L
LisaA
Guest
STRAWMAN ALERT! When did Romney say he would ABOLISH 'all those programs." I love the way Obama supporters make up fake arguments.
Lisa
- Status
Lisa
M
maber43
Guest
Yes, I do now! We are hearing all kind of craps on the news! Many seniors are scared right now. They thinks Ryan is evil.
S
Sister_Terese
Guest
I agree. I don’t watch any news anymore unless it is on Fox. I think Fox is getting better and better! MSNBC is the worst followed by CNN.
H
Hunter24
Guest
Yes but I still would have preferred Rubio
M
maber43
Guest
That’s true! Have you ever watch Ed Schultz on MSNBC? He’s scary and telling lies about Romney and Ryan. This is where I got confused about Medicare getting chopped.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Which basically covers every politician in congress and every president in the last 70 years.
L
LisaA
Guest
DeSanto you consistently make the case for the “deserving poor” as if EVERYONE on public assistance were like you, hard working, compassionate, doing their best for their families. The fact is that they are not. The other fact is that the government programs are wasteful, inefficient, duplicated, and do not provide any long term solutions. If this were the case the trillions and trillions we’ve invested in the “War on Poverty” would have long since been un-needed. Instead we see that the very programs intended to “help” the poor have increased their numbers, increased their desperation and mired them in a never ending cycle of continued poverty.
Do you TRULY think anyone on this forum would begrudge a truly needy family not just food, clothing and shelter, but also some of the little goodies in life? Please answer that question!
Speaking for myself, and perhaps others, I not only pay a boatload in taxes but my charitable giving is the “first fruits” taken out of my paycheck before I even pay my mortgage. What I resent is knowing that my tax dollars are being wasted on poorly executed programs, on little manias of the President (green energy, unions, contraception mandates). In addition, sadly, MANY MANY people take advantage of the system. Not only is this demonstrated statistically, I’ve seen it happen when volunteering for various charitable organizations and social service agencies.
So you present a false dichotomy…either we fork over the money we EARN to incompetent and corrupt politicians to distribute or children go to bed hungry…REALLY? You really believe this? Why do you have such incredible faith in the GOVERNMENT? I dont
Lisa
E
Ecoclimber
Guest
Nor do you. Onward Ayn Rand? Her teachings are demonic! Her philosophy is based on godless, hedonistic, narcissistic values and an evolutionary lifestyle based on the survival of the fittest. If you believe in her teaching, I would question your Christian faith! You don’t speak for me nor do you tell me how to vote. Your analysis is completely wrong and misguided. The the GOP knows it needs the Christian vote to be elected in order to deconstruct the American government. So they initiate a party platform that throws in two items to secure the gullible Christian vote: opposing abortion and same sex marriage. The rest of GOP platform consists of corporate rights over individual rights and the overall values of the common good. The GOP party is antithesis to Christian values. The Democratic Platform is also antithesis to Christian values as well in regards to same sex marriage ans abortion. Catholic social teaching requires a Catholic not to vote for either party. It would be morally unconscionable to do so.
Pope Benedict XVI encyclical, Caritas in Veritate…
"Such development requires a transcendent vision of the person, it needs God: without him, development is either denied, or entrusted exclusively to humanity, which falls into the trap of thinking it can bring about its own salvation, and ends up promoting a dehumanized form of development. Only through an encounter with God are we able to see in the other something more than just another creature, to recognize the divine image** in the other, thus truly coming to discover him or her and to mature in a love that ‘becomes concern and care for the other**."**
The encyclical raises up another essential lynchpin of Catholic social morality, *the common good.*** "Another important consideration is the common good. To love someone is to desire that person’s good and to take effective steps to secure it. Besides the good of the individual there is a good that is linked to living in society: the common good. It is the good of ‘all of us’… It is a good that is sought not for its own sake, but for the people who belong to the social community.**
Thirdly, the encyclical clearly articulates the moral disjunction that erupts when social “progress” is divorced from a consistent ethic of life. It is impossible to address the issue of poverty without addressing abortion and euthanasia, among other life issues. As Pope Benedict XVI says, “…*the social question has become a radically anthropological question." (75) "While the poor of the world continue knocking on the doors of the rich, the world of affluence runs the risk of no longer hearing those knocks, on account of a conscience that can no longer distinguish what is human***.” **
Jesus stated emphatically and the Apostles taught and We will be judge on the following:
**Matt 25:34-36 "Then the King will say to those on his right, `Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ **
**James 5:1-6
5:1 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. 2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. 4 Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. 5 You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you. **
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
I haven’t singled it out for scorn. I was just responding to SamH’s claim that only welfare recipients (the young and the old) have seen their real incomes increase under Obama. If you owned a significant fraction of XOM, and probably a few other companies make the cut as well, you saw your real income increase significantly under Obama.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Well ya.
R
rlg94086
Guest
I know plenty. How’s your knowledge of history? You used the exact same argument against Romney that anti-Catholics used against Kennedy.
meltzerboy
New member
I agree with Robert about this. Romney’s Mormonism is irrelevant to the issue at hand. However, I am in accord with your other statements.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Actually, most economists probably don’t know that. It is not part of the standard graduate curriculum (or undergraduate curriculum for that matter) in economics. Perhaps it should be, but it is not.
J
JimG
Guest
The fiscal problem does have a moral dimension, and it is being ignored. This is precisely what worries me most. The assumption seems to be made among many that deficit spending can continue indefinitely, and debt can be increased massively, with no consequences.
But when the tsunami hits, when the debt bubble collapses, it is the poorest who will suffer the most.
And the hysteria against the rich, and against corporations, is such that this will lead to even greater class warfare. Politicians will vilify corporations and the rich, who did not cause the tsunami, to escape their own responsibility for it. We are like people standing on a beach watching a tsunami approach, and saying to one another. “It’s the rich who have caused this.” “Why didn’t we have regulations in place to prevent this?”
meltzerboy
New member
Sorry to perhaps disturb you again, but I think both sides are stretching and simplifying the truth.Whew…I can relax now.I guess these liberals still telling lies.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
I think both sides are basically dishonest. I mean, you cannot think that the government should provide health insurance to large groups of people and call yourself a party of small government.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I’m not sure about how this general suggestion would work in the particular, given that, as you say (and I agree), we have multi-generational poverty in this country which has come to depend for its very survival on government handouts. (The way they pay their bills is strictly a combination of local, state, and federal handouts due to income, even without disability/age factors. That doesn’t mean there aren’t federal subsidies for the non-federal programs, but it is a fact that income is generally the determiner, not ability to work.) If you could give one example of how scaled cutbacks could be managed without more greatly impoverishing those in a state of just or unjust comprehensive dependency, that might help.
However, I very much agree with this. This is not something that is a raitonalization, but something I have come to realize:
And the Democrats (especially) rarely have this discussion – and I mean Democrats on the State level as well, some of whom make Obama look like a conservative Republican. Many state legislators cannot distinguish between a want and a need. But further, Michael, income per se does not equal moral entitlement. I don’t know how familiar you are with rent-controlled cities, but there are renters who “cannot” (refuse to) move because they have built their low earning expectations around a 20-year-old rent. They were not born into poverty; they are educated. However, they like their part-time lifestyle, and this segment is part of a larger voting bloc of those (and their political supporters) who believe that personal income and lifestyle is The Absolute: whether you work 6 hours/week or 60 hours, the government (other people) owe you and must fill any gap between what you choose to earn and what you need to survive, regardless of your ability to work.
The final aspect to all of this is that the most generationally impacted poor (as a group) are those for which education has been multi-generationally rejected. Thus, the skill level of this group is low compared to other groups, and the gap between the market of a literate and technologically advanced society, and the static level of job skills in this group, is expanding.
No,not everyone should go to college, but everyone who is not thoroughly disabled should be prepared for employment, not prepared to receive social services. There should have been a long time ago something I’ve been promoting for a good 10 years: more structured school-to-work programs such as Canada’s co-op colleges for both white-collar and other categories of jobs: a business-education alliance to get students prepared, and to keep students current, with the skills needed and demanded in the marketplace. If that means any kind of taxpayer support for that (for example training/apprenticehip/internship phases within these alliances, I see no social justice justfication for rejecting that.
L
LisaA
Guest
Meltzerboy, thank you for the thoughtful response. Your point is well taken as we can’t know what will happen if Medicare is changed to a voucher system. But the positive side is that this is a gradual transition and time to work out the bugs rather than the immediate cuts, rationing and mandates of Obamacare.
Now I think you understand the idea that the vouchers pay for an insurance plan of the senior’s choice, but the Dems have been spinning it “You will only get $X for your HEALTHCARE!!! What if you need an expensive operation? blah blah blah.” I think you get the gist of the opposition’s attack. It’s ridiculous but sadly many people are asleep at the wheel and don’t get the whole story.
Will the vouchers be enough to pay for good coverage? I think that amount can be calculated, based on actuarial models that set premiums in the commercial insurance business. I have heard various figures tossed out but in reality were this system be put in place, everything would have to be recalculated at the time. I think the important concept is to provide the same or better coverage than current Medicare Parts A through D.
Of course there will always be spin and false information used to sell a product…AARP is the MASTER of deception for example. We cannot prevent people from making mistakes but again they make mistakes now. The best defense though is to have multiple companies vying for this very lucrative business. I assure you the insurance companies NOW fight hard for the Medicare Advantage and Medicare Supplement patients. The worst situation is a “one size fits all” program as is preferred by the Left. Further I think we tend to demean our seniors ability to research and discern what works best for them as if older Americans were unable to read through the spin of a glossy brochure. Speaking from the perspective of dealing with seniors every day in our clinic, I am constantly amazed at how carefully they do research healthcare issues, treatments, and payment plans…haha they have lots of TIME and most of them are pretty computer savvy. This sophistication is only going to increase as the next generation moves into the Medicare age bracket.
Further I hope the eventual plan also has elements of tort reform, national competition, and other competitive ideas that will actually address the two goals…increase access and decrease (hahaha I guess we can’t hope for that) or at least hold the line on increased cost
Lisa
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
That’s bizarre. The School of Salamanca basically are the ones who came up with the free market theory.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Apparently you missed the sarcasm. It is the Democratic Party that is absolutely Onward Ayn Rand in its support of a demonic sexually-libertine philosophy, in which the individual’s “sexual freedoms” are absolute, regardless of the effect on society’s stability and the structures of a well-ordered society.
Try to have a nice day, Ecoclimber. Don’t get too worked up.
- Status