Washington's History of Lies - Walter Williams
We can thank public education for American gullibility.
President Obama and congressional supporters estimate that his health-care plan will cost between $50 and $65 billion a year. Such cost estimates are lies whether they come from a Democratic president and Congress, or a Republican president and Congress. You say, "Williams, you don't show much trust in the White House and Congress." Let's check out their past dishonesty.
At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee, along with President Johnson, estimated that Medicare would cost an inflation-adjusted $12 billion by 1990. In 1990, Medicare topped $107 billion. That's nine times Congress' prediction. Today's Medicare tab comes to $420 billion with no signs of leveling off. How much confidence can we have in any cost estimates by the White House or Congress?
Another part of the Medicare lie is found in Section 1801 of the 1965 Medicare Act that reads: "Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine, or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer, or employee, or any institution, agency or person providing health care services." Ask your doctor or hospital whether this is true.
Tired of keeping quiet about increasing government control? Express yourself with the magnetic message: "No Hope in Socialism"
Lies and deception are by no means restricted to modern times. During the legislative debate prior to ratification of the 16th Amendment, President Taft and congressional supporters said that only the rich would ever pay federal income taxes. In 1916, only one-half of 1 percent of income earners paid income taxes. Those earning $250,000 a year in today's dollars paid 1 percent, and those earning $6 million in today's dollars paid 7 percent. The lie that only the rich would ever pay income taxes was simply a lie to exploit the politics of envy and dupe Americans into ratifying the 16th Amendment.
Rest of story:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=108592
Red good post. I disagree with the author on manyof his points that they were "lies". A lie is when you say something that you know is not true. I think that those statements were "true" when taken in context with the time and context in which they were said. Many of those things became untrue only later due to new legislation, reality, etc. Having said that, I will say that those are good examples of how things change over time and it is hard to estimate the cost of government programs. It always is going to cost more. Then add the new laws, expansion of old laws, and unknown events that throw things way out of wack. My point is it always costs more and future events almost always make it cost more. Be skeptical of government predication when it comes to the cost of legislation. They are not necessarily lies but they probably are very underestimated.
David
Even if they weren't outright lies ( I tend to think they are) you'd think by now they would learn to "overestimate". Common sense is to budget for more than you actually need.
Quote from: Varmit on September 04, 2009, 10:26:15 PM
Even if they weren't outright lies ( I tend to think they are) you'd think by now they would learn to "overestimate". Common sense is to budget for more than you actually need.
Billy, in my opinion I think the use of lies makes for a good title. I explained my take. In the end the big picture is we have to be skeptical when they tell us the cost. Look at the healthcare\insurance\reform bill CBO comes up with a different cost than what Congress is saying. CBO are doing an accounting analysis Congress is pandering to their constituents. (Actually they are pandering more to their own job and the current parties that are in power in their respective party) We agree on the big picture message just not on the little points.
David
The article starts out, "President Obama and congressional supporters estimate that his health-care plan will cost between $50 and $65 billion a year."
According to the Warph-Meter, the first year should run between $125 to $150 billion, easy... that's full-blown ObamaCare with public option. I would be very surprised if it breaks under a $100 B a year after that. Quite a ponzi scheme, huh? And just think, David Axelrod's companies and a few more of Obama's cronies stand to make a bundle on ObamaCare, not to mention ol' Barack's coffer's filling up along the way. Damn, I should have run for office on the democratic ticket. I'd be rich as hell by now.
Regardless of the projected or estimated costs of proposed social programs,
we simply ought not to consider such in respect to the Constitution of our country.
There's nothing to be skeptical, we ought to simply reject 'em without any
compromise whatsoever.
Quote from: redcliffsw on September 05, 2009, 07:02:15 AM
Regardless of the projected or estimated costs of proposed social programs,
we simply ought not to consider such in respect to the Constitution of our country.
There's nothing to be skeptical, we ought to simply reject 'em without any
compromise whatsoever.
Red, when I mentioned that we need to be skeptical I was speaking to the larger topic of all government programs and their costs and not specifically towards social programs. The fact is that many social programs exist and will exist long after you and I die. It seems that social programs have become so ingrained in our society that your wish to get rid of social programs is simply pie in the sky dreaming. I am not saying that we should not try to eliminate the social programs too. I think we would all be better off if the money was left in our pocket in the first place rather than coming back to us through government. Unfortunately it seems no one is willing to give up their social program benefits. (Corporate welfare, farm subsidy, Social Security benefits, bridge to nowhere etc.) You keep up your attack on social programs and I will keep up mine on getting government to be more fiscally responsible in the way they spend all our tax dollars. I think we have a better chance of reducing government by first controlling the costs of all government intrusions into our pocket books. Simply put I think I have a better chance of convincing my fellow Americans of supporting reducing government by controlling costs than I do of convincing them of giving up their social programs.
David
p.s. Thanks for posting Walter Williams. I went to his webpage at George Mason University and he is a very interesting man. I found a lot of great reading.
David, I do agree with that.
Quote from: dnalexander on September 05, 2009, 08:17:32 AM
Quote from: redcliffsw on September 05, 2009, 07:02:15 AM
Regardless of the projected or estimated costs of proposed social programs,
we simply ought not to consider such in respect to the Constitution of our country.
There's nothing to be skeptical, we ought to simply reject 'em without any
compromise whatsoever.
Red, when I mentioned that we need to be skeptical I was speaking to the larger topic of all government programs and their costs and not specifically towards social programs. The fact is that many social programs exist and will exist long after you and I die. It seems that social programs have become so ingrained in our society that your wish to get rid of social programs is simply pie in the sky dreaming. I am not saying that we should not try to eliminate the social programs too. I think we would all be better off if the money was left in our pocket in the first place rather than coming back to us through government. Unfortunately it seems no one is willing to give up their social program benefits. (Corporate welfare, farm subsidy, Social Security benefits, bridge to nowhere etc.) You keep up your attack on social programs and I will keep up mine on getting government to be more fiscally responsible in the way they spend all our tax dollars. I think we have a better chance of reducing government by first controlling the costs of all government intrusions into our pocket books. Simply put I think I have a better chance of convincing my fellow Americans of supporting reducing government by controlling costs than I do of convincing them of giving up their social programs.
David
p.s. Thanks for posting Walter Williams. I went to his webpage at George Mason University and he is a very interesting man. I found a lot of great reading.
You know i'm beginning to think that the only way to fix it is everyone go on the government social programs and bankrupt the program. Once thats done, it won't exist. No way to keep a unsustainable program.
Look at what happened after 70 years of communist russia. The whole thing fell apart. AND yes they had a rough time for the first few years but it appears that capitalism has built a good economy over there.
Steve that certainly would do the programs in, but the flaw is the programs would be gone and our taxes would still be the same. Quite a conundrum we have gotten ourselves into, isn't it?
David
Quote from: Varmit on September 04, 2009, 10:26:15 PM
Even if they weren't outright lies ( I tend to think they are) you'd think by now they would learn to "overestimate". Common sense is to budget for more than you actually need.
Budget for more, be frugal, and spend less.
Billy Dr Williams from Reds article got you a gift. (Sorry Red for side tracking your post a little)
Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon Granted to
All Persons of European Descent
Whereas, Europeans kept my forebears in bondage some three centuries toiling without pay,
Whereas, Europeans ignored the human rights pledges of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution,
Whereas, the Emancipation Proclamation, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments meant little more than empty words,
Therefore, Americans of European ancestry are guilty of great crimes against my ancestors and their progeny.
But, in the recognition Europeans themselves have been victims of various and sundry human rights violations to wit: the Norman Conquest, the Irish Potato Famine, Decline of the Hapsburg Dynasty, Napoleonic and Czarist adventurism, and gratuitous insults and speculations about the intelligence of Europeans of Polish descent,
I, Walter E. Williams, do declare full and general amnesty and pardon to all persons of European ancestry, for both their own grievances, and those of their forebears, against my people.
Therefore, from this day forward Americans of European ancestry can stand straight and proud knowing they are without guilt and thus obliged not to act like damn fools in their relationships with Americans of African ancestry.
Walter E. Williams, Gracious and Generous Grantor
Red,
do you accept your social security check and medicare? or do you reject those social programs also?
Quote from: dnalexander on September 05, 2009, 09:30:14 AM
Steve that certainly would do the programs in, but the flaw is the programs would be gone and our taxes would still be the same. Quite a conundrum we have gotten ourselves into, isn't it?
David
TAxes?? WHo would be paying taxes if everyone is on the govt teat??
Quote from: Anmar on September 05, 2009, 10:50:13 AM
Red,
do you accept your social security check and medicare? or do you reject those social programs also?
You know what, years ago I tried my damndedst to get out of social security program. When i was signed up for social security, i never signed up for it. My grandparents signed me up for it when i was a minor. Social security is "voluntary" according to the SS charter. So if it is voluntary then you should be able to say no more and leave it right!?? But Nooooo. Social security says one you volunteer your screwed for life.
Well being that i never signed the ss forms, i shouldn't have to be a part of it and no one can sign a contract for you creating a debt. But according to SS, they do it all the time every day. They claim you can't use your children for deductions on taxes if you don't have one yet thats totally untrue. You can refuse to allow them to be signed into the program, and file for a RTIN number for your children.
But back to what i was saying, I woke up long ago to the fact that my money was being flushed down the great socialistic commode, and tried to get out. They refused to let me out. I told them even to keep what i had paid in, they said no way, you can't get out you have to pay.
So that leads me to what i am fixing to say about your statement anmar. Since i was forced to pay into that system, that is legally voluntary, but mandatory because they control the employers that take it out of your money, then by God i will collect every red cent PLUS whatever i could have made in a reasonable interest bearing account i paid into the system. Now my SS earnings statement says i have paid into the system 180,000 dollars over my work years. and all i get in return is 14k a year.
What is owed to me in that is 225,000 in interest at 5% interest, as well as the initial 180k. so 405k will give me 28.5 years of income at 14k and at that rate, i will be 76.5 years old. I should be dead by then, and paid back what i paid in.
As far as medicare goes, i pay for it every month in a premium. Plus deductible plus 20% of the bill plus i paid every paycheck while working to cover me. So essentially with my premium i was paying out of my paychecks along with the second premium i pay each month I don't owe a thing out of it. Sorry but thats the way it is. Now IF i had not paid a dime into social security or medicare, then it could be called a social program or welfare but since i did pay into it, its my money that was taken from me by force.