Sharron Angle: Down With Maternity, Autism Coverage

[bbarrick8383]

As if taxes were the only measure of whether or not a state is a good place to live. Corzine was not a good governor, but Christie is almost exponentially worse. He’s a bully.

Hardly, he’s got a spine and he’s telling people no that do not want to hear no. Unlike the President. A state should live within it’s means no different than a household should live within it’s means. If they do not for long they will end up getting what they deserve. He’s doing exactly what New Jersey needs, may not be what they want or what they want to hear but it is what they need. I understand though, you want to be a NJ teacher right? Makes sense.

 

[Cubsfan]

As if taxes were the only measure of whether or not a state is a good place to live. Corzine was not a good governor, but Christie is almost exponentially worse. He’s a bully.

If Christie is a bully than can I get a bully to be Govenor of Illinois!

The current GOV of NJ has something I wish other politicians had, guts.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

As if taxes were the only measure of whether or not a state is a good place to live. Corzine was not a good governor, but Christie is almost exponentially worse. He’s a bully.

What is a state going to do when it has no more money?

That is the situation facing New Jersey. It is borrowed up to the point where they can’t borrow any more. The spending budget is higher than the tax revenues.

The government departments and unions refuse to look at actual spending for previous years, but only want to deal with “budget requests”.

One of the talking heads on television told Christie to just raise taxes. Christie said that when they raise taxes now, they actually collect LESS, not more.

That’s because people who can afford to pay taxes are leaving the state in droves. So the more that they raise taxes, the faster the people move out. And the companies in New Jersey expand elsewhere and when they shut down unprofitable businesses, the employees who get laid off cannot find replacement jobs. So they move out of the state to where the job prospects are better. Or, they just collect unemployment for two years and in the meanwhile pay minimal, if any, income taxes.

Many people are working just to pay the real estate taxes. As soon as they can, they sell and move out.

If a municipality assesses the value of your house at $500,000 [a SMALL Cape Cod style house in NJ with real estate taxes of $1000 per month] and if you sell it for $400,000 then the new assessed value is $400,000 so the real estate taxes collected drop by 20%. And the reduced assessed value is reflected onto the tax rolls for the rest of the homes in that town. If the town then raises the taxes to keep the amount collected stable, then the value of the houses drops because the taxes have gone higher. And more people are driven out, depressing the home valuations still further.

Christie inherited a situation in which there are no longer any new or additional sources of tax revenue to tap into.

And the unions of the government workers refuse to make any concessions or even agree to a freeze on increases. And they, in many cases, do not contribute to the medical or pension plans. And they refuse to contribute anything. When the complain about being paid below average, it turns out they are committing falsehoods.

So, Christie has a real mess to deal with.

The equivalent would be if you were getting a $10 per week allowance, and then your parents lost their jobs, but you demanded to continue getting the same $10 per week allowance, even with no money coming in.

The Federal government can print money; states cannot.

The downside of the Federal government printing more money is high inflation. Sometimes it doesn’t show up right away if demand for products is low due a recession when demand is low. However, it can show up in the price of gold, for example. Or other products such as bread or services such as repairs and service calls.

Nevertheless, the Federal government is taking on more tasks and more spending, not less. And the tax revenues are not keeping up because economic growth is now negative. The economy is not growing, it is contracting. And President Obama’s spokespersons have stated that it is unreasonable to expect the United States’ economy to continue to increase.

 

[seekerz]

She doesn’t want to pay for someone else’s maternity leave through her premiums just like i don’t want to pay for someone else’s abortion and artificial contraception through mine.

If I don’t use it, I don’t want to pay for it.

Why didn’t Angle instead complain about insurance covering prostate exams? I don’t have a prostate, so why should I pay for that? For that matter I may not have a gallbladder or a uterus so why should I pay for gallbladder surgery or hysterectomy?

That’s simply the way insurance works: you pay the company, it covers most conditions or procedures of its members. Otherwise you’d need a different insurance policy for every organ/system of the body - hardly practical.

 

[Lujack]

Hardly, he’s got a spine and he’s telling people no that do not want to hear no. Unlike the President. A state should live within it’s means no different than a household should live within it’s means. If they do not for long they will end up getting what they deserve. He’s doing exactly what New Jersey needs, may not be what they want or what they want to hear but it is what they need. I understand though, you want to be a NJ teacher right? Makes sense.

Well, I wanted to be an NJ teacher. I’m no longer sure if that’s possible; I don’t know if I’ll be able to afford to live on the salary that looks likely by the time I graduate college now. Sort of a backbreaking realization. And it kind of hurts to worry that the pension that was promised to my father in the contracts he’s signed for over two and a half decades might not ever be paid out, which sort of throws the entire family plan into disarray.

Yes, I would say that it makes sense for me to despise Chris Christie; I wouldn’t mind working for not too much money as long as I can actually, you know, buy a house and raise a family on it, but even that might be too much to ask. And that’s even assuming that I’ll actually be able to find a job in the state teaching, and that if I can find it, I’ll be able to keep it for more than a year.

So much for mediocre pay with good job security and a good pension; apparently Chris Christie thinks that teachers should get bad pay with no job security and no pension and no benefits.

Back in the spring, that used to make me angry and I would regularly rant to my friends about it. Now it mostly just depresses me.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Why didn’t Angle instead complain about insurance covering prostate exams? I don’t have a prostate, so why should I pay for that? For that matter I may not have a gallbladder or a uterus so why should I pay for gallbladder surgery or hysterectomy?

That’s simply the way insurance works: you pay the company, it covers most conditions or procedures of its members. Otherwise you’d need a different insurance policy for every organ/system of the body - hardly practical.

People and companies have always been able to shop around for medical insurance that suited their needs. I worked for a company in which everybody was OLD. I was the youngest person there, BY FAR, when they hired me. When I had surgery, their medical plan paid for EVERYTHING 100%.

But when we had a baby, we learned that their medical plan didn’t have obstetrics benefits. So we had to pay for those expenses ourselves, 100%.

So, yes, you can shop around and custom design a medical plan for yourself.

[Well, at least you used to be able to … until various states bureaucracies got involved and introduced the idea of mandated coverage … where you are required to pay for stuff you don’t want.]

Just as an example, I always wanted to have an HSA type of plan. But the law would not allow it where I lived.

But HSA’s do exist. At least for a while longer.

But go here and just take a look at one approach to customizing a medical insurance plan:

goldenrule.com/health/health-savings.shtml

[This is for serious inquirers. Trolls need not apply.]

 

[Christopher68]

Well doesn’t that sum it all up; who needs St. Ignatius of Loyola’s ideas about men for others when you can just say “If I don’t use it, I don’t want to pay for it.” That’s just about the epitome of selfishness right there, I think.

We’re supposed to rally to help the least of us, and those who need it. I mean, Catholicism is based around the Son of God, infinitely better than those he was saving, coming to Earth to die a painful and humiliating death for the redemption of mankind, and the goal of every Catholic is supposed to be to live in the imitation of Christ (an impossible goal, but it is the pursuit of that goal which makes us truly Catholic, even if we never get there). So if He who were are imitating died for us, and we are infiinitely lower than him (in fact, the best of us is closer in worthiness to Hitler than to Christ), how dare we say “If I don’t use it, I don’t want to pay for it.”

Isn’t that turning our back on the basis of the faith?

There is a vast difference in the way in which the government functions versus the private sector. The government takes taxpayer money via force to fund projects for their supporters or for those who have bought the most political influence. As a result, the government “solution” to any problem invariably is the highest cost and least effective method. It is certainly not selfish to realize this, and to instead support those who legitimately need help through non-governmental means. The mindset that “if the government doesn’t do it, it won’t get done” is wrong on many levels.

 

[StTommyMore]

There is a vast difference in the way in which the government functions versus the private sector. The government takes taxpayer money via force to fund projects for their supporters or for those who have bought the most political influence. As a result, the government “solution” to any problem invariably is the highest cost and least effective method. It is certainly not selfish to realize this, and to instead support those who legitimately need help through non-governmental means. The mindset that “if the government doesn’t do it, it won’t get done” is wrong on many levels.

You have an overly optimistic view of humanity. Experience shows that those with wealth only desire more, generally speaking. Did it not occur to you that when left without government protection, the lower classes suffer? Perhaps you see it as people “stealing” from the wealthy. I see it as those in need getting what is rightfully theirs to begin with.

 

[mary_bobo]

You have an overly optimistic view of humanity. Experience shows that those with wealth only desire more, generally speaking. Did it not occur to you that when left without government protection, the lower classes suffer? Perhaps you see it as people “stealing” from the wealthy. I see it as those in need getting what is rightfully theirs to begin with.

Please explain to us how in the world people have a right to the earnings of others. This class envy is really not christian. Do I wish I were better off? Sure, but in no way do I feel entitled to the fruits of someone else’s labor.

 

[StTommyMore]

Please explain to us how in the world people have a right to the earnings of others. This class envy is really not christian. Do I wish I were better off? Sure, but in no way do I feel entitled to the fruits of someone else’s labor.

Universal destination of goods. In cases of extreme want those in need are entitled to goods posessed by those who have excess. It is actually based in St. Augustine.

 

[mary_bobo]

As if taxes were the only measure of whether or not a state is a good place to live. Corzine was not a good governor, but Christie is almost exponentially worse. He’s a bully.

Christie may sound like a bully if you do not want to hear the message. Do you want a governor who just goes blissfully along inferring that everything is just fine when, in fact, it is not. A state can only afford so much and then the well runs dry. Something has to give and it may as well start now. It is only going to get worse. I admire the governor’s courage in doing the right thing.

 

[Christopher68]

You have an overly optimistic view of humanity. Experience shows that those with wealth only desire more, generally speaking. Did it not occur to you that when left without government protection, the lower classes suffer? Perhaps you see it as people “stealing” from the wealthy. I see it as those in need getting what is rightfully theirs to begin with.

I would suggest that you have an overly optimitistic view of government. In reality, I think people would donate a lot more of their money to private charities if their taxes were much lower than they are at present. As it is now, people want to keep their money because they rightfully view the government as having taken too much of “their” money than it is entitled to. I suspect that people are also loathe to donate as much to charity as they could because - whatever the charity’s mission statement is - they think “isn’t there a government program for that?” And sadly, yes, there probably is a government program - but it’s likely making the problem worse instead of better.

 

[gnjsdad]

Universal destination of goods. In cases of extreme want those in need are entitled to goods posessed by those who have excess. It is actually based in St. Augustine.

There is also the public dimension attached to the right of private ownership. The Church recognizes private ownership as a human right. At the same time, those who own have a moral obligation in justice to give of their possessions, without diminishing their status, to those who do not own and are in need. The goods of the Earth are meant to be shared by all men. Private ownership carries with it the moral obligation to share. This is explained by Popes Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum and Pius XI in Quadregesimo Anno.

This is why I find accusations of “class envy” off the mark. It’s also why I find the rhetoric of the Tea Party distasteful. I want mine; keep your hands off is a message that is not in sync with Catholic teaching, IMO.

 

[Bataar]

Universal destination of goods. In cases of extreme want those in need are entitled to goods posessed by those who have excess. It is actually based in St. Augustine.

What you are espousing sounds very much like Marxism, a philosophy the Church is very much against.

 

[StTommyMore]

What you are espousing sounds very much like Marxism, a philosophy the Church is very much against.

The Universal Destination of Goods is in the Catechism, Gaudium et Spes, and as I said, based in St. Augustine.

 

[Lujack]

There is a vast difference in the way in which the government functions versus the private sector. The government takes taxpayer money via force to fund projects for their supporters or for those who have bought the most political influence. As a result, the government “solution” to any problem invariably is the highest cost and least effective method. It is certainly not selfish to realize this, and to instead support those who legitimately need help through non-governmental means. The mindset that “if the government doesn’t do it, it won’t get done” is wrong on many levels.

There are several assumptions here that aren’t necessarily so; it is certainly not a given that the government solution to a given problem is invariably the highest cost and least effective method. You just make that a given without any proof for it. However, that’s still a significantly different mindset from “If I’m not going to use it, I don’t want to pay for it.”

 

[Christopher68]

There are several assumptions here that aren’t necessarily so; it is certainly not a given that the government solution to a given problem is invariably the highest cost and least effective method. You just make that a given without any proof for it. However, that’s still a significantly different mindset from “If I’m not going to use it, I don’t want to pay for it.”

Perhaps the following link will provide the verification you are seeking:

wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28843

 

[Monte_RCMS]

You have an overly optimistic view of humanity. Experience shows that those with wealth only desire more, generally speaking. Did it not occur to you that when left without government protection, the lower classes suffer? Perhaps you see it as people “stealing” from the wealthy. I see it as those in need getting what is rightfully theirs to begin with.

The “lower classes” make out best when there is free and open competition in the marketplace.

People are not stupid. They know that if they can shop around they can get the best deal for them at the time. The more information that there is publicly available, the more informed that people can be.

Take a look at luxury goods. Computers at one time cost a million dollars (and that was for a low end computer) and only very large corporations could afford them. Software required offices full of highly trained people who worked incredibly long hours.

Today, you can buy a computer for petty cash and software of every kind and description is available on-line or in store front places where you just walk in.

All of that came about because of competition. There are mega-software companies such as Microsoft competing with some kid working out of his mother’s basement. There are operating systems available for a price or for free.

Can you imagine the chaos and dismal results if you could only buy computers and software from a government agency.

And if someone comes up with a great idea in hardware or software and makes billions of dollars because everyone decides they have to have one [which they don’t], then why should someone else with no talent decide that they have a right to take that genius’s money away from him?

Who gives you the right to steal what you did not earn?

The “wealthy person” provides software for you at a modest price that no one forced you to buy. AND you freely chose to buy that particular software rather than some other software.

AND the same thing applies to cars, colleges, counter tops, traffic counters, chicken, fast food, breakfast food, overnight delivery, soda, entertainment, clothing, houses, air transportation, musical instruments, rechargeable batteries, light bulbs and even health care.

The universal complaints are when the government steps on you with its size 16 shoes and makes decrees about what you can and cannot do and how you will do it and when you will do it. Or screw things up. Or takes a well-run private function and regulates it to death.

If you have a good idea, you may be able to turn it into wealth, if you know what you are doing and if people like it. Why should people be punished for that?

And if you don’t have any marketable original ideas, then you are free to work for someone else and enjoy the fruits of the ideas of other people.

But you don’t have the right to take what is not yours.

 

[St_Francis]

There is also the public dimension attached to the right of private ownership. The Church recognizes private ownership as a human right. At the same time, those who own have a moral obligation in justice to give of their possessions, without diminishing their status, to those who do not own and are in need. The goods of the Earth are meant to be shared by all men. Private ownership carries with it the moral obligation to share. This is explained by Popes Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum and Pius XI in Quadregesimo Anno.

This is why I find accusations of “class envy” off the mark. It’s also why I find the rhetoric of the Tea Party distasteful. I want mine; keep your hands off is a message that is not in sync with Catholic teaching, IMO.

The accusations of class envy are right on the mark. The Democrats are constantly talking about how much rich people have, and I have yet to hear an explantion of why conservatives, who supposedly care so little for the poor, volutarily give more to the poor than do the liberals, who supposedly care so much.

Yes, the Church teaches the universal destination of goods, but at the same tine, the Church teaches that people have a right to their own property and that communistic/socialistic forms of government are bad precisely because they do not respect that right.

It is not so much that I ignore the universal destination of goods as that I do not think that the government should force it on us and be the institution through which all the “donations” flow. I believe that this is bad for individuals, both those who have and tbose who have not, and bad for society as a whole.

 

[StTommyMore]

This is true, but in certain cases, you have the right to liberate what is yours from those who are keeping it from you. Jesus was tempted with wealth in the wilderness. I am not calling for redistribution of wealth. I am saying that the evil of the Tea Party is this: “You did not earn it, you have no right to it, so you can die of starvation or disease for all I care, this is MY money”