Tax Cheat Charlie Said....

Watching the Congressional hearings can have its moments. When Charlie Rangel gets a microphone in front of him I usually know I'm about to experience a Moon Bat Moment. Right now if I were a Democratic big wig, thank God I'm not, Rangel would be the last one I would want to speak for the party. Well, maybe not but he's right there in the running. The Democrats are running scared about the Obamacare disaster and it shows. Sebelius just confirmed for us that they also call it a disaster so relax my liberal readers.

So here we have a known tax cheat and crook speaking anew for his Democratic brethren. Don't you Democrats find that a bit embarrassing? Now I have to remember that the guy is 80+ years old now and probably a couple of ham sandwiches short of a picnic. He should have been put out to pasture long ago but he is good entertainment for the Democratic party though a real embarrassment.

Rangel obviously missed the history lesson about the passage of Social Security. Or maybe he knows that the average American doesn't have a clue and will swallow lies hook, line and sinker. So let me set the record straight for the low information crowd Rangel panders to. Social Security was passed in 1935. Now according to Charlie not one Republican voted for that bill. That is as far from the truth as one can get but more than one person, other than Charlie Rangel, might now believe that because he said it.

In the hearing Charlie was trying to make not one Republican voting for Obamacare synonymous with the passage of Social Security. There is no parallel - ZERO. I will qualify what Rangel said and how he said it, “I don't think that one Republican voted for the Social Security Act.”

Charlie! It's hard to think with one brain cell. So the House Ways & Means Chairman had to step in to correct Charlie The Cheat. Historically Chairman Camp was spot on. He pointed out fact versus Charlie the Harlem Tuna fiction, "In fact, the 1935 law establishing Social Security passed out of the House with the support of 81 Republicans. Just 15 opposed it. On the Senate side, 16 Republicans voted for it, and five voted against.”

I'm waiting for the Democrats to start blaming the crash of Obamacare on Bush. Maybe they already have and I missed it.

A little more background history for the uneducated among us. Social Security started out with a ratio of 30 people paying in for each recipient. Currently that is down to 3:1. Social Security is also a wealth transfer program and we know where it is going - BROKE. That is despite what Harry Reid or Charlie Rangel wants you to believe. The actuaries have it down pretty close to when in actuality.

Social Security is a form of forced compliance. It looks good on paper but has some major glitches just like ObamaShock does. You pay in a certain percentage of your income into the system like it or not. Your employer pays the same amount in your name too. That's also whether they want to or not. He does that for you and all the other employees. See how bad those meanies are? I'm self-employed so I pay in the full amount rather than just one half. In effect the federal government is forcing people to comply and then using the money for something other than what it was intended to be used for. I call that theft.

Rangel is obviously blowing smoke. Social Security and Obamacare are similar in one regard. A house of cards will always be just that. There are many forms of Ponzi schemes and the federal government is now running some of the biggest in history. When you run out of other people's money the jig is up. Large groups of people are either getting health insurance for nothing or on the cheap. The on the cheap comes through giving people subsidies. Now ask yourself the key question knowing there is no free lunch, "Where are the subsidies coming from?"

One figure released by HHS seems a bit low but will illustrate the point. This appeared in USA Today, “almost half of young, single, uninsured adults in 34 states could pay $50 or less a month for insurance through the online exchanges after receiving subsidies," That was the findings of a HHS study just released this past Monday. Looking at what I am seeing I'm not sure I believe a darned word HHS puts out about this program one way or the other.

Not sure the Congressional sweetheart deal Congress cut for itself concerning their subsidies will hold up so we'll wait and see. Too many provisions are being created outside the framework of the law are being created by HHS, Congress or Obama himself that are heading for the courts. Those Congressional subsidies are now sacred ground to the Democrats in Congress in case you weren't watching.

Rangel is used to stealing so there is nothing amiss here. Where does the money come from to give anyone, much less a Congressman, a subsidy to buy anything? It comes from other people. The government is taking money from some people and forking it over to other people. It was a basic tenant of Karl Marx's vision of utopia. In my world I call that outright theft of what I have earned and they have not. Obama likes to call it fairness. Some needs to tell Obama that life isn't always fair and never will be.

The reality is that it is a huge vote buying scheme that the Democrats have adopted in order for them to continue to warm those cushy seats. Like Rangel they believe in their grisly hearts there is a free lunch - always at someone else's expense you see. In November of 2014 we need to send more of these backward thinking critters packing.

Vote It," "Like" It, "Tweet" It, "Pin " It, "Share It" With Your Followers. Time to let em read it and keep reading it.

As Always,

The Frog Prince