Posted by Tina
We knew this was coming because we knew the radical left wanted to eliminate healthcare choices and options and create a single payer monopoly managed by a big government program. They call it single payer.
They knew this wouldn’t be easy to pull off since most Americans value freedom and like they having choices. Americans take pride in the fact that our open system has led to amazing developments in the healthcare field that have made life better and saved lives. Americans are proud of the charitable work that many hospitals provide. So to accomplish their goal of establishing a single payer Democrats devised a systematic plan to destroy American insurance companies and healthcare “as we know it” by transition. The ACA was fashioned in secret meetings, brought to life with bribes and extortion, and is celebrated this week by Ezekiel Emanuel as the happy reason that most health insurance companies will now DIE…as if this law hasn’t already caused plenty of heartache across America. Emanuel:
The good news is you won’t have insurance companies to kick around much longer. The system is changing. As a result, insurance companies as they are now will be going away. Indeed, they are already evolving. For the next few years insurance companies will both continue to provide services to employers and, increasingly, compete against each other in the health insurance exchanges. In that role they will put together networks of physicians and hospitals and other services and set a premium. But because of health care reform, new actors will force insurance companies to evolve or become extinct.
The use of the word “competing” here is a stretch. Insurance companies are only allowed to offer policies that comply with government choices for Americans. It’s not possible to buy a plan structured to meet your needs, with deductibles that fit your budget, covering a plethora of treatment options, and with premiums you can afford. If they could provide such an alternative we could honestly say that they will be competing for business. As it is the only competition going on will be for the very survival of each company. The big guys have the advantage, for now, but the plan is to eliminate even them. The “new actors” will resemble the hated HMO’s that will be controlled by the Secretary of state and her death panel ghouls. (Actually they will do the best they can…the problem is they will put cutting costs above care because that will be the focus of the job…and since they will be the ONLY game in town, choice about health care decisions will be GONE). Coalitions of doctors and hospitals, “new actors”, will replace insurance companies. They will all operate under the same government devised standards. If cancer treatments that might help a patient aren’t included in the standards it won’t be available…not anywhere in America.
Monopolies! They have been considered greedy monsters by our government in the past. Remember how the giant AT&T was broken up because they were a monopoly with an “unfair” advantage that kept others out?
The terrible HMO! Does anyone remember how much America hated HMO’s?
Single payer government healthcare is a monopoly that looks exactly like the old HMO.
Emanuel’s parting shot to the American people, <b<"…be prepared to kiss your insurance company good-bye forever."
You know, there is something un-American about a bunch of people in a far off place deciding the fate of my healthcare and my choice of insurance coverage. There is something un-American and diabolical about celebrating the destruction of American companies at the hands of politicians and activists.
This law must be repealed and replaced with reforms that actually support the people and the companies that serve them. To do that we must vote the bums that brought us this law out!
If the new anti-Obamacare strategy is to weep for the fate of the poor insurance companies, you will never get it repealed.
Also, for this:
“death panel ghouls”
You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. But of course, you’re not.
Please correct me me if you think I’m wrong, but this all began with the notion that healthcare for everyone is a right and if the rich didn’t hoard so much money, everyone would be able to afford quality healthcare! This led to thinking… we need a single payer system, but we need to control costs to keep rich doctors from making too much money, and the same goes for rich corporate executives in the insurance industry and rich corporate executives in the medical research industry, yadda yadda, cause they all make too much money. But, we can’t do that in one giant step without a full on revolution! What to do? Based on this deeply held understanding of a desperate, albeit mythical, need by tens of thousands of poor dying in the streets across America because they can’t get healthcare… and remember that pillaging by everyone associated with the medical insdustry, the evil rich, an unworkable ObamaCare was the next best thing to the goal of socialized medicine. And so it was that a great lie was constructed and spread across the land, “You can keep your healthcare plan if you like it” and a lot of little lies followed, wherever they were needed to sell this system. Then once it was passed into law the tweeks started to amend it, mostly absent the light of day by presidential decree… and you know what boys and girls? Some day soon you will wake up and everyone will have a full blown, extremely expensive, poor quality, socialized medicine and a huge chunck of your paycheck will be forever gone.
Wonder what impact the insurance companies would have if they refused to follow Obama’s request to delay the implementation dates. After all the law specifies those dates and they may be held legally accountable if they do extend them.
Obama and him minions may be the bus drivers, but if it’s an empty bus they’ll be alone at their destination.
Tina, you say this like it’s a bad thing. Insurance carriers LIVE by denying claims. That’s how they make money. And that is totally incompatible with the provision of comprehensive healthcare services.
Furthermore, Medicare IS socialized medicine. Anybody who might happen to be signed up, and yet composes the sort of screeds posted above (Ezekiel does look like he might be of an age) is the most godawful hypocrite ever conceived.
Someday your reality is going to converge with your prejudices and you are going to explode.
Death panel ghouls was an apt concern, not unsuitability applied, but because of the immediate attention it drew from enough public concern, the provision referred to to as “Death Panels” to pay physicians for providing voluntary counseling about living wills, advance directives, and end-of-life care options was removed from the Senate bill (appearances of such panels one could surmise) and was not included in the law that was enacted.
Now we have Harry Reid in the Senate “There’s plenty of horror stories being told,” Reid proclaimed. “All of them are untrue. But they’re being told all over America.”
His “misinformation” to the public that those consumer complaints and ads featuring leukemia patient Julie Boonstra that portray Obamacare and its adverse affect are lies.
Reid has been encouraged to revisit his words and apologize, but as of yet he has not cobbled together a convincing spin.
Bottom line my opinion, I say we should be aware of this, not feel ashamed as suggested.
Because we are being herded toward a single payer Government run, freedom limiting, but public dependent heath care program, complete with directives that will cause unnecessary life limiting failures, failures so typical of any Government run program.
Your voice rings loud and clear Jack…the only thing you left out is that entitlement has now expanded to include the taking/destruction of private property. If the government can take control of one business sector it can take control of others. Energy and food production are ripe for the taking. We know they want control of the energy sector because one congresswoman, Maxine Waters, has
said as much. Food production and distribution is now tied to “health” so expect these #@%&$#*$ to charge ahead if they are ever given enough power again.
The ultimate plan is to equalize the world, level the playing field around the world by bringing America down to third world status. The heroes of this radical bunch aren’t George Washington, John Adams, or Ronald Reagan…they are Karl Marx, Chairman Mao, and Fidel Castro!
If anyone on this blog deserves to feel shame it is those who support and promote the idea that “cutting costs” is more important than quality and availability of “care” and don’t mind putting unelected bureaucrats in charge of the decision making. If anyone on this blog should be embarrassed it is he who believes that our government should have the power to destroy private business! If anyone should be ashamed it is a so-called American citizen that favors and supports powerful elected officials behaving like tin hat dictators.
Libby: ” Insurance carriers LIVE by denying claims. That’s how they make money.”
Grow up Libby. Insurance companies sell a policy after the buyer of the policy AGREES to the coverage. They make money by selling policies that cover specific things and not other things. it’s an agreement arrived at with full knowledge beforehand. Government is attempting to cover “everything for everybody” at a price, they say, that will be less. This is utter horse crap…it will increase debt…it will result in cutting quality and choice of care. Insurance was never meant to cover everything. It was meant as a means to protecting against unexpected catastrophic need…heart attacks, cancer, car accident that require high cost care.
Unfortunately Americans have been indoctrinated into entitlement thinking and expect insurance to cover everything…that and the involvement of government has driven costs way up for everyday healthcare.
“And that is totally incompatible with the provision of comprehensive healthcare services.”
Right because government can deliver healthcare without profit…they do it with massive debt which is much better for the overall health of America and every American’s ability to make a living.
“Medicare IS socialized medicine.”
Brought to us by the wizards of smart in the Democrat Party and one of the chief drivers of the high cost of healthcare, not to mention our massive debt!
Do the wizards of smart think Obamacare will help that? Not really. They wrote the legislation in such a way as to fool the public by grabbing big taxes up front and shoving costs into later years.
“…the most godawful hypocrite ever conceived”
there’s a problem with your opinion. 1. It would be stupid to not take advantage of the system my taxes, which was forced to pay not just for me but for all of my employees…I don’t blame anyone for participating in what is available by law. 2. I am willing to accept and I do advocate for changes in the rules that would make the program sustainable. If I could I would eliminate it altogether and opt for private charity which is more efficient and personal.
Democrats don’t want changes because they don’t want to give up control or the voting block that would disappear if citizens could KEEP MORE of what they earned and learned to take care of themselves! In other words if the people were FREE!
“Someday your reality is going to converge with your prejudices and you are going to explode.”
And your non-reality will converge with the realization of your indoctrinated gimmees (things you think are “free”) and you will be enslaved.
“Please correct me if you think I’m wrong, but this all began with the notion that healthcare for everyone is a right and if the rich didn’t hoard so much money, everyone would be able to afford quality healthcare!”
No, not quite. It’s more along the lines of: if everyone pays what they can into a single pot, we can all have access to healthcare. We run into difficulties when the rich are unwilling to be in the same pot with the peasants … at all … when they insist upon being in an exclusive pot of their own.
And you can take your “mythicality” and shove it. I’ve been seeing a shocking lot of legless poor people on the public transit lately, because they don’t see a doctor until they wind up in the emergency room with gangrenous diabetic ulcers.
Ooooh, you lead a privileged existence … and got some nerve.
WOW! The usual gang of fools really have their teats in a tangle over this post!
The Emanuel brothers are really a fave amongst the progressives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S9jLSOvbAk
Obamma wants to be the one…the one to hold the gun to the insurance companeis and ultimately the patients….bang
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4uA3t9AOUw
In case you haven’t heard, the ACA is directly responsible for a rise in consumer spending and income growth last month:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/03/03/obamacare-effects-account-for-most-of-income-spending-increases/
“”On the incomes side, the law’s expanded coverage boosted Medicaid benefits by an estimated $19.2 billion…”
All that did was welfare spending with money we don’t have.
“In case you haven’t heard, the ACA is directly responsible for a rise in consumer spending…”
Yup, on those huge Obammie care deductibles.
If only that information were complete!
Heating and healthcare…sounds about right…as do the transfer payments.
What this nation needs is real growth, jobs, and some hope that the future will look bright.
Jimma Cahtah dismal is like a bad dream come back to haunt us all! (Shiver)
OMG
America is better than this
Bullpuckey
No one falls for Propaganda,
Dewey you’re part of the propaganda machine that IS this administration. Or, you’re part of the blind and duped that just reelected one of the biggest propagandists the nation has ever seen.
Obama says he wants everyone to have opportunity and then creates policy that does just the opposite, that rewards some and punishes others, that increases dependency and massive debt, that discourages growth and opportunity, that pits people against each other, that gives more power to government and less to citizens. His policies grow government and discourage the private sector.
The healthcare law was sold to the people on lies (propaganda). It was pushed through Congress deceptively in secret meetings and with bribes and threats. The ACA will not accomplish what was promised; it will cost much more than we were told and the quality and availability of care will diminish. Nearly as many Americans will still not have healthcare insurance after this law was passed as before. Competition was promised to bring costs down but all insurers MUST sell the same policy…that’s not competition…and the ultimate goal was actually single payer…more deception. The truth is it represents a takeover of 1/6th of the economy, a measure of control that spells less opportunity, fewer choices, and loss of freedom for the people.
Peddle your BS elsewhere, Dewey, we’re on to the lies and deception here.
“Brought to us by the wizards of smart in the Democrat Party and one of the chief drivers of the high cost of healthcare, not to mention our massive debt!”
Yeah, but yer all still signed up, aren’t ya? … and receiving services you couldn’t pay for yerselves, right?
As I said, someday this massive disconnect is going to connect itself in you brains … and you will explode!
The rest of us, we are just going to make it work.
Libby: “Yeah, but yer all still signed up, aren’t ya? … and receiving services you couldn’t pay for yerselves, right?”
Wrong! Sure I applied to receive benefits. I was forced to relinquish part of my paycheck for my entire working life and as a business owner to match that “contribution” so I would be an idiot not to try and recoup some of that money.
Had I not been forced to do so I would have done just exactly what I did until I reached retirement age. I would have chosen a healthcare plan that fit my budget and needs. I would have made sure I saved for my retirement years and I would pay out of pocket for yearly check ups, flu shots, etc. Healthcare, like any other service or product would cost less because the end user would have more control over the cost. Healthcare providers would have to meet the customers ability to pay by delivering an affordable product.
The way it is set up now healthcare is paid with other peoples money through a huge expensive bureaucracy in the government. We don’t just pay for an operation…we pay for all the people who push the paper.
“As I said, someday this massive disconnect is going to connect itself in you brain…”
There is no disconnect. Your arrogance about that prevents you from understanding the economics. Your ignorance is causing a lack of jobs, a lack of self reliance in the people, and massive government debt which will demand ever more cash from the workers . its a self-cycle for the nation. You aren’t a nicer person Libby, you just think you are. Ultimately you are cruel.
And if there was a way to amke it work somebody would have found it by now. The radicals you serve don’t give a rip about making it work. they care about power…their own…at our expense!
“Yeah, but yer all still signed up, aren’t ya? … and receiving services you couldn’t pay for yerselves, right?”
Wrong, Libster.
First, you “recoup” a damned sight more from Medicare than you ever put in, and if you will not admit this, I cannot respect you. One of the, absolutely, most despicable things about “conservatives” is how they denigrate programs that they do, in fact, benefit from, just so they won’t have to think of themselves in the same pot with the peasants. Suck it up.
“And if there was a way to make it work somebody would have found it by now.”
Oh, you’re wrong there. I’ve been having the most fun reading a tome called “Servants”, by Lucy Lethbridge, in the midst of which you get the short course on the origin of Britain’s National Health Service. It was started by a fellow named Lloyd George, way back at the turn of the 19th Century as a health care plan for domestic servants. They paid some, their employers paid some, and the state paid the rest. This expanded to national coverage over the next century.
Looks like our expansion of Medicare is gonna take just about that long.
And on the weekend, I’m gonna find the bit that tickled me purple, and applies to you, Tina, personally: Ms. Spouts-One-Thing-But-Lives-Another.
As to the rest of your post, Tina, people living on their rip-snorting $1,129 a month in SS, don’t make health care policy premiums. We’re all very pleased that you have obtained your position of privilege … but what are the poor people supposed to do?
And don’t you say nothing about the charitable virtue of the upper classes … you will fall dead into my trap.
Dewey you’re part of the propaganda machine that IS this administration. Or, you’re part of the blind and duped that just reelected one of the biggest propagandists the nation has ever seen. …
Look in the mirror Tina
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/17/irs-tea-party-target-list-propaganda/2825003/
http://politix.topix.com/story/5213-texas-tea-party-leader-was-propaganda-director-of-american-fascist-party
http://www.alternet.org/story/150672/the_tea_party_propaganda_factory_you_probably_don%27t_know_about
You could not debate in a real forum with a fact checker!
Epic Fail!
No Tea Party is the Propaganda Masters……..
Any Tea Partier using Social security, medicare, or Vets benefits while trying to eliminated it is a hypocrite bar none!
Any Tea Partier using Social security, medicare, or Vets benefits while trying to eliminated it is a hypocrite bar none!
Spending? LOL ISSA is wasting millions! Cruz shutdown the gov and cost us billions!
what a farce this spending deal……lol haha
Freedom will survive the Tea Party
“Any Tea Partier using Social security, medicare, or Vets benefits while trying to eliminated it is a hypocrite bar none!”
You think this way only if you are a person who doesn’t believe in the American system where a wrong can be righted through the legislative process. The people and in particular the taxpayers paying the bills, have a right to discuss and change the law.
News flash! We have discussed reforming these systems to make them sustainable for those that have paid their whole lives and more profitable and equitable for the young people.
Nobody has suggested “eliminating” the programs. Please stop lying.
Tina, Comment #25: “Nobody has suggested “eliminating” the programs. Please stop lying.”
Tina, Comment #7: “If I could I would eliminate it altogether and opt for private charity which is more efficient and personal.”
Clearly, Tina, you are the one who needs to stop lying. Or, alternately, you need to remember to take your senility medication. This is at least the fourth time in the past week that you have denied saying something that you clearly did say.
FOX Business commentator Todd Wileman revealed the perfect answer to our health care and economic woes on the Daily Show yesterday:
“If you’re poor, stop being poor.”
http://www.hulu.com/watch/605513#i1,p0,d1
The GOP plan in a nutshell.
You know it’s worked every time its tried. We have a whole nation of people that started out with nothing.
Tina in comment #25 was talking about people in positions of authority to change the laws.
Tina in Comment #7 was expressing a personal preference and opinion. I have no authority to change the law or make proposals to do so. I believe very strongly that government bureaucracy makes healthcare more expensive and, because the programs add so much to our debt, are a drag on the private sector where jobs are created.
I have my personal preferences but I am also a realist. My preference will not happen in the current environment…maybe never. I think if you try reading again you will find that your little gotcha moment has passed.
And lets see, snark for snark, it’s 9:44…way past your bedtime baby boy.
yep Tina if we just get rid of government protecting humans, all will be better,,,,right Jack?
I mean why is there gov? why is there protection of humans? pesty little sick people
If you get sick cause of bad conditions so what the profit is more important than your family!
“Tina in comment #25 was talking about people in positions of authority to change the laws.”
Then Tina in comment #25 is still wrong:
“When David Koch ran to the right of Reagan as vice president on the 1980 Libertarian ticket (it polled 1 percent), his campaign called for the abolition not just of Social Security, federal regulatory agencies and welfare but also of the F.B.I., the C.I.A., and public schools — in other words, any government enterprise that would either inhibit his business profits or increase his taxes.”
If you don’t think the head of Americans for Prosperity is in a position of power to change laws, you’re dreaming.
And if you’re going to accuse other people of lying, it would behoove you to know what you’re talking about.
Chris surprise surprise a libertarian who wants to eliminate the big bloated federal bureaucracy.
But your argument itself disproves your accusation. Garnering 1% of the vote did not put David Koch in a position to change laws or rid us of federal departments and agencies.
The full Wikipedia entry also shows you were disingenuous in your contention that Koch would only benefit from downsizing. In fact you should have been quite pleased that his approach would end subsidies and loopholes:
The ticket was a freedom ticket. it would require a nation of incredibly moral and principles people which the radical left has worked hard to destroy over the past seven decades. After witnessing the corruption and abuses of power in the past five years there is a growing Libertarian movement. All of these bureaucratic entities have spent loads of taxpayer money and given us very little of real value.
You, of course, assume that without government you’d die or something. Sad. A citizen of these United States who has no appreciation of what it means to be free to determine your own future and filled with certainty that the rich and powerful would put you in chains in this free nation. You are a prejudiced person, Chris, who believes the federal government is your only hope.
These are the 50 largest non-profit/charitable hospitals in America many of them affiliated with various religions. In addition to these are specialty hospitals that treat children at no cost for cancer and disability problems…St Judes and Shriner’s Hospitals for Children.
People in America take care of and protect each other. Doctors in America are very dedicated and EARN the “profit” they make. Health care workers are generous and caring people…government has made serving the people more expensive and difficult. paperwork and extra fees do not heal people.
Learn to think!
“But your argument itself disproves your accusation. Garnering 1% of the vote did not put David Koch in a position to change laws or rid us of federal departments and agencies.”
But being the #1 funding source for the Republican party certainly does.
“You, of course, assume that without government you’d die or something. Sad. A citizen of these United States who has no appreciation of what it means to be free to determine your own future and filled with certainty that the rich and powerful would put you in chains in this free nation. You are a prejudiced person, Chris, who believes the federal government is your only hope.”
I am sick and tired of you misrepresenting my positions. I have said numerous times over the past few months that I would support more libertarian efforts to reduce government intervention IF the first moves were to stop subsidizing the wealthy corporations. It’s wonderful that at least one of the Kochs supported such efforts at one point, but that doesn’t change the fact that their main priority today is to reduce government aid to the poor. Neither Americans for Prosperity or any other Koch/Tea Party group has embraced cutting farm and business subsidies as a major policy goal. This is something that both those on the left and those on the right could feasibly agree on, but the right has only been giving lip service to that issue while keeping an eagle-eyed focus on making sure the undeserving poor aren’t spending their food stamp money on iPads (yes, that’s an actual accusation made on FOX News last week).
I tried to post an article a few months back about some libertarians who show a genuine interest in dismantling the government and establishing a market free of government intervention to prop up corporations, and you dismissed their views out of hand! When you get serious about this “small government” thing, we’ll talk. Right now it’s little more than code for “make life harder for the poor and easier for the rich.”
Chris: “But being the #1 funding source for the Republican party certainly does.”
I don’t know that that assertion is true but even if it is, the Koch brothers are not any different than any number of wealthy donors to Democrats…George Soros, as we have pointed out before, gives millions through hundreds of different organizations all set up as non-profits through his Tides Foundation. He’s been influencing politics for decades. since the Koch influence is countered by the Soros influence the Koch have not been placed in a position of authority to change laws or eliminate departments.
Open Secrets shows that the democrats are doing just fine in the influence department.
I think its called Americans participating as intended in the political process.
“IF the first moves were to stop subsidizing the wealthy corporations.”
That has been offered many times Chris as part of a package to lower taxes by the Republicans. Your guys never go for it. Maybe you should spend more time convincing the left.
“…but that doesn’t change the fact that their main priority today is to reduce government aid to the poor”
What an ignorant worry. See its dumb-a$$ed statements like that that make me “misrepresent” your position. Do you honestly believe that the man would like to see poor people starving in the streets? Do you really see him as heartless and cruel? Is it possible to talk about the things that are keeping poor people stuck in poverty without you thinking people want to see the poor harmed…or is it possible that Mr. Koch believes the money would be redirected (back to the states for instance) where the money might do more good and provide better opportunities for people to move out of poverty and into the middle class…to get better educated and find good paying jobs…to have the dignity that a good job and the ability to have a family and provide for it would bring to the poor?
I’m tired of your attitude.
“making sure the undeserving poor aren’t spending their food stamp money on iPads ”
Do you know that some aren’t? And was it news being reported or was it a retort by a political contributor? You need to get your facts straight if you’re going to ask it of others.
NewsMax:
Find the local report here.
“…and you dismissed their views out of hand!”
I don’t recall the exchange but the context would help. I don’t generally dismiss libertarian plans to cut spending. John Stossel is one of my heroes and has been for along time. Even back when he was politically left he was a top notch reporter investigating and asking questions. Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying?
“When you get serious about this “small government” thing, we’ll talk.”
Get off it Chris. I am serious. Several decades of participation and observation tell me that your preferred hasn’t a leg to stand on. They have never been serious about real cuts to the budget except for the military. they get more money from Wall Street than Republicans in many years so they don’t really want to cut farm subsidies either. They would cut oil and gas subsidies but only to transfer that money to their pals in green energy development.
” Right now it’s little more than code for “make life harder for the poor and easier for the rich.”
Chris your ignorance just blows me away. The only “help” companies want is reasonable regulations and competitive tax rates. Is that too damn much to ask when the result would be the creation of jobs, a better economic outcome for everyone (lower food and energy prices would help the poor and middle classes). Everything the right favors would help the poor but you refuse to believe it. Instead you defend policies that for the last five years have failed miserably and harmed not only the poor in the long run but the middle class too. We’re eating all the stores today and providing nothing for the future.
Your attitude and prejudice stinks.
What is this fantasy world you live in where the poor are all fine upstanding citizens and the rich greedy b-tards that would leave little children starving in the streets?
Your arguments are emotionally driven and ridiculous because of it.
Bet this is where Dewey gets the money to pay his rent.
Scenes From a War Room: Spying on GOP With Top Oppo Hitmen:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/03/scenes-from-a-war-room-spying-on-gop-with-top-oppo-hitmen/
Tina: “John Stossel is one of my heroes”
And you wonder why people think you’re callous toward the poor?
Why how sweet Peggy! Thank you! What a wonderful christian thang to say!
May I suggest you spread that love on the public square?
Tina tax cuts to move jobs overseas helps the middle class how?
Reaganomics failed!
Tea Party buys the same old crap that already failed?
Taxpayers pay more corporate welfare than citizen welfare…..
How about slavery for profit? That is real nice..profit prison
Tina: “I think its called Americans participating as intended in the political process.”
The founders certainly did not intend for the political process to become corrupted by money the way it has today under people like the Kochs and George Soros. Google the early history of restrictions on corporations in America, Tina. Most of the laws regulating corporations in our nation’s early days would be derided as unconstitutional socialism today:
“After independence, corporations received their charters from states and the charters were for a limited period, like 20 or 30 years, not in perpetuity. They were only allowed to deal in one commodity, they could not hold stock in other corporations, their property holdings were limited to what was necessary for their business, their headquarters had to be located in the state of their principle business, monopolies had their charges regulated by the state, and all corporate documents were open to the legislature. Any political contribution by a corporation was treated as a criminal offence. Corporations could, and often did, have their charters removed if the state considered that their activities harmed its people.”
http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/unequal_protection.htm
These regulations are not surprising given that the Boston Tea Party was a protest against the government giving a massive corporation a tax cut. (How ironic that the modern Tea Party actually supports corporate tax cuts.)
“That has been offered many times Chris as part of a package to lower taxes by the Republicans. Your guys never go for it. Maybe you should spend more time convincing the left.”
Can you show some evidence of this? Which specific subsidies have Republicans favored cutting? You posted an article recently showing a bipartisan effort to cut subsidies, which I appreciate, but that doesn’t support your claim that Republicans have offered “many times” and been rejected by Democrats.
“What an ignorant worry. See its dumb-a$$ed statements like that that make me “misrepresent” your position. Do you honestly believe that the man would like to see poor people starving in the streets? Do you really see him as heartless and cruel?”
No.
That does not change the fact that what said was completely accurate: The main policy priority of the Kochs today, as well as the Republican party/conservative movement as a whole, is to reduce government aid to the poor.
I am well aware that you think that reducing government aid to the poor actually helps them in the long run. That does not change the accuracy of my statement.
“Is it possible to talk about the things that are keeping poor people stuck in poverty”
The problem is that we fundamentally disagree about what keeps poor people stuck in poverty. You believe that things like food stamps keep poor people in poverty. I believe this is directly contradicted by evidence, which shows that most people are only on these programs for a short time. I believe that what really keeps poor people stuck in poverty is declining wages and the decline in unionization. This has lowered demand, which has lowered employers’ incentive to hire and pay workers more, which perpetuates the vicious cycle. Raise wages and increase the bargaining power of workers and the cycle can be broken. The need for welfare programs would then be reduced.
“without you thinking people want to see the poor harmed…”
I don’t think you want poor people to be harmed. I do think you are so committed to your ideology that you intentionally ignore evidence that your policies are harmful. And I think that you are extremely insensitive and callous to the concerns of the poor. That doesn’t mean you hate them or want them to suffer. I am sure you have good intentions. But “You ignorant poor people, don’t you see that we’re cutting off your food stamps to help you? Also stop being so lazy and get a job (or two)” is just never going to sound like a caring message to most people, no matter how it is intended.
“Do you know that some aren’t?”
Yes, I do know that poor people aren’t spending their food stamps on iPads, because that’s physically impossible. You do know that, right?
I’m not sure what your story about the crazy lady trying to do that is supposed to prove, since obviously, she wasn’t able to use her food stamps to buy an iPad. Because that’s impossible.
“I don’t recall the exchange but the context would help.”
It was the review I wrote of “Markets Not Capitalism.” The book is a left-libertarian critique of government. The authors are against any kind of government intervention, including social welfare, but argue that for the most part the government serves to uphold the interests of the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the poor.
“Chris your ignorance just blows me away. The only “help” companies want is reasonable regulations and competitive tax rates.”
And subsidies, and eminent domain, and a repeal of the estate tax, and to bust up unions, and to keep the minimum wage low, and…
“Is that too damn much to ask when the result would be the creation of jobs, a better economic outcome for everyone (lower food and energy prices would help the poor and middle classes). Everything the right favors would help the poor but you refuse to believe it.”
Because it hasn’t proven true. The Bush tax cuts did not help the economy. The decline of the minimum wage over the past four decades has not helped the economy. The decline in unionization has not helped the economy. What helps the economy and job creation is higher demand.
“Instead you defend policies that for the last five years have failed miserably”
The policies I favor have not been implemented over the past five years. Have unions been strengthened? No. Has the min. wage been raised to 1968 levels? No. Have we gotten an adequate amount of stimulus? No. Have college tuitions been lowered? No. Have offshore accounts and outsourcing been restricted? No. Have loopholes been closed? No. Have corporate subsidies been ended? No. Has the capital gains tax been made equal to earned income tax? No.
So how can you say my favored proposals haven’t worked over the past five years? They haven’t been tried over that period of time. They have, however, been tried at other points in the history of our democratic republic. And they’ve worked.
“What is this fantasy world you live in where the poor are all fine upstanding citizens and the rich greedy b-tards that would leave little children starving in the streets?”
I’ve never said that. You can’t help but resort to the strawman fallacy.
Use real numbers….George Soros gave to both Romney and Obama last election
Soros -his views are shaped in part by his experiences as a young Jewish teenager during the Nazi occupation of his native Hungary and the subsequent imposition of Stalinism in the country.
The Koch’s? – Fred Koch learned the oil biz from Stalin and was a founding member of the John Birch Society
The Kochs have spent millions buying out our political system
http://www.thenation.com/blog/178743/koch-brothers-spent-twice-much-2012-election-top-ten-unions-combined
The Koch’s founders of the Tea Party ………started it in 2002 …….lead them around by the nose to destroy their own country for Koch profit
Here’s a statement from your “hero,” John Stossel:
“And when people are needy you want them to get help. But think about the Depression. That was before there was any welfare state at all. How many people starved? No one.”
This is both callous and ignorant. People DID die of starvation during the Great Depression. And is that seriously the metric Stossel is employing to see if we have a humane society? As long as no one is starving, we don’t need to use the government to help the poor?
Tina, your party is viewed as uncaring to the poor because they can’t stop saying things like this. It is not a liberal conspiracy. It is your own words and actions.
http://www.kochbrothersexposed.com/about
There is nothing honorable about the Koch brothers at all they are bullies and you’ll notice that carries over o members of their tea party
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/study-confirms-tea-party-_b_2663125.html
In their own words…….grassroots yea right they are the Koch Brothers party…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JjQxPJOAfg
Chris: “Tina, your party is viewed as uncaring to the poor because they can’t stop saying things like this.”
Good heavens Chris. If starvation during the Depression was as significant as your drama implies we would have statistical information to show it…and the left would have been using it for decades to sell their entitlement programs.
People were hungry, my own grandmother died of pellagra, something related to prolonged periods without sufficient nutrition. “She sacrificed herself to feed six children” was the family story. But there wasn’t wide spread starvation and neighbors did help each other. Pellagra was not uncommon in the early part of the last century.
As we have often pointed out this prolonged depression was entirely unnecessary anyway and a result of wrongheaded government policies. The recession would not have moved into deep depression had the government not acted so stupidly..just as they are again today!
I found a few indicators and insights here:
Stossel doesn’t make statements without doing his homework and apparently you, who often criticize others, didn’t bother to check in this instance.
Your party is viewed as incompetent, pig headed, and narcissistic It is viewed as stubbornly unwilling to acknowledge failures and change course. Your party has selective hearing and is unwilling to hear anything that republicans to say that demonstrates not only compassion for the poor but in recognizing their value and worth, are determined to see them lift themselves from their circumstances by offering better solutions for the problems they face. School vouchers for poor kids in bad schools is a sterling example that republicans would expand…Democrats side with teachers union bosses and nix the idea…Obama cancels the program in DC.
You don’t read to gain real understanding, Chris. You read, or listen, to find that one thing that “proves” your prejudice.
Widespread starvation looks like this.
Common sense…perspective!
Just saw this……Really?
“Nobody has suggested “eliminating” the programs. Please stop lying.”
Paul Ryan is a elected Tea Party Politician…
http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/08/why-does-paul-ryan-want-get-rid-social-security
http://www.alternet.org/economy/where-did-paul-ryan-find-inspiration-reforming-social-security-brutal-military-dictatorship
That is just 1 tea party politician…So who’s the liar?
The tea party is represented by their elected politicians …….
Everything I said has a tea party politician behind it who has done it……..
Why are you not just stating truth about your goals?
The anti-propaganda man posts pure propaganda…big surprise.
The Kochs have been active participants in environmental efforts:
So they were out in front of the regulations. Business people have a vested interest in delivering a good product at an affordable price to satisfied customers…they also drink the same water and breathe the same air!
Not only has the left lied about global warming and the human causes they continue to lie after being exposed as liars. they continue their Saul Alinsky tactics to use an issue to discredit, malign and harm any person or entity that challenges their power and control. “Climate denier” is a made up term that is used to disparage the opinions even of highly respected scientist that do not conform to the political consensus about the “threat”.
Additionally, as I previously demonstrated, the Koch donations to libertarian and conservative politics is no more effective or influential than are the big donations to Democrats made by George Soros, big unions, green activists and organization, or Wall Street. They like one Tea Party organization…so what! why wouldn’t they align with like minded individuals? It isn’t any different than the Democrat media Matters or Soros aligning with lefty groups. See here:
And here:
And here where Soros funded groups are linked to the IRS scandal:
Our readers will want to read that last story and the articles at the links provided.
Tea Party groups are not all linked together. A few have national appeal but most are local and yes, grass roots. Conservatives are individuals who believe in personal responsibility; the left do the community organizing and believe in central power and authority!
The headline about Paul Ryan is a lie Dewey… a leftist lie designed to make people like you reject the plan without thinking. Why do the leftist journalists think you too stupid to decide for yourself?
Roadmap
This “proposal” is an idea that could be discussed and perhaps improved upon if Democrats were willing to face the reality that the program should be reformed to make it sustainable and to stop the deficit spending that is adding so much to our children’s and grandchildren’s future debt situation.
They would rather use the Saul Alinsky method to denigrate Paul Ryan…they would rather lie about the program than admit they made this mess and vow to fix it.
Pathetic!
Tina: “Good heavens Chris. If starvation during the Depression was as significant as your drama implies”
What are you talking about?
Stossel said that “no one” died of starvation during the Great Depression.
I pointed out that that is not correct.
How exactly is that “drama?”
“we would have statistical information to show it…”
But…we do. You just posted it yourself. Are you even trying to make sense at this point?
“and the left would have been using it for decades to sell their entitlement programs.”
I’m sure the left has used the fact that people died of starvation during the Depression as evidence that social welfare programs are needed.
“Stossel doesn’t make statements without doing his homework”
You literally just proved that he did! Again, to recap: Stossel claimed that no one starved to death during the Great Depression. I pointed out that this was not true. You then started baselessly attacking me, cited evidence that proved that I was right and Stossel was wrong, and then again defended Stossel.
Seriously. Are you OK?
“and apparently you, who often criticize others, didn’t bother to check in this instance.”
Take your medication.
“Widespread starvation looks like this.”
Which would be relevant if I had ever said anything about “widespread” starvation.
Dewey, I have to agree with Tina up to a point: it is not true that Ryan has proposed “getting rid of” Social Security. I think it’s fair of Tina to call that claim a lie.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/aug/28/barack-obama/radio-ad-barack-obama-says-paul-ryan-tried-change-/
I have not been able to confirm that Ryan’s plan really does make the program “permanently solvent,” but it is worth noting that the plan drastically cuts benefits for seniors. There is a way to make the program solvent without doing that–simply lift the cap on social security taxes, so that the wealthy continue paying into the system just like everyone else. As of now, Simply closing this loophole would keep Social Security solvent without asking seniors to sacrifice their benefits.
Good call Chris! -Jack
Chris: “What are you talking about? Stossel said that “no one” died of starvation during the Great Depression.”
Well Chris the Depression lasted for for ten plus years. Even a huge intellect like yours should be able to grasp the fact that a few deaths “associated with” malnutrition” would occur during that long span of time. But starvation was not widespread as apparently the dramatist in you that’s selling big government solutions would have us believe.
There is something seedy about wanting to convince people that without a big government program they don’t have a chance in the world and will starve in the streets…it is particularly sad in America, where millions of immigrants have come only with the threads on their backs and managed to make lives for themselves.
Considering the money we have spent on programs and education we should now have fewer people in need of assistance, not more. There is a good chance Stossel is on to something. Certainly the theory that too much entitlement spending breeds entitlement and fosters entitlement thinking is worth investigation and honest discussion..unless you don’t care that we do better at uplifting the poor.
“But…we do. You just posted it yourself.”
In over ten years, Chris? Really? Did you follow the link to see the pictures of people who starve to death? Americans were thin during the depression; they were not belly bloated skeletons!
“I’m sure the left has used the fact…”
Not as hammer or axe! Please don’t pretend you don’t get the Saul Alinsky method!
“Which would be relevant if I had ever said anything about “widespread” starvation.”
Well you didn’t use the term “widespread” but you certainly were dramatic:
Callous and ignorant? Chris…the period was notable for widespread poverty but not starvation! The President even said so…but you chose to ignore that!
People died of all kinds of things then that we no longer die from today…my grandfather died of consumption due to the flu outbreak in 1919…they didn’t have antibiotics!
Why do you insist that the ONLY answer is government programs?
What is the big deal in discussing the issue?
What is wrong with being honest about the damage that these programs do and seeking better ways?
Why do such discussions cause you to go bananas and make specious claims of “callousness”?
You aren’t interested in finding better solutions or in being truthful. What is the point of participation here if you are unwilling to consider the thoughts and ideas that others have?
Stossel stated several basic truths…people won’t starve in America if there are no government programs…we are a charitable nation. People during the depression had a better work ethic than we have today…they were more self-reliant, more hopeful, and they had no expectations that life or their neighbors owed them a thing!
Grow up!
“But starvation was not widespread as apparently the dramatist in you that’s selling big government solutions would have us believe.”
Again, I never said it was widespread, and I was not being dramatic. I called Stossel callous because he was implying that poverty and food insecurity aren’t serious problems as long as no one is starving, and I called him ignorant because he claimed no one had starved during the Depression when, in fact, they had. I stand by both of those descriptors.
“Considering the money we have spent on programs and education we should now have fewer people in need of assistance, not more.”
We do! There are fewer people living in poverty today then there were before the War on Poverty began. That is a fact that you cannot dispute.
“Certainly the theory that too much entitlement spending breeds entitlement and fosters entitlement thinking is worth investigation and honest discussion..unless you don’t care that we do better at uplifting the poor.”
I have engaged you in investigation and honest discussion of this theory. I have responded to the evidence you’ve provided and provided my own counter-evidence. I believe my evidence is objectively better. Please stop implying that I haven’t given your theories the time of day. Do you not believe it is possible for someone to have rational reasons to disagree with you?
“Chris…the period was notable for widespread poverty but not starvation! The President even said so…but you chose to ignore that!”
What? Tina, are you even reading the articles you cite here? Your link explicitly contradicted Herbert Hoover’s statement that “nobody is starving.” (Not to mention the ridiculousness of your implication that Hervert Hoover’s words during the Depression should be taken as gospel truth…)
“Why do you insist that the ONLY answer is government programs?”
I have not done that. In fact I’ve been very clear that government programs are merely a band-aid and that we need more than just welfare. The minimum wage is not a government “program.” Neither are unions. You oppose both of these. You also have not taken a strong stand against the influence of corporations in government, which is used to increase their power at the expense of the poor. Getting rid of subsidies and limiting corporate donations to politicians (as was done in the Founding era) would do a lot to help the poor. So would lifting the cap on social security taxes. None of these suggestions are government programs and none of them are welfare. All of them are about ensuring that working people get what they earn, and that they are treated equally under the law to the wealthy.
Chris Bottom line the Republican Party has tried to get rid of social security since it was passed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHpcg2DJZlk
Chris: “There are fewer people living in poverty today then there were before the War on Poverty began. That is a fact that you cannot dispute.”
Oh but I can with a simple graph that shows poverty was declining rapidly when the Great Society was enacted and proceeded to move up slightly. During the Carter years it went sharply up and fell again following Reagan’s strong recovery. It went up again at the start of the Clinton administration and began to fall again after the Gingrich revolution of 1994. It’s been going steadily up since 911. The author of the article at the link concludes:
See also here for information about voluntary charitable giving to the poor and the amount of government spending that goes to the poor as opposed to the bureaucracy:
1993 was an election year. Guess what Bill Clinton proposed to try to save his Democrats:
Arguments to reform SS today are based on the same constitutional arguments made about Obamacare and on arguments made back when the SS plan was enacted. Some could see that the plan could become unsustainable, in part because congress would “borrow” the money:
(He was right!)
People don’t usually entrust their hard earned money to strangers and scoundrels but basically that is what we all do when we trust government to do what we should be doing for ourselves and our neighbors. This personal, hands on approach keeps people honest.
The question should be how to make it work in the short and medium terms and perhaps in the long run if we try the private accounts approach and it works we can adopt it; if we find it fails we can always go back to the unsustainable model that will mean higher taxes for everyone.
“I’ve been very clear that government programs are merely a band-aid and that we need more than just welfare. The minimum wage is not a government “program.” Neither are unions. You oppose both of these.”
I oppose both of them being imposed thats for sure. You assume that if we eliminated the minimum wage people would get screwed. I think young people, especially blacks, would have more opportunity to get some training and work experience, would be more inclined to stay in the work force and work their way up, and would end up twenty years later as part of the middle class instead of in prison or on welfare. Unions are not helpful to job creation and inevitably have a destructive affect on the industry (auto, education and very soon, healthcare).
“You also have not taken a strong stand against the influence of corporations in government”
I’m a conservative more than I am a libertarian. That means by definition I am for a simple tax code. that means I’m for zero loopholes. I’ve watched the battle since the eighties…your guy don’t want to change the tax code. That’s the reality right now.
Corporations influence because the government is too big. You don’t want smaller government and you support the big green lobby and the big union lobby. why should I be against corporate participation when they lobby and donate to both parties. The way I see it Democrats have the advantage and you have nothing to bitch about unless you want to join the smaller government movement!
NONE of your solutions for the poor have anything with the poor helping themselves…the best help foe the poor person is a damn good job. ALL of your suggestions work against his having that opportunity! the evidence of left policy in this regard is all around you. Obama has increased spending in these programs..so did Bush. The size of the federal government and their salaries has gone up, those poverty and unemployed have also gone up. Salaries in the private sector middle class are stagnant…debt is skyrocketing. When does it begin to occur to you that too much money is going to government and the poor through redistribution? When do you begin to see that higher taxes, higher fuel costs, and high regulation costs are putting the damper on job growth? When do you begin to see that your solutions are too small to boost the whole economy and at this time would act as a drag on the already sluggish and burdened producers?
It’ all comes down to trust. You have no faith in the ability of the poor to take care of their own needs and you do not trust employers. Your suggestions aren’t about equality. a minimum wage raise won’t put poor people in an equal footing legally with the prosperous. They are both extortion machines that force reward to the lousy worker as well as the hard worker who excels (equality of outcome). The prosperous earned their prosperity…learn from them!
As Chris has pointed out before the SS system was first introduced by conservatives and wealthy business men…no less than Winston Churchill for one.
Conservatives argued then what they argue today. those who made the arguments that the plan would cost more over time and would be unsustainable have turned out to be true. The argument that the enticement to borrow from the SS fund would overwhelm politicians also came true.
Other arguments in 1935 were constitutional and opponents and proponents came down on the issue depending on their interpretation:
Hamilton interpretation “provide for the general welfare.” (implied powers view) (progressive view)
Madison and Jefferson interpretation “promote general welfare” (strict constructionist view) (conservative view)
Dewey who groans on and on about rice farm subsidies will be happy to know that in 1936 lower courts in America ruled the SS act unconstitutional using the same argument that was used against the farm subsidy program of the day…but big government, “provide for the general welfare” progressives won that fight and we still have farm subsidies today.
Progressives have won and they should be happy but winning is never enough…expansion is the name of the game…power is the prize. Americans are the ultimate losers.
Our readers should note that the Constitution does not read “provide” for the general welfare as progressives suggest. It reads “promote” the general welfare…a distinct difference.
Cornell:
PROVIDE 1. to put at the disposal of; furnish or supply: 2. to afford; yield: this meeting provides an opportunity to talk
PROMOTE: 1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace.
Bottom line it is Unconstitutional to anyone with an appreciation for the true meaning in the language. Conservatives come down on the side of the Constitution, common sense, and responsibility.
Dewey “end social security” are political words. They do not describe a plan and if they do describe an intent it would be only as accepted by Americans through their leaders…many of us who favor some of the SS going into private accounts for the young think it would become very popular and we would transition to private accounts because they offer a better return that can also be passed down to the family. You are either poorly informed or a tool for the Sail Alinsky left…which is it?
Chris: “There are fewer people living in poverty today then there were before the War on Poverty began. That is a fact that you cannot dispute.”
Tina: “Oh but I can with a simple graph that shows poverty was declining rapidly when the Great Society was enacted and proceeded to move up slightly.”
Tina,
That graph does not refute my assertion, nor does it justify your statement that “Considering the money we have spent on programs and education we should now have fewer people in need of assistance, not more.”
I can see that the poverty rate was declining rapidly prior to the Great Society. I can also see that it continued declining, not just at the same pace, but even more rapidly for the next several years after the Great Society began. The decline from 1964 to 1969 is the sharpest decline in poverty ever seen in American history. Even more significantly, while poverty has fluctuated up and down since then, it has NEVER gone back up to the levels seen before the Great Society was implemented. Your own graph proves that; in 1964, when the first Great Society programs were implemented, the poverty rate was 15%. In the years since it has never gone higher than 12.5%.
So I stand by my statement: There are fewer people living in poverty today then there were before the War on Poverty began. That is a fact that you cannot dispute.
Your statement that “we should now have fewer people in need of assistance, not more” is misleading. We do have fewer people in poverty today than we did before the Great Society was enacted.
Now, you could argue that poverty would have kept falling even without the Great Society, and that we’d have less people in poverty today without those government programs. You could even argue that without the Great Society, the poverty rate would have fallen faster then it actually did. Such arguments would be purely speculative, but they would still be better than arguing that poverty is worse today than it was before the Great Society, because that argument is 100% factually untrue.
If social programs were as bad as you say they are, then the poverty rate should be worse today than it was before they were enacted. But it is not.
“You assume that if we eliminated the minimum wage people would get screwed.”
It’s not an assumption. It’s basic history. Minimum wage laws were enacted because people WERE getting screwed.
“Unions are not helpful to job creation”
Wrong. Look at this graph, Tina. Look at the decline in unionization and the decline of middle class share of aggregate income. It is nearly a 1:1 relationship:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/union-membership-middle-class-income_n_3948543.html
It has also been proven that states with higher union membership rates have stronger middle classes:
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/labor/news/2013/09/20/74751/middle-classes-are-stronger-in-states-with-greater-union-membership/
Organized labor is what built the middle class, Tina. And the death of unions by a thousand paper cuts is what has destroyed it.
People have to be able to bargain collectively with their bosses in order to make real gains. Even Reagan recognized that collective bargaining was an “elemental human right,” and said:
“These are the values inspiring those brave workers in Poland … They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
Unions are crucial to the middle class, and thus crucial to job creation.
“I’m a conservative more than I am a libertarian. That means by definition I am for a simple tax code. that means I’m for zero loopholes.”
Except the loophole that allows capital gains taxes to be lower than income taxes, which means that you and I (well, starting this year for me) pay a larger percentage in taxes than Mitt Romney. (Yes, I know he pays more as a DOLLAR AMOUNT than you and I combined; that’s irrelevant. What matters is the percentage.) And the loophole that puts a cap on social security taxes so that you and I pay a larger percentage in social security tax than the top 2%. These are *specific* loopholes that exist, Tina. And when I have suggested closing them, you’ve objected and defended them.
So which loopholes, specifically, do you favor closing? You can’t just say “all of them” and then go on and explicitly defend specific loopholes. That’s obviously dishonest, and proves that you don’t really want all loopholes closed.
“why should I be against corporate participation when they lobby and donate to both parties.”
That’s a very cynical question. You should be against corporate lobbying regardless of whom they donate to. It’s a basic moral principle that we should not allow our political process to be controlled by the wealthy elite. This principle has existed in some form since the founding.
If the founders were against corporate donations to politicians, why can’t you be?
“NONE of your solutions for the poor have anything with the poor helping themselves…”
Unionizing is certainly a way that the poor can help themselves.
“the best help foe the poor person is a damn good job.”
Which is increasingly hard to find, since wages have decreased so much over the past forty years, thus necessitating an increase in the minimum wage. People are working harder and getting less for it.
“ALL of your suggestions work against his having that opportunity!”
No. The truth is that you had the opportunity for a higher effective starting wage than young people do today, Tina. You are now literally trying to take that opportunity from others. That is wrong.
The question all young people should be asking the graying Republican party today is, “Why should my generation accept a lower minimum wage than your generation started with? Why are you telling us to give up the advantages you had in the name of freedom?”
Chris: “That graph does not refute my assertion, nor does it justify your statement that ‘Considering the money we have spent on programs and education we should now have fewer people in need of assistance, not more.'”
Well Chris, justification for a massive welfare program can hardly be made when the poverty rate had been declining without help from government. The sharp decline prior to 1964 supports the opinion that Johnson’s Great Society aligned more with his alleged remark that he would “have them n***ers voting Democrat forever” than it did the need for government intervention into an improving condition. We have no idea what poor families might have accomplished on their own had they not been used and encouraged toward dependency. A very prominent sociologist, Democrat, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan was very concerned at the time as we have discussed, so concerned he wrote a paper. When he was working at the U.S. Department of Labor he noticed a trend that the GS, he felt, would not help but make worse. From Wikipedia:
The “New Left” is the rdical bunch that now has control of the Democrat Party. Their focus is central control with them in charge and permanent Democrat power…third world stuff…North Korea stuff…Cuba and Venezuela stuff.
Johnson wasn’t part of this movement…to old…he was of the “old” racist Democrat Party looking for a grand legacy for himself and permanent power for his party. Moynahan was a Democrat but a decent man.
“…but even more rapidly for the next several years after the Great Society began. The decline from 1964 to 1969 is the sharpest decline in poverty ever seen in American history.”
Of course it was in decline! It would take some time for the destructive forces of the GS to take hold but take hold they did and within a generation we were talking about the dependency factor and generational poverty. We were not taking about the great strides black and poor families had made.
Are you up for using your imagination? What if we had not gone for the easy route and allowed the efforts of creative, ambitious black/poor men to become the support for other black/poor families. In the black communities it would have been very healthy for black owned enterprises to hire black workers and that would have gone a long way toward improving black communities. What if we had at least funded training programs and entrepreneurial efforts instead of just handing out benefits? What if we hadn’t interfered and allowed blacks and poor whites to work out their own problems as the Irish, Portuguese, Germans, Polish and others had done previously? This is all worth serious consideration now that we see the results of the GS. I think single motherhood has grown to over seventy percent and black men, unless they are very wealthy are in dire straits. The family which was once very strong is broken.
“…it has NEVER gone back up to the levels seen before the Great Society was implemented…. In the years since it has never gone higher than 12.5%.
It is back to depression levels NOW! Salon reported in May of 2013 that “Half of Americans” were living “below or near the poverty line” even though the official number in poverty was 15% according to the census bureau….which is GREATER than the poverty rate in 1964.
“It’s not an assumption. It’s basic history. Minimum wage laws were enacted because people WERE getting screwed.”
It’s ancient history!
Starting slowly, perhaps with Ford’s realization that if he paid his workers more they could afford his automobiles, companies have become more generous with employees. Google provides a bus for their workers because parking is such a problem in SF. Many big companies offer daycare and workout rooms for their employees. The concept blossomed in the late seventies to early eighties. There were more disgruntled employees in union shops that had priced themselves out of the worforce competition then. Smaller companies offered flex time to help their lower paid employees meet family and education goals. The one thing that has gotten bigger and more demanding during the last 30 to 40 years is government! The complex, noncompetitive tax structure, the regulation expense, and many state with added taxes and regulation made expansion or even basing companies here unworkable so a lot of business has gone overseas. The retirement social programs are particularly draining to our economy and spending in general just keeps increasing to pay for them and the debt. You cant take vast amounts of money out of the wealth producing section of the economy and expect good paying jobs will follow. You also can’t expect Americans to have good paying jobs when they aren’t learning to read, do math or excell in science or when so many college students are getting useless degrees. Is it any wonder the good paying jobs are going to foreigners here on visa? There are other contributing factors but the bottom line is that business expense to feed government and comply with government is too high.
” Look at the decline in unionization and the decline of middle class share of aggregate income. It is nearly a 1:1 relationship.”
Which would be great if that was all there was too it. The big unions during that same period got so greedy they collapsed budgets. Car companies failed and were forced to replace people with machines or move to Mexico to survive. Regulations interference caused other problems in the steel industry that also contributed. The key point is that forcing outcomes amkes things not work. When people can adrss problems as they emerge and adjust naturally things flow…when government intrudes things bottle up and get blunted.
Formation of unions and a rise in minimum wage will not help because they produce NOTHING. They cause production costs to rise. They cost the loss of jobs or push prices for goods higher or both! That exaserbates the poverty unemployment problem. People cannot invest in their own lives when they can’t find work.
Job producers…economic boom producers need their labor cost to remain stagnant at least until they can produce some wealth. Forcing an increase will cost jobs. Fuel costs, regulation costs and higher taxes under Obama have increased the cost of doing business already. In manufacturing prices for parts have increased over the past five years. It’s just plain ignorant to think either of your ideas would solve the economic and job problems we face today.
Look Chris, I know that poor people need more money and I want to see them have an opportunity to earn more. My business is down by 2/3rds. I heard a man on the rwdio today. His cleaning once employed quite a few people business (didn’t hear the exact number). The point is he had to let all of them go. His business is so slow he can do it all himself by working six long days a week…and he still struggles to hang on. I wish you could have heard the anguish he felt because he had to tell his employees he could no longer keep them. People who don’t run businesses have no idea what the burdens that governmetn places on business are like because they never have to deal with them.
“And the death of unions by a thousand paper cuts is what has destroyed it.”
Union bosses weilded the paper! Union members that were more loyal to the union boss that extorted more benefits than the companies that gave them work…those bosses lived high on the hog and produced nothing! Eventually they bankrupted the companies…that is why so many Americans reject unions. I wasn’t kidding when I said they are run like the mafia…or government.
“People have to be able to bargain collectively with their bosses in order to make real gains.”
How much more do they comtribute for those gains? What worth for all of those gains have they given? There is a point where you are basically asking for much more than the job is worth…the company finds ways to cut other expenses and an enterprising foreign company designs a well built, inexpensive alternative and the comapny goes broke.
Individuals can bargain with their employer…they are just forced to be honest about their own needs and what they bring to the company that justifies a raise or promotion. Collective bargaining is extortion dressed up to make it look legitimate. We won’t work unless you give all of us more has nothing to do with performance or contribution.
“Except the loophole that allows capital gains taxes to be lower than income tax…”
The income tax code is also progressive. It’s possible that someone making one dolalr more than you, even though he is middle class, must pay a higher rate! Simplify means simplify! A flat rate has you screaming that the poor have a heaavier burden…that’s a “loophole” you would be against. the truth is you just think rich people are lesser as citizens and therefore should pay more for the big government stuff you like. It doesn’t matter that the rich already contribute most of the tax burden and they provide jobs and are the philanthropic giants that fund all kinds of other things.
The investment tax rate is low because that money feeds economic growth and supports retirement and investment savings…not because the rich are greedy…it therefore makes sense for everyone in America to have that rate be low. Some would argue that the government is getting damn greedy when the money that you have and have already paid taxes on has to then work to give more to government again! Why shouldn’t YOU benefit 100% from that kind of investment, Chris? What is magical about government taxing everything? Why do you think they should have that kind of power in any citizens life?
“that’s irrelevant”
NO! It is not irrelevent…it is the entire point . Is he an equal citizen or is he not? Does he not already give and give in so many ways? What have you or I done that comes even close? We should call this the blood sweat and tears tax because we are punishing people that have worked hard to get where they are and are putting so much back in already.
“And the loophole that puts a cap on social security taxes so that you and I pay a larger percentage in social security tax than the top 2%”
Nice try. They should pay an unlimited amount into a system they don’t even need jsut because you need or want it. Private insurers don’t treat people with such gross discrimination. Policies have a cost and its the ame for everyone. The plan was that this would never cost American more than 2%..another lie. Politicians make up the rules as they go along because they are lousy money managers. They also know human nature. People do better for themselves when they have incentives to do so; given a free ride they take it.
I want a flat tax or consumption tax system. I probably won’t see it because too many people feel entiltled and too many people are afraid to let go of that “guarantee”. They don’t have a clue what it’s costing them.
“That’s a very cynical question. You should be against corporate lobbying regardless of whom they donate to.”
In the current environment its the game we have all agreed to…yes even you. You want big government. do you really think companies are going to sit back and let our representatives run roughshod over them without imput. They represent company or industry or activist bames but they are all Americans petitioning their govrnment and airing greivences.
“It’s a basic moral principle that we should not allow our political process to be controlled by the wealthy elite”
I repeat…you want a big federal government. You want them to punish the wealthy woth higher taxes and restricitions. You would rather have that than rely on the will, purchasing power, and voice of people to keep things in line. You want favors and you want government to grant those favors. Well as long as that is what you want wealth will be there protecting its interests.
Microsoft can’t force you to use their products or pay them a tax or put you in jail or issue a fine or penalty. If they cross a line and pollute we the people ahve the courts. The market, supported by the rule of law works…let it work and the money will be invested in new products, expansion, hiring and jobs instead of lobbiests!
“Unionizing is certainly a way that the poor can help themselves”
Yes it is. they have that option. I don’t have to like it and my objections are worthy. People can decide for themselves. I have not proposed a ban…i don’t think anyone has except for public service jobs and that only becasue the taxpayer does not have a seat at the bargaining table and once again, greed has destroyed budgets, created debt, and, in the case of teachers, been a diservice to some children…especially poor children who need a good education to get ahead.
“Which is increasingly hard to find, since wages have decreased so much over the past forty years”
There are many reasons that wages have decreased. lack of unions isn’t one of them. Unions are budget busting sindicates that drive business into the ground or overseas or to machines!
“The truth is that you had the opportunity for a higher effective starting wage than young people do today, Tina.”
I’m sorry Chris but I don’t buy that argument. It leaves out too many variables and denies the mess that Washington DC has made of our country. You are being duped, used and distracted by this argument that cherry picks statistics to achieve talking points for political purposes more than understanding about howthings work.
This article aproaches the subject from another angle. I hope it stimulates some thinking. I do care very much about your future Chris. Everything I do on this blog is about that. I have two grandchildren who are just coming into adulthood. I care very much about their ability to thrive and prosper.
“The question all young people should be asking the graying Republican is…”
…how do you reach prosperity? What are the secrets to prosperity? The power is within the individual. Counting on government is futile…government is out to take more from you every year.
“Why are you telling us to give up the advantages you had in the name of freedom?”
I’m not. Just because you don’t yet get it doesn’t mean it isn’t true!
Chris I don’t have time to keep doing these long responses even though I enjoy the exchange most of the time. We will have more conversations on the subject over the next year…please don’t be offended if I don’t put in a repeat performance.
“It’s ancient history!”
Well, not ancient. But it has been over a hundred years since Britain embarked on a progressive agenda with which we are still struggling … mouthing pieties debunked long ago, echoing a fellow named Cox in the London Times, when he criticized the 1911 Unemployment Insurance Act “for threatening to destroy the ‘quasi-religious devotion’ that underpinned the traditional sources of welfare, such as the friendly societies, as well as the delicate balance of rights and responsibilities embodied in the well-ordered home.”
Sounds just like Tina, don’t he? It makes fun reading. The howling, from servants and masters alike, was ferocious. The Act was a violation of that “‘sacred trust’ [which] could always be relied on to act efficiently in the interests of domestic employees.”
But the act was passed, and was enhanced, and is improved upon to this day, because …”an official of the Charity Organisation Society [reported] that nearly 70 percent of the cases of hardship and illness dealt with in her town were those of general servants who had sought aid because they were ill and had spent all their savings. She pointed out that in not one case (and some had been ‘as long as fourteen years in service’) had the Society received a subscription from a mistress towards the maintenance of her old servant.”
Tina carries on like the progressive agenda is some diabolical Bolshie plot sprung out of thin air. It’s not. It’s a response … to actual situations that no decent person or society allows to persist … and over which conservative policy has an ancient history of failure to mitigate.
Libby thanks for the history lesson.
” It’s not. It’s a response … to actual situations that no decent person or society allows to persist”
It is not the intent of every liberal; most just suffer feelings of sympathy and guilt. But it is the intent of radical progressives in power to create a big centrally planned and ordered society with power resting in the officials and not the people.
And it is a response but it isn’t the only response nor is it the best response.
Peter Weldon of Redstate comments on a report made by CBS:
Our society is a giving and caring society. We give more to charity than any other nation voluntarily. But if we keep expanding assistance to the point where it makes more sense to be needy than to work, as we are fast approaching now, the whole thing will collapse.
It makes more sense to make voluntary charity desirable, to encourage service and charity, and to prepare our citizens to be responsible working and contributing members of society.
Libby your arguments are based on false notions about conservatives in our times (who have been more generous than progressives voluntarily) and on false notions of how well your progressive solutions work.
You really should consider joining us inthe current decade.
I find it kind of hilarious that Redstate misidentifies CNS News as “CBS News” in the above link, Tina. I wonder if it was just an error, or if the writer knows that CBS is considered more reliable than CNS, and was intentionally trying to fool the audience. (If so, it worked.)
Anyway, that comparison has been criticized before. The Census Bureau counted every person living in a household with someone receiving government assistance. In order to make an apples to apples compairson, you’d have to also count every person living in a household with someone who works for a living.
Of course given the parameters the number of people on welfare are going to outnumber working people. If I’m a parent on welfare, odds are I have at least one child in the home. That child is counted along with me. I’m also probably working at the same time while my child is not. So we’re both counted in the welfare numbers, but not the work numbers.
Chris: “I find it kind of hilarious…I wonder if it was just an error, or if the writer knows that CBS is considered more reliable than CNS…”
I find it hilarious that liberals think their opinions about reliable information are sacrosanct!
I’m certain it was a typo.
” I’m also probably working”
Now there’s a hard statistic for you…”probably” working
“So we’re both counted in the welfare numbers, but not the work numbers.”
Well yes. “You” are both dependent on services but only one of you is of age to work and contribute. There is nothing unreasonable in counting this way.
This is the attraction behind having children as a means of obtaining more aid.
Let’s repeat: “A morality problem arises as those with a financial vested interest in government charity become a majority who vote for politicians promising to continue and to enlarge such payments at the expense of independent working Americans.”
Discover the Networks:
The war on poverty resulted in an increase of dependency and need…some war! What was the goal? LBJ’s goal was more people “voting democrat” and the growth of government power.
The few who held on to those early values about work and family are the ones who sacrificed to send their kids to college so that the next generation in their family joined the middle class and changed the families prospects. Too many did not.
Conditions today will only make this much worse. The unemployment numbers for young people today is staggeringly high. Dependence on government help can have a permanent psychological effect if it continues for too long.
NYT:
Every step the left takes to fix poverty and other problems has only, over time, made things worse!
We have to go back to first principles and teach self reliance and generosity of spirit. The need for a safety net should decline in a system designed to alleviate poverty. Progressive policies do just the opposite.