Obama trying to find a way to avoid having to repay the looted Social Security money…

The Forgotten Ones

The orgotten Ones

…by:Dr. Allen Smith

When Obama said that he cannot guarantee that Social Security checks will go out if the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised, it’s time to take a closer look at why politicians are pushing to cut this vital program.

The Social Security Trust Fund should currently have $2.5 trillion in surplus. So how is it that these checks could stop being issued if the debt ceiling isn’t raised? Economics professor Dr. Allen Smith, author of The Looting of Social Security: How The Government is Draining America’s Retirement Account, has been reporting on the theft of Social Security funds for years. As he sums it up:

“The government’s $2.5 trillion debt to Social Security is the real reason that so many politicians want to cut benefits. They are trying to find a way to avoid having to repay the looted money…

I: It’s Time to Tap the Empty Social Security Trust Fund

AP writer, Stephen Ohlemacher, sent shock waves throughout the nation with his story, “Social Security to start cashing Uncle Sam’s IOUs.” Social Security has been running large surpluses ever since the enactment of the 1983 payroll tax hike, and was projected to continue running surpluses until at least 2016. Instead, Ohlemacher reports that the cost of Social Security benefits will exceed payroll tax revenue by approximately $29 billion this year, because of the severe recession which has reduced payroll tax revenue at the very time that many unemployed Americans have been forced to retire early. (severe recession?? Did not obama give a payroll tax cut which reduces SS income from payrolls?????)

What it all boils down to is that, in order to pay full benefits, Social Security will have to come up with an extra $29 billion to supplement the inadequate payroll tax revenue. Where will that money come from? It will have to come from increased taxes or from borrowed money. “Wait a minute!” some readers will say. Hasn’t Social Security been receiving surplus revenue ever since the 1983 payroll tax hike? Isn’t there supposed to be approximately $2.5 trillion in the Social Security trust fund? The answer to both questions is yes. But there is a problem. Every dollar of that surplus Social Security revenue has already been spent by the government. Much of it went to fund wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The rest has been spent on other government programs.

The American people were not supposed to find out about the great Social Security scam for another six years, and the government was hoping to continue to receive surplus money from the Social Security contributions of working Americans for at least that long. But the inevitable day of reckoning has come, six years sooner than anybody expected. And the government of the United States has been caught with its hand still in the empty Social Security cookie jar.

For more than a decade, I have been trying to expose the Social Security scam just like Harry Markopolos was trying to expose the Bernie Madoff scam. But nobody would listen. If anyone deserves credit for helping the government to keep its dirty secret for so long, that honor should go to the AARP and the NCPSSM. I have been members of both organizations for years and I have tried very hard to get their cooperation in exposing the fraud. But they have refused to have anything to do with me. Instead, they have continued to bombard their members and the public with misinformation. They have argued that the trust fund is full of “good-as-gold” U.S. Treasury Bonds that could be used to pay full Social Security benefits until at least 2037 without any changes. In reaction to Olemacher’s AP story, Barbara Kennelly, president of the NCPSSM, responded with the following words, “Good luck to the politician who reneges on that debt. Those bonds are protected by the full faith and credit of the United States of America. They’re as solid as what we owe China and Japan.”

It has been clear for quite some time that the trust fund contained no real assets. David Walker, Comptroller General of the GAO, stated on January 21, 2005, “There are no stocks or bonds or real estate in the trust fund. It has nothing of real value to draw down.” On April 5, 2005, President George W. Bush finally acknowledged the empty trust fund by saying, “There is no trust fund, just IOUs that I saw firsthand that future generations will pay—will pay for either in higher taxes, or reduced benefits, or cuts to other critical government programs.”

If there was any doubt remaining, with regard to whether or not the trust fund contains any real assets, that doubt should have been removed by the following words in the 2009 Social Security Trustees Report:

Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

There is nothing ambiguous about the above words. They make it clear that the government does not receive any cash income from the alleged interest payments on the trust fund IOUs. The interest payments are made in the form of additional worthless IOUs. The government cannot sell the IOUs because they are not marketable and have no cash value. The IOUs simply represent a debt of one branch of the government (the Treasury Department) to another branch of government (Social Security). They cancel each other out.

The Social Security surplus revenue should have been saved and invested in public-issue, marketable Treasury bonds. These bonds are “good as gold” and default-proof. They are the kind of U.S. Treasury bonds that are owned by China and Japan, Bill Gates, pension funds, and every other serious investor that owns Treasuries. If the Social Security surplus had been invested in public-issue marketable Treasury bonds, as it could have been, and should have been, Barbara Kennelly would be correct in saying that the Social Security holdings are “as solid as what we owe China and Japan.” Unfortunately not a single dollar of the surplus Social Security revenue was saved or invested in anything. It was all spent, and, once money is spent, there is nothing left to invest.

The government cannot, and will not, ever default on any of its public issue, marketable Treasury bonds because of the panic it would create in world markets and the damage it would do to the nation’s worldwide credibility. But Congress has the legal authority to default on its debt to Social Security, and, if it should do so, the outside world would probably view it primarily as an internal matter between the United States Government and its citizens. One of the least known facts about Social Security is that, although the government does have a moral obligation to pay Social Security benefits to those who have earned them, the government does not have a legal obligation to do so.

In a 1960 ruling by the United States Supreme Court, the court ruled that nobody has a “contractual earned right” to Social Security benefits. Section 1104 of the 1935 Social Security Act specifically states, “The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress.” According to the above strong language, Congress could do whatever it wanted to do with regard to changing or even eliminating Social Security.

Early on, some did not take the language seriously because they thought it was probably unconstitutional. However, in 1960, in the case of Fleming v. Nestor, the Supreme Court upheld the denial of benefits to Nestor, even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits In its ruling, the Supreme Court established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits “is not a contractual right.” As a result of the 1960 Supreme Court ruling, the future of Social Security is totally in the hands of Congress and the President. They have the legal authority to amend any and all parts of the Social Security Act, as well as the authority to either increase or decrease Social Security benefits.

II: The Social Security Fraud Has Finally Been Exposed

On December 13, 2010, the highly respected Kansas City Star, winner of eight Pulitzer Prizes, published an editorial entitled, “The myth of the Social Security trust fund,” which included the following statement:

A lot of people speak of those IOUs as if they can be pulled out and exchanged for money to pay benefit checks. They can’t. As the Clinton administration budget of 2000 explained, the securities in the Trust Fund ‘do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Those special-issue bonds can only be redeemed by raising taxes, cutting spending elsewhere, or borrowing — exactly what the government would have to do if the Trust Fund didn’t exist. The Trust Fund, said the Clinton budget message, ‘does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits.

On December 20, distinguished business columnist, Allan Sloan, seven-time winner of the prestigious Loeb award, business journalism’s highest honor, called the trust fund “a mirage” in his Washington Post column. In the column, titled, “New tax law reveals the mirage of the Social Security trust fund,” Sloan wrote:

My problem with the trust fund is that it’s a snare and a delusion for people who think that it makes Social Security financially sound. It doesn’t do that, because having government IOUs in a government trust fund doesn’t make it any easier for the government to cover Social Security’s cash shortfalls than it would be if there were no trust fund.

These are not new revelations. I have spent the past decade relentlessly trying to expose the Social Security fraud, and prominent government officials were screaming out the warnings two decades ago.

On October 13, 1989, Senator Ernest Hollings of SC stood on the Senate floor and warned, “…the most reprehensible fraud in this great jambalaya of frauds is the systematic and total ransacking of the Social Security trust fund…in the next century…the American people will wake up to the reality that those IOUs in the trust fund vault are a 21st century version of Confederate bank notes.”

The Kansas City Star editorial and Allan Sloan’s Washington Post column seem to have stunned the AARP and the NCPSSM into silence. These organization have repeatedly claimed that the Social Security surplus is invested in U.S. Treasury bonds just like those held by the Chinese government. They have battled my efforts to get this same message out for a decade, but they seem to have had the wind knocked out of them by the Star and Allan Sloan. So far, they have made no attempt to rebut either of the two articles. The AARP and the NCPSSM have been claiming for years that the trust fund holds enough assets to pay full Social Security benefits until at least 2037, when, in fact, in the words of the Kansas City Star, it has no “real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.”

The Kansas City Star and Allan Sloan have exposed the trust fund myth so clearly that I think the national debate will now turn to how and why the United States government violated both the public trust and federal law for a quarter-century in a way that caused a major transfer of income from the lower and middle class to the richest of all Americans. By imposing a hefty increase in the regressive payroll tax in 1983, and then using a large portion of the new revenue to offset the lost revenue resulting from the unaffordable income tax cuts that went primarily to the richest Americans, the United States government engineered a major transfer of income from the lower and middle classes to the richest of all Americans. NOT TRUE!!!

So where does that leave Social Security? The approximately $2.5 trillion in surplus revenue, generated by the 1983 payroll tax hike, rightly belongs to the Social Security trust fund and to American workers who paid the extra taxes. But the money is all gone — “borrowed” or “stolen” by the federal government and spent for general government operations. None of the money was saved or invested in anything, so the trust fund contains no real economic assets with which to supplement the payroll tax which will become inadequate to pay full benefits after 2015.

I believe it is time for the public to demand, in a very strong way, that the government make arrangements to repay its debt to Social Security. It is futile for the AARP and the NCPSSM to continue to insist that Social Security is in fine shape and has enough assets to pay full benefits until 2037. This just isn’t true. What the organizations need to do now is put political pressure on the government to move quickly to enact legislation that would require the repayment of the looted money, as it is needed, over the next 27 years. There is no way that the government could possibly come up with the $2.5 trillion in the near future, given the budget crisis. But it can make a legal commitment to repay the money in installments. Will that happen? Not without major political pressure from the majority of Americans. The AARP and the NCPSSM have frittered away the past ten years when the problem could have been resolved. If the looting could have been stopped when I first began actively urging such action in 2000, the trust fund would today hold approximately $1.5 trillion (the amount looted during the past 10 years) in “good-as-gold” real assets. Instead, it holds no real economic assets.

The reason I don’t believe the government will honor its debt to Social Security without major political pressure is that it does not legally have to repay the money. The government certainly has a moral obligation to do so, but, because of a 1960 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, it has an out. In the case of Fleming v. Nestor, the Court ruled that nobody has a “contractual earned right” to Social Security benefits. This ruling was based on Section 1104 of the 1935 Social Security Act which specifically states, “The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this ACT is hereby reserved to the Congress.” Based on this strong language, Congress could do whatever it wanted to do with regard to changing or even eliminating Social Security.

Many people argue that the government could not default on its debt to Social Security because of the effect such action would have on financial markets and the nation’s public image. If the government held the same kind of real bonds that are traded on world markets, this would be true. Public-issue, marketable U.S. Treasury bonds are default-proof, and that is the kind of bonds that the Social Security surplus revenue was supposed to be invested in. If this had been done, Social Security would be in fine shape today. But, instead of using the surplus Social Security revenue to buy such bonds in the open market, the government chose to spend the money and issue IOUs to replace the spent money.*** These IOUs are non-marketable and could not be sold to anyone, even for a penny on the dollar. The government has the legal authority to declare these IOUs null and void. Since these IOUs are not traded, such action would have little effect on financial markets, and foreign governments would probably consider such action as an internal matter between the American government and its citizens.

The Social Security trust fund does not hold any real economic assets that can be drawn down to pay future benefits. That is an indisputable fact today, and it has been true ever since the 1983 payroll tax hike was enacted. Every dollar of the $2.5 trillion in surplus revenue, generated by the payroll tax hike, has been spent on programs unrelated to Social Security, leaving nothing to save or invest.

A few United States Senators tried to sound the alarm two decades ago, and I have dedicated the past ten years of my life to trying to alert the public to the awful truth about the Social Security trust fund. For more than a quarter of a century, the United States government, under five presidents, has hoodwinked the American public into believing their Social Security contributions would be used for future Social Security benefitsToday, thanks to the efforts of the editorial board of the Kansas City Star, and thanks to the courage and competence of Allan Sloan and a few other journalists, the big bad secret is finally out, and I think it is too late to get this cat back in the bag.

President Obama is the fifth president to participate in the great Social Security scam, but he has the dubious distinction of being the president, on whose watch, the Social Security time bomb, activated 25 years ago by President Reagan, will run out of time. All of the previous administrations knew that spending Social Security revenue, as if it were general revenue, was wrong and was a violation of both federal law and the public trust. But, they all had the luxury of knowing that the raided Social Security money would not be needed to pay benefits while they were still in office. However, President Obama learned early in his presidency that, unless the government ended the raiding and began repaying the money that had already been raided, Social Security would face a major financial crisis during his presidency.

Beginning in 2015, and every year after that, payroll tax revenue will be insufficient to pay full benefits. This was known in 1983 when the Social Security “fix” was enacted. The plan was to draw down the large reserve that is supposed to be in the trust fund and use that money to supplement payroll tax revenue so that full benefits could be paid until 2037. But that money has already been spent, so the government will have to come up with the money again to repay the $2.54 trillion that it embezzled. This might be manageable in the early years, when the difference between benefit costs and payroll tax revenue is minimal. But, each year, the amount of money needed to replace the looted money gets bigger and bigger. For example, Social Security will run a deficit of approximately $41.4 billion in 2010. But in 2020, the Social Security deficit will have grown to $101.4 billion. Five years later, in 2025, the Social Security shortfall will be $274.6 billion. In 2035, the government would have to come up with an astronomical $621.9 billion in order to pay full Social Security benefits.

When President Obama first saw these numbers, he must have almost gone into a state of shock. ( NO he found it Joyfull as he could cause the caouse he planned on even faster.)His predecessors left him with a lot of problems that can plainly be seen by the public—two wars, a collapsed economy, and a gigantic deficit and debt. But the embezzlement of the Social Security trust fund money was done without public knowledge, President Obama cannot just kick the can farther down the road as his four predecessors have done. He must find a way to raise the money to repay the government’s debt to Social Security, or cut Social Security benefits so the money will not have to be repaid.

Embezzlement is a crime, and every participant (all the presidents and members of Congress who supported the practice) knew they were committing a crime against the American peopleTie to 4 more years and the obama puppet will bring republican rivals to court or just use it as threats as they used the people’s Social Security money as general revenue over the past 25 years. Some individuals, such as the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, attempted to end the raiding 20 years ago. On September 27, 2000, I launched my decade-long campaign to expose the Social Security scam with an appearance on CNN News to discuss my then newly-published book, The Alleged Budget Surplus, Social Security, and Voodoo Economics. For the past 10 years, I have been warning, as forcefully as I could, that a day of reckoning would come, at which time the government might consider defaulting on its huge Social Security debt. But nobody wanted to listen. That day of reckoning is now upon us.

V: Censored Social Security Book Back in Print

When my book, The Looting of Social Security: How The Government is Draining America’s Retirement Account, was published by a New York publisher in 2004, I thought my long battle to expose the truth about the Social Security trust fund was almost won. But that book met with foul play, and was removed from the market before many people had the opportunity to read it.

Early reviews revealed just how provocative the book was going to be. The Boston Globe reported, “… With dismal clarity, Smith lays out the step-by-step history of how a national pension plan was transformed into an outright shakedown of working people” and ALA Booklist said, “Smith has written a scathing account of massive fraud on the part of our nation’s leaders, who have plundered every cent of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus that was specifically earmarked by Regan for the retirement of the baby boomers.”

On February 26, 2004, I appeared on CNBC, to respond to Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, who had called for Social Security benefit cuts the previous day. I held my book in front of the camera and said, as forcefully as I could, “Alan Greenspan should be ashamed of himself for what he is not telling the American people.” I now believe that this public criticism of the Fed chairman may have been the final nail in the coffin of The Looting of Social Security, which was very critical of Greenspan’s role in making the looting of the trust fund possible.

A few weeks after my controversial appearance on CNBC, the book mysteriously disappeared from bookstores, nationwide, and was listed as “unavailable” by Amazon.com. I tried to get the rights to the book reverted back to me so I could publish my message elsewhere, but my publisher refused to surrender the rights. Thus the book was effectively killed off, and there was nothing I could do about it. I was unable to pinpoint exactly who was responsible for rendering the book “unavailable,” but a lot of people did not want the contents of the book to become public. Certainly, people in government, such as Alan Greenspan

Although the public knew nothing about it at the time, Greenspan’s February 25, 2004 call for Social Security benefit cuts was the opening salvo in an organized campaign to dismantle Social Security, as we now know it, once George W. Bush was safely elected to a second term. On August 27, 2004, Greenspan again spoke of cutting Social Security benefits during remarks at a symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

“As a nation, we owe it to our retirees to promise only the benefits that can be delivered,” Greenspan said. “If we have promised more than our economy has the power to deliver to retirees without unduly diminishing real income gains of workers, as I fear we may have, we must recalibrate our public programs so that pending retirees have time to adjust through other channels.”

Almost immediately upon his re-election, President George W. Bush made public his plan to partially privatize Social Security. On November 4, 2004, Bush said, “Let me put it this way: I earned capital, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style…I’ve earned capital in this election— and I’m going to spend it for what I told the people I’d spend it on, which is — you’ve heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror.”

Like other Americans, there is no way I could have known about the standby plan to privatize Social Security, which was already formulated at the time I appeared on CNBC and publicly challenged Alan Greenspan on Social Security. Therefore, I didn’t realize just how big the potential impact of widespread readership of my book could be on the future plans of the Bush administration. From the administration’s point of view, I’m sure that they were not going to allow my book, or a book by any other author, to sabotage their plan to privatize Social Security. The book was a threat, and the threat had to be dealt with.

What is far more puzzling to me, than the opposition to my book in 2004, is the current effort to discredit me, and the book. I was almost flabbergasted when I learned, just a few weeks ago, that a website that goes by the name of “Medicare and Medicare Programs” launched a smear campaign on September 22, 2010 against me and the book that has been off the market since 2004. You don’t believe me? Click on the following link and it will take you to that website. I tried to find out who owns this website and who is behind this effort, but I was unable to do so. Who is sponsoring this website, and what is their agenda? These things don’t just happen by chance. The five negative reviews, alleged by the website to have been submitted on September 22, 2010, are exact duplicates of “customer reviews” from Amazon.com that were posted in 2004 and 2005.

If the intent of this internet campaign was to stomp out the message of my book, now and forever, their actions have backfired on them. It was in reaction to this campaign that I decided not to allow them to kick a dead book without bringing the book back to life. When I finally regained the rights to “The Looting of Social Security” in 2008, I vowed to re-publish the book, when the time was right, under an arrangement that would guarantee that the book remained in print for as long as anyone wanted to read it.

The smear campaign on the internet has convinced me that the time is now right for the book to be resurrected. Therefore, I am pleased to announce that the book has just been published by Ironwood Publications, under the title, The Looting of Social Security, New release of the book they didn’t want you to read. The new book includes all of the content of the original book, along with a new forward written by Dr. Victor Stoltzfus, President Emeritus, Goshen College, and an afterword written by me that brings the book up to date. The book was officially released yesterday, November 1, 2010.

(I guess to the times the author makes inane claims about tax cuts for the rich was added to keep the progressives at bay.) as he contradicts his facts with the liberal mantra just thrown into a line with no real charge).OH! I forgot theres also a few blame Bush and the rich lines thrown in for good measure. Otherwise the article is excellent.

For an extensive archive of Dr. Allen Smith’s work, visit Dissident Voice.

really you still trust the government

That filing cabinet is the closest thing to the “Social Security trust fund” that exists.

the forgotten onesMassive fraud on the part of our nation’s leaders, who have plundered every cent of the Social Security Trust Fund and the surplus that was specifically earmarked 1983 by President Regan for the retirement of the baby boomers.”future Presidents knew and took the money regardless.

Public-issue, marketable U.S. Treasury bonds are default-proof, and that is the kind of bonds that the Social Security surplus revenue was supposed to be invested in. If this had been done, Social Security would be in fine shape today.

* But, instead of using the surplus Social Security revenue to buy such bonds in the open market, the government chose to spend the money and issue IOUs to replace the spent money.*** These IOUs are non-marketable and could not be sold to anyone, even for a penny on the dollar. The government has the legal authority to declare these IOUs null and void.

Q:Hasn’t Social Security been receiving surplus revenue ever since the 1983 payroll tax hike? Isn’t there supposed to be approximately $2.5 trillion in the Social Security trust fund?

The answer to both questions is yes. But there is a problem. Every dollar of that surplus Social Security revenue has already been spent by the government.

In a 1960 ruling by the United States Supreme Court, the court ruled that nobody has a “contractual earned right” to Social Security benefits

 Some did not take the language seriously because they thought it was probably unconstitutional. However, in 1960, in the case of Fleming v. Nestor, the Supreme Court upheld the denial of benefits to Nestor, even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits In its ruling, the Supreme Court established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits “is not a contractual right.”

Obama has proved he has no use for the elderly and Hillary has been heard to say some deeply offensive comments on America’s elderly. Obama Care was never about us, it is about power for the progressive Democrats as they speed to their Global Government.

**The ruling class Progressive Democrat elites have promised everything and delivered nothing but failure and economic slavery to the U.S. Government.

Best Answer – Chosen by Asker

Lyndon Johnson was the first President to use social security funds to balance the budget.

 

The next President to use social security funds to balance the budget was Bill Clinton

BILL CLINTON EXCITEDTechnically, social security has been “off budget” since 1990, but *Clinton included it in his budgets to reduce the deficit, to actually show a surplus in his last two years in office. *The surplus wasn’t real since the government ran a deficit without including the social security surplus. (That is why the national debt increased in those years, despite the fact that the budget was supposedly in surplus)

Government has chosen to use the SS payroll tax revenue as general revenue and has issued IOUs in the same amount as the amount of money spent. The IOUs are not real bonds. They are printed on a laser printer in an office of the Bureau of the Public Debt located in Parkersburg, WV. Once printed, the IOU documents are carried across the room and place in a fireproof filing cabinet. That filing cabinet is the closest thing to the “Social Security trust fund” that exists.

Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn warns. “We have stolen $2.6 trillion from it. We put paper money in there. The problem is, we spent the money – we didn’t just take it, we took it and spent it,”
“There’s no question that there’s an IOU in there,” Coburn said. “But our country’s borrowing $4 billion a day.

206165_453413278032501_108773658_n

 

 

 

Obama Has Set His Eye On The Oldest and Sickest Denying Them Costly Medical Care?

If this dire end-of-life scenario sounds too awful to be possible, that is only because the reality of Obamacare has not been sufficiently reported

obamacare now you know whats in itWhy Obamacare could result in the early deaths of millions of baby boomers

 Imagine lying in some government-run hospital, hospice or nursing home many years from now. Imagine languishing unattended for days in soiled sheets, suffering from hunger and thirst, covered with bed sores, your flesh aboil with untreated infections.

Imagine living in fear of resentful, underpaid health aides who take out their anger on you and abuse you. And imagine spending your final moments on earth in the company of a government health care worker with a syringe, who injects you with a lethal cocktail.

Do you find this hard to imagine? You should. In any civilized country, such things should not happen – ever. But President Obama’s health care proposals have the very real potential to turn this nightmare into a reality for many Americans, according to an in-depth investigation reported in the August edition of Whistleblower magazine, titled “MEDICAL MURDER: Why Obamacare could result in the early deaths of millions of baby boomers.”

Especially vulnerable are the 80 million baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964. “If you belong to that group, take note,” says Richard Poe, author of the August cover story. “Your generation has been targeted for a program of age-based medical rationing such as our country has never before experienced.”

Adds Whistleblower editor David Kupelian, “If this dire end-of-life scenario sounds too awful to be possible, that is only because the reality of Obamacare has not been sufficiently reported. For this is not a fantasy – it is what is already occurring in other ‘civilized’ nations, including Canada and Britain, that have adopted the same government-run system.”

For instance, the cover story, “Medical Murder,” documents how British seniors, under a government-run system, “are routinely denied treatment for cancer, heart disease and other deadly illnesses,” many dying “in filthy, overcrowded hospitals or nursing homes, rife with pestilence, including the deadly, antibiotic-resistant superbugs.” Numerous horror stories of needed medical care intentionally denied reveal the stark reality of government-run health care worldwide.

To a small degree, Obamacare’s ominous implications are starting to leak out. Here’s how columnist Charlotte Allen explained it recently in the Los Angeles Times:

In looking for a way to fund healthcare, Obama has set his eye on the oldest and sickest. You see, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, about 30 percent of Medicare spending – nearly $100 billion annually – goes to care for patients during their last year of life. What if there were no ‘last year of life,’ the president seems to be asking. … Why not save billions of dollars by killing off our own unproductive oldsters and terminal patients, or – since we aren’t likely to do that outright in this, the 21st century – why not simply ensure that they die faster by denying them costly medical care? The savings could then subsidize care for the younger and healthier.

And for those who have been paying close attention,** Obama himself has ever-so-gently hinted at his true intentions. At a town hall event in June televised by ABC News, Obama cited the case of his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who died on the eve of his election, suggesting one way to cut medical costs would be to stop expensive procedures on people about to die.

Families, Obama said, need better information so they don’t approve “additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care.”

Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller,” the president offered. (death by morphine injection)

Obama was slightly more explicit in a May 3 interview with the New York Times, when he said there ought to be a national “conversation” over whether “sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model.” Such decisions, added Obama, shouldn’t be left to patients or their relatives, but to a “group” of “doctors, scientists, ethicists” who are not part of “normal political channels.” smiley-shocked028

One such elite medical decision-maker would be Obama’s special adviser for health policy, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel. He’s a longtime advocate of “age-weighted medical rationing” – meaning, the older you are, the less care you get, as in Britain. But what about the Hippocratic Oath, you might ask, the sacred vow doctors have always taken to do all they can to heal their patients? As Whistleblower documents, Emanuel advises doctors to stop taking that oath so literally, and instead to be “prudent” in assessing how much time, effort and money each patient is worth, for the greater good of society.

Moreover, as “MEDICAL MURDER” reports, a bill being pushed hard by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Health Care, will take from Congress all authority over federal health spending and decree that such decisions in the future would be made by a secretive committee of “experts” modeled after – are you ready? – the Federal Reserve Board.

 

 

Especially vulnerable are the 80 million baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964. “If you belong to that group, take note,” says Richard Poe, author of the August cover story.

** “Your generation has been targeted for a program of age-based medical rationing such as our country has never before experienced.”

Adds Whistleblower editor David Kupelian, “If this dire end-of-life scenario sounds too awful to be possible, that is only because the reality of Obamacare has not been sufficiently reported. For ** this is not a fantasy – it is what is already occurring in other ‘civilized’ nations, including Canada and Britain, that have adopted the same government-run system.”

For instance, the cover story, “Medical Murder,” documents how British seniors, under a government-run system, “are routinely denied treatment for cancer, heart disease and other deadly illnesses,” many dying “in filthy, overcrowded hospitals or nursing homes, rife with pestilence, including the deadly, antibiotic-resistant superbugs.” Numerous horror stories of needed medical care intentionally denied reveal the stark reality of government-run health care worldwide.

To a small degree, Obamacare’s ominous implications are starting to leak out. Here’s how columnist Charlotte Allen explained it recently in the Los Angeles Times:

In looking for a way to fund healthcare, Obama has set his eye on the oldest and sickest. You see, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, about 30 percent of Medicare spending – nearly $100 billion annually – goes to care for patients during their last year of life. What if there were no ‘last year of life,’ the president seems to be asking. … Why not save billions of dollars by killing off our own unproductive oldsters and terminal patients, or – since we aren’t likely to do that outright in this, the 21st century – why not simply ensure that they die faster by denying them costly medical care? The savings could then subsidize care for the younger and healthier.

And for those who have been paying close attention,** Obama himself has ever-so-gently hinted at his true intentions. At a town hall event in June televised by ABC News, Obama cited the case of his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who died on the eve of his election, suggesting one way to cut medical costs would be to stop expensive procedures on people about to die.

Families, Obama said, need better information so they don’t approve “additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care.” ?? ( my question Mr Obama What about enjoying a better quality and a longer life ?? )

Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller,” the president offered. (death by morphine injection ?)

Obama was slightly more explicit in a May 3 interview with the New York Times, when he said there ought to be a national “conversation” over whether “sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model.” Such decisions, added Obama, shouldn’t be left to patients or their relatives, but to a “group” of “doctors, scientists, ethicists” who are not part of “normal political channels.” What if there were no ‘last year of life,’ the president seems to be asking. … Why not save billions of dollars by killing off our own unproductive oldsters

(There is a distinct possibility that the President of the United States was raised within a household where mass murder of civilians was not considered a crime against humanity.                                                           .                                                                                               Dunham Soetoro moved with her seven-year old son to Jakarta to be with her husband , Indonesian Army Colonel Lolo Soetoro – a hit man for the CIA-installed Suharto regime President Obama’s step-father, Lolo Soetoro, was a colonel in the Indonesian armed forces. Lolo Soetoro took part, in a coup with the net total of Indonesians killed ranging from 250,000 to 1 million.

President Obama’s mother arrived in Indonesia to join Soetoro with young Barack Obama, Jr. This is the environment that Obama’s mother chose to raise her son )

http://www.scribd.com/doc/168390521/by-Wayne-Madsen-Obama-s-CIA-Mommy-Dearest-%E2%80%94-identifying-Indonesians-for-assassination

One such elite medical decision-maker would be Obama’s special adviser for health policy, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel. He’s a longtime advocate of “age-weighted medical rationing” – meaning, the older you are, the less care you get, as in Britain. But what about the Hippocratic Oath, you might ask, the sacred vow doctors have always taken to do all they can to heal their patients? As Whistleblower documents, Emanuel advises doctors to stop taking that oath so literally, and instead to be “prudent” in assessing how much time, effort and money each patient is worth, for the greater good of society.

Moreover, as “MEDICAL MURDER” reports, a bill being pushed hard by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Health Care, will take from Congress all authority over federal health spending and decree that such decisions in the future would be made by a secretive committee of “experts” modeled after – are you ready? – the Federal Reserve Board.

Highlights of “MEDICAL MURDER” include:

“It’s D-Day for choice in health care” by Joseph Farah

“The evil of Obamacare” by David Kupelian

“Alice in Medical Care” by Thomas Sowell, who says those raising healthcare alarm are “long on catch phrases, short on coherence”

“Medical murder” by Richard Poe, a stunning, in-depth investigative report why Obamacare could result in the early deaths of millions of baby boomers

“Massachusetts: A model not to copy” by Phyllis Schlafly, who shows the Obama-Kennedy health care bill is based on a failing plan

“Government is the problem” by Ben Shapiro, on why Obama’s plan will only make America’s health care system worse

“How Obama’s health care agenda will hurt American families” – documenting how the plan chips away at fundamental rights while putting bureaucrats in control of decisions

“Exposing the myths of universal health coverage,” by Devon Herrick, on why Obama’s plan to lower costs would have the opposite effect

“’45 million Americans’ – who are those guys?” by Larry Elder, revealing what the government isn’t telling you about the so-called “uninsured”

“Live free or die” by Mark Steyn, who explains how government health care “can be used to justify almost any restraint on freedom”

“MEDICAL MURDER

Ending the lives of Social Security recipients before they become a financial drain

large group we wont take it any moreIt’s the reality of Obamacare which was NOT enacted to guarantee medical care for all Americans. OBAMACARE is the pressure valve to make sure the program never goes bankrupt by ending the lives of Social Security recipients before they become a financial drain on the Old Age benefits system by denying them medical care. The Independent Payment Advisory Board whose job it is to ration medical services.

Obamacare went into effect. On Dec. 30, 2010, the Wall Street Journal noted that “…for the first time, an unelected group will be empowered to limit health spending for the vulnerable elderly.” While it was believed that the Death Board would not be empowered to deny lifesaving procedures to the elderly before Jan. 1, 2013, it has already begun—at least the horror stories now surfacing make it appears that way.

I first encountered the Obama Death Board on Aug. 30, 2009, a full half year before Obamacare was enacted. It was buried in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009—the Obama stimulus bill. It was adroitly concealed under the boring name of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Research (yawn). The bill said its mandate was to “…assist the agencies of the federal government including HHS and the Dept. of Veterans Affairs…to coordinate comparative effectiveness and related health services research…The Council will consider the needs of the population served by federal programs.” (yawn)

In reality, the sole job of the Federal Coordinating Council, whose members were quickly selected by Barack Obama within a week of the law passing was to create the formula for rationing healthcare to seniors and to other Social Security recipients who were disabled and, like the elderly, were deemed to be “double-dippers”—receiving Social Security benefits and were on Medicare.

On March 21, 2011, I found a video recorded on Oct. 13, 2010, less than 3 weeks before the 2010 Midterm Election that was made by Dr. David Janda concerning the rationing that was going to take place beginning on Jan. 1, 2013. Dr. Janda first addressed the Obamacare warning as the keynote speaker at a congressional dinner in the Capitol building on July 17, 2010. He began his speech by saying, “It should be clear that the same warning notice must be placed on the Obamacare Plan as on a pack of cigarettes: consuming this product will be hazardous to your health.” (No yawns here.)

“The underlying method of cutting costs throughout the plan is based on rationing and denying care. There is no focus on preventative health care needs whatsoever The . plan’s method is the most inhumane and unethical approach to cutting costs I can imagine as a physician.” Click on this sentence to visit Dr. Janda’s March 21, 2011 political rally speech.

In the speech, he reiterates that a National Coordinator for Health Information Technology will ultimately be responsible for implementing the guidelines created by the the Federal Coordinating Council. The National Coordinator (or those working for him) will “…determine treatment at the time and place of care.” That means, Dr. Janda said, “…when your physician walks into your hospital room, his nurse or physician’s assistant [PA] will be carrying a small hand-held computer. As the doctor verbally tells you his prognosis, she will be typing that data into the computer…” and while the doctor chit-chats with you, someone at the other end of that computer terminal is deciding whether you live or die based not on your medical needs, but rather, if its profitable for the government to let you continue to live by gauging the cost of the procedure (and the other monetary factors in the Social Security database) with your life expectancy combined with your economic value to the community-at-large.

the forgotten onesOnce you pass 75, unless you’re a politician, a relative of a politician or a major political donor (a rich guy), with rare exceptions, you will have virtually no economic value to community, and you will be denied medical care. In some cases, if expensive medications are the only thing keeping you alive, you may find youself on an aspirin regime instead. The core objective of the Death Board is not to save the patient—it’s to save government by curbing the number of people who outlive the actuarial mortality tables, and who continues to receive retirement income benefits their government believes they don’t deserve because the actuarial statistics from which those benefits were computed, predicted they should be dead by now.

Until Obamacare, America was the only nation smart enough to avoid the legal euthanasia devise of government.

Obamacare

is Barack Obama’s, Nancy Pelosi’s, Harry Reid’s—and the 2007-11 Democratic super majority’s—toxic program to correct the national mortality rate in order to save Social Security. You can’t convince me that the Democrats (the only ones with full access to the text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010) didn’t know that Obamacare, which guarantees people with preexisting conditions health coverage, would also ration healthcare to the elderly, and deny lifesaving procedures and medications to those the social progressives viewed as a financial drain on society. But as Americans prayed that the Supreme Court would rule Obamacare unconstitutional, the Obama Administration decided to begin implementing it —through Medicare. That way, even if the Supreme Court had ruled Obamacare unconstitutional, Medicare will do the housecleaning Obamacare, without modification, would not be able to do.

Reid, Pelosi and then White House pit bull Rahm Emanuel (whose brother heads the Independent Payment Authority Board) wisely funded the National Coordinator for Health Information with $105,464,000,000.00 (that’s billions) that was surreptitiously buried in Obamacare—just in case. I guess that’s why Pelosi said, “Let’s hurry up and enact this so we can see what’s in it.” But, what the American people wouldn’t see in Obamcare was the Death Board, enacted a year earlier.

Seniors were being told by their Medicare primary care physicians in January and February, 2012 to prepare for the fact that specific procedures and, in some cases, expensive lifesaving medications will no longer be available to them next year. In many cases seniors, who were trying to put off life-threatening procedures until they were absolutely essential since many of the operations were life threatening, began having those lifesaving procedures in 2012 instread of gambling on their being available to them in 2013. In some cases, it appears, seniors this year are being told the procedures they need are now suddenly not available because although they may been lifesaving, they are suddenly being viewed as “elective” surgeries because the patient, not the doctor, is requesting it.

Today, due to questions of whether or not medical procedures on those 75 years of age or older are available to seniors who need them to prolong their lives are spreading like a wildfire in a drought, HHS Director Kathleen Sebelius insists that the “rumors” that the HHS will ration healthcare to the elderly is false.

Yet, a large percentage of practicing physicians (many of whom plan to retire rather than participate in Obamacare) insist they have already been informed by the government that it will; and that when the government denies benefits, that patient may not be treated by any healthcare practitioner—which is currently what happens in Canada.

male-crying-100100961

1950s heart throb pop Singer Pat Boone, best known hits like “Love Letters in the Sand,” and “Ain’t That A Shame” is working closely with Jim Martin of 60 Plus Association fighting the implementation of Obamacare. In a recent TV commercial, Boone said “…the IPAB will operate in secret, and will have vast powers to reach into our lives, and will have the final, irrefutable say on Medicare policy,” adding that the IPAB Board “…can ration care and deny certain Medicare treatments.” The IPAB will decide “…whether you get care such as dialysis or cancer therapy..” or cardiac bypasses or angioplasty. Boone noted that the IPAB will make all of the health care decisions over 300 million Americans.

If they are not now, seniors will find themselves being denied lifesaving procedures—.

On June 17, 2012, I received an email from a 67-year old male (whom I will call “Henry” [not his real name] who claims he discovered that Medicare threw him under the bus. It may or may not be factually true although the content is theoretically correct.The email begins:

Forget about getting to age 75. This exact thing happened to me this morning…here in Connecticut. I was scheduled for a cardiolite stress test. (This is a treadmill stress test where, during the process, they inject nuclear dye into your blood stream and then put you in a CTscan or something similar and take pictures of your heart…I have had three of these tests in the past 12 years due to blocked arteries discovered in 2000. They use the test to determine if I need a roto router or a bypass operation.

So, I arrive at the hospital at 8 a.m. this morning. I’m in process of checking in at Cardiology and the lady says that my appointment has been canceled. She makes a call and speaks with someone and hands me the phone. It is a nurse in cardiology who says my medical coverage denied the procedure. I said it was a routine part of my heart maintenance, and it was ordered by my primary care physician, with the approval of my cardiologist who is the head of Cardiology—which is right where I was standing. She says, Yes, but we were denied our request.  So, Henry said, “I have Medicare, so what is my back-up insurance doing denying anything?” Then the bombshell dropped. She said it was the Medicare Medical Board that denied the procedure.

I have personal knowledge of instances with extended family members who have experienced, in part, what Henry claims he experienced. Early this year, two family members were told that “…within a few months Medicare will not pay for this procedure for you.” The ramifications of stories about Medicare patients being denied tests and procedures their doctors felt were necessary to prolong their life are too serious to ignore even if those needed procedures are future events. Even discounting 85% of the rumors as exaggerations, there is still 15% that can’t be ignored. Even 1% can’t be ignored—particularly if, within that 1% is a family member you love.

Supreme Court Won’t Hear Lawsuit Challenging Death Panels in Obamacare

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/03/30/supreme-court-wont-hear-lawsuit-challenging-death-panels-in-obamacare/

hillary bill obama cartoon More of the same. Obama-Biden-Chit-ChatMore of the same.

Kathleen Sebelius’s Scare Tactics on Obamacare

large group we wont take it any more

The Heritage Foundation

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is already claiming that seniors would be adversely affected by House-passed legislation defunding Obamacare. Nothing could be further from the truth. Obamacare is the program inflicting harm on seniors–because, as Nancy Pelosi said, the law “took half a trillion dollars out of Medicare” to fund Obamacare. Defunding the law would make seniors much better off.
http://herit.ag/14rnst7

Now they want to kill the elderly when they come to collect the money due them in their old age.

Agendized bureaucrats and their minions in the medical community do not possess an inherent right to hasten that journey because they view us as a drain on the financial coffers of the State, or because stupid men believe the populations of the nations are responsible for cyclic weather change and floods and droughts. And, by reducing the population of the United States we will somehow make the world a better place. The sole purpose for euthanizing the elderly is to reduce the drain on a bankrupt Social Security and Medicare system. The government of the United States not only stole the Social Security Trust Fund to finance the Progressive Democrats Welfare State, now they want to kill the elderly when they come to collect the money due them in their old age.

hillary-in-blue-hijab-300x205

Bill Clinton was so concerned about AIDS that on Nov. 12, 1993 as Hillary’s Health Security Act was in its death throes, he suggested that a provision be added to the bill mandating a one-time screening for AIDS be done on all US citizens. Clinton also proposed having the CDC require every citizen with full-blown AIDS to be confined to AIDS sanatoriums until they were no longer contagious, or until they died. The sanatoriums were to be situated in sparsely-populated areas of the country. Upon admission, patients would be required to sign living wills with euthanasia previsions that could be triggered by proxy when their healthcare providers deemed them to be “terminal.” The AIDS provision Clinton wanted to add to Hillarycare does not appear to be in Obamacare. However, the same federal Health Board that will be charged with the responsibility of doing the cost analysis on the merits of keeping the elderly alive versus denying them lifesaving procedures will also be responsible for preparing a cost analysis on the value of keeping terminally-ill AIDS victims alive on the public dime.It’s interesting to note that the gay and lesbian population actively campaigned for Clinton in 1992 and 1996.  Just as- the elderly—the primary target of the Obamacare Health Board—actively campaigned, and voted, for Barack Obama in 2008.               , And try to convince the gay and lesbian community that, if Hillarycare hadn’t failed, most of them would be spending their final days in an isolated AIDS sanatorium somewhere in the Badlands. And the blue-haired seniors in Florida and Arizona may find that their next flare-up of irritable bowel syndrome, or their next broken hip, might land them in a terminal care unit of their local hospital where those who linger while dying go to die, instead of sitting around bragging about their latest hospital adventure at the assisted living center.

Obama_1_nose_in_the_air_cropped  Obamacare, which supersede all current health options (including those offered by private carriers) enacted into law, your signing a living will that requires all extraneous means be used to prolong your life will not save, or prolong, your life for one minute if the Health Board rules that you have exhausted your “healthcare options.” The Health Board will hold the power of life and death over healthcare recipients who are construed to have either terminal or catastrophic illnesses, or, if they are victims of expensive chronic illnesses that historically drain financial resources without healing the patient, the Board will have the right to deny procedures or surgery even though they may enhance the quality of life of the patient

The 15-member Obama Health Board was created under HR 1, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The board will gain its authority from HR 3200, The America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. The board, which the legislation purports to be an advisory panel created to perform cost analysis of all phases of the stimulus plan is, in reality, a panel of physicians and healthcare providers whose role it will be to determine at what point it is no longer cost productive to sanction the use of taxpayer dollars to save the life of a patient who requires a surgical procedure, medical procedure or lifesaving medications to correct a medical malady that threatens the life of an elderly patient or someone with a catastrophic illness.

The American people—thanks to Hillary Clinton—now have a more complex understanding of how, by design, universal healthcare puts into place the foundation of regulations that will allow government to control not only the lives of the people, but their mobility as well. Universal healthcare provides government with the platform that will surreptitiously allow them to, ever so slowly, steal the liberty of the People under the guise of taking care of them.

Like Obamacare, Hillarycare also contained provisions to ration healthcare to the elderly and also to catastrophically-ill people whom statistics said would drain the finite resources of the public healthcare system and bankrupt it if caps were not placed on catastrophic care.The specific language that deals with the rationing of healthcare to the elderly found in The America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (which was drafted in part by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

Massive fraud on the part of our nation’s leaders, who have plundered every cent of the Social Security Trust Fund

Massive fraud on the part of our nation’s leaders, who have plundered every cent of the Social Security Trust Fund and the surplus that was specifically earmarked 1983 by President Regan for the retirement of the baby boomers.”future Presidents knew and took the money regardless.
Public-issue, marketable U.S. Treasury bonds are default-proof, and that is the kind of bonds that the Social Security surplus revenue was supposed to be invested in. If this had been done, Social Security would be in fine shape today. But, instead of using the surplus Social Security revenue to buy such bonds in the open market,** the government chose to spend the money and issue IOUs to replace the spent money.*** These IOUs are non-marketable and could not be sold to anyone, even for a penny on the dollar. The government has the legal authority to declare these IOUs null and void.
Hasn’t Social Security been receiving surplus revenue ever since the 1983 payroll tax hike? Isn’t there supposed to be approximately $2.5 trillion in the Social Security trust fund? The answer to both questions is yes. But there is a problem. Every dollar of that surplus Social Security revenue has already been spent by the government.In a 1960 ruling by the United States Supreme Court, the court ruled that nobody has a “contractual earned right“ to Social Security benefits.
some did not take the language seriously because they thought it was probably unconstitutional. However, in 1960, in the case of Fleming v. Nestor, the Supreme Court upheld the denial of benefits to Nestor, even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits In its ruling, the Supreme Court established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits “is not a contractual right.”
Obama has proved he has no use for the elderly and Hillary has been heard to say some deeply offensive comments on America’s elderly. Obama Care was never about us,it is about power for the progressive Democrats.as they speed to their Global Government.
The ruling class Progressive Democrat elites a have promised everything and delivered nothing but failure and economic slavery to our bloated leviathan called the U.S. Government

USA traitors have created the Social Security Totalization schemes

by Mark W Lowry

Carter ,Bush1, Bush2, and Obama have all worked to create a One World Government.

Did anyone ask Americans if they wanted a Global Government??? Carter was first President to sign totalization agreement in 1978 and future Globalist Presidents have secretly turned our country over to it. Our corrupt traitor elected officials are blaming hardworking Mainstream American Citizens for the Social Security Insurance trust going bust. The tragic destruction of the USA is the result of global government funding by our government and is not the responsibility of its citizens. The traitors need to take credit for their hard work to create the global government under control of the international moneyed families and their closely held global corporations.

That is what has bankrupted USA Social Security. The lie about a decrease in USA workers is a lie. Older workers are working much longer now because Social Security Benefits are not enough to live on. The elderly are taking jobs the teens used to take.

The illegals sit on their —  and draw the money. Many of them in the nation they came from. They only have to be here for a year and half to get benefits sent to Mexico (  totalization agreement with Mexico)   or any other country with a totalization agreement and pick up their dependent families as beneficiaries too. Chain migration, and the preposterous anchor babies of foreign citizens along with tourist-birth babies that provide citizenship status and Social Security benefits to people around the world under Totalization agreements has destroyed the USA financially, socially and legally.

The goose that laid the golden egg for multinationals is dying an agonizing death. There is no blood left in the USA turnip. Totalization agreements designed to provide multinationals with more profit are failures for the USA

Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:43 AM Subject: $2 trillion paid to foreigners in USA not discussed in pseudo debt debate. Additional global governance $trillions costs not discussed.To: The massive expense of welfare payments to illegal foreign mercenaries on our soil is the key to our indebtedness. USA traitors have created the Social Security Totalization schemes where we pay for Social Security Benefits now for workers from 21 nations.

We also pay for most of Mexico’s Social Security benefits. The annual expense was only $2.6 billion in 2002 to a reported 418,000 foreign beneficiaries outside the USA. Ten years later that amount sent to foreign nations must be well over $3 trillion a year.

The annual Federal debt is $14 trillion. There is a minimum federal expenditure of $2 trillion for all federal expenses related to housing, feeding, and protecting illegals and “legal” foreign citizens in the USA. Some comes from pseudo refugee programs and other open door programs that permit over 4 million people to enter the country each year legally. Another 4 million or so enter illegally.

The USA is permitting an invasion of over 8 million people each year to assure our nation is demographically destroyed. This enormous growth in illegal and legal residents as well as foreign citizens who are now provided USA welfare and Social Security benefits can not be sustained under any situation. The growth in beneficiaries is documented here: http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/disability_trends/sect01.html Note these numbers only reflect the primary beneficiaries and not all the dependent beneficiaries. For instance, one eligible illegal may have 10 children getting benefits. The 56 million number of beneficiaries now is a low estimate but reflects a 100 percent increase since 1970 when Carter started the Totalization Agreements. Cost increases after the 1983 Reagan Amnesty were dramatic.

By Marti Dinerstein September 2004

 

Examining a Lopsided Agreement with Mexico

By Marti Dinerstein

September 2004

 Since the late 1970s, the United States has entered into a series of bilateral “totalization” agreements that coordinate the U.S. Social Security program with the comparable programs of other countries. To date, 20 such agreements are in force. They have been financially beneficial to U.S. workers and their employers and the associated social security payments to foreign nationals have been reasonable. As such, totalization agreements have been non-controversial. Congress has never voted to disapprove one.

But the proposed totalization agreement with Mexico is profoundly different from prior agreements in four important ways:

1. One-sided.

Unlike the 20 existing agreements, a totalization agreement with Mexico would be one-sided. Its beneficial effects to U.S. workers would be miniscule compared to those received by potentially millions of Mexicans. It is expected that the totalization agreement with Mexico would:

Provide only modest tax savings for American workers and their employers compared to other totalization agreements.

Entice Mexicans to remain in the United States for the 10 years it takes to vest for U.S. Social Security (versus 24 in Mexico) in order to maximize their retirement income. The United States pays out far more to low-wage workers than they contribute to the system. In contrast, Mexico only pays out what was contributed, plus accrued interest.

Permit Mexicans to return home and have their spouses and dependents receive U.S. Social Security benefits they would not have been entitled to without a totalization agreement.

Permit partial Social Security benefits to be paid to those who worked in the United States as little as 18 months (six quarters).

Eventually compel the United States to pay out billions in retirement benefits to Mexicans for credits they acquired while using fraudulent Social Security numbers prior to obtaining legal status.

Lure even more Mexicans into the United States illegally in the hopes they would obtain amnesty, thereby making themselves and their families eligible to receive U.S. Social Security benefits once the worker returned to Mexico and reached retirement age.

2. Perversion of original concept.

The anticipated totalization agreement with Mexico is a perversion of prior agreements, calling into question the appropriateness of such a pact. The norm in existing bilateral totalization agreements assumes employees of corporations are asked by their employers to transfer to the other country for a specified period of time. Employees and employers in both countries have been contributing to their respective social security systems. The dual objectives of existing totalization agreements were to secure tax savings for the employees and employers of both nations by eliminating double taxation and to guarantee an old age pension to those who contributed to both social security systems by “totalizing” the years worked in both countries. Employees legally enter the partner nation with documents verifying they are authorized to work. Virtually all of the existing 20 totalization agreements are with developed nations whose social security retirement benefits are at parity with those in the United States, providing no incentive to stay and vest for U.S. social security.

In contrast, most Mexican workers entered the United States illegally, were not affiliated with a corporation, previously lived in poverty, and paid no social security taxes in Mexico. There is no benefit parity for American workers in Mexico as it takes more than twice as long to vest for Mexican social security (24 years vs. 10 years in United States) and the benefits are far less generous than those in the United States.

3. Most Mexicans here illegally. None of the existing totalization countries accounts for even 1 percent of the U.S. illegal population and jointly comprise only 4 percent of the total number of illegals. In contrast, over half of the Mexicans living in the United States are illegal aliens. The size of the illegal population from Mexico more than doubled in the last decade and now accounts for 69 percent of the U.S. illegal population. (1974)To adopt a totalization agreement with Mexico would put the United States in the ludicrous position of offering Social Security benefits to potentially millions of Mexican workers who showed contempt for our laws by illegally crossing our border and by fraudulently obtaining the Social Security numbers (SSNs) needed to qualify for old age and disability benefits.

4. Huge costs.

It is extremely difficult to estimate the potential long-term drain of a Mexican totalization agreement on the U.S. Social Security trust fund, but it has the potential to dwarf all the other agreements combined. Serious questions have been raised about the assumptions made by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the rigor of its analysis. Inexplicably, SSA projected its estimates based on the totalization experience with Canada. The estimated number of Canadians living in the United States is 820,000 (vs. 9.2 million Mexicans).(1974) Given the fact that a totalization agreement would cover not just Mexican workers but also their spouses and dependents, it is highly likely that over time, potentially millions of people would receive U.S. Social Security benefits and the cost would be in the billions of dollars.

The Health Board will hold the power of life and death over elderly healthcare recipients

We dont have to take it anymore. The Obama election says “yes you do”.
Paul Joseph Watson
Thursday, June 28, 2012
The blue-haired seniors in Florida and Arizona may find that their next flare-up of irritable bowel syndrome, or their next broken hip, might land them in a terminal care unit of their local hospital where those who linger while dying go to die, instead of sitting around bragging about their latest hospital adventure at the assisted living center.

If Britain’s socialist healthcare system is a benchmark for what we can expect from Obamacare, hundreds of thousands of elderly patients face being euthanized through “assisted death” techniques designed to cut costs.

elderly musicians
The idea that “death panels” would be introduced through Obamacare as a means of rationing healthcare was discussed during an Aspen Institute conference in 2010 when Bill Gates argued that money should not be spent on treating the elderly.
During a question and answer session, Gates implied that elderly patients undergoing expensive health care treatments should be killed and the money spent elsewhere.

Gates said there was a “lack of willingness” to consider the question of choosing between “spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patient” or laying off ten teachers.
“But that’s called the death panel and you’re not supposed to have that discussion,” added Gates.

However, Britain’s socialist healthcare system under the NHS has gone light years beyond death panels and actually introduced a method of “care” that actually has the intended effect of euthanizing patients.

elderly ladiesimages

In a recent exposé, Patrick Pullicino, a consultant neurologist for East Kent Hospitals and professor of clinical neurosciences at the University of Kent, revealed that of the 450,000 patients who die annually under the care of the NHS, 130,000 of them were on the Liverpool Care Pathway.
Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) is a process whereby a doctor identifies a patient who is likely to die and that patient is then heavily sedated while treatment is withdrawn, “including the provision of water and nourishment by tube.”
“If we accept the Liverpool Care Pathway we accept that euthanasia is part of the standard way of dying as it is now associated with 29 per cent of NHS deaths,” Pullicino
Thank You Hillary and Obama for pretending to care for what was called our finest generation.And advising aspirin instead of care and all the morphine they want!!! I believe You Progressives are monsters.
I wonder how this will work when Georgr Soros goes in Hospital (no care and all the Morphine he wants) I doubt it.Sadly, Hillary Clinton’s failed Health Security Act of 1993 offered a bureaucratic solution: rationed healthcare. Obamacare, which will supersede all current health options (including those offered by private carriers) is enacted into law, your signing a living will that requires all extraneous means be used to prolong your life will not save, or prolong, your life for one minute if the Health Board rules that you have exhausted your “healthcare options.

” The Health Board will hold the power of life and death over healthcare recipients who are construed to have either terminal or catastrophic illnesses, or, if they are victims of expensive chronic illnesses that historically drain financial resources without healing the patient, the Board will have the right to deny procedures or surgery even though they may enhance the quality of life of the patient.

Agendized bureaucrats and their minions in the medical community do not possess an inherent right to hasten that journey because they view us as a drain on the financial coffers of the State, or because stupid men believe the populations of the nations are responsible for cyclic weather change and floods and droughts. And, by reducing the population of the United States we will somehow make the world a better place.
The sole purpose for euthanizing the elderly is to reduce the drain on a bankrupt Social Security and Medicare system. The government of the United States not only stole the Social Security Trust Fund to finance the Welfare State, now they want to kill the elderly when they come to collect the money due them in their old age.

Obama’s 15-member Health Board, officially branded as the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Research,  ???? The verbiage in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. makes it appear that the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Research was legislated as an advisory panel to do cost analysis on all facets of the stimulus package.

Make no mistake about it. The Obama Health Board, or as it is legislatively known, the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Research, headed by death merchants the likes of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel based on the vision of Dr. Robert Pearlman, the Chief of Ethics Evaluation for the Veteran’s Administration National Center for Ethics in Health Care, who was the visionary behind the notion that disabled veterans who do not want to be a burden to their families or to society, have the right to death with dignity through assisted suicide.

Pearlman authored his death protocol in 1997. For the remaining three years of the Clinton Administration, Pearlman’s 52-page end-of-life planning document, “Your Life, Your Choices,” not only became the basis for the living wills used by disabled military people but, it also became the framework for the federal regulation that now requires hospitals and other medical care facilities to pressure patients—particularly elderly patients—to sign Living Wills (i.e., euthanasia provisions   (This happened to me just a few months ago I was pressured to sighn and refused.)

 Today, in violation of the Hippocratic Oath, doctors regularly euthannize patients deemed to be terminally-ill. Among the list of terminal illnesses that can trigger the Living Will death-with-dignity provision is old-age.!!!

No right-minded person should ever sign a living will unless they have a penchant to prematurely expedite their exodus from this world. When you sign a living will, you are actually signing your own death warrant—and you are giving someone you don’t know the right to end your life when they see fit to do so. The argument of the pro-euthanasia crowd (whose primary goal is population reduction at both ends of the age corridor) is that people have a right to death with dignity.

There is no such thing. There is no dignity in death. Even in a roomful of people, death is a journey we travel alone. God, not a bureaucrat, appointed when that journey will begin for each of us.

additional on this topic shortly:

Hillary more of the same.jpg 2

(This happened to me just a few months ago I was pressured to sighn and refused.)This line was added by me.

AARP bragged they were more effective in their lobbying efforts if they had “the appearance of impartiality.”

Obamacare Update: Seniors to Pay More To Get Less.                                                                                                                                   from: the 60 PLUS Association

Obama-Biden-Chit-Chat Obama made a litany of promises regarding his healthcare law, almost none of which have actually come true. He said premiums would come down an average of $2,500 per family, but they have already gone UP by $3,000. He said Americans wouldn’t lose their insurance, but hundreds of thousands have already been dumped as employers scramble to find ways to stay in business.

Regarding seniors, the President said Obamacare would strengthen Medicare, which it turns out is as ridiculous as saying that moths will strengthen your wardrobe. Obamacare robs nearly $1 trillion from Medicare, and we are already seeing cuts planned for future Medicare treatments, which is a big concern as 30 million more people will be added to Medicare rolls in the next decade.
Obama’s own actuaries forecast that in just six years, seniors will receive nearly $1,500 less in care than they would have without Obamacare, care that will help prevent sickness and keep them in the active lifestyle we all hope to maintain. Doctors, nurses, hospitals and hospice care will all see substantially less reimbursement from the government, according to Obamacare expert Betsy McCaughey, who has a new book coming out, Beating Obamacare, that could provide valuable information for seniors in these uncertain times.

elderly ladiesimages Now is also a good time to review the many new taxes created by Obamacare, taxes that will fall on the sick and elderly especially. The coming months could be tough sledding, but by staying informed and aware of the healthcare law changes, it is possible to lessen the burden that Obamacare is putting on America’s seniors. If you lose coverage, or see a decrease in coverage or increase in fees, 60 Plus wants to know! Write to  info@60plus.org, and we’ll continue to keep seniors up to speed and informed on how the law affects us all, and we may just tell your story in our next 60 Plus newsletter.

More Shady Shenanigans from the AARP
There they go again, you take your eyes off the AARP for even a minute and you’re going to find the liberal organization up to no good. Latest case in point, a front-page story in the December 4 edition of the Washington Post exposed in detail how the AARP stands to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue if Congress and the President reform Medigap, a proposal AARP has consistently lobbied against, despite earlier denials.
Under proposed reforms, seniors who purchase Medigap would pay lower premiums and the U.S. would save billions in healthcare costs. Despite these benefits, AARP opposes such measures because they not only negatively impact the group’s main source of revenue, but the personal income of their executives as well.
60 Plus Chairman Jim Martin, leader of the nation’s largest conservative seniors organization with over 7.2 million supporters and the acknowledged conservative alternative to the liberal AARP (Association Against Retired Persons) said, “Once again AARP is exposed for selling seniors down the river for the almighty dollar.

For years 60 Plus and others — including Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Congressmen Fred Upton (R-MI) and Wally Herger (R-CA)– have been shouting from the rooftops to expose the tawdry and sordid business practices of the AARP.

AARP actions undermine the welfare of America’s seniors.”

**AARP was further embarrassed this past summer when secret memos came to light revealing AARP’s coordination with Democratic operatives in the White House and DCCC to promote Obamacare behind the scenes, despite their own members being opposed to the legislation by a margin of 14 to 1. In one memo, AARP bragged they were more effective in their lobbying efforts if they had “the appearance of impartiality.”

The Post also reported:
AARP executives are especially hurt by budget and Medigap reforms, as their yearly bonuses are based on total “royalty fees” from their endorsed insurance products that reforms would necessarily reduce
AARP admits that its lobbying efforts are a conflict-of-interest, after previously claiming that it did not lobby “at all” on Medigap
Royalties now account for 52% of AARP’s $1.4 billion in annual revenue, and growing revenue provided $140,156 in bonuses to

AARP CEO Barry Rand’s total compensation last year of $938,553
“The AARP claims to be a guiding force in the healthcare field, but the procedure they are most familiar with is performing the wallet-ectomy — removing seniors from their money. At almost every turn their activities can be reduced to making money on the backs of the elderly, and putting their own welfare ahead of that of their members and the nation as a whole.

“It is time that everyone, from the average voter to our leaders on Capitol Hill, treat the AARP for what they are — another self-interested party working for what is best for them and them alone.”
60 Plus in the News
As usual, the past few months have been extremely active with 60 Plus receiving heavy media coverage in national and local news. When lawmakers in Washington started tossing around proposals to cut Social Security benefits, 60 Plus Chairman Jim Martin appeared on the Fox Business Channel to talk with Stuart Varney about why seniors should not be the scapegoat for the nation’s current budget crisis .
Talk is Cheap, but Obama State of the Union Costs us All More

government by deception
If you found yourself disappointed and unsurprised by the President’s annual State of the Union. take heart that you are far from alone. Apart from failing to mention even a hint of a plan to help protect and save Social Security, Obama’s address indicated his second term will be a rambling attempt to achieve every item on the liberals’ wish list to borrow, tax and spend more of our money.
With over 23 million Americans unemployed or underemployed, we now have ample proof the President’s second term will be nothing more than a continuation of the same failed big-government policies of his first term, unencumbered by having to ever run for office again.
After the speech, 60 Plus Chairman and Founder, Jim Martin, released a statement, excerpted below:
“Once again the President’s State of the Union speech was long on rhetoric, but short on ideas and solutions. The President has a government program and policy to every problem, real or perceived. Yet on his obligation to take the lead on cutting our crushing debt, putting Americans back to work, approving more domestic energy supplies and fixing our flailing senior entitlement programs we get nothing.

obama-liarliarJust as in the past four years the President offered nothing but deception, deceit and empty promises. Saying he won’t increase the deficit ‘one dime’ is a flat-out falsehood. As a man who has increased our national debt by 58 TRILLION dimes he has precious little credibility. The man who promised Obamacare would make healthcare more affordable had nothing to say regarding the fact that Americans are paying MORE for healthcare, and the employers forced to pay for it are cutting jobs just to stay afloat.
“The best way to achieve the fair and prosperous nation the President talks about is to let the free-market economy thrive, and limit government’s intrusion into our lives. But this President disbands his jobs council and presides over the weakest recovery since WWII, and it is no secret why. More government is all he proposes, when it is only a free and growing economy that will put our nation back on track.
“Obama failed policies that now see our economy shrinking and more people out of work. His State of the Union was a sad performance, and showed in crystal clear clarity that he follows the beat of a drummer far out of sync with reality, and far out of sync with the future we all want for our nation, our children and grandchildren.”

Hillary more of the same