SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (161858)11/3/2013 10:55:19 AM
From: Thomas A Watson2 Recommendations

Recommended By
John
TideGlider

  Respond to of 224749
 
kenny, your statement is a true as the obamanation statement below. Are truly so stupid you believe what your say or are you just being your lefty loon obamanation honest self as shown below.




To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (161858)11/3/2013 11:06:02 AM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 224749
 
that's been Obama's plan from day one



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (161858)11/3/2013 11:06:37 AM
From: longnshort1 Recommendation

Recommended By
TideGlider

  Respond to of 224749
 
IPCC has retreated from about a dozen alarmist claims on climate change

There's an excellent piece by Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, to consider here on the latest, major retreats by the United Nations climate change body, the IPCC.

Highlights of Professor Singer's comments include:

1. "...the IPCC concedes for the first time that a fifteen-year-long period of insignificant warming (or perhaps even cooling) has occurred since 1998, despite a 7% rise in Carbon Dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. This is striking evidence that there is something wrong with the IPCC's climate models, which all predict a substantial warming in response to rising CO2."

2. "It is ironic that at the same time that predictions from 72(!) climate models and observations (from satellites and balloons) increasingly diverge, successive IPCC reports have expressed increasing certainty about human Influences on warming."

3. "Another interesting admission: The IPCC now has "low confidence" in predicting more frequent or more extreme droughts and tropical cyclones. Thus, IPCC is specifically revoking its previous more alarmist claims."

4. "Among the many untrue claims, is one that asserts that post-1950 warming is "unprecedented." However, as shown by the Hadley [UK] record, it is reported as of about the same magnitude and rate as the 1910 - 1940 warming."

5. "We conclude that the current generation of global climate models is unable to make accurate projections of climate even 10 years ahead -- let alone the 100-year period that has been adopted by policy planners. The output of such models should therefore not be used to guide public-policy formulation until they have been validated and shown to have predictive value."

Again, there's no substitute for reading the original article, which I strongly recommend.


Read more on: Intergovernmental panel on climate change, BBC climate change, climate alarmism, James Lovelock admits climate alarmism went overboard, and anthropogenic climate change



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (161858)11/3/2013 11:18:04 AM
From: longnshort1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Honey_Bee

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 224749
 

IT BEGINS: Dem calls for law to require all doctors to treat MedicaidMedicare patients...

so they are gonna force doctors to lose money, who would work ? here comes our doctor shortage like the rest of the world



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (161858)11/3/2013 11:32:34 AM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 224749
 

STICKER SHOCK OFTEN FOLLOWS INSURANCE CANCELLATION

BY KELLI KENNEDY
ASSOCIATED PRESS



AP Photo/Matt Rourke
US VIDEO
[iframe src="http://embed.newsinc.com/Thumbnail/iframe.html?cid=10203&f=AP&sitesection=ap_us&parent=ndn_sliding_launcher_1&type=slider" height="250" width="300" frameborder="no" scrolling="no" noresize="" marginwidth="0px" marginheight="0px"][/iframe]


[iframe id="google_ads_iframe_/15786418/Hosted1_customer/AP/rectangle_0" name="google_ads_iframe_/15786418/Hosted1_customer/AP/rectangle_0" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" style="border-width: 0px; vertical-align: bottom;"][/iframe]

BUY AP PHOTO REPRINTS


MIAMI (AP) -- Dean Griffin liked the health insurance he purchased for himself and his wife three years ago and thought he'd be able to keep the plan even after the federal Affordable Care Act took effect.

But the 64-year-old recently received a letter notifying him the plan was being canceled because it didn't cover certain benefits required under the law.

The Griffins, who live near Philadelphia on the Delaware border, pay $770 monthly for their soon-to-be-terminated health care plan with a $2,500 deductible. The cheapest plan they found on their state insurance exchange was a so-called bronze plan charging a $1,275 monthly premium with deductibles totaling $12,700. It covers only providers in Pennsylvania, so the couple wouldn't be able to see the doctors in Delaware whom they've used for more than a decade.

"We're buying insurance that we will never use and can't possibly ever benefit from. We're basically passing on a benefit to other people who are not otherwise able to buy basic insurance," said Griffin, who is retired from running an information technology company.

The Griffins are among millions of people nationwide who buy individual insurance policies and are receiving notices that those policies are being discontinued because they don't meet the higher benefit requirements of the new law.

They can buy different policies directly from insurers for 2014 or sign up for plans on state insurance exchanges. While lower-income people could see lower costs because of government subsidies, many in the middle class may get rude awakenings when they access the websites and realize they'll have to pay significantly more.

Those not eligible for subsidies generally receive more comprehensive coverage than they had under their soon-to-be-canceled policies, but they'll have to pay a lot more.

Because of the higher cost, the Griffins are considering paying the federal penalty - about $100 or 1 percent of income next year - rather than buying health insurance. They say they are healthy and don't typically run up large health care costs. Dean Griffin said that will be cheaper because it's unlikely they will get past the nearly $13,000 deductible for the coverage to kick in.

Individual health insurance policies are being canceled because the Affordable Care Act requires plans to cover certain benefits, such as maternity care, hospital visits and mental illness. The law also caps annual out-of-pocket costs consumers will pay each year.

In the past, consumers could get relatively inexpensive, bare-bones coverage, but those plans will no longer be available. Many consumers are frustrated by what they call forced upgrades as they're pushed into plans with coverage options they don't necessarily want.

Ken Davis, who manages a fast food restaurant in Austin, Texas, is recovering from sticker shock after the small-business policy offered by his employer was canceled for the same reasons individual policies are being discontinued.

His company pays about $100 monthly for his basic health plan. He said he'll now have to pay $600 monthly for a mid-tier silver plan on the state exchange. The family policy also covers his 8-year-old son. Even though the federal government is contributing a $500 subsidy, he said the $600 he's left to pay is too high. He's considering the penalty.

"I feel like they're forcing me to do something that I don't want to do or need to do," Davis, 40, said.

Owners of canceled policies have a few options. They can stay in the same plan for the same price for one more year if they have one of the few plans that were grandfathered in. They can buy a similar plan with upgraded benefits that meets the new standards - likely at a significant cost increase. Or, if they make less than $45,960 for a single adult or $94,200 for a family of four, they may qualify for subsidies.

Just because a policy doesn't comply with the law doesn't mean consumers will get cancellation letters. They may get notices saying existing policies are being amended with new benefits and will come with higher premiums. Some states, including Virginia and Kentucky, required insurers to cancel old policies and start from scratch instead of beefing up existing ones.

It's unclear how many individual plans are being canceled - no one agency keeps track. But it's likely in the millions. Insurance industry experts estimate that about 14 million people, or 5 percent of the total market for health care coverage, buy individual policies. Most people get coverage through jobs and aren't affected.

Many states require insurers to give consumers 90 days' notice before canceling plans. That means another round of cancellation letters will go out in March and again in May.

Experts haven't been able to predict how many will pay more or less under the new, upgraded plans. An older policyholder with a pre-existing condition may find that premiums go down, and some will qualify for subsidies.

In California, about 900,000 people are expected to lose existing plans, but about a third will be eligible for subsidies through the state exchange, said Anne Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for the exchange, called Covered California. Most canceled plans provided bare-bones coverage, she said.

"They basically had plans that had gaping holes in the coverage. They would be surprised when they get to the emergency room or the doctor's office, some of them didn't have drug coverage or preventive care," Gonzalez said.

About 330,000 Floridians received cancellation notices from the state's largest insurer, Florida Blue. About 30,000 have plans that were grandfathered in. Florida insurance officials said they're not tracking the number of canceled policies related to the new law.

National numbers are similar: 130,000 cancellations in Kentucky, 140,000 in Minnesota and as many as 400,000 in Georgia, according to officials in those states.

Cigna has sent thousands of cancellation letters to U.S. policyholders but stressed that 99 percent have the option of renewing their 2013 policy for one more year, company spokesman Joe Mondy said.

Cancellation letters are being sent only to individuals and families who purchase their own insurance. However, most policyholders in the individual market will receive some notice that their coverage will change, said Dan Mendelson, president of the market analysis firm Avalere Health.

The cancellations run counter to one of President Barack Obama's promises about his health care overhaul: "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan."

Philip Johnson, 47, of Boise, Idaho, was shocked when his cancellation notice arrived last month. The gift-shop owner said he'd spent years arranging doctors covered by his insurer for him, his wife and their two college-age students.

After browsing the state exchange, he said he thinks he'll end up paying lower premiums but higher deductibles. He said the website didn't answer many of his questions, such as which doctors take which plans.

"I was furious because I spent a lot of time and picked a plan that all my doctors accepted," Johnson said. "Now I don't know what doctors are going to take what. No one mentioned that for the last three years when they talked about how this was going to work."




To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (161858)11/3/2013 11:48:20 AM
From: locogringo3 Recommendations

Recommended By
Honey_Bee
John
TideGlider

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224749
 
If ObamaCare fails,

When, NOT if. This was designed to do exactly what it is doing.

we will have no alternative but single payer.

That is a pretty dumb statement, even for you.

What the insurance companies cancel this year, can be re-established on Jan 1 with the flip of a few keyboard keys. I would bet that the programs are already in place.

It will be an interesting test to see who wins the battle. Liberal government or the insurance industry.

We are nothing but pawns.

I'm putting my money on the insurance conglomerates. Even the arrogant Dems know that there has to be a life after obama.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (161858)11/3/2013 11:50:53 AM
From: lorne2 Recommendations

Recommended By
John
locogringo

  Respond to of 224749
 
Kenny..."If ObamaCare fails, we will have no alternative but single payer".....

Seems to me that it was someone on the right who came up with this theory and you use it just cuz you think it will help the enemies of America.. that would be you and your kind... the democrouts/commies/socialists .

You just have no shame do you Kenny....just like barry Obama, lie to your face without the slightest bit of guilt.

Yep Kenny you are a true...IMO....America hater.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (161858)11/3/2013 1:27:19 PM
From: Sidney Reilly1 Recommendation

Recommended By
locogringo

  Respond to of 224749
 
You'll see the end of the Democrats in America first. Do you want a Republican majority from the house to the White House in 2016? They'll slash and burn everything they don't like for at least 8 years. That will be Obama's legacy.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (161858)11/3/2013 2:36:51 PM
From: TideGlider2 Recommendations

Recommended By
locogringo
Sidney Reilly

  Respond to of 224749
 
Total BS...it will just return to insurance companies issuing policies that suit peoples needs.Cheaper and with better coverage. Adding birth control, maternity etc to policies for which people have no use for the product is what causes the expense of ACA..



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (161858)11/3/2013 3:04:39 PM
From: Jack of All Trades2 Recommendations

Recommended By
TideGlider
Woody_Nickels

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 224749
 
We are watching the Democrat party commit suicide...



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (161858)11/3/2013 6:56:53 PM
From: TideGlider2 Recommendations

Recommended By
locogringo
Woody_Nickels

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224749
 
Canceled health insurance plans add to angst of changeIn Washington, most of the 290,000 people covered by insurance plans they purchased on the individual market received letters this fall telling them that their plans are going away.

By Lisa Stiffler

Special to The Seattle Times



Mark Harrison / The Seattle Times

Bill Fullner is one of thousands of Washingtonians whose health insurance is being canceled because it didn’t meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.

10 essential benefits

The Affordable Care Act requires health-insurance plans to meet certain minimum criteria, including a prohibition against denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. It also limits a subscriber’s out-of-pocket medical costs. For 2014 that amount is $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families (the amount includes deductibles and co-payments, but not premiums). In addition, all plans must include services for the so-called 10 essential benefits:

• Preventive and wellness services and chronic-disease management.

• Prescription drugs.

• Emergency services.

• Hospitalization.

• Ambulatory patient services.

• Rehabilitative services and devices.

• Laboratory services.

• Mental-health and substance-use-disorder services, including behavioral-health treatment.

• Maternity and newborn care.

• Pediatric services, including dental and vision care.

Bill Fullner has reached his breaking point.

It started with the letter from his health-insurance company informing him it was canceling his plan and offering him a new one that’s nearly twice as expensive. Then the 60-year-old retiree from Mount Vernon heard about more people like himself with canceled plans and soaring premiums. Finally, he spent hours on the phone and computer trying — and failing — to find a new option that he likes.

“This whole experience has converted a lifelong Democrat into a foot soldier for the Republican Party,”Fullner said.

[ Doesn't he know he needs maternity, pediatric, and substance abuse coverage? ]

He’s not alone in his frustration.

In Washington, most of the 290,000 people covered by insurance plans they purchased on the individual market received letters this fall telling them that their plans are going away.

That’s because under the Affordable Care Act, insurance plans must meet new requirements, including limits on how much money patients spend in out-of-pocket medical expenses, and they must cover 10 so-called essential benefits such as preventive care, prescription drugs and maternity care.

So all 90,181 people with insurance coverage from Regence BlueShield have learned their plans will be canceled, as did all 60,000 people covered by Group Health Cooperative. Some 77,000 people with LifeWise Health Plan, a subsidiary of Premera Blue Cross, also learned their plans were being scrapped.

An additional 24,000 people with LifeWise are covered under “grandfathered” plans that predate the act and will not be canceled, though members will be getting letters in November informing them they can move to another plan if they would like to.

For some who have received the letters, the new plans being offered are more expensive, but for others — especially those who qualify for a federal subsidy to bring down the cost of the premium — their insurance bill will go down.

Many of these folks did not have health insurance through their jobs and had to buy health insurance on the individual market. Many sought the least expensive, stripped-down plans they could find, which meant they had fewer benefits and higher deductibles.

And if those plans didn’t meet the more protective conditions of the Affordable Care Act, they had to go.

That’s left Fuller and many others feeling blindsided. They — and Republican leaders opposed to the Affordable Care Act — are now calling a pledge made by President Obama as he lobbied for the law a betrayal.

“Obama stated that if we were happy with an insurance plan that we currently had, we would be able to keep it,” Fullner said in an email. “I feel that the president, who I greatly admired and supported, has lied to the public.”

Some were vulnerable

Even supporters of the health-care overhaul say Obama’s promise oversimplified a complicated situation.

The statement “was true for most people,” said Stephanie Marquis, spokeswoman for the state Office of the Insurance Commissioner. That’s because most people have employer-provided plans with more generous benefits, making them more likely to meet the new rules with little change.

“It turned out not to be the case for most people with individual plans, because the plans were so much worse,” she said. “In all honestly, they didn’t provide meaningful coverage.”

The bare-bones plans left people vulnerable to costly medical bills and even bankruptcy. So insurance companies drafted new, more comprehensive plans to meet the law. Then they looked at a subscriber’s current plan and tried to match it to one that most closely resembled one of the new plans.

But the truth is, “there are very few comparable plans,” said Jeffrey B. Johnson, a broker who owns JBJ Insurance Group in Auburn.

As Johnson explains to his clients, when he grew up, there were no seat belts in cars and you used a crank to roll up your windows. Today cars come stock with air-bags, seat belts and electric windows, whether you like it or not. The same now goes for health plans.

“You don’t have a choice,” Johnson said. “Everybody gets them, but it still comes with a price.”

Not everyone will pay more

Not everyone will have to pay more for their new insurance plans. Neither state officials nor insurance companies could say what percentage of subscribers were matched with plans that had higher or lower premiums. Rates for older people with more comprehensive plans, for example, might see their premiums stay flat or decrease.

“Everything is different,” Johnson said. “I’ve seen rates go down for some of my younger clients. You can’t just say rates are up.”

Additionally, roughly half of the people who have been purchasing their insurance on the individual market will be eligible for tax benefits to lower the cost of their premiums, according to state figures. The benefits apply to those earning less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $45,000 for an individual.

Fullner, who retired two years ago from a job with the city of Mount Vernon, lives on a fixed income that puts him out of the range of a subsidy. He’s been happy with his $328 a month medical and dental plan from Regence Blue Shield. He opts for less-expensive generic medicine that he can buy at Costco, and his plan covers an eye doctor he likes.

And the new plan recommended for him by Regence? It costs $624 a month.

Like most people covered by individual market plans, if Fuller does nothing by the end of the year, he will automatically switch over to the new Regence plan. This rule exists so that people don’t suddenly wake up Jan. 1 without any coverage.

“People have choices”

But people are not required to go with the plan suggested by their insurance company. In fact, they can change companies completely — a point not necessarily made clear by some of the insurers’ cancellation letters.

“It’s a new world out there, and people have choices,” said Marquis, of the insurance commissioner’s office.

Before the rule changes in the Affordable Care Act, people could be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions or they might be stuck with a certain insurance company because they were concerned about doing a health screening required to switch. That has all changed.

Consumers can look for plans “inside” the state’s insurance exchange — called the Washington Healthplanfinder — or they can shop for coverage in the market “outside” the exchange. Only plans inside the exchange qualify for tax subsidies.

The prices of the plans vary according to a variety of features, including subscribers’ ages, where they live, whether they smoke, what doctors and hospitals are part of the plan’s network, and what fraction of medical costs the insurer will pay and what portion falls to the subscriber.

“The consumer is being faced with a really complex situation,” said Eric Earling, spokesman for Premera and LifeWise. The new plans are markedly different. “They have to try and digest all of that.”

While the state exchange has seen a high level of interest and nearly 49,000 people had enrolled by last week, most of those have been low-income residents signing up for Medicaid. And for now, it’s unclear which insurance plans and companies they’re choosing.

“We know it’s a difficult change for some members,” said Rick Henshaw, sales director of Group Health’s individual and family plans. “We want to make every effort to help them choose a plan.”

Change is a constant

In fact, change has been something of a constant for health-insurance plans — particularly in the individual market. The plans are often tweaked each year, making adjustments for costs and what’s being covered. Rising prices are also nothing new. Since 2008, individual market premiums have increased in Washington between 8 and 18 percent per year on average, according to state data.

And a decade-old study from the journal Health Affairs found that only 36 percent of people stayed on individual insurance plans for more than a year, while only 17 percent kept them more than two years.

Fullner is still shopping around and has contacted brokers to help him choose a new plan. He’s found one with Assurant Health that costs $450 a month without dental. That might work, but it’s not a solution he’s thrilled with.

“If I knew my insurance premiums were going to double,” Fullner said, “I would have probably kept working.”

seattletimes.com



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (161858)11/4/2013 7:46:55 AM
From: lorne2 Recommendations

Recommended By
locogringo
TideGlider

  Respond to of 224749
 
Kenny. See if you can pick out a little lie here about Obama's questionable past? Hint, the darkened section of title...Have fun Kenny. :-)

According to HRH FLO, not only was Stanley Ann very single when she “had” him — July 2008 – just 3 short years ago.
youtube.com



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (161858)11/4/2013 10:41:23 AM
From: lorne4 Recommendations

Recommended By
locogringo
Thomas A Watson
TideGlider
Woody_Nickels

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224749
 
Kenny...Enjoy....:-)
Famous comic flays Obama as lying 'maniac'

'If he wasn't the president, he'd be in jail or in a sanitarium'
Joe Kovacs
Monday, November 04, 2013
wnd.com



Legendary comedian Jackie Mason has uncorked a full-blown assault on President Obama and his troubled attempt at providing health care for Americans.

“It’s such a ridiculous thing. The whole country’s walking around wondering if this guy’s really the president of a country. He sounds more like a maniac in an asylum,” Mason said in a radio interview Sunday night.

“He’s saying things that nobody believes. He was always lying every day of his life. Every time he talks it was a lie. The only time he tells the truth is when you didn’t hear from him.”

“This is becoming so ridiculous, that even the biggest liar can’t top himself,” Mason, 76, told host Aaron Klein on WABC in New York City. “He looks at you straight in the face, and tells you that if you want your plan, you got your plan, you keep your plan. Now, a month-and-a-half later, you got no plan, you lost your plan, and he tells you you still got a plan.”

(Click on the screen below to hear all of Jackie Mason’s comments:)


Mason continued: “He has a whole country walking around dizzy wondering who we’re listening to. If this is a president of a country, how come he’s the only one in America who doesn’t seem to know what’s going on here?

“Never did I expect a guy like this, the head of a country, to blatantly lie to your face, and then not only lie to your face, then lie about the fact that he never lied. Then lie again about the next lie he told. There used to be a time when you would worship the president, even if you didn’t like him. You knew he told the truth because he’s the president of a country. Now, he’s the only guy in America who would have the nerve to lie this much.


Jackie Mason

“You say to yourself, ‘Wait a second. Who am I listening to? Was this guy actually elected to the presidency? A man who’s completely out of his mind, who’s out of touch with humanity, with America, who doesn’t seem to know what’s going on here? Does he read a paper?’

“A guy like this should be locked up … If he wasn’t the president, he’d be in jail or in a sanitarium. He wouldn’t be outside talking to people in this condition. He would be considered a danger to his own his own health, to his own life.

“The latest is that it’s only 5 percent of the people, only 15 [or] 20 million people who are going to lose their plan. … What if you shoot a guy? He’s only one person out of 300 million. How come it’s in the paper that you shot an innocent person and you go to jail for it? … Since when do you destroy people and it doesn’t count because it’s too small a percentage?”




To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (161858)11/4/2013 11:02:50 AM
From: chartseer  Respond to of 224749
 
Will single payer cost less than soetorocare?



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (161858)11/4/2013 11:19:37 AM
From: lorne  Respond to of 224749
 
Kenny....Maybe you can get a jump on other demcommies and start blaming republicans right now in case there are riots from career welfare recipients, you might pick up a few atta boys from your handlers?

Riot warnings over food-stamp cuts

Rollback 'will be close to catastrophic for many people'
By John Aman
Monday, November 04, 2013
wnd.com

The 5 percent rollback in food-stamp funding that hit at the start of November has unleashed a wave of familiar scaremongering.

The reduction returns food-stamp benefits to the level they would have been without the infusion of stimulus cash since 2009. That money is now spent, and the average individual monthly benefit is dropping from about $133 to $125.40. Roughly $7.60.

Democrats and the anti-hunger lobby treat the reduction as a cruel and draconian cut.

Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Fla., contends it “will literally take food right out of the mouths of poor children as well as their families, the elderly, the unemployed and the underemployed.”

The rollback “will be close to catastrophic for many people,” a spokesman for Feeding America, a leading hunger relief organization, told CBS News.

One food-bank executive implied that riots may soon follow.

“If you look across the world, riots always begin typically the same way: when people cannot afford to eat food,” Margarette Purvis, president and CEO of the Food Bank for New York City, told Salon.com.

The sharp criticism ignores the fact that federal food-stamp spending has doubled since 2008 and is now nearly $80 billion. One in seven Americans, 47.6 million people, are now on food stamps, with 20 million added since 2008.

Unemployment, relaxed eligibility standards and aggressive marketing to recruit food-stamp participants all contributed to the swelling food-stamp rolls. The number of able-bodied adults under the age of 50 without children on food stamps grew by 163.7 percent from 2007 to 2011.

A Cato Institute report reveals that combined federal and state spending to market food stamps is more than $41.3 million annually. Food-stamp recruiters in Florida have a quota of 150 new enrollees a month.

Talk of catastrophe around the corner over food-stamp benefit cuts also fails to acknowledge that food stamps are “just one of 80 federal means-tested programs that provide food, housing, medical care to poor and low income Americans,” asserts Heritage Foundation policy analyst Rachel Sheffield.

Total welfare spending has increased 16-fold since 1964 when President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty and is now more than $1 trillion annually.

Spending debates often focus on just one program at a time and fail “to take into account the total picture of the welfare system,” Sheffield said, noting that the current reduction in food stamp spending is “minuscule in light of total spending.”

More frenzied rhetoric will come as Congress works out the differences between House and Senate versions of a farm bill before year’s end. “Farm bill” is a misnomer, because the measure funds both agriculture subsidies and food stamps, with about 80 percent of its funding going to food stamps.

The Senate version of the measure, which spends nearly $1 trillion over 10 years, calls for a cut of $4.5 billion in food-stamp spending while the House has passed a 5 percent cut of $39.5 billion. GOP support for the House cuts prompted House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to charge that Republicans were “taking food out of the mouths of babies.”

Obama wants a measure that “protects vulnerable children and adults in times of need” and has threatened a veto if it contains the House-passed food-stamp cuts.

The next crisis on the horizon if Congress fails to reach a deal on the farm bill by year’s end will be soaring milk prices. Federal dairy-price supports will kick in if the farm and food stamps legislation is not passed, sending the price of milk skyward, some say, up to $8 a gallon.

Threats like that – real or imagined – are nothing new when it comes to spending cuts. Just before the 2.5 percent sequestration reductions were set to begin on March 1 of this year, President Obama warned the “meat-cleaver” cuts would trigger Armageddon.

“Border Patrol agents will see their hours reduced. FBI agents will be furloughed. Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go,” the president predicted. “Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off. Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find childcare for their kids. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings.”

Cloward-Piven strategy

The president’s warnings proved false, but his attempt to block spending cuts and grow welfare spending, despite nearly $17 trillion in federal debt, is consistent with a strategy advanced in 1966 by two socialist Columbia University instructors to create widespread dependency on federal largesse and, ultimately, overburden and collapse the system.

Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven laid out a plan in the May 2, 1966, issue of Nation magazine to recruit America’s poor onto welfare rolls and trigger a fiscal crisis that would lead, they hoped, to “a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.”

Their efforts and those of others succeeded so well that New York City welfare lists were expanding by 50 percent annually in the early 1970s. The city, the financial capital of the world, declared bankruptcy in 1975.

Peter Dreier, a 2008 Obama campaign adviser, former ACORN strategist and Huffington Post columnist, updated the Cloward-Piven approach in a 1979 essay in the journal Social Policy. Dreier’s article, which became popular within the world of community organizing, called for introducing “unmanageable strains into the capitalist system, strains that precipitate an economic and/or political crisis.”

He hoped for a “revolution of rising entitlements” that “cannot be abandoned without undermining the legitimacy of the capitalist class.”

Stanley Kurtz, author of “Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism,” says Dreier offered a “‘transitional strategy’ for socialism [that] could simply be pegged to a general expansion of government guarantees beyond the system’s breaking point.”

“Barack Obama,” he writes, “cut his teeth in a world in which this was the default political stance.”

Obama came into office in 2008 hailed as the first post-partisan president, but he routinely employs class-envy rhetoric to push his agenda, contends Kurtz. He decries “fat cats” on Wall Street and stumps for higher taxes on wealthy Americans, arguing repeatedly that the rich need to “contribute and pay their fair share.” Obama’s goal, writes Kurtz, is to “polarize the country along class lines, with Republicans marked out as the aggressors.”

It’s a method he learned from Chicago social agitator Saul Alinsky, author of “Rules for Radicals,” a manual for community organizers that acknowledges Lucifer of the Bible as the “very first radical.”

In the book, Alinsky emphasized the political utility of ill-will and resentment: “The organizer dedicated to changing the life of a particular community must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt oppression.”

Obama spent almost two decades as a Chicago community organizer closely linked to a socialist network intent on the overthrow of capitalism. Obama himself told supporters before his 2008 election that they were “just five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (161858)11/4/2013 11:27:11 AM
From: lorne2 Recommendations

Recommended By
locogringo
tonto

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224749
 
Kenny..Is it possible that Obama lied? oh no, say it aint so, he would never lie to Americans right Kenny?

'60 Minutes' contradicts State's key Benghazi claim

Hillary's report denied forces delayed by orders to wait
Aaron Klein
Monday, November 04, 2013
wnd.com

Although unmentioned by the newsmagazine show, last week’s “60 Minutes” segment on Benghazi apparently contradicts a central element of the State Department’s Accountability Review Board report on the Sept. 11, 2012, attack, WND has found.

“60 Minutes” reported “orders to wait” were given to forces in Tripoli that could have immediately aided the besieged Benghazi compound. However, the Accountability Review Board, or ARB, specifically states the team was “not delayed by orders from superiors.”

The CBS program reported that about “30 minutes into the attack, a quick reaction force from the CIA Annex ignored orders to wait and raced to the compound, at times running and shooting their way through the streets just to get there.”

Continued “60 Minutes” reporter Lara Logan: “Inside the compound, they repelled a force of as many as 60 armed terrorists and managed to save five American lives and recover the body of Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. They were forced to fight their way out before they could find the ambassador.”

The narrative of ignoring “orders to wait” seems to directly contradict page 23 of the ARB report.

The page states: “Just prior to receiving the TDY RSO’s distress call shortly after 2142 local, the head of Annex security heard multiple explosions coming from the north in the direction of the SMC.

The ARB report said “the Annex response team departed its compound in two vehicles at approximately 2205 local.”

“The departure of the Annex team was not delayed by orders from superiors; the team leader decided on his own to depart the Annex compound once it was apparent, despite a brief delay to permit their continuing efforts, that rapid support from local security elements was not forthcoming.”

In October 2012, CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood denied reports her agency was told to hold off in aiding those in the Benghazi compound. However, her statement only seems to pertain to her own agency and not others trying to help, such as U.S. Special Forces.

“We can say with confidence that the agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi,” Youngblood said at the time.

“Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night – and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.”

With research by Joshua Klein.