« | »

Reid: We’re Going To Have A Public Option

From the American Spectator:

Reid to Netroots: "We’re Going To Have a Public Option"

By Philip Klein

July 24, 2010

LAS VEGAS — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, seeking to console liberal activists who were disappointed by the final version of the national health care law, assured them that there would eventually be a public option.

"We’re going to have a public option," Reid said. "It’s just a question of when."

Reid’s general comments reflected the same overall message to progressives that President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered earlier today. It essentially boils down to: We’ve done a lot of stuff, but we still have a lot of unfinished business, so campaign for us again.

During a question and answer session, Reid also argued against "fear tactics of those who say Social Security is going broke. It’s not."

This is part of a strategy I described earlier this week, with Democrats renewing the spectre of Social Security cuts to use as an issue against Republicans.

"Social Security is the most successful social program in the history of the world," he said

The Democrats will simply say or do whatever it takes to get their way.

They never give up.

This article was posted by Steve on Sunday, July 25th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

5 Responses to “Reid: We’re Going To Have A Public Option”

  1. Right of the People says:

    He is correct, the people of Nevada have a “public option” on whether this slimebag goes back to Washington. Hopefully they will make the right choice and retire Crazy Harry.

  2. Rusty Shackleford says:

    “Social Security is the most successful social program in the history of the world,” he said…

    This is what gets me. Socialists spout such rhetoric and they believe that by merely saying a thing, it is so.

    So by what yardstick are you measuring social security’s success? Where’s the substantive argument to back up your claim? Did you not learn, even in high school debates, that when you make a statement, it has to have substantiation? You have to have your facts straight an be prepared to back them up.

    Interestingly, socialists never do this. Or, if they do, they lie. And when they lie, everyone, including other socialists KNOW they are lying but say nothing. Is it all “The Ruling Class” not holding anyone to account? I guess it must be because there can be no other argument.

    “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

    So it is impossible for Reid to not know he is lying.
    It is also impossible that the others in the room do not know it.

    Amongst all the other probabilities is that the ruling class simply looks upon the dissatisfied masses as children and he is giving them warm milk and cookies and telling them stories to put them to sleep so when they wake up, they will have wonderful public option “healthcare”.

    Of course, regardless of the preponderance of evidence that it doesn’t work in every nation that has it; That it breaks the financial back of the people who have to pay the taxes to support it, in all its inefficient, bureaucratic forms. And it is unsustainable because people who are excellent doctors come to the US to practice medicine. But in accordance with the boy’s wishes to “change” the landscape, the excellent doctors who practice here will do so no longer because the incentive for good pay will disappear. (Part of that redistributive policy they have, where doctors, clearly, have been stealing from the money’s rightful owners for generations)

    There will be no place for anyone with excellent doctor skills to go and earn a substantive living. Therefore the incentive to become a doctor at all will disappear, except for those who couldn’t make it through med school the first time, or at all because of the very tough and grueling hours and requirements for excellence.

    So, you’ll get the doctor on equal footing with the janitor. Much the way you see in “Scrubs”.

    And this is why a lot of people will die.

    However, looking at it through the prism of the ruling class, it has nothing to do with the type/kind/frequency or quality of care the people will receive. They care not. It’s about a choke-hold of a tax burden to pay for it all. They will do everything they can to take as much money from the people as possible. You will see a spike in people figuring out ways to not pay taxes….or they may just not file returns at all. I know that in spite of getting direct deposit, I will take whatever cash I can out every payday and use cash instead of my debit card because…I happen to believe they will track my purchases with it and then, if they see I bought some cookies, they can then deny me care for my diabetes. Or something along those lines.

    So watch very carefully if the government mandates that everyone gets a debit card. And also watch for a push on a “cashless” society.

    Paranoia? Perhaps. And I haven’t done it yet as I love my debit card. But, the goal will be to keep the government in the dark about me as much as possible.

    People thought the Bush administration was bad with the Patriot Act? And that it supposedly wheedled its way into people’s lives. Well, with socialists in charge, you ain’t seen nuttin’ yet.

    And one final thing. I will not refer to them as liberals, progressives or any other new euphemism. It’s time we called them what they are: Socialists. They are proud of it so call them what they truly are.

    OK, rant mode off. Sadly, I do not feel any better. Not until we can reverse this horrific trend towards the gulag.

  3. proreason says:

    “Social Security is the most successful social program in the history of the world,” he said…

    What the reaper meant is that Social Security is the most difficult social program to unravel, and therefore the most successful from the perspective of the Ruling Class.

    Anybody who has paid into SS for 40 years (matched by the employer, so effectively 2x the FICA tax for most) will fight to the death to get back what was confiscated from them. You will too Rusty.

    Just as an example, a person earning 50K annually, would have had 15% of his lifetime earnings confiscated. For that person, the amount, simply adjusted for inflation would be $300,000. But it is really more than that, because even conservative investing would have pushed the amount over $500,000.

    So there is no chance that someone with that level of skin in the game will accept getting nothing back. No chance. I hear a lot of people in their 30’s and 40’s say they don’t expect to get anything back. Well, just wait until they are 60 and have a million or so of their lifetime earnings in the thing. They’ll change their tune.

    Now, on top of that, most people are financial idiots and save nothing for their entire life. If they are lucky, at 65, they own a house (which requires repairs, taxes, insurance and maintenance). But Social Security payments will be the only income for a shockingly high percentage of people.

    The reaper is right to brag that the marxists have created a dangling noose, that, even if you despise the concept, you damn wall can’t get out of the gallows.

    I’ll bet less than 5% of the population of the US can survive in retirement without Social Security. It could be an even higher percentage.

    And oh, one other thing….you know that $300-500K….you have no choice of not paying…..even if you are willing to go to jail. It’s automatically deducted from your paycheck. Independent contractors could theoretical avoid it, at penalty of jail, but nobody who gets a w-2 paycheck can even try to get around the system. (But, of course, most of the Ruling Class doesn’t have to pay it….they don’t have earned income. They live off dividends, interest, and stock gains. Social Security isn’t required on any component of the Ruling Class’s income sources. Sweet, isn’t it?)

  4. wardmama4 says:

    Pro – You hit on the point of what is so seriously wrong with Socialism – It takes away your personal responsibility – for yourself and your children and your medical care and your retirement/old age, for your decisions – but worse than that it takes away the societal responsibility – This is (insidiously) one of the reasons our churches are no longer ‘houses of God’ but rather social clubs pandering in an attempt to ‘fill the seats’ and paragons of ‘social justice’. While I hated growing up with hell fire and brimstone and condemnation at every step of the way (and my Mom wasn’t even a Southern/Fundamentalist Baptist – I did however realize where she got her schtick from once I attended those churches) – but it made me responsible and accountable for myself and mine.

    A serious part of our culture has been trained not to put away, not to do for family (both children and their parents) and not to care – as they will get their ‘benefit’ check in the end.

    Even my Mom who had money – screamed on and on about Bush taking her Social Security – the msm & li(e)brals are very successful at the lies they pedal.

    It is a shame – America was once a great Nation, now it is a shell of itself. I keep praying that America does not become a Shadow of itself – for then it might be too late.

  5. proreason says:

    “but worse than that it takes away the societal responsibility “

    Yep, and it’s a key part of the plan. I rant regularly that the marxists deliberately destroy the social fabric. Specifically, families, churches, social organizations, and small businesses. All of those social units THREATEN the power of the state. As you say WM, if you can depend on your church or relatives to support you in time of need, you don’t really need that gubamint pay check, do you? And if you aren’t depending on that gubamint paycheck, then you just might vote for somebody other than the smiling member of the Ruling Class who so benevolently promises to keep the checks coming..


« Front Page | To Top
« | »