History of Lies

[redcliffsw]

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

[dnalexander]

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

[Varmit]

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.

[dnalexander]

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

[Warph]

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.

[redcliffsw]

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.

[dnalexander]

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.

[Diane Amberg]

David, I do agree with that.

[srkruzich]

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.

[dnalexander]

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