I slipped on a loose rock at the park this morning, landing hard on my right arm, just below the elbow. It hurt like a sonuvabitch, though I don’t think I’ve broken anything, but had I it would have cost me several thousand dollars between my insurance co-pay and deductible.
And had I been a laborer, dependent on four working limbs to do my job, an unlucky break like that probably would have cost me my job. That’s how close many Americans are to financial catastrophe: just a freak injury or unfortunate illness away from bankruptcy or worse.
In his recent fundraising letter, Dino Rossi warns how Patty Murray and Barack Obama are threatening the American Dream with un-American acts like healthcare reform and unemployment extensions. “The promise of the American Dream,” Rossi writes, “is the idea that if we work hard and play by the rules in this incredible land of opportunity, we would all benefit from top to bottom.”
“The American Dream was never a promise that everybody would have the same things or that the government would provide you with everything you need no matter what.”
Work hard and play by rules, and everybody benefits, Rossi says. Unless, of course, you work hard, play by the rules and break your arm while lacking access to affordable healthcare. In that case, you’re on your own.
And that’s about as good an illustration of the Republican philosophy as I can think of.
Speaking of Republican philosophy, Dino Rossi doesn’t work hard OR play by the rules. The guy got his start with a guy who went to jail for fraud, got rich on the misfortune of others as a real estate speculator and has dodged every campaign finance rule he’s come up against. That’s hardly the American Dream.
Serious question: Do you just hate Dino Rossi?
Keep up the pressure on that empty suit Lossi, Goldy.
Fantastic work!
Perfectly stated Goldy. I couldn’t agree more.
The above is a straw-man argument that presupposes that liberals think that veryone needs to be on an equal footing — no matter what. But that is inaccurate.
Liberals believe (like every PRIVATE insurance company advertises) that bad things happen to good people and a lot of people kicking a little into the kitty leaves a safety net for the unfortunate or the unlucky. It’s NOT about profit, necessarily, but about having the money to sustain the insurance and pay the claims.
That’s way different than the swill Rossi is simplistically offering to the simpletons.
@2
Are you just a re-invention of the same person under a different name? And BTW, are people supposed to understand wtf your screen name is supposed to mean?
Josef @2,
I’ve never met Rossi, but somebody I do know personally, who knows Rossi well, thinks he’s a great guy.
I just don’t like the ideology he represents, and by which he would govern, and I don’t think he’s particularly qualified for high office. So I do what I can to keep him away from the reins of power.
Politics is an adversarial process. What I do is necessary.
Illustrative of the point, a 100% true story.
I have never been without health insurance, provided by my employer, or now on my own as a business owner. In the mid 2000s I had a freak accident on a friend’s boat. I slipped just as I stepped to the dock and fell awkwardly and broke my foot and Tib/Fib requiring surgery for plate and screw insert.
Surgery was fine, the insurance covered all but $2500 and I could afford an “accident.” But the bill from the hospital for emergency room, surgery, overnight observation = $60,000. Then came physical therapy after not walking for 10 weeks. That’s when I discovered that my employer health care covered a maximum of 10 chiropractic or Phys. Therapy sessions per year and didn’t cover dollar one until I’d reached another $500 deductible on those specific services. (Everyone knows Chiropractic is quackery and the only people who need extensive Phys.Therapy are just sticking it to their insurance.) So after the first $500 and then 3.5 weeks of insured coverage, I got the priviledge of paying $75 each for twice weekly visits for five months so I could re-learn to walk without pain.
That’s O.K. I was a company executive and could swing it by cutting back on personal spending. But there were five of us in the company in such a position and 30 or so mid-low level emloyees that would have been in EXTREME financial distress had they been in my shoes. Or they could have just limped for the rest of their lives.
That annecdote is one of many reasons why the Republican mantra of personal responsibility and “playing by the rules and working hard” is 100% bullshit. Life happens to people. Sometims it happens to check-out clerks or burger flippers or entry level college graduates who might rise through the company ranks and make six figures some day if all goes according to plan. The republican ideal, “sorry pal, sucks to be you. There goes your Saturday tee time.”
Most Reaganomics boils down to “fuck you if you can’t afford it.” I know the usual trolls will come at me with some version of “Do you expect the government to take care of you?” Yes, I do via programs to insure the uninsured and recognize that catastrophic medical coverage is NOT a for-profit right of insurance companies but rather a for qulaity or life right “for the general welfare” of the society.
Anyone who has lived with eyes open for a few years in this old world and believes that working hard and playing by the rules is a sure formula for success is a naive fool. Luck, misfortune, even perhaps fate play a far more significant role in who wins and who loses than these fools would have. I have seen too many good people, who have done everything right, go under. I have seen too many charlatans, frauds, and loafers succeed. I believe people should work hard and play by the rules, but that formula has only a tenuous connection to the success that a person might experience.
Ya, the thing I can’t wrap my head around is the implicit (or sometimes explicit) endorsement of the status quo with healthcare today by the Republicans. I don’t know how anyone can say that the 20% or so of GDP we spend on healthcare is a good value.
Anyone supposedly concerned with government spending or business cost would know that one of the biggest drivers for both is healthcare for employees. Trying to get behind a plan that would control costs and spread out risk will benefit everyone, but, since the Democrats are in power, they’d get credit, so OF COURSE, that can’t happen.
@2
Rossi seems like nice enough guy, but he supports policies that I oppose. There’s nothing personal about it.
Heh. A truly decent person wouldn’t say the things Rossi has said in his campaigns. Or try to win the confidence of the voter in the way he’s done.
He’s a tool of some very ugly people. He’s made the WORST choices hitching his star to those people.
He must be defeated.
dider, like all true frenchmen, will ban the burqua when he is elected. vive le clint!
But Goldy, since you’re still chronically unemployed and don’t work hard (or at all), you are hardly one to state anything about it. Nice try. I’m sure your little tender and weak girly-arm will heal up just fine on it’s own. Don’t fret, and try and take it like a man for once in your life.
I see Rossi and his poll numbers are making you obsessively post about him. Getting nervous? Getting scared? Good. You sure should be.
Let’s review:
http://www.rasmussenreports.co.....ton_senate
‘Night all.
Goldy, my brother has to ride the bus to work. Should he get a new car from the government? I mean why does a rich guy get a Lexus and he gets the bus.
And then my best friend lives in a 2 bedroom apt; how come the government lets Bill gates live in a mansion….shouldn’t we make them both get the same living accomodations?
Of course don’t get me started on people who shop at Whole Foods….i have to eat Safeway rice and beans while they feast on Tilapia and Chardonay. that is unfair.
@15
Show me where anyone makes the claims you describe? Typical bullshit rightie non-sense. You have no valid argeument so you go for the ad absurdum as if that scores you points.
The problem is you are talking about things that have competitive price points. If you can’t afford 15-20k, you can’t get a new car. If you can afford 20k there are 10-15 model options available to you. If you can afford 20-30k there are more luxurious models available. If you can afford 50k or more, by all means, get that luxury vehicle.
But if you break a bone, and can’t afford 5k or so in medical bills, you can either not get healed or skip out on the bill leaving it to the rest of the insurance pool. You can’t really go price shopping on x-rays and orthopedics. Ever see a used cast on Craig’s List?
he czechsaaz …
if your broken leg/foot cost $75,000…why do i have to pay a part of that. Even in pure socialism there is a cost to your injury. Should we be like Cuba,; all suffering equally so that your bill might only be $50 or so?
I agree $75k for a broken leg is crazy. I’ll bet if the market was really working (not confused by free and half free healthcare), that bill would be a lot lower. A vet bill for that would be $1,000 or so, and not cheaper only cuz of lesser conditions…its also cuz of no crazy insurance/subsidies…
17 – If you’re paranoid about 1 billion muslims in the world and you wanna kill ’em all and let g_d sort ’em out – why do I have to pay a part of that?
If you want to drive from point a to point b – and you need a road w/o potholes and a bridge that’s not going to collapse – why should I pay a part of that?
If your neighbor needs a cop to investigate a break-into his house in your neighborhood thereby detering a copy-cat to your house – why should I pay a part of that?
If a fireman…
You get the picture.. Or as is more likely – you don’t have a freaking clue!
How low rent – farmed fish and commodity grape. Why not Alaskan fresh caught with recent vintage from Caduceus Cellars?
damned klutz!
@17
Ahhhh, Righton, so you admit you don’t understand how insurance and actuarial tables work.
It was a particularly complicated break that my suregeon likened to an NFL lineman full-force trauma injury. 12 hour surgery to rebuild a crushed bone. I carry about $3,000 worth of titanium as a permanent souvenier.
Why should you have to pay? Philisopically, it is your duty as a compassionate human being to recognize that breaking people of their usefulness and ability to contribute to society as the result of an accident is not something about which to be proud.
Actually chzech; i know the difference between insurance and a subsidy.
Why should the broad society all pay a bit more, so that you don’t pay the true cost.
I have waived a few surgeries out of disgust for a system that gives me for free, what i should pay thousands for (e.g. some leg surgeries). Once you take the consumer out of the equation (and their good sense in judging whether to spend or not), you mess up the pricing
your injury and surgery would be a lot cheaper were it not for you and all who came before you not ever bidding in the free market. As distastefull as it might be, if wal mart or southwest delivered healthcare (in an open and non socialized market), they’d surely do same work for less.
Face it, you guys are mooches, and are using guilt to advance your cause.
Life isn’t fair. Sorry, that’s just the way it is. I know some disciplined hard working and ethical poeple who have failed at business. I also know some right bastards who have succeeded.
In my view the error in liberal thought isn’t planning to take all the wealth from those who have it and give it to those who don’t. In fact taxes are always passed on from those wealthy people, who aren’t stupid, to the less wealthy who purchase their products or services. This renders the whole process somewhat futile and actually makes the situation for the middle income worse, as they tend to bear most of the cost intended for the wealthy. And the moral and ethical implications of taking one mans money for a fellow citizens benefit is a whole other argument.
The error isn’t a cunning plan to turn over every facet of life to government control. This is the effect, but not the intent. First saying ‘this huge problem needs fixed,’ is always followed, with liberals, by ‘and the government is the only way to do so.’ But the intent is in fact problem solving. Again, we could argue about the actual problem and the best cure for it til the cows come home, but the net effect is an ever larger and more intrusive government.
The error is in thinking of compassion as an immediate gratification goal. Rather than looking at the illness, all the attention is focused on the symptoms. Instead of compassion which looks at permanent alleviation of problems, this liberal expression of compassion sticks bandaids on scratches and ignores the ice pick protruding from the patients chest. Yes it looks good, and it gets votes and it makes a person feel more humane and finer. But it does nothing really except waste effort, money and resources without ever impacting the actual problems.
Re 18
YLB,
I know of no true conservative who argues against taxes per se. They argue against taxes which don’t go to benefit society as a whole. National or local security, the criminal and civil justice systems, fire departments and reasonable regulation of commerce aren’t the bones of contention.
I ask you, though. I married late, because that was when I could afford the obligations of a husband and father. I drive an older car, owe no credit card debt or mortgage on my primary residence and generally planned to live within half of my income. Why should I be forced to pay for my neigbors food, housing, childcare and so on? Just because he or she didn’t so plan? If you’re talking about non-governmnental charity I’m all for it. That’s a personal choice I happen to see as an obligation. If you’re talking about deciding which citizens are deserving of being paid for their citizenship and which must pay based on %51 of the voting public? That’s charity at the muzzle of a gun.
And it doesn’t work. It creates generations of people who expect that the costs of life should be borne by their fellows. It dulls the edge of husbandry, and kills ambition at the root. Who knows how many geniuses of industry, art or science were lost to this country by this perverse social engineering?
BTW, Caduceus is good, but if you’re ever over Yakima way try the Porteus winery.
Re 20
“Why should you have to pay? Philisopically, it is your duty as a compassionate human being to recognize that breaking people of their usefulness and ability to contribute to society as the result of an accident is not something about which to be proud.”
You give philosophical reasons here, not ones which can be supported by the Constitution. I may, and feel I do, have an obligation to aid those less fortunate as a personal choice. The government has no Constitutional mandate and therefore no right to make this choice for me.
@21
Do you contemplate your reasoning before typing? So, I’m in near shock, in a car and my wife should be calling hospitals to price shop instead of taking me to the nearest facility?
You’re confusing “disposable goods” with “medical necessity.” If you should happen to have a heart attack or stroke at some point, I presume you don’t want your loved ones wasting time trying to find the cheapest doctor. By the time they find Cardiologist-R-Us in the phone book. You’ll be dead. But it will save you some money.
@22 (and to some extent you too righton.)
So I assume you support infringing on the free speach of pharmeceutical companies and not allowing them to advertise drugs to the public? How much is the cost of a prescription reflect advertising dollars for a symptom reducer rather than a cure? What effect does the advertising cost affect overall healthcare cost? And how much of the “reasearch” costs the pharmaceutical industry describes is either directly funded by CDC grants or inderectly funded by government granted reasearch Universities?
Sorry if I explode your brain with slightly comlex cause and effect.
@24
I gave a constitutional support. “For the General Welfare.” It comes up in the Preamble and Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
It is constitutionally required that the government “promote the general welfare.”
If you ignore that part of the Constitution, why? If not, what programs or services must the government provide to “promote the general welfare” in your opinion?
@1
Dino Rossi doesn’t work hard OR play by the rules. The guy got his start with a guy who went to jail for fraud, got rich on the misfortune of others as a real estate speculator and has dodged every campaign finance rule he’s come up against. That’s hardly the American Dream.
seriously, that sounds like the mo of every jew in public life today
bernie madoff
moe greenburg
robert rubin
goerge steinbrenner (convicted felon, if you forgot)
howard k stern
steve israel
lou pearlstein (in prison)
roman polanski
mark scwartz (tyco)
steve rattner
michael milken
loyd blankfein
and the beat goes on
Re 26
Ah yes, the elastic clause.
These were men who put all they owned, their lives and the lives of their families at risk in fomenting the American Revolution. Their signatures on the Declaration of Independence meant that they would be hanged and their property confiscated if the British captured them. Do you seriously think that men who protested the fairly minimal tax and intrusion the British levied on them on the principles of self government would sanction the scale and scope of current government? Do you seriously think that people who initially made the Federal government (Articles of Confederation) so weak as to need immediate replacement would sanction the over reaching near tyranny of our times?
Having said that, a Constitutional amendment to alter that unfortunately vague wording is well overdue. My guess? It got written at 2:00 AM when all the writer wanted was bed.
What promotes the general welfare? Well, the federal government holds only those powers directly granted it. All other powers and rights are specifically granted the several states and the citizens of them. Again, this is hardly a sweeping mandate for Roosevelt remaking of government as the arbiter and interactor in all areas of American life.
What does “promote the general welfare” mean to me? It means that those things we communally enjoy as citizens are ‘general.’ Taking my money for the direct and sole benefit of another citizen hardly falls into this category.
Re 25
From the general to the extremely specific…
I have no idea what percent of R&D costs are borne by government agencies. I am positive these research activities would be more efficiently and cost effectively performed by the private market.
Universities are both public and private, so I’m unsure how to address that one.
Yes, the pharma companies have a right to advertise. Why not? You aren’t forced to buy viagra just because a late night infomercial suggests you do.
Does the FDA have a right to ensure safe drugs food etc? Sure, under the commerce clause when it is interstate activity the Feds have a regulatory role. If strictly in state they don’t, in principle.
But of course under the massive expansion of government under FDR, the commerce clause was re-interpreted. It now means ‘whatever the hell we want it to, and if you disagree we’ll throw you in jail.’ Ah, that bracing air of democracy!
Goldy;
I understand. But Rossi’s a good fella. I don’t think he’s discompassionate; he’s won awards from special needs communities, served on environmental boards and tried to lessen the tax burden. Not bad.
Oh and today was a Marummy banner day:
Got that right.
Liberals: citizens pool some of their resources to promote a more just and stable society. The stability creates a science/business environment where people can risk investing time and resources into doing wonderful things. Everyone benefits and is less stressed
Right wing:I want to climb the ladder of society – pulling down the legs of those above me (when I’m not fawning over and licking their fascist boots) and crushing the fingers of those below me is just part of the fun and its their fault anyway. The constant state of crisis and threat inhibits long-term rational thought or planning, not to mention stifling society by also inhibiting creativity.
czechsaaz.
My dad had to get an xray. nursing home called a private cab; $800 one way. I took him home ($0 cost). Don’t you think the overall cost would decline if people had to pay that fee personally?
same holds true even for emergency care. you can use the power of the market that works even on regular doctor services to then bid down the price of the other services, including emergency.
I’m amazed at the level of economic ignorance on this argument. People talk like “insurance” is really insurance….when in reality its just free or somebody else pays for health care. And the notion that a law can make something afordable..hmmm…sounds Soviet to me…
Re 32
Well, at least the screen name is accurate…
I’ll grant that your first paragraph is what liberals think they are doing.
The second paragraph would better be written-
Conservatives; Citizens accept that some government is necessary to establish and ordered society in which individuals and businesses can thrive. But a society without the freedom to risk failure or attain success isn’t worth living in. Therefore government should be tolerated, but constantly watched and curtailed as it attempts to extend its’ power.
There, that’s more accurate.
@20
We have something in common! I once had an x-ray tech look at one of my x-rays and tell me he hadn’t seen that much metal in a leg since Viet Nam. In my case they took every thing out a few years after the break. I broke my leg (four fractures actually) long ago and I’ve forgotten how much it cost me in monetary terms. Unfortunately, I can still remember how much it cost me in terms of the pain, depression, and little battle with addiction to pain killers.
**********************************
Dear Righties,
Insurance is an investment. You put cash in every month and in exchange for your monthly payment you get a few trips to the docs for free or a reduced rate and protection against going broke from a broken leg, cancer or a wide variety of other things. Richard Nixon thought health insurance was a good enough investment that everyone in the country should have it. in the early 90’s a bunch of Republicans thought we should have it. The health care act that congress and the Obama Admin passed looks a lot like the Republican plan from the early 90’s. Get over it.
@28
“Do you seriously think that men who protested the fairly minimal tax and intrusion the British levied on them on the principles of self government would sanction the scale and scope of current government?”
I don’t, nor can you or I presume to, know what people dead a couple centuries from an agrarian rual society would sanction in an increasingly urban nation of 300,000,000+ people.
I can tell you that the concept of “taxation without representation” was the issue, not the existance of the tax itself.
But I do know they inserted the elastic clause probably because they recognized that the society in which they lived was in perpetual progress. (hmmmm, what’s that word…Enlightenment!) It was so important they put it in the Constitution twice.
So, what programs MUST the Government promote “for the general welfare?” “Promote the general welfare” is a right “delegated to the United States by the Constitution.” TWICE. You can’t make it go away. The constitution mandates the UNITED STATES, and not a right “reserved to the states respectively” promote the general welfare.
@33
And there it is. “Fuck you if you can’t afford it.” So every paycheck to paycheck laborer, and there are millions, should just die if they get sick and can’t pay the bill. Don’t have something to barter or bargain with? “Fuck you. Go be crippled or just die.”
You are a qualtiy human being.
“Why should I have to pay for someone else’s illness / injury / disease?” Whines the little rightie. Of course, the question itself is absurd, because if said little rightie has insurance, they are already in effect doing the very thing they say they shouldn’t be ‘forced’ to do. Not only that, but they are overpaying by an absurd amount for the privilege of mucking about in the “free market” (what ever the hell that means) so that some oily executive can skim several hundred million in personal profit per year to leave to his do-nothing heirs tax free when he/ she finally kicks the bucket. Of course, if the little rightie were an actual fiscal conservative, as he avows, he would support a single payer system for it’s financial efficiency, and to save himself a lot of money and worry.
But that would require intelligence.
The “work hard and play by the rules” line spewed by Rossi only applies to workers. If your part of the greed club of cheating leeches like Wall Streeters or dishonest developers, concepts like hard work and rules are an Alice-in-Wonderland fantasy.
P.S – I have met Rossi too and I immediately had a need to go wash my hands afterward.
Michael,
It isn’t the bricks in the wall to which I object, but the wall. Trouble is, when you tolerate bricks being added one by one, pretty soon you’ve got yourself a wall.
I don’t object to medical insurance. I don’t object to Ross IRAs or mutual funds. I do object to being told to purchase one or more of them. That is my choice and my right to make it. It is my right to discuss plans with my agent that fit my health, age etc. It is definitively NOT the governments right to tell me to purchase insurance and which kind to purchase.
For a clearer example- You can’t find wording more clear (from revolutionaries yet) than “the right to have and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.” I don’t object to revisiting this amendment in light of newer weaponry, urbanization or for any other reason that seems compelling enough to pass through the amendment process. I DO object to wholesale rationalization of denying 2nd Amendment rights without that process. It makes every other right we have subject to that same ad hoc process.
So no, I won’t get over it. I won’t get over illegal wiretapping, or letters requesting my reading habits to the library or any other attempt to cheapen the value of my citizenship or the right which pertain to it.
@29
“I have no idea what percent of R&D costs are borne by government agencies. I am positive these research activities would be more efficiently and cost effectively performed by the private market.
Universities are both public and private, so I’m unsure how to address that one.”
Clinging to the efficiency of the market? Here’s something to ponder. CDC and Universitity reasearchers (BTW, Private Universities still get govenrment grants) generally publish their work. Even work that does not, on the surface, seem successful. The work done by private companies is the intellectual property of the company. And private companies RARELY share their work product.
There are millions of examples of researchers building on prior studies. So “useless” research by University A may be developed into major breakthrough at Universtiy B looking at a different result. Just one example, would Robert Gallo have “discovered” the AIDS virus without the work of the Pasteur institute? If the Pasteur Institute were a public corporation Gallo would not have had access to their work.
Re 36
You’re grasping at straws.
First, we have a great deal of insight into what intent the framers had in drafting our Constitution. Read Dante, or Cervantes or Virgil and you’ll find that while technology changes human nature doesn’t. The principles under which our country was founded were based on that, not on agrarian versus urban dwelling citizens.
And I freely admit that the founders of this country wanted the ability to change government as the external conditions changed. It’s called the Amendment process.
Re 41
Universities existed without state support for centuries and fulfilled exactly this role. Serendipity has always played a role in innovation in that context. Why do they need state support to do so now?
Re 41
They publish and share their work, unless it’s on THE COMING CLIMATE DISASTER!!!!!
Then they refuse to share data with those they know don’t agree with them, or collude to falsify it.
@42
In an attempt to seem erudite you ask me to look at artists working in fiction to look at human emotions. Your point is taken, love, hate, compassion and particularly greed are universal ancient human traits.
But for insight on the Constitution you’d be better served looking at more political philosophers. Hobbes (Laws derive from reason) Locke (the illegitimacy of devine right of kings), Winthrop (the liberties of colonists), Montesque (seperation of powers…)
We could argue whether art is a declaration or an observer of truth but that would probably bore us both.
@43
The benefactors of Universities centuries ago were the aristocracy which in almost all cases would be synonomous with the government.
Maybe do some research on Jefferson’s feelings about free education. Ponder why Franklin built public libraries open to all, not to those who could pay. Why did the Massachusettes Bay Colony vote to found Harvard University and then fund it?
Re 45
You mistake me. I make no attempt to seem anything to someone I don’t know whose opinion, if you’ll forgive the bluntness, doesn’t matter to me.
For insight on the Constitution the philosophical sources which underpin it are useful.
The letters and other writings of those who wrote or signed should give some clue to intent as well. Without in any sense intending offense, most of these were diametrically opposed to the big government/small liberties stance of the left. The progressive movement takes snippets from Jefferson and a few others to justify whole sweeping alterations to the fabric of our government. They ignore the mass of writings which suggest a small and carefully watched government was the intent.
RE 45
“…you ask me to look at artists working in fiction to look at human emotions. Your point is taken, love, hate, compassion and particularly greed are universal ancient human traits.”
No, not ancient. Enduring. It is why the literature continues to matter. It is why when Marx or Locke is a dim or lost memory Virgil and Dante will still be read. It isn’t just the majestic language, though that is compelling. It is that the people written about could inhabit a Wall Street office or a Snohomish cafe with no alteration in character.
Just what we need, a Rick Perry wannabe. Like Rick Perry, once in it would be difficult to remove him, and we could look forward to his support of unending anti-consumer legislation. For more on Rick Perry: Perry settlement should trouble voters Dallas Morning News Opinion: Editorials: http://bit.ly/bI1Q8z Unfortunately what happens in Texas doesn’t stay there.
@47
And the right, particularly with regard to the writings of Jefferson, ignore the bits about the duty of the individual to the collective and the relationship between personal liberty and societal well being. Jefferson recognized a conlflict between inherent unalienable rights of man and municiple laws codifying the moral and reasonable essence of mankind.
I think it is also useful to look at the types of acts passed early in the nation’s history as indicative of what the framers would have tolerated. A system of federal banking (which Jefferson opposed), excise taxes on liquor, Tarriffs on manufactured goods, etc. Funny, these anti-tax founders implimented a bunch of taxes in the early years of the nation and used them to create federal beuracracies like the post ofice, the supreme court, the department of state….
Hats off to you Lost. This is a reasonable, levelheaded disagreement. Not what I’m used to from the usual suspects of HA trolls.
@2 “Serious question: Do you just hate Dino Rossi?”
No, that’s a trivial question, Josef. An example of a serious question is, why didn’t you ask Zits for a date before it was too late? Instead of fawning over her in your daydreams and salivating over her in the HA comment threads, why didn’t you take her out, kiss her, and fondle her breasts? But you didn’t, and lost your chance, because now she’s irretrievably married. Some other guy, instead of you, is fucking her. Why oh why did you pass up your opportunity? Why were you so stupid? Why are a Republican? The answer, of course, is that you’re an idiot.
There are the absolute bare minimum things that money conservatives will pay for. in their words, things like National or local security, the criminal and civil justice systems, fire departments and reasonable regulation of commerce.
However, On top of that, there are things that as a society as a whole, as a democracy, we the people have chosen and voted to pay for, because the majority has agreed are good things. Public education. Social Security. Health care. DSHS. etc.
It seems that money conservatives are fighting, tooth and nail, against the “extra” programs.
The will of the people doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter as a democratic republic that we CHOSE to fund these programs, money conservatives don’t want a dime of their money going to pay for them.
Money Conservatives, if your fellow Americans choose to authorize a program that does not fall under the minimum you feel is allowed in the constitution, when do you stop fighting it? Ever?
Money conservatives? Doesn’t seem really to get it….
I know why. A more appropriate tag would be Constitutionalists.
“Money Conservatives, if your fellow Americans choose to authorize a program that does not fall under the minimum you feel is allowed in the constitution, when do you stop fighting it? Ever?”
Nope. I won’t stop fighting incursions on my economic liberties, my civil liberties or any of my other rights. I won’t stop fulfilling my duties as a citizen either.
You see government as the cure for all social evils. I see it as a necessary evil. See, a government large enough to meet all my needs is a government large enough to take all my liberties.
At any rate it doesn’t work. Since the inception of a tax system which seeks to punish the sucessful has the rich-poor gap shrunk? Has the number of people in poverty diminished since FDR destroyed the self reliance and intitiative of Americans in the 30’s? Since Johnsons’ ‘Great Society?” Nope. Sure, programs start with good intentions to alleviate problems. Carry it out for 20 years or 40 and the program has become a sinecure for 40,000 civil servants with no interest in or intention to perform their original function.
When income tax was debated in the Congress one senator gave a dire prediction. He saw a day, he said, when marginal tax rates might rise as high as 8%!!! I am not arguing against taxes per se, in writing that. I am noting in real terms the effect of giving government any hold not specifically granted them in our Costitution.
The will of the people does matter. We elect representatives or our will to act for us. We can even amend the Constitution purely by popular will, though the bar is somewhat higher than if done through Congress.
The founders established a system in which both stability and change were provided for. Democrats with fine intentions try to circumvent this with social programs. Republicans with intentions to secure the nation do so on civil rights issues. And in so doing they, and activist judges who support them, weaken the whole fabric of our government.
@28 “Taking my money for the direct and sole benefit of another citizen”
Why should the government doing that bother you…that’s what the companies do that provide your life/health/car/homenowner’s insurance. That is, unless you consider yourself “lucky” if you get sued by the postman slipping on your front porch, have a car wreck, get sick and die before your time. Jeez, otherwise it’s kind of like you pissed all that money away, huh?
Where were you Money conservatives when bush was destroying civil liberties, taking us one step closer to a 1984 police state, and eroding the constitution that way?
Nothing but crickets….
Seems to me you didn’t object, because it didn’t cost you money. You don’t object to trillions spent on needless wars, but not a dime on Americans. Thus the label of Money conservatives.
You see government as the cure for all social evils.
No. I don’t. I see big government is needed to counter big forces where fierce individualism is not enough for.
Artfart, I assume from prior discourse that you do understand the difference and are being obtuse for private reasons.
Nevertheless, the logical extension of your belief system is this-
I have 2 cars. (Sort of. One is a British roadster which works as and when it likes on no easily determined mechanical principles.) My neighbor has none. By liberal logic he can take my car (presumably the Ford if he’s smart) for the sake of equity.
This is the root and base of liberal thought. Right and wrong, one mans effort against anothers indolence, basic principles of fair play and good governance; none of these have any sway. The only principle that matters is that of the kindergarten. If everyone doesn’t have a cupcake no-one should have one.
Re 55
With all due respect, I think and have frequently written that Bush bank bailouts and the Iraq War were mistakes. The Patriot Act is neither more nor less than an abomination.
I don’t defend Republicans who are wrong. Irresponsible spending is just that, whether intitiated by Bush or Obama.
Republicans would sacrifice my civil rights to national security, believing the sacrifice necessary for a stable and strong society.
Democrats would sacrifice my economic rights to an impossible social equity, believing this the path to general prosperity at the cost of a minority.
Frankly they are both wrong. You can’t sacrifice basic principles, left or right, and expect a society worth a tinkers dam.
@56 That’s not a direct comparison. There’s a distinction between “another man’s indolence” and “another man’s misfortune”. There’s an even bigger stretch between that and “another man’s being screwed by the system, for no particular fault of his own”. There’s one hell of a lot of the latter going on, and one way or the other we’re all the worse for it.
I have 2 cars. My neighbor has none. By liberal logic he can take my car for the sake of equity.
No. That is how Money Conservatives want to think Liberal Logic is so they can justify fighting progressive policies every chance they get.
Money Conservatives seem to be obsessed with Social Darwinism, the application of Charles Darwin’s scientific theories of evolution and natural selection to contemporary social development. In nature, only the fittest survived — so too in the marketplace. This form of justification was enthusiastically adopted by many American businessmen as scientific proof of their superiority. The poor are obviously unfit and unworthy because they are without money.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
IMHO, To live up to the constitution’s command to “promote the general Welfare” Progressives want a equal playing field. An equal opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for all it’s citizens, not just the rich ones. The government does not have the responsible to make everyone rich, or even equal, but the government is supposed to make the chance to better one self a possibility. That means enforcing regulations prohibiting monopoly capitalism. That means not rewarding companies who off shore jobs. That even means expanding the scope of government so crushing health care burdens doesn’t keep ordinary people from having the opportunities the rich have.
RE 60
Progressives want an share in opportunity? Great! Than your job is done and you can go fishing or golfing.
Any immigrant coming here recognizes the tremendous opportunities this country provides. Many realize their dreams of home ownership, financial security (as opposed to wealth, which is another matter) and all the other just rewards for their hard work and sacrifices.
It takes a home grown American to see this country as lacking in those opportunities. It takes someone raised on notions of what is owed them rather than what they must do to fail to realize those opportunities.
You want a level playing field. Too bad. Some are born wealthy and will always be wealthy. That’s life. But the poor man who chooses to maintain a tenuous standard of living has no-one, in this country, to blame but himself.
i agree that outrageous medical bills are horrible. But you don’t give us cuban/UK health care in trying to solve it. Let the market help out….don’t give me free shots, make me pay for them. that will drive simple costs down; same principle by extension will drive all costs down.
its a pity Milton Friedman is dead; he and his wife were so good at explaining this stuff.