and will to fix that problem. Because my mom and dad are on both Social Security AND Medicare. And I don’t want any God DAMNED (and by that I mean, “damned by God to HELL”) Democrats killing them off while I’ve got a breath of life left in my body.
Welcome to hell, Jack. Hope you enjoy your next few trillion years there (just think of hell as spending a year there for every dollar Obama recklessly adds to the debt for starters).
The New York Times called Kevorkian “fiercely principled” – because there is no question that the left celebrated this evil man and what he stood for – but let’s consider two things to show what a lie that is and what a disgrace to decency the New York Times is for saying it.
What a sick, disgusting joke that one is.
Had this hell-bound soul used his suicide machine on himself to hasten his own eternal judgment, you could at least give him the credit of being consistent with his own stated values. But, no. “Dr. Death” died fighting for his own life.
The ghoulish-but-folksy physician died Friday not by his own hand but at a hospital in Royal Oak, Mich., where he was being treated for pneumonia and kidney problems. He was 83.
I hear they like to say that Hitler was quite ”folksy” too.
The fact of the matter is that as fascinated as Kevorkian was with accelerating the deaths of his victims, he had no fire in his belly to hasten his own. “Fiercely principled” my butt.
Then there’s another rather large bit of hypocrisy for the left to chew on until it’s their turn to burn in hell: You know how the left is opposed to capital punishment, and has been successfully preventing executions of the worst of the worst criminals because the drugs used could cause “pain and suffering”? Well, of course, as immoral as it is to cause a torture-rapist murderer “unnecessary pain and suffering” – as if any pain and suffering you could inflict on these monsters would ever be “unnecessary” in the first place – it is fine to cause such pain and suffering as long as the person receiving said pain and suffering is a tragic victim of some disease process.
Possibly the best article on Kevorkian was written by a foreign source. Here is a link to it. It is in English, but was clearly translated (likely by machine). Among other things, you find out that Kevorkian had no credentials to do what he was doing, was clearly not equipped to provide any kind of knowledgable counseling whatsoever and “assisted” numerous victims who had years of productive lives ahead of them.
The same pro-abortion left which is the same euthanasia left that is celebrating ObamaCare with its “death panels” is one day going to be celebrating your death by medical rationing, too. And they will defend the next giant step in inhumanity by claiming that the elderly and seriously ill are consuming resources that could be used to treat the more productive and they have a duty to die.
“Assisted suicide” lives on, indeed. It lives on with the Democrat Party.
To paraphrase dialogue from a movie, the Democrats remind me of something from the Bible. Which part, you ask? The part just before God gets angry.
You love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right. — Psalm 52:3
But he who sins against Me injures himself; all those who hate Me love death — Proverbs 8:36
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! — Isaiah 5:20
You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones — Micah 3:2
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools – Romans 1:22
For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth – Romans 1:18
In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is the image of God. — 2 Corinthians 4:4
Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron — 1 Timothy 4:2
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. — 2 Tim 4:3-4
I rather routinely call Obama the F-word. No, not that F-word (although the ability to resist doing so is dwindling); the other F-word: Fascist. Barack Obama is a fascist.
I have had quite a few liberals fixate on this word, and – while ignoring the rest of my arguments – proceed to give me a lecture about how my extremism undermines my positions and arguments (which they don’t bother to consider).
I’d like to respond to that. At length.
There are many who would argue that if a politician is not as rabid as Adolf Hitler, that one cannot use this label of “fascist” - at least not unless the target is a Republican (see below). Barack Obama is not a “dictator,” these would argue. He hasn’t launched the world into global war and he hasn’t murdered 6 million Jews (at least, he hasn’t yet). So he can’t be a “fascist.” This argument fails on two parts. First of all, by such a metric, Benito Mussolini wouldn’t be a “fascist” either (except for the “dictator” part). One of the reasons it is hard to have an easy definition of “fascist” is because fascism has taken a different character in every country and culture in which it has been embraced. Hitler is not the norm or standard of fascism; he is merely the most extreme example of its virulence and danger. Secondly, even if we were to take a Hitler as our example, let us realize that Adolf Hitler was a very cunning politician who managed to gain power in a Germany that was THE most sophisticated, educated and scientific nation and culture of its day. What I am asserting is that if an Adolf Hitler were to run for the presidency of the United States in 2012, he would run a platform that we could very easily label as “hope and change,” he would demagogue his adversaries as being the cause for the nation’s plight, he would lie both cynically and outrageously to win votes and he would then proceed to push the country as far as he possibly could toward his agenda. And so here, from the outset, I am claiming that the suggestion that either Barack Obama or anyone else does not qualify as a “fascist” simply because he or she can’t be directly compared to Adolf Hitler is nothing but a straw man.
The question thus becomes, what is fascism, and then it is what is Obama steering us toward?
THE WORD “fascism” is used broadly on the left as a term of abuse. Sometimes it is used to refer to any repressive government, whatever its political form. Most commonly on the left in the U.S., it is used to describe any Republican government–in particular, any Republican government or candidate on the eve of a presidential election.
As an experiment, I typed the words “Bush fascist” and then “Obama fascist” sans quotes. I got 3,280,000 Google hits for Bush fascist (and keep in mind an awful lot of hits would have vanished in the last 11 years as domains purged articles or simply ceased to exist) versus only 2,490,000 for Obama. That means liberals were over 45% more likely to call Bush a fascist than conservatives have been to call Obama one.
And when these liberals express their outrage that I would dare call Obama a fascist and thus lower the discourse, I invariably ask them just where the hell they were when their side was teeing off on Bush for eight unrelenting years of Bush derangement syndrome??? It was rare indeed to see a liberal excoriate his fellow liberals for demonizing the president of the United States.
With all due respect, the left started this form of ”discourse.” They turned it into an art form. And how dare these hypocrites dare to tell me not to do unto Obama as they did unto Bush???
That might only be a rhetorical argument, as two wrongs clearly don’t make a right. But it remains a powerful one. Liberals have forfeited any moral right to criticize conservatives for using their own tactics against them.
But I don’t simply call Obama a fascist because liberals called Bush one. I call him one because he has exhibited all kinds of fascistic tendencies, which I shall in time describe.
But fascism has a far more precise definition. Historically, fascism is a far-right movementof the middle classes (shopkeepers, professionals, civil servants) who are economically ruined by severe economic crisis and driven to “frenzy.”
In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky, fascism brings “to their feet those classes that are immediately above the working class and that are ever in dread of being forced down into its ranks; it organizes and militarizes them…and it directs them to the extirpation of proletarian organizations, from the most revolutionary to the most conservative.”
I have no doubt that the irony of these words were entirely lost to the “Socialist Worker” who wrote the article. But allow me to illuminate it for you: think of the most infamous fascists of all time, the Nazis. What did the word ”Nazi” stand for? It was the “acronym for the ‘National Socialist German Workers Party’.” Let me try that again, just in case you missed these precious little details: “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party.”
But ask the “Socialist Workers” and they’ll assure you that the “Socialist Workers Party” had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Socialist Workers. Because that would certainly be awkward, wouldn’t it???
It is rather fascinating that “Socialist Worker” would cite as his authority on fascism and who should be labeled as a “fascist” the Marxist thinker . Allow me to provide one counter statement which is based not on the “brilliant words” of a Marxist, but on the plain simple facts:
“Part of the problem in recognizing fascism is the assumption that it is conservative. [Zeev] Sternhell has observed how study of the ideology has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.” Marxism defines fascism as its polar opposite. If Marxism is progressive, fascism is conservative. If Marxism is left wing, fascism is right wing. If Marxism champions the proletariat, fascism champions the bourgeoisie. If Marxism is socialist, fascism is capitalist.
The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism. Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left. They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].
So depending on Leon Trotsky or any other Marxist-inspired academic who merely parrots “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” has rather serious intellectual drawbacks. And yet that is largely what we get. Far too many American academics wouldn’t be so obvious as to use the phrase, “In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky,” but they give his ideas, theories and talking points total credence, nonetheless. The term “useful idiots” was literally coined to describe these Western “intellectuals.” And their being “useful idiots” is every bit as true today as it ever was in the past.
Consider the REAL ”polar opposite”: American conservatives are capitalists, not socialists. They demand a limited national/federal government, not a massive centrally planned state as does socialism, communism and fascism. They prefer the federalist idea of powerful states’ rights against a weakened federal government, not some all-powerful Führer. And to try to force conservatives into some Nazi mold invariably means either creating straw men arguments or citing irrelevant facts (such as that conservatives favor a large military just like the Nazis did, as though virtually every single communist state does not similarly favor a large military “just like the Nazis did”). If you want an all-powerful national government that gets to decide who wins and who loses, if you want to see a system where you have to come to your government for assistance and resources with all manner of strings attached rather than being allowed to depend on yourself, your family and your community, you should embrace the political left, not the right.
By the way, another favorite idiotic red herring for liberals asserting that “Nazism was right wing” was that the Nazis hated the admittedly left wing communists. But consider the fact that Coke hates Pepsi and Barbie Doll makers hate Bratz Doll makers. Are we supposed to believe that Coke is the opposite of Pepsi as opposed to water, milk or orange juice? The fact of the matter is that Nazis and Soviet Communists hated each other because both movements had a global agenda of totalitarian dominion, and both movements were competing for the same rabidly left wing converts.
Pardon me for the following insult, but the only people who believe garbage arguments like these are ignorant fools who live in a world of straw men. Even if they have the title ”PhD.” after their names.
It is for that reason that I can state categorically that Marxism and fascism are not “polar opposites” at all. They are merely two potentially complementary species of socialism. That is why China has been able to easily weave blatantly fascistic (national socialist/corporatist) elements into its Maoist communism. It is also why Joseph Stalin was able to go from being an international socialist (i.e. a communist) and then appeal to nationalism (i.e., national socialism or “fascism”) when he needed to fight Hitler, only to switch back to “international socialism” after the war, as a few lines from Wikipedia on “Russian nationalism” point out:
The newborn communist republic under Vladimir Lenin proclaimed internationalism as its official ideology[4]. Russian nationalism was discouraged, as were any remnants of Imperial patriotism, such as wearing military awards received before Civil War….
The 1930s saw the evolution of the new concept of Soviet nationalism under Joseph Stalin, based on both Russian nationalism and communist internationalism. Official communist ideology always stated that Russia was the most progressive state, because it adopted socialism as its basis (which, according to the writings of Karl Marx, is the inevitable future of world socio-economic systems). Under Lenin, the USSR believed its duty to help other nations to arrange socialist revolutions (the concept of World Revolution), and made close ties with labor movements around the world[4].
[...]
The Soviet Union’s war against Nazi Germany became known as the Great Patriotic War, hearkening back to the previous use of the term in the Napoleonic Wars. The Soviet state called for Soviet citizens to defend the ‘Motherland’, a matrilineal term used to describe Russia in the past.
[...]
In 1944, the Soviet Union abandoned its communist anthem, The International, and adopted a new national anthem which citizens of the Soviet Union could identify with.
And then, with the victory secured over fascism, the Stalinist “national socialism” (a.k.a. ”fascism”) suddenly became international socialism again. The Nazis’ very name was Nationalsozialistische.
One can be a “Marxist-fascist” and combine and blend elements of both totalitarian socialist systems quite easily, as both the Russian and then the Chinese communists proved. Communism and fascism have far more in common with one another than they have in opposition; especially when you examine the fact that both political systems invariably end up becoming the same big-government totalitarian police state.
So for my first two points – namely that 1) the left has routinely demagogically labeled the right “fascist” even when 2) it is clearly the left that owes far and away the most to fascistic elements – I am going to continue to shout from the rooftops who are the real fascists in America.
That said, it is still not enough to merely point out the FACT that American liberalism has much in common with fascism. And there is a lot more yet to say.
Before I begin spouting particular examples, I therefore need to further approach just what it is that would constitute a “fascist.” And then see who and how the label fits. From The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:
The best example of a fascist economy is the regime of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Holding that liberalism (by which he meant freedom and free markets) had “reached the end of its historical function,” Mussolini wrote: “To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself…. Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual.”
This collectivism is captured in the word fascism, which comes from the Latin fasces, meaning a bundle of rods with an axe in it. In economics, fascism was seen as a third way between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Fascist thought acknowledged the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.
[...]
Mussolini’s fascism took another step at this time with the advent of the Corporative State, a supposedly pragmatic arrangement under which economic decisions were made by councils composed of workers and employers who represented trades and industries. By this device the presumed economic rivalry between employers and employees was to be resolved, preventing the class struggle from undermining the national struggle. In the Corporative State, for example, strikes would be illegal and labor disputes would be mediated by a state agency.
Theoretically, the fascist economy was to be guided by a complex network of employer, worker, and jointly run organizations representing crafts and industries at the local, provincial, and national levels. At the summit of this network was the National Council of Corporations. But although syndicalism and corporativism had a place in fascist ideology and were critical to building a consensus in support of the regime, the council did little to steer the economy. The real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (Istituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, or IRI), mediating among interest groups.
[...]
Mussolini also eliminated the ability of business to make independent decisions: the government controlled all prices and wages, and firms in any industry could be forced into a cartel when the majority voted for it. The well-connected heads of big business had a hand in making policy, but most smaller businessmen were effectively turned into state employees contending with corrupt bureaucracies. They acquiesced, hoping that the restrictions would be temporary. Land being fundamental to the nation, the fascist state regimented agriculture even more fully, dictating crops, breaking up farms, and threatening expropriation to enforce its commands.
Banking also came under extraordinary control. As Italy’s industrial and banking system sank under the weight of depression and regulation, and as unemployment rose, the government set up public works programs and took control over decisions about building and expanding factories. The government created the Istituto Mobiliare in 1931 to control credit, and the IRI later acquired all shares held by banks in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises.
The image of a strong leader taking direct charge of an economy during hard times fascinated observers abroad. Italy was one of the places that Franklin Roosevelt looked to for ideas in 1933…
Fascism is all about the “community,” not the individual. Its message is about the good of the nation, or the people (or the Volk), or the community, rather than the good of a nation’s individual citizens. It is about distributing and then redistributing the wealth and returning it to “its rightful owners” under the guise of an all-powerful state rather than recognizing and rewarding individual achievement. In short, when Hillary Clinton explained that, “It takes a village,” an educated Nazi would have snapped his fingers and excitedly shouted, “Ja! JA! Das ist ES!”
For Obama, the collectivism, community or “village” thing is such a profound part of him that he has literally made it an integral part of his very heretical form of “Christianity,” which very much stresses individual salvation and individual responsibility. Obama has on several occasions put it this way:
For example, in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country…” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”
In the Christian faith, there is no such thing as collective salvation. Salvation is an individual choice. It is personal acceptance of Jesus as savior, Son of the living God.
Obama’s is a wildly perverted view of orthodox Christianity. It so distorts true Christianity at such a fundamental level, in fact, that one literally has to go to Hitler to find a suitable similar parallel from a “Christian” national leader. The great Protestant Reformer Martin Luther – the most famous German prior to Hitler – had written the most monumental text of German culture prior to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. It was called “The Bondage of the Will,” which was considered THE manifesto of the Reformation. According to Luther, the human will was in bondage to sin. The fallen will, if left to itself, will choose what is evil. The human will has been perversely set against the righteous will of God. For sinful human beings, the will is not in a state of liberty but is in bondage to its worst impulses. Luther wrote in this work, “When our liberty is lost we are compelled to serve sin: that is, we will sin and evil, we speak sin and evil, we do sin and evil.” Adolf Hitler infamously turned that key doctrine of Christianity on its head in his “The Triumph of the Will,” in which he exalted depraved human will to an altogether different level of human depravity. Which is to say that Hitler was so profoundly wrong that he proved Luther right.
But getting back to Obama’s profoundly anti-Christian concept of ”collective salvation,” the Nazis would have been all over that, enthusiastically shouting their agreement, “Ja! JA! Das ist ES!” Recall the encyclopedia entry on fascism stating that, “Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual,” which was then further defined as “collectivism.” And the Nazis repeatedly called upon loyal Germans to make horrendous sacrifices in the name of that collective.
What the Nazis pursued was a form of anti-capitalist anti-conservative communitarianism encapsulated in the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, or “people’s community.”
From the Nazi Party Platform:
- The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:
- Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
- In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
- We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
- We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
- We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
- We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
- We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
- We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
- We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
- The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
- The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
- We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
- We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.
Ah, yes, the Nazis had their “Fairness Doctrine“ long before this current generation of liberals had theirs.
You read that Nazi Party Platform carefully, and you tell me if you see small government conservative Republicans or big government liberal Democrats written all over it.
Now, you read the Nazi Party Platform, and given what American liberals want and what American conservatism opposes, it is so obvious which party is “fascist” that it isn’t even silly. Then you ADD to that the fact that fascism and American progressivism (which is liberalism) were so similar that the great fascists of the age couldn’t tell the damn difference.
Since you point out Nazism was fascist, let’s look at some history as to WHO was recognized as fascist in America.
Fascism sought to eliminate class differences and to destroy/replace capitalism and laissez-faire economics.
H.G. Wells, a great admirer of FDR and an extremely close personal friend of his, was also a great progressive of his day. He summed it up this way in a major speech at Oxford to the YOUNG LIBERALS organization under the banner of “Liberal Fascism”: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” He said, “And do not let me leave you in the slightest doubt as to the scope and ambition of what I am putting before you” and then said:
These new organizations are not merely organizations for the spread of defined opinions…the days of that sort of amateurism are over – they are organizations to replace the dilatory indecisiveness of democracy. The world is sick of parliamentary politics…The Fascist Party, to the best of its ability, is Italy now. The Communist Party, to the best of its ability, is Russia. Obviously the Fascists of Liberalism must carry out a parallel ambition on still a vaster scale…They must begin as a disciplined sect, but must end as the sustaining organization of a reconstituted mankind.”
H.G. Wells pronounced FDR “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order.” And of course, we easily see that the new world order Wells wanted was a fascist one. In 1941, George Orwell concluded, “Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany.”
It was from the lips of liberal progressive H.G. Wells that Jonah Goldberg got the title of his book, Liberal Fascism. Goldberg didn’t just invent this connection: H.G. Wells flagrantly admitted it and George Orwell called him on it. All Goldberg did was rediscover history that liberals buried and have used every trick imaginable to keep buried.
And as a tie-in to our modern day, who more than Barack Obama has been more associated with said FDR?
But let me move on to some real red meat. In just what specific, concrete ways can I call Obama a fascist?
Well, to begin with, there is the signature achievement of his entire presidency, his national health care system (ObamaCare). For liberals, it is nothing but the most bizarre coincidence that Nazi culture had a national health care system that was quite rightly considered the wonder of its day by socialists in America. It is the most despicable of insults that Sarah Palin excoriated ObamaCare as “death panels” – even though it is more precisely a bureaucratic maze consisting of more like 160 separate death panels:
And the “czar” thing hits a very fascist nerve, too. Obama has appointed 39 czars who are completely outside our Constitutional process. Obama signed a budget bill into law that required him to remove these czars, but why would a fascist trouble himself with outmoded things like “laws”? One of the enraged Republicans responded, “The president knew that the czar amendment was part of the overall budget deal he agreed to, and if he cannot be trusted to keep his word on this, then how can he be trusted as we negotiate on larger issues like federal spending and the economy.” And of course, he’s right.
But why do I say it’s financial fascism in 20/20 hindsight? Because of what we just learned: in spite of all the bogus lying promises and the massive takeover “for our own good,” Obama didn’t fix anything. Instead he made it WORSE:
The financial system poses an even greater risk to taxpayers than before the crisis, according to analysts at Standard & Poor’s. The next rescue could be about a trillion dollars costlier, the credit rating agency warned.
S&P put policymakers on notice, saying there’s “at least a one-in-three” chance that the U.S. government may lose its coveted AAA credit rating. Various risks could lead the agency to downgrade the Treasury’s credit worthiness, including policymakers’ penchant for rescuing bankers and traders from their failures.
“The potential for further extraordinary official assistance to large players in the U.S. financial sector poses a negative risk to the government’s credit rating,” S&P said in its Monday report.
But, the agency’s analysts warned, “we believe the risks from the U.S. financial sector are higher than we considered them to be before 2008.”
Because of the increased risk, S&P forecasts the potential initial cost to taxpayers of the next crisis cleanup to approach 34 percent of the nation’s annual economic output, or gross domestic product. In 2007, the agency’s analysts estimated it could cost 26 percent of GDP.
Last year, U.S. output neared $14.7 trillion, according to the Commerce Department. By S&P’s estimate, that means taxpayers could be hit with $5 trillion in costs in the event of another financial collapse.
Experts said that while the cost estimate seems unusually high, there’s little dispute that when the next crisis hits, it will not be anticipated — and it will likely hurt the economy more than the last financial crisis.
So much for the massive and unprecedented fascist government takeover.
Think last year’s $700 billion Wall Street rescue package was beaucoup bucks to spend bailing out the nation’s floundering financial system? That’s chump change compared to what the overall price tag could be, a government watchdog says.
The inspector general in charge of overseeing the Treasury Department’s bank-bailout program says the massive endeavor could end up costing taxpayers almost $24 trillion in a worst-case scenario. That’s more than six times President Obama’s proposed $3.55 trillion budget for 2010.
Nobody here but us fascists. And we sure aint talking.
Then there are other issues that the left usually uses to attack conservatives, such as racism. Wasn’t Hitler a racist, just like conservatives? The problem is, the liberals are as usual upside-down here. After running as the man to create racial harmony, Barack Obama has instead done more to racially polarize America than any president since other famous progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Frankly, if one were to conduct a major study of racial politics, and the setting up in opposition of one racial group against another, just which party has emphasized race and race-baiting more?
Hitler’s Jew-baiting was all about the idea that one race had taken over the culture, had the money and the power, and was using its influence to oppress the people in the banking system and anywhere else that mattered. And Hitler’s constant screed was that Germany needed to confiscate the Jews’ wealth and then redistribute it. With all respect, all the left has done is replace “Jew” with “Caucasian” and making the exact same claims.
And with all this hard-core racist demagoguing, I’m supposed to say that, “Oh, yes, it’s the conservatives who are guilty of demagoguing race”??? Seriously???
Obama has Samantha Powers (the wife of Cass Sunstein, the man who “nudges us”) close to him and advising him on matters of war. According to the very liberal publication The Nation, “She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.” What if you had an ultra conservative – oh, say a Sarah Palin - openly acknowledged to pursue war and risk American lives to advance her radical values??? What would the left call this if not “fascist”?
But it’s only fascist if Republicans do it, of course.
Also in yesterday’s news is the fact that Obama is the perpetual demagogue- which is a quintessentially fascist tactic. Obama demonized Bush for trying to raise the debt ceiling until he needed to raise it. Now it would be un-American for Republicans to act the same exact way Obama acted. In the same demagogic spirit, Obama personally invited Paul Ryan to a speech just so he could personally demonize him. The same Obama who lectured Republicans that it would be counter-productive to rely on name-calling and accusations in the health care debate launched into a vicious demagogic attack. Ryan correctly said that “What we got yesterday was the opposite of what he said is necessary to fix this problem.” But that is par for the golf course for a fascist. If that wasn’t enough, Obama held a White House conference for “stake holders” in the immigration debate and refused to invite a single governor from a border state.
A Republican equivalent would have had to come out of a deep involvement with some vile racist militia organization to approximate Obama’s background. And liberals would rightly label such a politician a fascist for his past alone.
Here’s a recent Youtube video of Obama’s key union allies on camera saying, “We’re not going to rely on the law,” and, “Forget about the law” as they seek to impose their unions basically whether workers want them or not:
First ObamaCare had death panels. Then massive public outrage forced Democrats to abandon the death panels. Then Obama brought back his death panels by sneaking them in via backdoor regulation in secrecy. Then the public exploded in anger again. And now the death panels are gone again. At least until the next time these dishonest rodents go behind our backs to impose vile policies the people have already loudly rejected.
While making the case for his health reform package, President Obama argued that his proposal would make life easier for small-business owners.
Unfortunately, Obamacare threatens to undermine a group of small-business owners that is perhaps more important than any other to his reform effort — doctors in private practice.
The number of privately owned medical practices has declined sharply in the past five years. In 2005, at least two-thirds of practices were in private hands. That figure has dropped to less than half today — and is expected to sink below 40 percent by next year.
Many doctors, specifically those who have just completed a resident specialty, are now choosing not to enter private practice in the first place. Instead, they’re heading to salaried positions at large hospitals. Last year, 49 percent of first-year specialists chose hospital employment.
Obamacare will only exacerbate these trends. Some of the law’s dictates will make it more expensive to operate small practices — even though the rules are supposed to reduce medical costs.
Take the new law’s health IT initiative, which pushes doctors to set up extensive electronic health records in hopes of better coordinating care among providers. More information, the law’s boosters argue, means less waste and lower costs.
But many private practices can’t afford to drop five or six figures on expensive health IT systems that may not even save them money.
Boosters of health IT acknowledge that large organizations are more likely to enjoy its benefits. But shoving patients into ever-larger medical groups may not actually bring down costs.
The reason, as representatives of the American Medical Association recently warned, is that big hospital networks have greater market power. They can use that power to keep prices high, and there’s little that insurers — and even less that consumers — can do about it.
Paying more for treatment doesn’t necessarily guarantee better access or quality. Without an ownership stake in their practices, salaried doctors have an incentive to work the hours for which they’re paid — and no more. Fewer hours for doctors means fewer appointments for patients.
History demonstrates that these incentives matter. In the 1990s, several large hospitals bought up practices and put doctors on flat salaries. As Dr. Bill Jessee, CEO of the Medical Group Management Association, observed, doctors suddenly “weren’t working as hard as they were before their practice was acquired.”
Proponents of Obamacare have conveniently ignored these lessons. President Obama’s top health care aide Nancy-Ann DeParle, for instance, wrote in the August issue of the Journal of Internal Medicine that the new law is “likely to lead to the vertical organization of providers and accelerate physician employment by hospitals.” These organizations are called Accountable Care Organizations, or ACOs.
Such vertical integration may prove costly. Already, hospitals lose money on a substantial chunk of the people they see. In New York, for example, hospitals take a loss on more than 70 percent of patients.
That’s mostly because of the stingy reimbursement rates paid by government health programs like Medicare and Medicaid. In 2008, the average Medicare reimbursement in New York represented a 4.7 percent underpayment. Medicaid’s reimbursements were even worse — as little as 64 percent of a hospital’s actual treatment cost. Those with private insurance are forced to pay more for care to make up the difference.
Hospitals’ Medicaid losses are compounded by the fact that the program’s beneficiaries use far more medical services than other patients. On average, the privately insured visit the doctor three and a half times a year. Medicaid patients make an average of seven visits.
Yet Obamacare will add 18 million new individuals to the program’s rolls by the end of the decade — and thus stretch our healthcare infrastructure even thinner.
Primary care physicians are already in short supply. The Center for Workforce Studies predicts that by 2020 there will be a shortage of 45,000 family doctors and 46,000 surgeons. Unfortunately, Obamacare provides no funding to significantly increase their numbers.
Emergency rooms will have to pick up the slack. The new law could result in as many as 41 million additional trips to the emergency room each year.
The health reform law was sold as a way to fill in the cracks in America’s fractured healthcare system. Instead, it has only made them wider.
This is just another example of how Marxist Democrats imposed their utter contempt for the free market system. Doctors who don’t have their own practices have far less incentive to work hard when they receive the same salary whether they work hard or not. And at the same time, the Medicaid patients go to the hospital twice as often as people who have insurance because it doesn’t COST them anything to do so. Contempt like that is only possible for freeloaders who don’t have a stake in anything and don’t have to worry about their premiums going up like the people who pay into the system to keep the whole thing running.
This is why I keep saying that Democrats are either genuinely evil or totally stupid. And either way they are moral idiots.
This is hardly the only article, and hardly the only issues that explain why ObamaCare is so vile. I’ve got plenty of articles which detail plenty of reasons why ObamaCare is murder for the doctors whom our entire medical system depends upon:
The very fact that Bill Maher is still on the air proves that he has a sizable audience of liberals (because no one else is morally sick enough to watch him). And the fact that many liberals actually agree with this rat bastard pretty much proves just how truly dangerous these people are.
Interesting article from David Horowitz’s News Real Blog:
In the face of opposition to their radical agenda, President Obama and his administration have made statements to the effect of, We haven’t done a good enough job explaining our policies to the American people. These comments reflect a profound arrogance which assumes that the only reason a rational person would oppose a leftist idea is because they do not understand it. Egregious as that attitude may be, it at least supposes that Americans are capable of understanding proposals which are properly explained.
“America is like a dog,” Maher began, explaining “It cannot understand actual words. It understands inflection, it understands fear, but you can’t actually explain issues to a dog.”
Liberal hero/bogeyman Michael Moore gamely jumped to America’s defense, but oddly continued the dog metaphor anyway. “When a dog has been abused, it gets all insane, and does insane things,” Moore said. See? We’re not just dogs, we’re insane dogs.
This crude metaphor shouldn’t surprise anyone, as it accurately reflects Maher’s regard for his fellow Americans. During the debate leading up to the passage of Obamacare, Maher suggested that the president act as a dictator and impose his will upon we dull-witted masses.
… I don’t think [Obama] has been tough enough…
They’re talking about 60 votes – Forget this stuff. You can’t get Americans to agree on anything… 60% of people don’t believe in evolution in this country.
[Obama] just needs to drag them to it. Like I just said [the American people] are stupid. Just drag them to this, get healthcare done, you know, with or without them. Make the gang of six an offer they can’t refuse. This Max Baucus guy, he needs to wake up tomorrow with an intern’s head in his bed… I’m serious.
Maher is serious. The only reason Moore comes off more reserved is because he has a slightly better sense of how openly these opinions should be discussed.
This is the philosophy of tyranny. It is apropos that Maher cite belief in evolution as a point of contention among Americans, because his tyrannical prescription is a natural outgrowth of the evolutionary paradigm. When you believe that humanity is emergent, a product of an ongoing process of natural selection, it follows that some humans are further developed than others. It is then incumbent upon those fittest, the Mahers and Moores and Obamas of the world, to drag we lessers kicking and screaming into the future.
This elitist paradigm is fundamentally no different than that which inspired eugenics and the pseudo-science undergirding Nazi claims of racial superiority. The only difference is, instead of a racial test, Maher and his cohort apply an ideological test to determine who has value and who does not. If you disagree with the radical leftist agenda, it is evidence of your incompetence to self-govern, and you ought not have the same rights as those who think correctly.
It reminds me of an appalling quote from Josef Goebbels, which was cast from the same evolutionary mold:
Certainly the Jew is also a Man, but the Flea is also an Animal.
Goebbels implication was that one’s conscience ought to be no more affected by their treatment of a Jew than their treatment of a flea. It’s called dehumanization, and it sounds an awful lot like what Maher and Moore are engaged in here. The question is, if they regard us as dogs, how long until they consider putting us down?
There are people in the middle who just can’t understand all the anger.
Me, I can’t understand why the fence-straddlers bleat like sheep when wolves are surrounding them and it’s long past time to finally choose a side.
Now, some might be thinking, “This guy pulls a quote from Bill Maher and then starts talking about Joseph Goebbels and the Nazis? Isn’t that kind of crazy?” Let me try to explain why it is dead serious.
If you like Maher’s America, if you are a liberal, you are a cultural elitist who actively despises the American people and view them as stupid and sick dogs who should be euthanized as necessary. The liberal worldview is everything; human beings are secondary at best. Abortion and the 52 million babies destroyed like viruses just in this country alone is only one proof among many of that fact.
Stephen Jay Gould phrased the worldview bluntly, stating that “there’s no reason humans are ‘higher’ life forms than bacteria or insects” [in Biography Magazine, March 1998, page 110]. And leftist thought long ago took that secular humanistic “science” and ran right down the field with it.
Human life is gnat-like for godless liberals. Because there’s no God in their worldview to give human beings ultimate meaning or transcendent value or any kind of dignity whatsoever. If you need to purge a few million, or a few tens of millions, what’s the big deal? We’re like dogs, after all (if not bacteria or insects). Nothing more. That was the thinking of fellow socialists Stalin, Mao and Hitler. The left has already thought the same thoughts Bill Maher has thought before. And they have already acted upon their thinking.
Annie Dillard underscored this evil heart of the far left in her article, “The Wreck of Time,” in Harper’s from January 1998:
Was it wisdom Mao Tse-Tong attained when – like Ted Bundy – the awakened to the long view? “The atom bomb is nothing to be afraid of,” Mao told Nehru, “China has many people. . . . The deaths of ten or twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of.” A witness said Nehru showed shock. Later, speaking in Moscow, Mao displayed yet more generosity: he boasted that he was willing to lose 300 million people, half of China’s population. Does Mao’s reckoning shock me really? If sanctioning the death of strangers could save my daughter’s life, would I do it? Probably. How many others’ lives would I be willing to sacrifice? Three? Three hundred million?
An English journalist, observing the Sisters of Charity in Calcutta, reasoned: “Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other.”
And well over a hundred million human beings perished miserably because of the same depraved mindset of the left that we are beginning to see once again. We’re up to half that total with our abortion mills, and as D. James Kennedy once put it, “Watch out, grandpa! Because the generation that survived abortion will one day come after you!”
“We have to help bring this government down, we have to help destroy this system and that requires increasing the alienation that working class and oppressed people feel. The way change is going to happen in this country is through the destruction of what we call the United States of America.”
Does that sound like a “pro-American” “Go America!” agenda?
Leftist speakers at a socialist convention in New York quoted leftist labor unions in calling for violent action:
“In times of growth historically the Democrats were the party that wanted to at least mildly redistribute a little bit of wealth. They were willing to finance a few social programs, make a few concessions in the interest of preserving social peace and social stability. But now when they don’t feel like that money is available for them to distribute, they don’t do anything. And I think that, you know, we all want to raise people’s consciousness but we also want to fight people, right? So I think it’s like both things. And, you know, we want to, we want to fight people who are on the — who have signed up on the other side of the barricade who are fighting us, we have to fight them. This is — we’re a militant organization when it comes to the fight against gay bigotry, the fights against racism and sexism. The labor movement has this old saying, and I don’t know if you want to take it — is if you can’t open their minds, open their heads.”
“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now,” he recently told a group of Democratic donors in Massachusetts, “and facts and science and argument [do] not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared. And the country is scared.”
The country is scared. Frightened little doggies do insane, random things. And, frankly, what more can you really expect from biological meat puppets?
And what if we’re too “scared” to open our minds to the left’s ideas? What’s the next option for us poor, stupid dogs?
Here’s the big idea: the left thinks that you are basically dogs that need to be taken care of. You need a government animal control shelter to provide for you, feed you, keep you warm, protect you. You can’t take care of yourself, after all. If you actually think you can take care of yourself, and that people should take care of themselves, then you’re in the wrong movement if you’re a Democrat.
But the dogs that can’t be controlled in the shelter invariably go to the gas chamber. They always have, and they always will. Because in the end they’re just dogs. They are under the government’s care; and they have become a burden to the government. And other things are more pressing and more important than dogs who don’t act the way they’re supposed to act, or dogs who are too old or too sick to be worth caring for. It’s the hard, cold side of the socialist worldview that ALWAYS emerges eventually.
We have a chance to stop the hell that liberals are trying to bring. We made a good start on November 2. We fired Nancy Pelosi. But that still leaves us with Harry Reid and Barack Obama. And the next election will either make us or it will surely break us.
Under Barack MaoBama, everyone is equal under the law.
Except for unions, big businesses and politically-connected companies that are a lot MORE equal under the law.
If you are a union, or a business that can afford a high-power attorney, or politically-connected, the fact that ObamaCare reeks to high heavens isn’t that important. In fact, it’s even a GOOD thing for some companies: their competition will be driven out of business (and why should they care if their competitors’ employees lose their jobs?).
But if you’re NOT a union, or if you CAN’T hire a high-power law firm, or if you DON’T know Harry Reid or one of his ilk, you are just screwed.
That’s the message coming out of Washington.
As of Saturday, November 13, 111 unions and businesses had received waivers from ObamaCare.
That health care law that was supposed to be so great? It’s such a pile of fecal matter that even the unions who pushed for it are begging to be waived from it.
This didn’t make any headlines… The Obama Administration recently handed out 111 Obamacare waivers to special US companies… And, they’re hiding this from the American public. It takes 6 clicks to find out this information on the government’s health care website.
Unfortunately, if you’re a small business or you don’t have the right connections you can’t get a waiver for your company.
That’s the new reality under the Obama-Pelosi regime.
“The bottom line here is that they gave out waivers is an admission of guilt. Basically they’re saying, “You’re right. We screwed up.” That’s the bottom line here. They did not create a law that benefits all of us.”
Here is the list of the 111 special companies that were granted Obamacare waivers.
Here are the 111 “special” unions and companies who are better than everybody else. As the Gateway Pundit piece above points out, it takes 6 clicks to get to this information. And since the government can easily make it 12 clicks – or just delete it altogether – it seems prudent to have a record:
Applicant
Application
Received
Plan
Effective
Date
Number
of
Enrollees
Application
Completed by
Applicant
Waiver
Approved
1
Protocol Marketing Group
10/4/2010
1/1/2011
454
10/25/2010
11/1/2010
2
Sasnak
9/29/2010
1/1/2011
813
9/29/2010
11/1/2010
3
Star Tek
10/1/2010
1/1/2011
1,423
10/26/2010
11/1/2010
4
Adventist Care Centers
10/1/2010
1/1/2011
725
10/26/2010
10/29/2010
5
B.E.S.T of NY
10/7/2010
1/1/2011
1,200
10/27/2010
10/29/2010
6
Boskovich Farms, Inc
10/8/2010
1/1/2011
165
10/28/2010
10/29/2010
7
Gallegos Corp
9/29/2010
1/1/2011
86
10/28/2010
10/29/2010
8
Jeffords Steel and Engineering
10/4/2010
1/1/2011
112
10/28/2010
10/29/2010
9
O.K. Industries
10/4/2010
1/1/2011
1,238
10/28/2010
10/29/2010
10
Service Employees Benefit Fund
10/12/2010
11/1/2010
1,297
10/29/2010
10/29/2010
11
Sun Pacific Farming Coop
10/6/2010
12/1/2010
1,109
10/6/2010
10/29/2010
12
UFCW Allied Trade Health & Welfare Trust
10/5/2010
1-Dec
68
10/25/2010
10/29/2010
13
HCR Manor Care
10/5/2010
1/1/2011
2,666
10/26/2010
10/28/2010
14
IBEW No.915
9/28/2010
1/1/2011
930
10/15/2010
10/28/2010
15
Integra BMS for Culp, Inc.
10/4/2010
1/1/2011
34
10/25/2010
10/28/2010
16
New England Health Care
9/27/2010
1/1/2011
7,454
10/26/2010
10/28/2010
17
Aegis Insurance
10/6/2010
11/1/2010
67
10/25/2010
10/26/2010
18
Alliance One Tobacco
9/30/2010
1/1/2011
138
10/21/2010
10/26/2010
19
Asbestos Workers Local 53 Welfare Fund
9/29/2010
1/1/2011
2
10/21/2010
10/26/2010
20
Assurant Health (2nd Application)
9/29/2010
1/1/2011
19,024
10/21/2010
10/26/2010
21
Captain Elliot’s Party Boats
10/12/2010
11/1/2010
10
10/25/2010
10/26/2010
22
Carlson Restaurants
9/22/2010
1/1/2011
3,381
10/21/2010
10/26/2010
23
CH Guenther & Son
9/24/2010
1/1/2011
300
10/21/2010
10/26/2010
24
CKM Industries dba Miller Environmental
10/5/2010
11/1/2010
34
10/25/2010
10/26/2010
25
CWVEBA
10/14/2010
10/1/2010
4,500
10/18/2010
10/26/2010
26
Darden Restaurants
9/30/2010
1/1/2011
34,000
10/21/2010
10/26/2010
27
Duarte Nursery
9/23/2010
1/1/2011
283
10/19/2010
10/26/2010
28
Employees Security Fund
9/29/2010
1/1/2011
22
9/29/2010
10/26/2010
29
Florida Trowel Trades
9/27/2010
1/1/2011
297
10/21/2010
10/26/2010
30
Ingles Markets
9/30/2010
1/1/2011
917
10/25/2010
10/26/2010
31
Meijer
10/1/2010
1/1/2011
4,873
10/1/2010
10/26/2010
32
O’Reilly Auto Parts
9/23/2010
1/1/2011
9,722
9/23/2010
10/26/2010
33
Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 123 Welfare Fund
9/30/2010
1/1/2011
534
10/21/2010
10/26/2010
34
Sun Belt
9/28/2010
10/1/2010
114
10/20/2010
10/26/2010
35
UFCW Local 227
10/12/2010
11/1/2010
1,125
10/12/2010
10/26/2010
36
Uncle Julio’s
9/30/2010
11/1/2010
115
10/25/2010
10/26/2010
37
United Group
9/24/2010
1/1/2011
177
10/19/2010
10/26/2010
38
US Imaging
10/11/2010
11/1/2010
148
10/25/2010
10/26/2010
39
Vino Farms
10/8/2010
11/1/2010
152
10/21/2010
10/26/2010
40
Advanta
9/20/2010
9/1/2011
52
9/20/2010
10/21/2010
41
Agricare
9/23/2010
11/1/2010
437
9/23/2010
10/21/2010
42
Alaska Seafood
9/23/2010
1/1/2010
262
10/15/2010
10/21/2010
43
American Fidelity
9/22/2010
10/23/2010
9,358
10/14/2010
10/21/2010
44
Convergys
9/20/2010
1/1/2011
1,400
9/20/2010
10/21/2010
45
Darensberries
9/28/2010
10/1/2010
1,450
9/28/2010
10/21/2010
46
Gowan Company
9/23/2010
1/1/2011
225
9/27/2010
10/21/2010
47
Greystar
9/23/2010
1/1/2011
1,747
10/13/2010
10/21/2010
48
Macayo Restaurants
9/22/2010
12/1/2010
46
10/18/2010
10/21/2010
49
Periodical Services
9/27/2010
1/1/2011
464
9/27/2010
10/21/2010
50
UniFirst
9/23/2010
9/1/2011
2,659
10/14/2010
10/21/2010
51
Universal Forest Products
9/23/2011
5/1/2010
1,738
10/19/2010
10/21/2010
52
UFCW Maximus Local 455
10/4/2010
1/1/2011
59
10/18/2010
10/18/2010
53
AHS
9/22/2010
1/1/2011
400
10/12/2010
10/14/2010
54
GuideStone Financial Resources
9/21/2010
1/1/2011
354
9/21/2010
10/14/2010
55
Local 25 SEIU
9/29/2010
10/1/2010
31,000
10/7/2010
10/14/2010
56
MAUSER Corp.
9/21/2010
1/1/2011
47
9/24/2010
10/14/2010
57
Preferred Care, Inc.
9/15/2010
1/1/2011
918
9/15/2010
10/14/2010
58
Ruby Tuesday
10/8/2010
1/1/2011
3,219
10/8/2010
10/14/2010
59
The Dixie Group, Inc.
8/27/2010
6/19/2010
269
10/12/2010
10/14/2010
60
UFCW Local 1262
9/20/2010
10/1/2010
5,390
9/20/2010
10/14/2010
61
Whelan Security Company
9/23/2010
1/1/2011
287
10/12/2010
10/14/2010
62
AMF Bowling Worldwide
9/14/2010
1/1/2011
295
10/7/2010
10/12/2010
63
Assisted Living Concepts
9/17/2010
1/1/2011
1,174
9/17/2010
10/12/2010
64
Case & Associates
9/17/2010
1/1/2011
87
9/17/2010
10/12/2010
65
GPM Investments
9/17/2010
1/1/2011
275
9/17/2010
10/12/2010
66
Grace Living Centers
9/14/2010
10/1/2010
534
9/14/2010
10/12/2010
67
Mountaire
9/17/2010
1/1/2011
2,074
9/17/2010
10/12/2010
68
Swift Spinning
9/16/2010
1/1/2011
240
9/16/2010
10/12/2010
69
Belmont Village
9/10/2010
1/1/2011
785
10/4/2010
10/8/2010
70
Caliber Services
9/13/2010
1/1/2011
606
9/13/2010
10/8/2010
71
Cracker Barrel
9/9/2010
1/1/2011
16,823
9/17/2010
10/8/2010
72
DISH Network
9/13/2010
3/1/2011
3,597
9/23/2010
10/8/2010
73
Groendyke Transport, Inc
9/2/2010
1/1/2011
1,322
9/2/2010
10/8/2010
74
Pocono Medical Center
9/24/2010
1/1/2011
3,298
9/24/2010
10/8/2010
75
Regis Corporation
9/10/2010
3/1/2011
3,617
10/1/2010
10/8/2010
76
The Pictsweet Co.
9/13/2010
1/1/2010
694
9/13/2010
10/8/2010
77
Diversified Interiors
9/28/2010
10/1/2010
300
9/28/2010
10/1/2010
78
Local 802 Musicians Health Fund
9/29/2010
10/1/2010
1,801
9/29/2010
10/1/2010
79
Medical Card System
9/20/2010
10/1/2010
6,635
9/23/2010
10/1/2010
80
The Buccaneer
9/22/2010
10/1/2010
125
9/28/2010
10/1/2010
81
CIGNA
9/17/2010
9/26/2010
265,000
9/30/2010
9/30/2010
82
Greater Metropolitan Hotel
9/16/2010
10/1/2010
1,200
9/24/2010
9/30/2010
83
Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund
9/16/2010
10/1/2010
881
9/24/2010
9/30/2010
84
GS-ILA
9/15/2010
10/1/2010
298
9/15/2010
9/28/2010
85
Allied
9/13/2010
10/1/2010
127
9/13/2010
9/27/2010
86
Harden Healthcare
9/9/2010
1/1/2011
874
9/29/2010
9/27/2010
87
Health and Welfare Benefit System
9/16/2010
10/1/2010
41
9/16/2010
9/27/2010
88
Health Connector
9/20/2010
10/1/2010
3,544
9/24/2010
9/27/2010
89
I.U.P.A.T
9/16/2010
10/1/2010
875
9/23/2010
9/27/2010
90
Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.
9/22/2010
10/1/2010
326
9/22/2010
9/27/2010
91
Transport Workers
9/20/2010
10/1/2010
107
9/23/2010
9/27/2010
92
UFT Welfare Fund
9/16/2010
10/1/2010
351,000
9/27/2010
9/27/2010
93
Aegis
9/16/2010
10/1/2010
162
9/21/2010
9/24/2010
94
Aetna
9/16/2010
10/1/2010
209,423
9/16/2010
9/24/2010
95
Allflex
9/20/2010
10/1/2010
34
9/22/2010
9/24/2010
96
Baptist Retirement
9/10/2010
10/1/2010
127
9/17/2010
9/24/2010
97
BCS Insurance
9/13/2010
9/24/2010
115,000
9/22/2010
9/24/2010
98
Cryogenic
9/20/2010
10/1/2010
19
9/20/2010
9/24/2010
99
Fowler Packing Co.
9/8/2010
10/1/2010
39
9/17/2010
9/24/2010
100
Guy C. Lee Mfg.
9/15/2010
10/1/2010
312
9/15/2010
9/24/2010
101
HealthPort
9/17/2010
10/1/2010
608
9/17/2010
9/24/2010
102
Jack in the Box
9/17/2010
10/1/2010
1,130
9/21/2010
9/24/2010
103
Maritime Association
9/17/2010
10/1/2010
500
9/21/2010
9/24/2010
104
Maverick County
9/21/2010
10/1/2010
1
9/23/2010
9/24/2010
105
Metro Paving Fund
9/20/2010
10/1/2010
550
9/20/2010
9/24/2010
106
PMPS-ILA
9/19/2010
10/1/2010
15
9/23/2010
9/24/2010
107
PS-ILA
9/19/2010
10/1/2010
8
9/23/2010
9/24/2010
108
QK/DRD (Denny’s)
9/16/2010
10/1/2010
65
9/22/2010
9/24/2010
109
Reliance Standard
9/14/2010
10/1/2010
varies
9/14/2010
9/24/2010
110
Tri-Pak
9/20/2010
10/1/2010
26
9/20/2010
9/24/2010
111
UABT
9/17/2010
10/1/2010
17,347
9/17/2010
9/24/2010
total
1,175,411
Just scrolling down the list, twenty of of these “waivers” have gone to unions. You know, the socialist “workers of the world unite!” organizations that pushed so hard for the ObamaCare death panels that they’ve decided only others should stand before.
Everything Obama and the Democrat Party told you about ObamaCare – EVERYTHING!!! – was a lie.
Obama assured us that the ObamaCare mandates that would force Americans to purchase insurance (or be punished) was not a tax. That was a lie.
WASHINGTON – AARP’s endorsement helped secure passage of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul. Now the seniors’ lobby is telling its employees their insurance costs will rise partly as a result of the law.
In an e-mail to employees, AARP says health care premiums will increase by 8 percent to 13 percent next year because of rapidly rising medical costs.
And AARP adds that it’s changing copayments and deductibles to avoid a 40 percent tax on high-cost health plans that takes effect in 2018 under the law. Aerospace giant Boeing also has cited the tax in asking its workers to pay more. Shifting costs to employees lowers the value of a health care plan and acts like an escape hatch from the tax.
Krugman made his comments on ABC’s “This Week with Christiane Amanpour” during a roundtable discussion about the economy and the recent findings of the U.S. Debt Reduction Commission.
Here’s the key excerpt:
“Some years down the pike, we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes. It’s going to be that we’re actually going to take Medicare under control, and we’re going to have to get some additional revenue, probably from a VAT. But it’s not going to happen now.”
Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that’s true and what I’m going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people but that means you, particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people…you’re going to have to pay more.“Thank you. And by the way, we’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”
Unless, of course, you’re a privileged, politically-connected liberal, in which case you can get a waiver from this “we’re going to let you die” verdict that everyone else will receive.
With that on the table, we could still say that there isn’t a death panel in ObamaCare. Because it turns out that there are 160 death panels:
The Democrats who rule this country now are the most evil politicians in American history. And this generation of Americans who voted for them in 2008 is the stupidest generation (or you can call it “the Dodo bird generation”).
You’d better get smart quick. Because these people will – now in their very own words – “let you die” with a “a combination of death panels and sales taxes.”
