Showing posts with label deception. Show all posts
Showing posts with label deception. Show all posts
Immigration Speech: President Obama Distorts Truth 7 Times in 54 Seconds
Bryan Fischer points out Obama's distortions here:
"Into this breach, states like Arizona have decided to take matters into their own hands. Given the levels of frustration across the country, this is understandable. But it is also ill conceived. And it's not just that the law Arizona passed is divisive — although it has fanned the flames of an already contentious debate. Laws like Arizona's put huge pressures on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable. It puts pressure on already hard-strapped state and local budgets. It makes it difficult for people here illegally to report crimes — driving a wedge between communities and law enforcement, making our streets more dangerous and the jobs of our police officers more difficult."
"ill conceived" — In the most significant parts of the Arizona law, its language is drawn word-for-word from federal immigration statutes signed into law by Democrat icons. The requirement that every non-citizen in the U.S. be required to carry documentation was passed by a Democrat Congress and signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1940. Other parts of the law mirror language from the immigration law signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, a bill championed by Sen. Ted Kennedy.
"divisive" — 71% of Arizonans support the bill. It has unified rather than divided. In politics, a 60-40 win is considered a landslide. For a law to get 71% support is an overwhelming mandate.
"unenforceable" — Just ask Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpaio exactly how difficult this law is to enforce. If other communities find it unenforceable, they need better sheriffs.
"budgets" — Just ask Arizonans about budgetary impacts. They are coughing up $2.7 billion a year for education, welfare, health care and law enforcement costs to deal with the illegal alien problem. A secure border would free up almost $3 billion dollars, either to be returned to the wallets of residents or spent on other programs. Mayfield, California, a city which declared itself a "safe haven" for illegal aliens, just closed down under the strain of budgetary pressures.
"report crimes" — This is just ridiculous. Nobody asks for your Social Security number when you call 911. They just send a squad car. And the Arizona law only allows law enforcement to check your immigration status if you are committing a crime, not if you are reporting one.
"streets more dangerous" — Ask the residents of Phoenix about this one. Phoenix is now second only to Mexico City as the kidnapping capital of the world. Home invasions, drug crimes and street crimes are up — "off the charts" to use Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu's words — because of illegal aliens. The federal government has virtually ceded large swathes of sovereign U.S. territory to the drug cartels, putting signs up warning U.S. citizens to stay of U.S. property because Mexican drug cartels control it. Mayfield, California, which declared itself a "safe haven" for illegal aliens, just closed down.
"jobs of our police officers more dangerous" — Ask Joslyn Johnson, the widow of slain Houston patrolman Rodney Johnson, who was shot to death in 2006 by an illegal alien who had already been deported one time and had been arrested at least three times before gunning Johnson down at a routine traffic stop. If our southern border were secure, Rodney Johnson would be alive today. Making their jobs more dangerous? Hardly. It's the other way round.
H/T RenewAmerica
My Rant on The Radical Obama Administration
Obama's lies and deception have become apparent recently with the revelation of yet another broken promise from the Obama campaign trail. Obama promised eight separate times to the American people during his campaign that he would televise health care negotiations on C-Span. And, Obama has finally agreed that one whole hour (Oh! Gee... Golly! Yeah! sarcasm) of the end of negotiations will be aired on C-Span. This is not broadcasting the whole debate on C-Span as he promised. The Obama administration has attacked free speech with the "fishy" emails request and outright attacking the one news channel that is critical of Obama and his administration- Fox News. The Obama administration has been about as transparent as a brick wall.
The Obama administration comports themselves as if they are living in a quasi reality using euphamisms like "overseas contingency operation" instead of war on terror. Obama and Company is extending more rights to the terrorists than they are obligated to by International law. Obama and Holder in a cult of cultural imperalism are extending their arms openly and are aiding terrorists by allowing them the priviledge of an American trial, an American jury, Miranda rights that don't apply to terrorists captured on a foreign battlefield.
Liberals demonize the elderly for attending Town Hall meetings, and other conservatives attending Tea Parties who want smaller government. Obama made a swift wrong-headed judgment against a police officer who was merely doing his job, and showed a delayed reaction and a lack of prudential judgement in his awful response to the underwear bomber's attempt to blow up a plane with 300 innocent lives aboard.
Obama claimed that his administration was going to be different than all the past presidential administrations. He was going to bridge the great divide between the right and left across our country but his administration has divided this country further and basically proclaimed a "fatwa" against any person, company, or organization that disagrees with with his policies and oesn't fall lock in step behind the Obama administration like good little Obamabots.
Obama plays the role of today's Robin Hood, stealing money from the rich and spreading the wealth to Unions, liberal corporations like GE, expanding the government at an unprecedented rate, and just maybe they'll be some money left over for the poor and needy in our society.
Barack Obama is NOT just another President. He is the worst of the worst. Obama is the most corrupt President in the history of the United States. Please, wake up people, those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. I fear history may be repeating itself now. Obama is the Radical-in-Chief.
The Heritage Foundation's Ernest Istook Schools Ed Schultz on How Obamacare Hurts Poor & Kills Jobs
Here is an interesting transcript of an interview between Ernest Istook and Ed Schultz in which Istook schools Schultz on what is exactly in Obamacare. Of course, Schultz just believes the Democrats misinformation. And, he falsely calls the truth, or what is actually in Obamacare, misinformation. That is all these damn Democratic commentators do - is spread lies and deception to citizens that the Obama administration and Democrats relay to them regarding Obamacare.
This article is from The Heritage Foundation's The Foundry
Ed Schultz is a leftist radio personality who recently graduated to MSNBCs barely watched opinion line up. Schultz still hosts his daily radio show and recently had Heritage Foundation fellow Ernest Istook on to discuss Obamacare. The following exchange (audio here) transpired:
SCHULTZ: OK, give us your new information from the Heritage Foundation on health care. Tell us how screwed up the Democrats are on that.
ISTOOK: Well, you know, I think this may be in the category of unintended consequences, although frankly it may be part of the cost control. As we’ve been going through this 2,000 pages that have been brought up for debate in the US Senate, evidently the penalties that they put upon employers if their, the people who work for them go into this public plan, this so-called insurance exchange …
SCHULTZ: Don’t tell me they’re going to jail! Please …
ISTOOK: No, this is not about that.
SCHULTZ: OK.
ISTOOK: This is, the penalty if you are an employer and you hire someone who then receives the federal subsidy because of their family income, you as the employer, the penalty can be $3,000 for each worker that you hire. Here’s the difficulty, Ed. It makes it more costly for a company to hire somebody such as a single mother with small children who may need the job the most of all. It makes it more expensive for a company to hire them than it does to hire someone, for example, who is married and has multiple sources of income for their household because the subsidies are based upon household income. The unintended consequence of this could be that the people who most need work will have the biggest difficulty in finding it.
SCHULTZ: I tell you what, you guys have really, uh, dug something up over at the Heritage Foundation on that one.
ISTOOK: No, we didn’t write the bill.
SCHULTZ: There is, congressman, if people break the law there’s going to be a fine, that’s basically what you’re saying.
ISTOOK: Well, I’m not talking about that aspect …
SCHULTZ: …. That’s if the mandate, that’s if the mandate is accepted in conference committee. I mean, we’re still, I mean, there is, there’s no guarantee that there’s going to be any fines anywhere.
ISTOOK: Well, again, this, are you telling me that there’s no guarantee that the main parts of the bill will go through? This is what they call the provision to stop what they call free riders, people that receive their health care through this government system that would be set up there and they’re saying if you as an employer have people who work for you who receive their health care in this fashion, you as the employer are going to have to pay extra into this system to the tune of approximately $3,000 per worker per year.
SCHULTZ: No! Ernie, that’s not true!
ISTOOK: Well, all you have to do is read the bill.
SCHULTZ: This is going, this is going to reduce the cost to small businesses across America.
ISTOOK: Surprise! The small businesses don’t believe you, Ed.
SCHULTZ: OK. Wow.
ISTOOK: Again, I mean …
SCHULTZ: I can’t take all this misinformation! I can’t take all this misinformation, I can’t! I don’t know what you guys do over there at the Heritage Foundation. Go to lunch! This is, this is going to relieve small business. This is one of the attacks that the Democrats have got to come up with on the Senate floor, is that the Republicans, you’re not for small business. If someone’s under $90,000 a year and works for a company of less than 50 employees, and that’s the majority, that’s over 95 percent of employees in this country are in that category, this is going to help, you know, Ralph’s Radiator Garage. There’s no …
ISTOOK: Ed, rather than read Democratic talking points I suggest you read the bill.
SCHULTZ: That’s a fact! That’s a fact! That’s an absolute fact! This is going to help small businesses! For you folks over at the Heritage Foundation to come out and say, well, you’re gonna get fined! For what?!
ISTOOK: Ed, the fines and the penalties are in the legislation. And …
SCHULTZ: You send me the page. It is not there!
Well, Ed, on page 350 of the Senate’s version of Obamacare it reads:
LARGE EMPLOYERS OFFERING COVERAGE WITH EMPLOYEES WHO QUALIFY FOR PREMIUM TAX CREDITS OR COST-SHARING REDUCTIONS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—If—
(A) an applicable large employer offers to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2)) for any month, and
(B) 1 or more full-time employees of the applicable large employer has been certified to the employer under section 1411 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as having enrolled for such month in a qualified health plan with respect to which an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction is allowed or paid with respect to the employee, then there is hereby imposed on the employer an assessable payment equal to the product of the number of full-time employees of the applicable large employer described in subparagraph (B) for such month and 400 percent of the applicable payment amount.
Later on page 352 we learn:
(1) APPLICABLE PAYMENT AMOUNT.—The term ‘applicable payment amount’ means, with respect to any month, 1?12 of $750.
Some quick math reveals: 12 * $750 = $750 a year, and 400% of $750 is $3,000. Or as Heritage scholar Robert Book explained:
Then there is the “employer responsibility” provision (Section 1511-1513, pages 346-357). Companies with more than 50 employees are required to offer qualified health plans – with a benefit package to be defined later by bureaucrats – to their full-time employees or pay a tax of $750 per full-time employee. That’s a lot cheaper than providing health insurance, and the $750 is just a tax – it doesn’t count towards the employee’s premium.
However, an employer who does offer qualifying insurance isn’t entirely off the hook. Suppose an employer offers insurance, but has an employee from a low-income family who qualifies for a premium subsidy in the “health insurance exchange” and decides to accept it. In that case, the employer is stuck with a tax penalty of $3,000 for that employee, and every other employee who qualifies and makes that same choice – unless it’s more than a quarter of the employees, in which case the tax is capped at $750 times the total number of full-time employees. (Workers will be permitted to opt out of their employer’s plan only if they qualify for a subsidy, have insurance through another family member, or if the employer covers less than 60 percent of their premium.)
Hurting the Poor. In other words, if a company has a lot of low-income workers, they can save money by dropping their health plan and just paying the $750 per-employee tax. (And they can make as many employees as possible part-time.) However, if they have mostly middle-income workers, they face a heavy penalty — $3,000 – every time they hire a worker from a low-income family. This goes by the employee’s family income, not the income the employee is paid by any particular company. So a company could save $3,000 by hiring, say, someone with a working spouse or a teenager with working parents, rather than a single mother with three children.
Even worse, if at least a quarter of the employees qualify for a premium subsidy based on their income and family size, the company is going to end up paying the same $750 per-employee tax – whether they offer insurance or not! So companies with a lot of low-income employees will essentially be encouraged to drop their health plans entire, dumping the remaining higher-income employees into the federal exchange at their own expense.
Seriously Bad Policy. In other words, employers will have a strong tax incentive to lay off the workers who need the jobs most – people without other sources of income.
How will employers know who those workers are? The federal officials will tell them when they send the tax bill (Section 1412).
Employer will be required (Section 1513) to inform the IRS of precisely who their employees are and during which months they carried insurance, to make sure the IRS knows who has to pay the “individual responsibility” penalty.
This article is from The Heritage Foundation's The Foundry
Ed Schultz is a leftist radio personality who recently graduated to MSNBCs barely watched opinion line up. Schultz still hosts his daily radio show and recently had Heritage Foundation fellow Ernest Istook on to discuss Obamacare. The following exchange (audio here) transpired:
SCHULTZ: OK, give us your new information from the Heritage Foundation on health care. Tell us how screwed up the Democrats are on that.
ISTOOK: Well, you know, I think this may be in the category of unintended consequences, although frankly it may be part of the cost control. As we’ve been going through this 2,000 pages that have been brought up for debate in the US Senate, evidently the penalties that they put upon employers if their, the people who work for them go into this public plan, this so-called insurance exchange …
SCHULTZ: Don’t tell me they’re going to jail! Please …
ISTOOK: No, this is not about that.
SCHULTZ: OK.
ISTOOK: This is, the penalty if you are an employer and you hire someone who then receives the federal subsidy because of their family income, you as the employer, the penalty can be $3,000 for each worker that you hire. Here’s the difficulty, Ed. It makes it more costly for a company to hire somebody such as a single mother with small children who may need the job the most of all. It makes it more expensive for a company to hire them than it does to hire someone, for example, who is married and has multiple sources of income for their household because the subsidies are based upon household income. The unintended consequence of this could be that the people who most need work will have the biggest difficulty in finding it.
SCHULTZ: I tell you what, you guys have really, uh, dug something up over at the Heritage Foundation on that one.
ISTOOK: No, we didn’t write the bill.
SCHULTZ: There is, congressman, if people break the law there’s going to be a fine, that’s basically what you’re saying.
ISTOOK: Well, I’m not talking about that aspect …
SCHULTZ: …. That’s if the mandate, that’s if the mandate is accepted in conference committee. I mean, we’re still, I mean, there is, there’s no guarantee that there’s going to be any fines anywhere.
ISTOOK: Well, again, this, are you telling me that there’s no guarantee that the main parts of the bill will go through? This is what they call the provision to stop what they call free riders, people that receive their health care through this government system that would be set up there and they’re saying if you as an employer have people who work for you who receive their health care in this fashion, you as the employer are going to have to pay extra into this system to the tune of approximately $3,000 per worker per year.
SCHULTZ: No! Ernie, that’s not true!
ISTOOK: Well, all you have to do is read the bill.
SCHULTZ: This is going, this is going to reduce the cost to small businesses across America.
ISTOOK: Surprise! The small businesses don’t believe you, Ed.
SCHULTZ: OK. Wow.
ISTOOK: Again, I mean …
SCHULTZ: I can’t take all this misinformation! I can’t take all this misinformation, I can’t! I don’t know what you guys do over there at the Heritage Foundation. Go to lunch! This is, this is going to relieve small business. This is one of the attacks that the Democrats have got to come up with on the Senate floor, is that the Republicans, you’re not for small business. If someone’s under $90,000 a year and works for a company of less than 50 employees, and that’s the majority, that’s over 95 percent of employees in this country are in that category, this is going to help, you know, Ralph’s Radiator Garage. There’s no …
ISTOOK: Ed, rather than read Democratic talking points I suggest you read the bill.
SCHULTZ: That’s a fact! That’s a fact! That’s an absolute fact! This is going to help small businesses! For you folks over at the Heritage Foundation to come out and say, well, you’re gonna get fined! For what?!
ISTOOK: Ed, the fines and the penalties are in the legislation. And …
SCHULTZ: You send me the page. It is not there!
Well, Ed, on page 350 of the Senate’s version of Obamacare it reads:
LARGE EMPLOYERS OFFERING COVERAGE WITH EMPLOYEES WHO QUALIFY FOR PREMIUM TAX CREDITS OR COST-SHARING REDUCTIONS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—If—
(A) an applicable large employer offers to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2)) for any month, and
(B) 1 or more full-time employees of the applicable large employer has been certified to the employer under section 1411 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as having enrolled for such month in a qualified health plan with respect to which an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction is allowed or paid with respect to the employee, then there is hereby imposed on the employer an assessable payment equal to the product of the number of full-time employees of the applicable large employer described in subparagraph (B) for such month and 400 percent of the applicable payment amount.
Later on page 352 we learn:
(1) APPLICABLE PAYMENT AMOUNT.—The term ‘applicable payment amount’ means, with respect to any month, 1?12 of $750.
Some quick math reveals: 12 * $750 = $750 a year, and 400% of $750 is $3,000. Or as Heritage scholar Robert Book explained:
Then there is the “employer responsibility” provision (Section 1511-1513, pages 346-357). Companies with more than 50 employees are required to offer qualified health plans – with a benefit package to be defined later by bureaucrats – to their full-time employees or pay a tax of $750 per full-time employee. That’s a lot cheaper than providing health insurance, and the $750 is just a tax – it doesn’t count towards the employee’s premium.
However, an employer who does offer qualifying insurance isn’t entirely off the hook. Suppose an employer offers insurance, but has an employee from a low-income family who qualifies for a premium subsidy in the “health insurance exchange” and decides to accept it. In that case, the employer is stuck with a tax penalty of $3,000 for that employee, and every other employee who qualifies and makes that same choice – unless it’s more than a quarter of the employees, in which case the tax is capped at $750 times the total number of full-time employees. (Workers will be permitted to opt out of their employer’s plan only if they qualify for a subsidy, have insurance through another family member, or if the employer covers less than 60 percent of their premium.)
Hurting the Poor. In other words, if a company has a lot of low-income workers, they can save money by dropping their health plan and just paying the $750 per-employee tax. (And they can make as many employees as possible part-time.) However, if they have mostly middle-income workers, they face a heavy penalty — $3,000 – every time they hire a worker from a low-income family. This goes by the employee’s family income, not the income the employee is paid by any particular company. So a company could save $3,000 by hiring, say, someone with a working spouse or a teenager with working parents, rather than a single mother with three children.
Even worse, if at least a quarter of the employees qualify for a premium subsidy based on their income and family size, the company is going to end up paying the same $750 per-employee tax – whether they offer insurance or not! So companies with a lot of low-income employees will essentially be encouraged to drop their health plans entire, dumping the remaining higher-income employees into the federal exchange at their own expense.
Seriously Bad Policy. In other words, employers will have a strong tax incentive to lay off the workers who need the jobs most – people without other sources of income.
How will employers know who those workers are? The federal officials will tell them when they send the tax bill (Section 1412).
Employer will be required (Section 1513) to inform the IRS of precisely who their employees are and during which months they carried insurance, to make sure the IRS knows who has to pay the “individual responsibility” penalty.
Obama Deception of Mixed Messages on Health Care Reform
NOW- The White House, meaning Obama, is open to Congressional Democrats suggestion to limit the existing tax break for employer-provided benefits.
THEN- During the campaign Obama was extremely critical of McCain for saying that he wanted to end tax breaks for employer provided health benefits, and said that he wouldn't do that.
Limiting that tax break enough to raise serious funds would amount to the LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN 16 YEARS- and largest middle-class tax increase since even before then.
FIRST- On June 19th, an anonymous White House Aide said that the President's promise that people who like their coverage could keep it shouldn't be taken literally.
SECOND- On June 23rd, Obama said "The Government is not going to make you change plans under health reform."
According to Newsmax magazine, The "Public-Option" is to take the country toward a government health insurance monopoly.
The House Democrats Plan allows the "Public-Option" to tell doctors who participate in Obama's plan that they cannot participate in private plans.
Obama in ABC Broadcast: Obama suggested that doctors and hospitals be given incentives not to provide allegedly unnecessary care.
Obama is the mixed messages President, where he says one thing at one point in time, then at another point in time, he or a member of his administration gives the exact opposite message. So how can we possibly trust a President that doesn't know the very Health Care Bill that he is trying to sell to the American people? I think that this is a continuation of the Obama deception Presidency. He wants to keep the American people in the dark as to what is exactly in this bill. Obama hasn't committed himelf and his family to this government run health care. If its not good enough for him and his family, then its not good enough for the American people. We need to continue fighting against Obamacare for the simple fact that it will not help the American people, but in fact HURT the American people and their accessibility to health care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
