$174K-Per-Year Rangel: ‘No Question About It' Taxpayers Should Help Him Buy Obamacare Plan

They can take my $10,800.00 congressional Obamacare taxpayer-funded subsidy payola...when they pry it from my cold dead hand; this seems to be the prevailing mindset among liberal democrats in the U.S. House and Senate.

Apparently, even with a base salary of $174,000.00, liberal democrat, Charlie Rangel is not about to give back his generous taxpayer-funded, payola-style, Obamacare plan subsidy...even though his constituents...making far less than he, get no such 'sweetheart deal'.

Let them eat cake.
Hypocrisy run rampant!

Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) says that there is “no question” that members of Congress who are paid $174,000 a year are entitled to taxpayer-funded subsidies when they purchase health insurance on the Obamacare exchanges.

In response to questions posed by CNSNews.com on Capitol Hill Wednesday, Rangel said that he considers the subsidies part of Congress’ “overall compensation” even though ordinary Americans who earn $174,000 per year would have to have at least nine dependent children to qualify for the same subsidy.

MORE:
cnsnews.com...

It's just not fair !!

'Regular' people making $174,000 a year can't get the government subsidies or Medicaid.

But if they get insurance from an employer, they could get the policies mostly paid for tax free.

If they're self employed, maybe they can write it off.

If they're self employed with 50+ full time employees, they can get their own business to pay and write it off, or opt out and force everybody to the exchanges including themselves.

These people in Congress and government are employees of the government, and there is certainly more than 50.

So maybe the 'government' justified paying for 'employees' policies just like any business.

But then the 'government' could just opt out and pay the fine like any other business that can opt out.

Then the government employees go to exchanges in their own States.

Is anybody else confused yet ?

xuenchen

Is anybody else confused yet ?

Nope,
History repeats.
We all get what we voted for.

The tree of freedom...blood of patriots....blah,blah,blah..............

When it all falls apart people will wake up and blame the few of us who are left that work and pay taxes.

Then they will have a great revolution in which the taxpayers will be purged as greedy evil seeds of corruption, non-contributors will lynch them in the streets and claim victory as the same politicians return to office as victorious revolutionaries.

My advice is for every producing person in the US to put down their tools and sign up for welfare.

The sooner we stop giving the parasites a drop of blood to take, the sooner it all falls apart.

reply to post by xuenchen


What, IMO, it boils down to, is. If our task is to define rights as we think they should be
in a free society, we must choose between these two concepts.

Individualists choose the concept that rights come from the people and states are the servants.

Collectivists choose the concept that rights come from states and people are the servants.

A just state derives its power from the people. That means the state cannot have any legitimate powers unless they are given to it by its citizens. Another way of putting it is that governments may do only those things that their citizens also have a right to do.

THE ORIGIN OF STATE POWER

Which side do you think Rangel and our government belongs to?

badgerprints
My advice is for every producing person in the US to put down their tools and sign up for welfare.

The sooner we stop giving the parasites a drop of blood to take, the sooner it all falls apart.

edit on 25-10-2013 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)

My advice, if you qualify for welfare, you will regret putting down your tools to begin with.

the parasites are in wall street, not skid row.

Your fight overall is that the top should not in any form help the bottom. the bottom is an anchor, so long as they drag, society itself stands still. it is the task of the top to lift the anchor so all may move forward.

C21H30O2I
reply to post by xuenchen

 

What, IMO, it boils down to, is. If our task is to define rights as we think they should be
in a free society, we must choose between these two concepts.

Individualists choose the concept that rights come from the people and states are the servants.

Collectivists choose the concept that rights come from states and people are the servants.

A just state derives its power from the people. That means the state cannot have any legitimate powers unless they are given to it by its citizens. Another way of putting it is that governments may do only those things that their citizens also have a right to do.

THE ORIGIN OF STATE POWER

Which side do you think Rangel and our government belongs to?

Too black or white.
If the state serves the people, it becomes a socialism
if the people serve the state, it becomes a communism
neither fit in its purity, it is symbiotic in nature, healthy state, healthy people.

The problem is the soo out of balance view of society from both sides of the aisle, without considering the future path of their pure vision

reply to post by SaturnFX


I dont think so,

Individualists are champions of individual rights. Therefore, they accept the principle of individual responsibility rather than group responsibility. They believe that everyone has a personal and direct obligation to provide, first for himself and his family, and then for others who may be in need. That does not mean they don’t believe in helping each other. Just because I am an individualist does not mean I have to move my piano alone. It just means that I believe that moving it is my responsibility, not someone else’s, and it’s up to me to organize the voluntary assistance of others.

The collectivist, on the other hand, declares that individuals are not personally responsible for charity, for raising their own children, providing for aging parents, or even providing for them selves. These are group obligations of the state. The individualist expects to do it himself; the collectivist wants the government to do it for him: to provide employment and health care, a minimum wage, food, education, and a decent place to live.Collectivists are enamored by government. They worship government. They have a fixation
on government as the ultimate group mechanism to solve all problems.

Try Reading The Future Is Calling

reply to post by C21H30O2I


Thousands of years of attempts at society in all its forms have proven one thing for certain, people are simply not charitable to any effective degree. this was true during ancient times, during medieval times, and definitely moreso in todays day and age. Not even talking about the goldfish in a blender experiment where a single jerk can screw it up for everyone. in actual society, 2 out of 3 are those jerks. People aren't evil, but they are almost all selfish (myself not excluded. I would love to help out lesser fortunate people..once I have one more big television, and a pool table..maybe a motorcycle, and of course I need some new jeans, decent restaurant allowance, the latest awesome game, which means gotta upgrade the PC, etc etc etc).
But once I get all that stuff, gonna totally consider watching one of those just 75 cents a day commercials...

the pretend everyone on earth has a heart of gold is totally accurate...in Narnia.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I am not saying, everyone has a heart of gold. Far from it. I was just stating in different wording, What our political party is. Both democrats and republicans alike. Their all, Collectivists/Fabian! Both party's for the same out come. They just trade turns up at bat.

Leninist & Rhodesia's, Know what I mean? I do, Agree, On your points of interest though. But our politicians, Both sides, Are for one goal... One government controlled by a few. Using terrorism, As the catalyst.

Cheers

reply to post by IAMTAT
[more


Is not going to work, the member of congress is delusional, another reason why people needs to get in their thick heads that what is running this nation are nothing but morons.

See all members in congress are considered way on the top level when it comes to income, what he makes in as a politician serving the public is just pocket change compare to all the generated income from other sources

Now if he is abdicating to use just the income he earns as a member of congress disregarding all other incomes, then he is like I said delusional, I may add stupid or senile.

Let take a look at his income tax return first and then come back to me.

People have such short time memories

Charles Rangel at IRS Hearing: "Wrong to Abuse the Tax System"

fusion.net...

This man has taken advantage of his color to raise easily and rapidly to power within the black caucus, forgotten are the scandals that he had accumulated under his belt.

Rangel became tainted with his own scandal. In 2010, he was stripped of his chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee amid an investigation into a corporate-funded trip to the Caribbean. Later that year, the House of Representatives formally censured him after he was convicted of 11 counts of violating House ethics rules. Among the violations: failure to pay taxes on rental income from his villa in the Dominican Republic and failing to disclose over $600,000 in assets on a financial disclosure report.

He Needs to pay the taxes that he has failed to pay on his many assets before he can dare to ask for more tax payers money, to pay for what ? how dare that cockroach to even hint that he should be given subsidies

Americas politics are nothing but a joke, a mockery and a embarrassment to our nation, all at the expenses of tax payers.

SaturnFX
Thousands of years of attempts at society in all its forms have proven one thing for certain, people are simply not charitable to any effective degree. this was true during ancient times, during medieval times, and definitely moreso in todays day and age.

I believe this is a disingenuous statement, although it will require some clarifications as to what you believe to be charity. For instance, are we talking about how a society cares for another within their own society? For outsiders? How much individuals, businesses, et al contribute?

If it is the later, I would say that a free society, as shown in the amount that free citizens freely give a portion of their wealth towards charity -- the United States has excelled to dismantle your thesis.

Not even talking about the goldfish in a blender experiment where a single jerk can screw it up for everyone. in actual society, 2 out of 3 are those jerks. People aren't evil, but they are almost all selfish (myself not excluded. I would love to help out lesser fortunate people..once I have one more big television, and a pool table..maybe a motorcycle, and of course I need some new jeans, decent restaurant allowance, the latest awesome game, which means gotta upgrade the PC, etc etc etc).
But once I get all that stuff, gonna totally consider watching one of those just 75 cents a day commercials...

the pretend everyone on earth has a heart of gold is totally accurate...in Narnia.

I believe this is a highly subjective world view as I can offer the exact opposite. It may be just who we surround ourselves with in determining that Man, is not always selfish, but has at great lengths shown charity beyond what you believe to have been shown.

reply to post by IAMTAT


(sigh) Members of Congress already have government-subsidized health care and don't need to go on the exchanges.

And the number of liberal Democrats who don't support Obamacare is negligible.

Most Democrats on the Hill are in favor of it.

It amazes me how so many of you arch-conservatives turn everything around and blame the Democrats for doing what the Republicans are actually doing.