Obamacare in chart form [Archive]

Joe King

9th August 2010, 11:27 PM

Does anyone ever wonder why, in the midst of recession, health care became such a priority for our so-called benefactors in Washington?
Was it just out of the goodness of their hearts?

Based upon what I've seen, the only reason the United States National Health Care Act was suddenly so important that it had to be rushed through Congress, is for one reason only.

It's a way to increase the interest payment on the National Debt, without coming out and saying they have to increase your taxes in order to increase their borrowing.
Which is why it's tied to the IRS.

When you're given a line of credit, you agree to pay a certain amount on a regular basis to service your debt. {payments}
It's no different with the gov.
We all know they're planning to take deficit spending to new a new level from here on.

It's no different than what happened when Reagan kicked it up after he got in office when the yearly deficits increased by a factor of 3 or more from what it had been in prior Administrations.
Difference is, back then they suckered the zombies with claims of "saving" ::) social {in}security.
This time it's with "free" health care. ::) {I guarantee it won't be "free" for you}

I think all here know what they really did back in 1983.
It gave them extra "money" that was "invested" into nonnegotiable Treasury's in order to free-up that "money" for immediate spending.
i.e. accounting tricks.

The Grace Commission Report {1983} showed that all income tax revenue was either wasted, or went to pay interest on the debt and by federal government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services [that] taxpayers expect from their government. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grace_Commission)

Back in the olden days, if you sent a check as tax payment, they used to print right on it "pay to the order of any federal reserve bank or branch".
If the FED acts as our banker, shouldn't it say, "for deposit only"? Which way would you endorse your checks? (http://www.bankersonline.com/operations/gurus_op060302i.html)

IMO, ALL taxes collected are paid to them and the gov actually depends on borrowing for every dime they spend.
Look at this page titled, "How to Deposit a Collection Received in the U.S." (http://www.trade.gov/ofm/static/How%20to%20Deposit%20a%20Collection_Latest_tg_ofm_ 019208.pdf) <--- gov document. See bottom of page #1

While I'll admit that's for the ITA Program, but it def shows that they instruct them to use "pay to the order of" when making "deposits" on behalf of the U.S.

Pete Stark even says they borrow every dollar they spend in his "interview" by Jan Helfeld. {1:30 mark, it's on youtube}
BTW, I'd have given alot to have been in Jan's chair.
Too bad the questions Jan asks were strictly from a laypersons POV while Pete answers from an insiders POV.
i.e. it's almost like they're talking two different languages. But it makes for a funny video.

As I said, this is just the way I see it based upon what I've observed over the years. Your results may vary.