homage to the Hummer

[fossten]

Still waiting for foxpaws to acknowledge anything remotely resembling liberty.

zzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[foxpaws]

Yes, that's called the tyranny of the majority.
That's why our government was set up as a representative republic and NOT a direct democracy.

However, people that you have aligned yourself with have historically worked to undermine that critical distinction.

Historically - really - they were against the civil rights movement - women's rights?

And as long as we are dumping the car thing - remember - the hummer's demise wasn't caused by the government - as much as Penn (and others) would like you to believe...

But if any part of the Hummer going belly-up are those government rules we're putting in on miles per gallon, or us taking over of GM, then I'm not just sad, I'm also angry.

First of all, you claim is completely with a basis in truth.
They were huge expansions of power and authority by the federal government implement under the corrupt LBJ administration. It has nothing to do with the "viability of charity" in this country.

But expansions of power and responsibility like this DO undermine a person's sense of social responsibility and charity.

This was simply not true, but the expansion of federal responsibility often LEADS to these things.

But in the case of medicare and medicaid - it was a lack of community, family, church charity that lead to those programs. As we moved to an industrial society from a agricultural society the way we lived, the way we related to aging and ill family members all changed. Our society evolved, and the way we view charity did as well. We give to things other than church, health, family. We give to 'green causes', 'animal concerns' our old schools, etc.

There aren't enough dollars left for the charity, but there are enough dollars available for us to pay the taxes necessary to finance the bureaucracy that then redistributes what's left of those dollars to pay for the healthcare?

Do you realize how ridiculous what you just said is.

We give about the same in charity as we always have - the difference is what I stated earlier - two things:

One - there are many more charities that want our dollar - from saving the earth to saving the panda to saving the snail darter to spaying pets to save the Camaro and make sure the Fighting Irish have a great football team this year. So, in effect, our dollar is being spread thin. In the past there were far fewer groups asking for our dollar.

Two - things like medical care not only cost more - but there are more procedures happening that never occurred before. For example - dealing with very premature babies. We now try to save them, at the cost of millions, especially if you factor in the cost of continuing care which some premature babies that survive need over their lifetime. 50 years ago, those babies would have died, there wouldn't have been a million dollar cost that charities would need to absorb on top of what they used to do.

If the individual wasn't subject to having their earnings seized by the federal government, there'd be more money available for people to donate and spend as THEY felt appropriate.

There would be money 'available' but that is speculation that it would go to charity. It has been shown we pretty much give the same, no matter what our 'take home pay' is. 2% isn't enough to take care of all the problems that charities would have foisted on them.

Incorrect. She was neither insured or enrolled by Medicaid at the time of her collapse.

She doesn't have to be - all states/cities/counties set aside tax money that hospitals pull from for patients that can't pay. Denver General here in Denver is a huge part of the City and County of Denver's budget. Taxes pay for those who can't.

I don't think you should be forced to pay for her choices at all.
You're the authoritarian who supports forced redistribution of wealth, not me.

I do pay - maybe you don't understand how hospitals work - they get paid for their care for indigent, poor, uncovered, by the government - be it fed/state/city/county.

Before social security, family members were expected to take care of each other. And now, they don't. Now, people are comfortable expecting "society" and the government to assume that responsibility.

That is partially true-but as society was changing in the early part of the 20th century - people weren't taking care of their aging family members. That was before SS. Many older American were basically abandoned by their families. Society changed before SS happened. SS was in response to the changes in society regarding the elderly and how we treat them.

And with that, people feel as though they are absolved of the personal responsibility that they previously had passing off their families to the state. This weakens the family and strengthens the government.

You say that the society doesn't "expect" that responsibility, but you fail to note that the expectation has been taught. It's the result of bad, unsustainable federal policy.

Once again Cal - SS was a reaction to society, not the other way around. In the 30s America was abandoning the elderly, people couldn't take care of their aging parents... people weren't saving for retirement.

...you force me to save for retirement. And the federal government is granted that power WHERE in the constitution? You tell me. It's not a very long document, you should be able to find it if it exists. It's not like the Obamacare bill..

Well, first of all, you have no right to force me to prepare for anything. But more importantly, social security IS NOT a retirement program. It was sold as an insurance program INCASE you outlived you're money, you'd have some ability to subside. That's not the case anymore.

Furthermore, because the life expectancy is so much higher now, people on SSI take out much, much more than they ever put in.

And lastly, it's a vote buying, dependency creating, government expanding, liberty stealing pyramid scheme.

Once again - I don't like it - but I also don't like to pay for someone else's retirement, which is what would happen again, if not for SS.

According to the article, she wasn't enrolled in medicaid.
But again, nice try.

Do you think private funds paid for her care - I doubt it. I bet it was state or city funds... Do you have a place where we can look - their operating budget/income statements? I can't find those... I can for Denver General...$212 million dollars from the city. The city pays for all that care that no one else pays for.

These charities are all larger than the Catholic Charities USA.

I didn't say that Catholic Charities was the largest charity - I said it was the largest 'church' charity - you listed the church as one of the charities that should absorb the costs of helping people. So, what do other church charities (maybe ones that pass the cal barometer of political correctness) say...

Even physicians are pulling back from charity care...

And the government has to sponsor faith based care now - with Bush's programs...

Once again Cal - we could slash taxes entirely, and we just wouldn't give enough. That is because we give only x amount of money - and x won't cut it any more - there are too many demands on charities.

So who's paying it when the government picks up the tab?

Me - and you. Because if it isn't done this way it would just be me. And 'me' can't do it alone. (hypothetically).

And then we would decry that the government is letting people die anyway.

Why do you presume we are not responsible?
And if our broader culture is no longer responsible, what do you think that is in response to? What do you think would be the contributing factor taking a culture that was define for it's rugged independence and self-reliance to one that you think is dependent upon the government to support them through forced redistribution of wealth?

I think we aren't anything like our 'rugged individualist' forefathers. People change. We aren't like our serf ancestors on the European plain either.

We won't give enough to charity to close the gap.

Big spenders like Barrack Obama, who despite earning about $5.5 MILLION dollars last year, only donated $329,000 to charity. About 6%. Of course, that's only now that he's a highly public figure, for most of the last decade, he and Michelle rarely donated more than 1% of their income.

Vice-President Biden donated just $4,820 last year.

Obama gave 1.4 million at least this year...

I think Buffett gives quite a bit - Gates gives quite a bit - they are pretty liberal, however not my friends...

And the statistics verify this. Conservatives donate a considerably higher percentage of their incomes to charity than do liberals. Why? Perhaps it's a greater sense of responsibility, maybe it's because they feel they have an obligation to do so because of religion.

I thought it had to do with secular and non secular - like you indicated in the last sentence, not with conservative and liberal. Liberal secular people give the same as conservative secular people, and conservative non secular people give as little as liberal non secular people do.

However, those that support big government, progressives like Obama and Biden often donate very little. They have passed that direct social responsibility off upon the federal government to handle, and they often have a contempt for private or church charity.

So, how do explain that Reagan gave very little to charity - and most of his contributions went to his alma mater, Illinois' Eureka College.

Contempt - supported big government, passing off social responsibility... didn't like the church?

In summary, your arguments are nonsense.

And yours cal are based in some fairytale world where we will all give to charity and we will all help our fellow man....

And I thought I was the one who liked science fiction.

 

[Calabrio]

Another response where foxpaws does little more than repeat her deconstructionist, statist bull. At this point, we can expect to see absolutely nothing more than foxpaws restating and reframe the same discredited talking points over and over, trying to find a way to package them in a way that will fool someone.

Your history regarding Medicare/Medicaid is simply not true. It was not a response to the dire conditions of the elderly or poor any moreso that Obamacare is today. Those programs were not the answer to a changing society. No, it was just another effort to radically expand the power and influence of the government and the Democrat party.

There was tremendous opposition to the program at the time it was introduced. Ronald Reagan was among the very vocal opponents.

To quote Reagan:
"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people, has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project — most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it. Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it."

The opposition was so intense, LBJ engaged in incredibly deceptive, dishonest, and unconscionable maneuvers to foist it upon the population. For example, he completely and deliberately lied to the public about it's cost. Had the public been told the truth, they bill would never have been passed.

There would be money 'available' but that is speculation that it would go to charity. It has been shown we pretty much give the same, no matter what our 'take home pay' is. 2% isn't enough to take care of all the problems that charities would have foisted on them.

Charitable giving in this country tends to be about 2.0% of GDP, not 0.2% of net earning. Nothing you say can be trusted.

She doesn't have to be - all states/cities/counties set aside tax money that hospitals pull from for patients that can't pay. Denver General here in Denver is a huge part of the City and County of Denver's budget. Taxes pay for those who can't.

Again, you absolutely can't be trusted to to tell the truth or discuss this stuff in good faith. The example I provided was very specific and was even linked.

Obama was using this woman as an example to sell his healthcare bill. Specifically, it was said that she was going to lose her home due to the expense of her health care.

My use of her as an example demonstated
1. The dishonesty of Obama and his representation of healthcare in this country.
2. The dishonesty of your claim that people without insurance or on medicaid are left without transportation to the hospital or to die infront of the door. She received excellent care and recovered despite having neither insurance or having enrolled in medicaid.
3. And the claim that she'd lose her house paying for the care AFTERWARDS was a lie too. The hospital has a private, charitable fund available for individuals with economic needs. She met those requirements.

If this were just a game and didn't ultimately have to do with my personal freedom and the sustainability of my country, I'd give you credit for your effort.

That is partially true-but as society was changing in the early part of the 20th century - people weren't taking care of their aging family members.

Would you care to provide some evidence or information to support this claim? You've said it several times, but it simply isn't true.
You also fail to address how social security was passed in the THIRTIES. So when were all of these aging family people being abandoned?

If anything, you can attribute any of evidence of that absolvement of personal and family responsibility to the New Deal policies of the 30s. Further undermining your point and strengthening mine.

That was before SS. Many older American were basically abandoned by their families

So, according to you, there was an epidemic of old people being abandoned in the between 1930 and 1934. A problem so severe that FDR had to establish SSI in 1935- a program that only offered payment to seniors over the age of 62, despite the fact the average life expectancy of men was only 58 for men and 61 for women??

As stated, foxpaws, you simply can't be trusted for the truth.
Either your a liar, or you've been led and believe the deconstructionist bullcrap and leftist propaganda you repeat here.

Factual history tells a different story then the one you've constructed.

In the 30s America was abandoning the elderly, people couldn't take care of their aging parents... people weren't saving for retirement.

As I stated, SSI was passed in 1935.
You're simply not telling the truth here.

Once again Cal - we could slash taxes entirely, and we just wouldn't give enough. That is because we give only x amount of money - and x won't cut it any more - there are too many demands on charities.

You refuse to answer this point.
Yo insist that people won't voluntarily fund necessary programs, but somehow the government can perform these functions with tax dollars? Noting the incredible inefficiency and cost of government, 'enough' seems to reach the programs that you feel need financing though.

So, instead of giving money directly to the causes that I think are important, you think it's proper for the government to steal the money from me at gunpoint, take a huge percentage of it, then give a little bit to the individual or cause in need.

You endorse the theft of my liberty and life in order to fund programs that YOU think are necessary.

That's not freedom.

Me - and you. Because if it isn't done this way it would just be me. And 'me' can't do it alone. (hypothetically).

Again, you presume the necesssary charity won't take place if people have free will. Instead, we need authoritarians like you to demand and force us to fund the causes YOU think are important and necessary.

You don't care about liberty.
You don't have any respect for our rights as individuals or the constitution.

Fossten is absolutely right. You are an authoritarian.
You are a statist.

And then we would decry that the government is letting people die anyway.

No "we" wouldn't.
I don't expect the federal government to step in an solve the problems we face in society. I think that we as individuals and as local community should resolve them ourselves.

You however think that the rest of us are too stupid, too ill-intentioned, or just simply not enlightened enough for our own good, and that we need the all powerful, benevolent hand of government dictating our lives, redistributing our life's work, and creating you bastardized utopia that historically always ends up resulting in a hell on earth.

I think we aren't anything like our 'rugged individualist' forefathers. People change. We aren't like our serf ancestors on the European plain either.

I disagree.

We won't give enough to charity to close the gap.

That's according to you.
And what "gap" needs to be filled and who are you to use the dangerous power of government to demand where I spend my money and who and what I must support?

The reality is, private charity can do the work of the federal government for a tiny fraction of the cost. The waste, corruption, fraud, and bureaucracy of government makes it criminally inefficient at addressing small issues of need.

But more importantly, yet another question you conspicuously REFUSE to answer..... WHERE DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GET THE POWER OR AUTHORITY TO PERFORM THESE so-called CHARITABLE ROLES?? Where in the constitution does the federal government get the power to run health care or mandate that I buy a specific insurance policy? Where did the founding fathers establish social security insurance?

And just as importantly, you clearly seem to think that societal evolution means that we need to progress into some kind of authoritarian socialism or communism. I disagree. I'll keep my liberty, I'll refrain from drinking the kool-aid and pursuing your hellish utopia, in the meantime, you can move to Europe.

Obama gave 1.4 million at least this year...

I provided the link of Obama and Biden's charitable giving.
The $1.4M you reference was the award for his worthless nobel peace prize. He never received the money so it doesn't count.

I think Buffett gives quite a bit - Gates gives quite a bit - they are pretty liberal, however not my friends...

Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published the book"Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." Some of his finding:

--Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

So, how do explain that Reagan gave very little to charity - and most of his contributions went to his alma mater, Illinois' Eureka College.

Why do I have to explain your claim about Ronald Reagan's charitable spending? I have nothing to confirm it, nor anything to base an opinion on. Based on your history, I certainly won't be taking your word for it.

Here's a website with all of the Presidential tax histories posted.
http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns

And yours cal are based in some fairytale world where we will all give to charity and we will all help our fellow man....

No, it's based on personal responsibility.
We ALL won't give to charity. And we ALL won't give equally.
But it's my RIGHT to decide where my life's work goes.

I have a finite number of days on this Earth. I spend them working to earn money.

It is unconscionable when you, or your proxy in the government, robs me of that wealth, in order to pursue some social agenda against my will.

And I thought I was the one who liked science fiction.

If only you had that same passion for liberty, freedom, and the constitution.

 

[foxpaws]

The opposition was so intense, LBJ engaged in incredibly deceptive, dishonest, and unconscionable maneuvers to foist it upon the population. For example, he completely and deliberately lied to the public about it's cost. Had the public been told the truth, they bill would never have been passed.

You act as though it was an LBJ program - it was a JFK program. LBJ just ran with Kennedy's agenda, as he did with most things.

And at the time of Kennedy the AMA was against it. The AMA has wavered back and forth on this issue since the beginning of the 20th century. Now of course, they like it.

At the time of Kennedy/LBJ the people were in favor of it-around 62%. Kennedy didn't lie about the need for Medicare. The people knew how much healthcare for the elderly was costing them, because they were paying for it themselves, or their children where shouldering the cost. They saw the writing on the wall - that there was no way they could keep up with the rising costs, and continue to provide for their elderly family members.

Charitable giving in this country tends to be about 2.0% of GDP, not 0.2% of net earning. Nothing you say can be trusted.

I know- I was the one that gave you that figure Cal - it was late - I mistyped...

My use of her as an example demonstated
1. The dishonesty of Obama and his representation of healthcare in this country.
2. The dishonesty of your claim that people without insurance or on medicaid are left without transportation to the hospital or to die infront of the door. She received excellent care and recovered despite having neither insurance or having enrolled in medicaid.
3. And the claim that she'd lose her house paying for the care AFTERWARDS was a lie too. The hospital has a private, charitable fund available for individuals with economic needs. She met those requirements.

So, since I really don't know much about this case - as I stated earlier - do you have a link. I would really like to find out about the hospital's charitable fund, and see if it is from state/city/county money or if it is from private donations.

Often it is from only public funds, but there certainly are hospitals that operate with privately donated funds as far as charity cases are concerned. And there are plenty that use both.

Would you care to provide some evidence or information to support this claim? You've said it several times, but it simply isn't true.
You also fail to address how social security was passed in the THIRTIES. So when were all of these aging family people being abandoned?

ah, I know when SS was passed... from my earlier post...

Once again Cal - SS was a reaction to society, not the other way around. In the 30s America was abandoning the elderly, people couldn't take care of their aging parents... people weren't saving for retirement.

So, according to you, there was an epidemic of old people being abandoned in the between 1930 and 1934. A problem so severe that FDR had to establish SSI in 1935- a program that only offered payment to seniors over the age of 62, despite the fact the average life expectancy of men was only 58 for men and 61 for women??

As stated, foxpaws, you simply can't be trusted for the truth.
Either your a liar, or you've been led and believe the deconstructionist bullcrap and leftist propaganda you repeat here.

Factual history tells a different story then the one you've constructed.

As I stated, SSI was passed in 1935.
You're simply not telling the truth here.

I know - I stated the catalysis was the Depression - there had been other programs on the table earlier - but the problem really came to a head in the depression, and something had to be done. The age thing I believe was a compromise at the time with congress... and life expectancy at that time was 62/63... The program wasn't designed to help people in their 50s, who still probably had income, but to help older people, without income.

You endorse the theft of my liberty and life in order to fund programs that YOU think are necessary.

That's not freedom.

What you do Cal, is say that we will fix this problem with private funds. That isn't even feasible any longer. I don't pretend, you do. Plus, I also acknowledge that the government will be required to pay the shortfall. You don't even think there will be a shortfall.

There is no way private contributions can make up the difference. Look at what we spend on medicaid and medicare - 642 billion. Take out 1/4 of it for admin cost... 482 billion dollars...

All of our charitable contributions last year (more about that later...) came to 288 billion dollars....

Are we really going to give many times as much as we do right now - just to stay even. No we aren't...

The reality is, private charity can do the work of the federal government for a tiny fraction of the cost. The waste, corruption, fraud, and bureaucracy of government makes it criminally inefficient at addressing small issues of need.

'small issue of need’ - are you joking.... the problem is huge.

I provided the link of Obama and Biden's charitable giving.
The $1.4M you reference was the award for his worthless nobel peace prize. He never received the money so it doesn't count.

He received the money - he could have kept it - he donated it. Why argue this point? Because it makes Obama seem more charitable? Whether or not you agree with the prize... he gave his money to charity.

Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published the book"Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." Some of his finding:

so, let's look at Brooks...

Here is a quote from the book...
"So how do liberals and conservatives compare in their charity? When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer."

I would advise you not to use Brooks unless you have read the book.

Charitable giving… what it breaks down in Brooks book is Red States vs Blue States and Church donations vs Secular donations…

So the ‘Red states’ – read conservatives - give slightly more in money to charity.

Now the real difference comes into play.

Who do they give money to – overwhelmingly to the Church.

Can you really count that? Who does the church give money to? The church. Over 90% of contributions to the church are merely for church expenses, programs and things for their parishioners. Building funds, landscape fees, Sunday School supplies, salaries and benefits, church camp for teenagers, missionary expenses, bibles to children in Africa… the list is endless. Only around 10% goes to charities – such as feeding the poor, curing the sick, making available small children to be adopted by Madonna…

Now, the left states give to things like the arts – once again, not really a charity as we are discussing here. No one who is starving gets fed when the Met gets a million dollar grant.

It is almost impossible to show who gives more, because of the types of charities both sides give to – as my quote shows – and the difference is minute.

But regarding the whole how much we give, and how much we will need to give. It is estimated that well over 1/2 of the money given in this country is given to charities that do not benefit the poor directly. It is given to animal shelters, the church, MOMA, etc…

And of the remaining 1/2 that is given to people in need, about 1/4 of it goes overseas.

So if you look at the numbers realistically – less than .75% of the GDP goes to ‘people in need’ in this country. Do you thing that people will actually give over 5 times more to charity then they do now to make up the difference if the government steps away?

Why do I have to explain your claim about Ronald Reagan's charitable spending? I have nothing to confirm it, nor anything to base an opinion on. Based on your history, I certainly won't be taking your word for it.

Here's a website with all of the Presidential tax histories posted.
http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns

You were the one that brought up presidential charitable giving… You were the one that implied that Dems are bad because they don’t give… however what happens when the tables are turned. Reagan didn’t give… So is he bad?

I had gone through this exercise before…

If you take top line income… Reagan gave about 3% of his income during his presidential years – it is hard to find anything else, because they didn’t require as much disclosure back then…

Clinton – once again taking top line income, during presidential years – 29%, almost 10 times the amount Reagan gave. Does this imply that Clinton was a much better man than Reagan – that is what it sounds like you believe Cal.

Those are the ones I am familiar with – I know the Bushes (dad and son) gave a lot, they are big givers… Nixon – I don’t think very much… Carter, sort of in between…

But, if you are going to say how terrible Obama is, you should also look at Reagan – not the most charitable of men.

And Obama will go way up with his 1.4 million contribution…

No, it's based on personal responsibility.
We ALL won't give to charity. And we ALL won't give equally.
But it's my RIGHT to decide where my life's work goes.

I have a finite number of days on this Earth. I spend them working to earn money.

It is unconscionable when you, or your proxy in the government, robs me of that wealth, in order to pursue some social agenda against my will.

My days are as finite as yours, the amount of money I earn is finite as well…

However, I am a realist, unlike you Cal. In your world we will give enough – somehow.

In my world I know that it is an impossibility… totally… So, rather than watch people die (which we will) because of lack of medical care, I would rather support them via tax dollars. This way the burden is spread evenly, and there will be enough money.

On charity alone – there won’t be enough money – and there will be plenty of people who will never give, and yet, when they need charity for health reasons, they will be a burden on those same charities they refused to give to earlier in their life.

The government taxes everyone, including that freeloader named above. While he is employed he is contributing to a pool of money that will be used for his health care later…

If only you had that same passion for liberty, freedom, and the constitution.

And if only you understand the realities of the situation instead of some right wing dream where people will give enough to support the ill and elderly in this country.

Look at the figures Cal – it just can’t be done, there is no way people will give that much of their income away. Even if taxes are slashed, it has been shown that about 2% of gdp is what people give, regardless of tax burden.

There is no way we would give the amount that would be necessary.

I would rather not be forced to support a social agenda that I approve of, let alone one I don’t approve of. However I realize that if at some point everyone is forced to contribute, than I won’t be sending even more money to the problem later.

The people won’t allow the elderly to go hungry, they won’t allow the sick to go untreated, however, they won’t give their money to those causes in amounts that would make a difference. That day has passed Cal – wake up. They will question why the government isn’t doing it. So, then, the government will do it, and all those people will just be taking my money once again – with no contributions from themselves.

 

[Calabrio]

You act as though it was an LBJ program - it was a JFK program. LBJ just ran with Kennedy's agenda, as he did with most things.

Your playing fast and loose with the facts again, foxpaws.
But you don't have any shame.

Kennedy was dead in 1965. And the idea of some kind of Medicare can easily be traced back to Truman, and indirectly to the Progressives that preceded him. That's not the point.

After LBJ won election in '64, he aggressively pursued Medicare.

There was an article by NPR during the Obamacare debate that said that LBJ should be used as a model in their take-over.

To quote James Morone, the co-author of The Heart of Power: Health and Politics in the Oval Office,

Johnson maneuvered every step of the way getting this bill through Congress, and one of the things he did — and this is a little dicey in today's climate — was suppress the costs. So this young kid gets elected from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, in 1962, and Johnson is explaining to him [over the phone] how you get a health bill through. And what he tells him is don't let them get the costs projected too far out because it will scare other people:

"A health program yesterday runs $300 million, but the fools had to go to projecting it down the road five or six years, and when you project it the first year, it runs $900 million. Now I don't know whether I would approve $900 million second year or not. I might approve 450 or 500. But the first thing Dick Russell comes running in saying, 'My God, you've got a billion-dollar program for next year on health, therefore I'm against any of it now.' Do you follow me?"​

We believe, after looking at the evidence, my co-author [David Blumenthal] and I, that if the true cost of Medicare had been known — if Johnson hadn't basically hidden them — the program would never have passed. America's second-most beloved program would never have happened, if we had had genuine cost estimates.

And at the time of Kennedy the AMA was against it. The AMA has wavered back and forth on this issue since the beginning of the 20th century. Now of course, they like it.

Your right, back then the AMA started "Operation Coffeecup" a marketing campaign with Ronald Reagan rightly identifying medicare as a socialist plan.

That's where this came from:
YouTube- Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

But that was 50 years.
Now, the AMA is a left leaning organization with declining membership.

I know- I was the one that gave you that figure Cal - it was late - I mistyped...

You didn't provide me anything, foxpaws.
Pardon me if I can't differentiate one of your lies from your typos.

So, since I really don't know much about this case - as I stated earlier - do you have a link.

..you don't know much about it, but you sure have been willing to argue about it....

And I'm pretty sure I included a link the first time I mentioned the story in post #48.

What you do Cal, is say that we will fix this problem with private funds.

I've already explained this.

It is wrong for you to seize my earnings, my life's work, in order to fund "causes" that YOU think are worthy.

I will decide what problems I support and work to fix. I will do it alone, with friends, through the church, with organizations, or if necessary through local and state government.

I don't desire to live in a false utopia that robs me of my identify, my individualism, and my liberty in pursuit of YOUR greater good. And I don't live in a country that was founded on those false principles that you insist must be forced upon me at the gunpoint of a federal officer.....

I really think this discussion is over.
I'm really sick of having to repeat myself over and over again so you can think of new ways to try to spread mistruths, lies, and propagandize..

 

[foxpaws]

You didn't provide me anything, foxpaws.
Pardon me if I can't differentiate one of your lies from your typos.

post 49 -
There are interesting studies on the amount of charitable dollars out there. It is sort of fixed based on overall gdp, I believe in the 2% range.

and Canfield - the Cleveland Clinic is getting paid through medicaid, government assistance...

I will decide what problems I support and work to fix. I will do it alone, with friends, through the church, with organizations, or if necessary through local and state government.

I don't desire to live in a false utopia that robs me of my identify, my individualism, and my liberty in pursuit of YOUR greater good. And I don't live in a country that was founded on those false principles that you insist must be forced upon me at the gunpoint of a federal officer.....

and you will watch people die because they can't afford health care... you will watch the old die in poverty... because we do not take care of our weak, our infirm and our elderly.

YouTube- JFK Defending Medicare (1960)

YouTube- PRESIDENT KENNEDY at MADISON SQUARE GARDEN PART 1

 

[fossten]

and you will watch people die because they can't afford health care... you will watch the old die in poverty... because we do not take care of our weak, our infirm and our elderly.

Talk about demonization...

Every once in a while, in the midst of your boring, wordy walls of text, your true nature reveals itself. Your personal attacks are disgusting. This is such a lame talking point because we all know you don't believe a word of it. It's simply a logically flawed appeal to emotion designed to garner guilt for the purpose of justifying more legalized government generational theft.

NOTHING YOU SAY IS TRUE.

If you truly cared so much about the elderly, weak, and infirm, you'd do something about it YOURSELF instead of buying overly expensive and pretentious shoes. Personal responsibility, my ass. You just want to force others to pay for your conscience. You're a pathetic hypocrite.

I am unmoved by your pathetic smears, statist.

FAIL.

 

[foxpaws]

Talk about demonization...

Every once in a while, in the midst of your boring, wordy walls of text, your true nature reveals itself. Your personal attacks are disgusting. This is such a lame talking point because we all know you don't believe a word of it. It's simply a logically flawed appeal to emotion designed to garner guilt for the purpose of justifying more legalized government generational theft.

NOTHING YOU SAY IS TRUE.

If you truly cared so much about the elderly, weak, and infirm, you'd do something about it YOURSELF instead of buying overly expensive and pretentious shoes. Personal responsibility, my ass. You just want to force others to pay for your conscience. You're a pathetic hypocrite.

I am unmoved by your pathetic smears, statist.

FAIL.

I am sure you are moved by Cal's impassioned plea 'don't take my liberty, don't take my money'...

You should read "The Cheating Culture" a really great book by David Callahan, and a good look into why we will never give enough charitable funds to support the needy in this country... Greed. We will do anything - cheat, lie, steal to get money, and we aren't giving any of it away.

Just as Cal said - don't take my money - it is mine, I earned it. I am greedy... Our culture is one of greed and mine - we would never give enough money to support the poor and needy, it isn't part of our society any longer. Any attempt by the right to say that we would, we would open our hearts and our wallets to the hidden problems of senior poverty and the ill health of the poor is denying the very fabric of the society that greed has created. Our society.

The near silence of our political system on this issue is testament to the dark side of American exceptionalism: among industrialized democracies, only in the United States would an elderly entitlement program that left one of five seniors in poverty or near poverty be viewed as a success.

Indeed, America's indifference to the elderly poor is perhaps the single best indicator of the limits of compassion in this country. Beyond plain callousness and fiscal stinginess, there is no good explanation for why so many of the elderly are consigned to poverty.
- David Callahan​

 

[Calabrio]

First of all, I take offense at your repeated claim that people in our country are so cruel that those people who genuinely need and ask for our help will be ignored.

According to you, without massive, inefficiency, corrupt, government involved in every aspect of our lives, we'd literally have people littering the streets dead. Dying on the stoops of hospitals, trapped in their homes an apartments dying because they can't get a ride to the doctor.

And using your logic, I guess this is would be doubly bad, because without massive government involvement, no one would around to pick up all those dead bodies too. We'd all just step over the rotting corpses, moving them just far enough out of the way to get the front doors open to our private homes and offices?

There are selfish people, there are generous people. You keep talking about how our country has changed. The only thing that has changed is that the our culture has been conditioned BY THE GOVERNMENT to expect it to perform these roles in our society. If addressed now, that gradual change can be turned back.

"somebody should do something about that" is a concept that really only came into being during the 20th century, after Progressive, authoritarian statists, much like yourself, were able to trick people into trading their liberty for the promise of less responsibility.

Here's a little historical reference.
In 1887, President Grover Cleveland vetoed the "Texas Seed Bill". This was a $10,000 federal appropriations bill for drought victims in Texas. The purpose of the bill was to allow the Commissioner of Agriculture to purchase seeds for the farmers living in the areas of Texas most severely affected by the drought.

This is what President Cleveland said in his veto message:

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.....

“the friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied on to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune,” and indeed that “individual aid has to some extent already been extended to the sufferers mentioned in this bill.”​

Cleveland went on to stress the importance of charity. If these congressmen were so motivated, they could reallocate the seeds designated for their communities, or rely on the charity of the American people to help out the Texans.

So, in the end, the Texans DID get their relief.
Private donations came in, ten times MORE than what was being proposed by the federal government.

An expansion of government like we've seen means that people no longer recognize their social or civic responsibility. Instead, they become to look to government to perform that role.

If anything, foxpaws, what you're arguing is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more we continue to expand government, the dependent and irresponsible the culture becomes. The government didn't respond to any social apathy and depency, they are CREATING it.

I am sure you are moved by Cal's impassioned plea 'don't take my liberty, don't take my money'...

It's incredible how you marginalize this.
It's incredible and extremely telling about what you think is important.

Just as Cal said - don't take my money - it is mine, I earned it. I am greedy...

No one said anything about greed, I spoke about freedom and charity.

No one gives me my money, my wealth, my properties. I trade my life for my income. I have a finite amount of each. And I will decide how it is spent or redistributed, NOT you. Not according to YOUR priorities.

That is not greed. And your effort to demonize and misrepresent it as such is offensive, to put it politely.

The expenses of the states social welfare system is not representative of the actual NEEDS of a community. Those are political constructs full of vote buying, inefficiency, corruption, and waste.

Also, you have not, nor have you every, explained to me where does the federal government get the constitutional authority to redistribute my wealth? Where does the federal government get the constitutional authority to steal from me in order to support causes that you and your authoritarian friends think are important?

And the other important pragmatic point is, disregarding principles or morality, we simply can't afford it.
To quote Margrett Thatcher, "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."

We can't afford the pursuit of your hellish, tyrannical utopia. The bills coming due for the past century and we can't afford it, unfortunately, statists like you are doubling down on the failed policies of the 20th century.


AND TO TIE THIS ALL BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE THREAD...
This so-called benevolent interest in helping the downtrodden not only robs me off my liberty through the forced redistribution of my property.
But it gives authoritarian, progressives, like you foxpaws, a justification for dictating every other aspect of my life.
If we are all tied together, as you desire, then we have NO independence. We operate as a collective, not as individuals.
I am then not allowed to "be stupid" as the Penn article spoke or to simply fail on my own.

And the only way to arrive at a country in America's footprint like the one you advance, foxpaws, is to dismantle and dismiss the constitution. Because those founding documents didn't establish a country like that, nor would the population knowingly go along with it. This is why those Progressives and statists have to advance their cause in the shadow or indoctrinate children. By demonizing arguments like mine for responsibility and charity as "greed." For macabre examples where, if not for the power of the "benevolent state" and "enlightened, authoritarians" like foxpaws, the streets would be littered with poor people dying of illness.

Then again, maybe it all about project. Maybe foxpaws would spend all her money on shoes and the pursuit of selfish pleasure if not for the guiding hand of the government. Most liberals I know say, "I'd rather pay more in taxes and have THEM take care of those people." They pass off that responsibility to the government, and having supported a candidate that also supports wasteful social welfare, they convince themselves that their true social responsibility has been met.

The reliance on government is unhealthy. It's a cancer in this country and it undermines the principles that America was founded on.

There's an example I was once told that resonates. It compares the response of a community when a tree falls down and blocks the road into town in a french village contrasted with an American one. In the french village, everyone in the town stands around the tree and spends days waiting for the government to finally arrive and clear it for them. In America, the towns people go inside, gets their axe, and they immediately remove the tree themselves.

Foxpaws seems to think that Americans won't do the work anymore, that they won't care about their communities. That they have and will gladly trade their liberty for the convenience of that government crew to remove the fallen tree.

Sadly, in some communities, that may be true. foxpaws and her fellow travellers have been effective at weakening our culture, or constitution, and creating a perpetually dependent class.

But we still have core American values, we are still closer in spirit to the frontiersmen and women who braved the oceans or participated in the wagon drive out west than the serfs of Europe answer to a ruling class. I'm sure foxpaws thinks she'll be in that ruling class, the politburo if you will. And that's why you're seeing TeaParties, 9/12 Groups, and the increased push back from the public towards her creeping tyranny.

 

[fossten]

I am sure you are moved by Cal's impassioned plea 'don't take my liberty, don't take my money'...

You should read "The Cheating Culture" a really great book by David Callahan, and a good look into why we will never give enough charitable funds to support the needy in this country... Greed. We will do anything - cheat, lie, steal to get money, and we aren't giving any of it away.

On the contrary, Cal's appeal is to logic and common sense. Yours is toward guilt and emotion.

And you should read Atlas Shrugged. I don't believe you ever cracked it open.

And although you just admitted that you will cheat, lie, and steal to get money, I will not do those things. You're a liberal - I expect that from you. Your fellow liberals in Congress do that every day, after all.

 

[cammerfe]

Actually, I DO have the right to kill others. But not at random. The circumstances are, properly, narrowly defined. But certainly not non-existent.
KS

 

[foxpaws]

On the contrary, Cal's appeal is to logic and common sense. Yours is toward guilt and emotion.

And you should read Atlas Shrugged. I don't believe you ever cracked it open.

And although you just admitted that you will cheat, lie, and steal to get money, I will not do those things. You're a liberal - I expect that from you. Your fellow liberals in Congress do that every day, after all.

Really - how do I lie, cheat and steal to get my money...

And how you continue to bow at the altar of Rand is amazing - to make her society work, you have to get rid of God foss - it doesn't work any other way. Insert God into Atlas Shrugged and it falls apart.

And your charity comment of earlier. You have no idea of how many non-profit, charitable boards I sit on, you have no idea of how much time I give to charity, you have no idea of how I monetarily support charity.

Part of the reason I know that we won't support charity, is because I see it all the time. I head fundraising efforts for charity, and while it has always been a uphill battle, in the last few years it has become oppressive. No one gives anymore, because of the economy, and the greed that our country glorifies. Now, when there are more people than ever that need our help - the funds have dried up.

Cal doesn't understand that the safetynet of government programs are at their most important during difficult times. Without government grants many charities would be turning away people. And the difference wouldn't be made up in individual contributions - those have dried up because people don't have money - and those that do are holding on to it because of fear.

People's own retirement accounts have taken a beating - and they aren't opening their wallets to help out those people who have retired who have almost nothing now. They are saving as much as they can for themselves. Plus - they now have to give to 'Save the Pandas'.

First of all, I take offense at your repeated claim that people in our country are so cruel that those people who genuinely need and ask for our help will be ignored.

Fine, you don't work in inner city charities and you don't see people who really need our help, who ask for it and are turned away. I do. And it isn't cruelty- it is not knowing the problem exists, turning away from the problem, and being more concerned with your problems and your wealth and your position in society.

There are selfish people, there are generous people. You keep talking about how our country has changed. The only thing that has changed is that the our culture has been conditioned BY THE GOVERNMENT to expect it to perform these roles in our society. If addressed now, that gradual change can be turned back.

We have moved from a agricultural, small town society to a big city industrial/technological based society. We don't see our neighbor who needs help. Because we have isolated ourselves. That is what has changed - and it won't change back.

We no longer go to our little church in town. We no longer see that the Millers need our help because John lost his job. We no longer go over to their house with a casserole, and maybe slip some money to Mrs. Miller, because we know John is too proud to take our money. We no longer pack an extra lunch for Tom Miller, because we know he will only have a butter sandwich.

It isn't because we wouldn't - it is because we no longer know the Millers...

Now we drive through the slums of Detroit which look like burned out war zones, and the problem is overwhelming... It no longer is personal - it is societal.

Those days are gone forever Cal - we no longer live in that type of society.

You even had to go back to 1887 to find your example... People are too isolated to know that their next door neighbor needs help - and when they see the poor in the inner city, or the old in slum like apartments, the problem is too massive. We understood the Millers-we don't understand west side Detroit.

Plus, now we have far more charities competing for those few dollars - do we give to the local food bank, or do we give to save the snail darter?

Government was answering societal needs - not the other way around. Society wasn't giving enough - so government stepped in. This lack of giving wasn't caused by the government - it was caused by the shift in our society from small town argicultural to big city industrial. Social apathy, mostly caused by the inability to see the problem because of how our culture has changed, and the sheer scope of the number of people in need has altered the way we deal with the problems of the poor, needy, infirm, sick and aged.

No one gives me my money, my wealth, my properties. I trade my life for my income. I have a finite amount of each. And I will decide how it is spent or redistributed, NOT you. Not according to YOUR priorities.

It isn't according to me - and it isn't according to my priorities - it is what we voted in. Cal you make it sound like you have no choice - you do - vote them out. I have - we have a political system where your voice is heard, your vote is counted, and you have a say in how this country is run.

These policies didn't just rise up and overtake us in the middle of the night. We voted in politicians who stated that they would work to get us a medical plan for seniors (JFK). We voted in politicians that said they would start up a retirement safety net for seniors (FDR). We voted in politicians who said they would reform healthcare (Obama). These changes, these policies were always on the table during elections. The American people speak at the polling booth, they voted in the men and their view for the future.

Your side lost. There weren't enough people that said - it is OK that seniors are dying in poverty, eating catfood, somehow charity should take care of them. There weren't enough people that said - I'll take care of grandma and her $250,000 medical bill this year. Maybe if there were - your side would have won.

This so-called benevolent interest in helping the downtrodden not only robs me off my liberty through the forced redistribution of my property.
But it gives authoritarian, progressives, like you foxpaws, a justification for dictating every other aspect of my life.
If we are all tied together, as you desire, then we have NO independence. We operate as a collective, not as individuals.
I am then not allowed to "be stupid" as the Penn article spoke or to simply fail on my own.

We are individuals functioning within a society, a society that effects all individuals. If we don't make sure the society flourishes, the individual will fail. Especially now. We aren't independent 'frontiersmen' any longer. We are a part of a complex and interwoven society, one that has risen after the movement away from an argicultural based society.

The society has a vested interest in educating the poor - because an educated workforce is more profitable for the individual within society. There are many examples like this -

We aren't rugged individualists any longer Cal. Society has dictated that change. The number of people, the finite relationship of resources to population, all dictate a change in how we view our relationship between 'haves' and 'havenots', between young and old, between successful and needy.

But we still have core American values, we are still closer in spirit to the frontiersmen and women who braved the oceans or participated in the wagon drive out west than the serfs of Europe answer to a ruling class. I'm sure foxpaws thinks she'll be in that ruling class, the politburo if you will. And that's why you're seeing TeaParties, 9/12 Groups, and the increased push back from the public towards her creeping tyranny.

We do have core American values, those haven't changed. What has changed is the role of the individual within society. Not because government has enacted change, but because of how society evolved and how the individual interacts with other individuals in that society.

300 million people. How you deal with the problems of 300 million people is quite different than how you deal with the problems of 2.5 million people.

Your old west days that Reagan portrayed on the silver screen have passed us by, and we won't be going back, no matter how nostalgic you are for them.

 

[Calabrio]

Foxpaws, the social systems you embrace fail when viewed through the context of personal liberty.

They fail when considered in terms of their economic impact, their efficiency, and their effectiveness.

So to perpetuate this system any farther is either a misguided and ignorant desire to use help people, or an evil and calculated effort to control people's lives and buy political influence through government dependency.

Part of the reason I know that we won't support charity, is because I see it all the time. I head fundraising efforts for charity, and while it has always been a uphill battle, in the last few years it has become oppressive.

What would be the cause of that?
Maybe it's because people have increasingly been told that they no longer have a personal responsibility to give to charity since the role has been abdicated when seized by the federal government.

It's an often repeated line, but it's a serious question, how charitable did you feel on April 15th?

To address a point I made earlier, back in post #50, that you chose not to address. The President that you supported, voted for, and continue to loyally defend, has proposed impose new limits on charitable tax deductions.

Obama Budget Proposal Likely to Decrease Charitable Contribution by Billions

Why would the government propose something like?
To continue to weaken charitable institutions and strengthen the role of government. To squeeze charity out of the picture.

Basically, perpetuating and strengthening the argument foxpaws has been making this entire thread. Charitable contributions are forced to shrink due to policy decisions, as a result the need for government becomes greater.

Once you see how that political movement works, it's very disturbing and quite evil.
And foxpaws is quite knowledgeable in how the game is played, and how to perpetuate that fraud. She's doing it here.
Infact, she's really one of the better propagandists I've seen.

That is what has changed - and it won't change back.....Those days are gone forever Cal - we no longer live in that type of society.

No, what has changed is the way SOME people view their relationship with government. And it's not that it won't change back, it's that you don't want it to change back.

If people no longer look to the government for their salvation or in times of need, that greatly weakens you ability to dictate how people live and shape society according to your hellish utopian image.

You even had to go back to 1887 to find your example...

I chose an example that came before the dark, regrettable, Progressive era.

People are too isolated to know that their next door neighbor needs help - let alone the poor in the inner city, or the old in slum like apartments.

How much money did the public raise to help rescue Haiti?
Americans donated $528,000,000 to Haiti through charity.
So this repeated indictment of the charitable nature of Americans is offense.

There isn't a single leg supporting your argument that holds up to scrutiny, other than YOUR desire to use the power of government to force people to support causes YOU think are important, and to dictate how they live their lives.

It isn't according to me - and it isn't according to my priorities - it is what we voted in

You say that, but I've demonstrated that all of these massive federal social programs are always passed through political trickery and lies.

As I posted earlier, LBJ lied and mislead about the cost of the program while exploiting an emotional appeal.
Obama, despite the public opposition to Obamacare, has also engaged in a very active campaign of lies, dishonest emotional appeals, and accounting and finance fraud to mislead the public on the cost. And they wrote and negotiated the deal behind closed doors.

But that's how progressive authoritarians work.

These policies didn't just rise up and overtake us in the middle of the night.

No, you've relied on incrementalism.

We voted in politicians

Who lie and cheat and hold the public and the constitution in contempt.
Look at yourself. You're completely unwilling to have an open and honest debate about the viability of the programs you support, and you come from a political culture that embraces it.

The people who have advanced this agenda DO NOT do it in an open and honest way. They do not engage in thoughtful open debate. In this thread, I've demonstrated how past administrations have lied to the public in order to get their political expansions through and I've pointed out scores of your lies and deceptive tricks.

Your side lost.

This is your fall back position now. Not arguing the merit, but an attempt to close the debate saying it's already over.
Will your next post be an effort to play the victim card or to exploit your gender in an attempt for sympathy?

it is OK that seniors are dying in poverty, eating catfood, somehow charity should take care of them.

And then you fall back into the classic, Democrat scare tactics of old people choosing catfood or medicine.
You're perpetrating a fraud, foxpaws, and I really think you've been exposed as such, again.

We are individuals functioning within a society, a society that effects all individuals. If we don't make sure the society flourishes, the individual will fail. Especially now. We aren't independent 'frontiersmen' any longer. We are a part of a complex and interwoven society, one that has risen after the movement away from an agricultural based society.

You're still wrong.
Maybe in your circle of fellow travelers that may be the case and there are cities that have been enslaved by your toxic, dangerous, and liberty stealing ideology. But the rest of the country rejects it.

You've been effective at hiding your agenda. At working in the shadows with your creeping marxist philosophies, and you've had some success. People naively looked the other way out of convenience. But there's a reason why you flee from labels. There's a reason why you act so insulted when called an authoritarian or associated with Marxism. There's a reason why you lie, reassuring yourself that the ends justify it your actions.

It's because once people are aware of what you are foisting upon them ,and what the real cost is- more than just the economic devastation- the loss of liberty, the radical transformation of their culture and country, they reject your agenda and they reject YOU.

We aren't rugged individualists any longer Cal. Society has dictated that change. The number of people, the finite relationship of resources to population, all dictate a change in how we view our relationship between 'haves' and 'havenots', between young and old, between successful and needy.

Fortunately, you are wrong foxpaws.
And the teaparties are just the first sign of that. As people become aware of what you and your travelers are doing to our country, they reject it. And it's only going to become more intense and loud.

We do have core American values, those haven't changed. What has changed is the role of the individual within society.

No it hasn't.
But you think the individual is subordinate to the collective. That's an concept that diminishes the individual profoundly unamerican.

Not because government has enacted change, but because of how society evolved and how the individual interacts with other individuals in that society.

So you think we will evolve, or PROGRESS, towards socialism.

Your old west days that Reagan portrayed on the silver screen have passed us by, and we won't be going back, no matter how nostalgic you are for them.

Your very wrong.
And the marixist prison that you hope to control this population with is dangerous and it's being exposed. And once regular people, people who might not spend as much time or energy involved in these issues as I do, see what is happening they will reject it. And they will be pissed that you've been stealing their freedom.

Given enough time, even someone like you can't keep up the charade indefinitely.... eventually you slip up and exposure yourself for what you really are.. Just like you have in this thread.

Have a nice afternoon. Enjoy it.
Because you're on the wrong side of history.

 

[fossten]

Really - how do I lie, cheat and steal to get my money...

You said it, not me.

And how you continue to bow at the altar of Rand is amazing - to make her society work, you have to get rid of God foss - it doesn't work any other way. Insert God into Atlas Shrugged and it falls apart.

I don't have to do any such thing. And the way you worship at the altar of Marx is stunning.

And your charity comment of earlier. You have no idea of how many non-profit, charitable boards I sit on, you have no idea of how much time I give to charity, you have no idea of how I monetarily support charity.

Don't care. Your desire to steal from me to feed your conscience is evil. Suck on that.

Part of the reason I know that we won't support charity, is because I see it all the time. I head fundraising efforts for charity, and while it has always been a uphill battle, in the last few years it has become oppressive. No one gives anymore, because of the economy, and the greed that our country glorifies. Now, when there are more people than ever that need our help - the funds have dried up.

We got it, you hate America.

Cal doesn't understand that the safetynet of government programs are at their most important during difficult times. Without government grants many charities would be turning away people. And the difference wouldn't be made up in individual contributions - those have dried up because people don't have money - and those that do are holding on to it because of fear.

People don't have money BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT. Get that through your thick, Stalinist skull.

People's own retirement accounts have taken a beating - and they aren't opening their wallets to help out those people who have retired who have almost nothing now. They are saving as much as they can for themselves. Plus - they now have to give to 'Save the Pandas'.

You can thank Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, both government Democrat thugs, for that situation. Physician, heal thyself.

Fine, you don't work in inner city charities and you don't see people who really need our help, who ask for it and are turned away. I do. And it isn't cruelty- it is not knowing the problem exists, turning away from the problem, and being more concerned with your problems and your wealth and your position in society.

Cry me a freaking river, fox. You still haven't made your case that the same organization that bankrupted medicare can deliver a viable solution. :bowrofl:

We have moved from a agricultural, small town society to a big city industrial/technological based society. We don't see our neighbor who needs help. Because we have isolated ourselves. That is what has changed - and it won't change back.

Forcing people to give up their property for your bleeding heart causes won't fix the problem either.

We no longer go to our little church in town. We no longer see that the Millers need our help because John lost his job. We no longer go over to their house with a casserole, and maybe slip some money to Mrs. Miller, because we know John is too proud to take our money. We no longer pack an extra lunch for Tom Miller, because we know he will only have a butter sandwich.

It isn't because we wouldn't - it is because we no longer know the Millers...

Now we drive through the slums of Detroit which look like burned out war zones, and the problem is overwhelming... It no longer is personal - it is societal.

Those days are gone forever Cal - we no longer live in that type of society.

You even had to go back to 1887 to find your example... People are too isolated to know that their next door neighbor needs help - and when they see the poor in the inner city, or the old in slum like apartments, the problem is too massive. We understood the Millers-we don't understand west side Detroit.

Plus, now we have far more charities competing for those few dollars - do we give to the local food bank, or do we give to save the snail darter?

Government was answering societal needs - not the other way around. Society wasn't giving enough - so government stepped in. This lack of giving wasn't caused by the government - it was caused by the shift in our society from small town argicultural to big city industrial. Social apathy, mostly caused by the inability to see the problem because of how our culture has changed, and the sheer scope of the number of people in need has altered the way we deal with the problems of the poor, needy, infirm, sick and aged.

Rant rant rant. Dear God, you are delusional. You really believe the government should solve all problems.

Your side lost. There weren't enough people that said - it is OK that seniors are dying in poverty, eating catfood, somehow charity should take care of them. There weren't enough people that said - I'll take care of grandma and her $250,000 medical bill this year. Maybe if there were - your side would have won.

No, the American people lost. That's the reality. And you just revealed that you supported Obamacare, you duplicitous little twit.

And Obama won't save Grandma, he'll just send her to the Death Panel for end of life counseling. Presto, no $250,000 medical bill to worry about! He's a miracle worker!

Furthermore, Obamacare doesn't even insure all Americans. It has absolutely nothing to do with keeping people from dying at hospital doorsteps. It doesn't even take effect until 2014, although the taxes take effect immediately. You're just full of FAIL today.

We are individuals functioning within a society, a society that effects all individuals. If we don't make sure the society flourishes, the individual will fail. Especially now. We aren't independent 'frontiersmen' any longer. We are a part of a complex and interwoven society, one that has risen after the movement away from an argicultural based society.

And yet you demand that we shift to a collective society in order to solve the problem. How ironic.

The society has a vested interest in educating the poor - because an educated workforce is more profitable for the individual within society. There are many examples like this -

We aren't rugged individualists any longer Cal. Society has dictated that change. The number of people, the finite relationship of resources to population, all dictate a change in how we view our relationship between 'haves' and 'havenots', between young and old, between successful and needy.

Nobody's buying this crap either. The only thing stopping this country right now is your bunch of thugs in Washington.

We do have core American values, those haven't changed. What has changed is the role of the individual within society. Not because government has enacted change, but because of how society evolved and how the individual interacts with other individuals in that society.

300 million people. How you deal with the problems of 300 million people is quite different than how you deal with the problems of 2.5 million people.

Your old west days that Reagan portrayed on the silver screen have passed us by, and we won't be going back, no matter how nostalgic you are for them.

Yeah, people can't be trusted to deal with their own problems, right? So let's throw the baby out with the bathwater and just take over everyone's lives. After all, it's the elites like you who know best. And we'll just let the most inefficient, corrupt, inexperienced, irresponsible, unaccountable organization in history run things.

Brevity is the soul of wit, fox. Your long, whiny rants are tiresome and uninteresting to read. You're repetitive and pedantic. Take your own advice: Take Creative Writing 101 and learn to say something in less than a Galactic Standard Century.

Hell, you could sum up all your posts in this thread with "I, foxpaws, am a Marxist."

FAIL.

 

[Joeys Lincoln]

Yeah right. High gas prices, the left wing media, and the Sierra Club had nothing to do with it.

So Hummer was killed because of those things? So why did Saturn and Pontiac 2 brands that sold considerably more units a year die?

 

[fossten]

So Hummer was killed because of those things? So why did Saturn and Pontiac 2 brands that sold considerably more units a year die?

Unions killed Saturn. Pontiac was a casualty of this current GM situation.

 

[foxpaws]

Foxpaws, the social systems you embrace fail when viewed through the context of personal liberty.

They fail when considered in terms of their economic impact, their efficiency, and their effectiveness.

So to perpetuate this system any farther is either a misguided and ignorant desire to use help people, or an evil and calculated effort to control people's lives and buy political influence through government dependency.

Cal – why can’t you address the points I made – the ones regarding how our society is evolving, how our evolving society isolates us from the problems. How we aren’t going back to an agricultural based society, so the solutions that worked in that type of society won’t work in an industrial/technological society.

Instead you just want to harp on how we should go back to the good old days.

As of this point time is linear… we can’t go back. There are far too many changes to think that our society will ever give enough in charity to overcome the huge demands of this society.

You don’t address them because you have no answer to them. We aren’t going to help the Millers because we don’t know the Millers, we aren’t going to help west side Detroit, because we can’t comprehend the problem.

The right wants to jump in some sort of time machine – and revert back to oh, 1887, right? The answer to the problem isn’t ‘we need to go back to the way it was’. That isn’t possible. Change has happened, change in how we live, how we view our neighbors, how we feel we need to contribute to our neighborhood, town, city, state, country, world.

You can stick your head in the sand – pretend that going back will solve all the problems, but in the meantime, the world continues to move away from you.

It's an often repeated line, but it's a serious question, how charitable did you feel on April 15th?

Not bad – I get a pretty good deal for my tax dollars… And, as always, our state form has a huge list of charities you can give to, either adding to the money you need to send in, or subtracting from your refund. I gave… I can.

Obama Budget Proposal Likely to Decrease Charitable Contribution by Billions

Why would the government propose something like?
To continue to weaken charitable institutions and strengthen the role of government. To squeeze charity out of the picture.

Cal – I really don’t know much about this – I will need to research it and find out more…

Americans donated $528,000,000 to Haiti through charity.
So this repeated indictment of the charitably of Americans is offense.

I know, it is wonderful that we gave so much – a huge amount, really, to this cause. It was all over the news, huge telethons, great appeals from churches, workplaces, ex presidents, current politicians. It was in your face for weeks. And we feel good because we gave so much – you gave, I gave, most people I know gave. The effort was almost unprecedented, the results were as well. We shone as Americans – we really gave, money, supplies, our government gave military support, churches stepped in, it was a really great moment for the US, helping our neighbor.

1/2 billion dollars…

In 2009 we spent 637 billion for Medicare and Medicaid. Even if you are really pessimistic and you say that only 1/3 of that is needed because of cost overruns, graft, administration costs etc, you are looking at 212 billion.

You would need 400 efforts like we had for Haiti to raise that money…

Everyday you would have to exceed the amount of money we raise to help out the people of Haiti.

It won’t happen, it can’t happen, and you are incredibly naïve to think that it has any chance of happening,

As I posted earlier, LBJ lied and mislead about the cost of the program while exploiting an emotional appeal.

Obama, despite the public opposition to Obamacare, has also engaged in a very active campaign of lies, dishonest emotional appeals, and accounting and finance fraud to mislead the public on the cost.

But that's how progressive authoritarians work.

Then repeal. Vote in candidates that state they will repeal the programs you don’t like.

It doesn’t happen because the people want the programs, need the programs and know that society won’t handle the problem on its own.

Look at yourself. You're completely unwilling to have an open and honest debate about the viability of the programs you support, and you come from a political culture that embraces it.

This is open and honest – you are the one Cal that doesn’t seem to want to address the reality of the problem. You don’t address the fact that our society has changed. You don’t address the magnitude of the problem.

I guess maybe you really thought that the Haitian relief effort was a good comparison - if you did I hope you now understand the magnitude of the problem in the United States. And I only took 2 programs. Yes, two of the largest, medical ones – but I didn’t address welfare, homelessness programs, food banks, tuition programs, disability programs, SS that goes to the disabled, veteran programs, and many more… And those are just federal programs. Add in state, county, and city programs and you might get a tiny inkling of what we are dealing with

You don’t seem to have any concept Cal of the size of the problem.

This is your fall back position now. Not arguing the merit, but an attempt to close the debate saying it's already over.

Your side lost- you can repeal, you can vote in people that reflect your ideals… do it.

The libertarian party has their state convention in Florida this week – go.

Will your next post be an effort to play the victim card or to exploit your gender in an attempt for sympathy?

I won’t, there isn’t any need. I know the problem, I know the magnitude of the problem and I know how far beyond standard charity options the problem is.

And then you fall back into the classic, democrat scare tactics of old people choosing catfood or medicine.

And you don’t think they do… there is a reason this is used – because it is true.

And the teaparties are just the first sign of that. As people become aware of what you and your travelers are doing to our country, they reject it. And it's only going to become more intense and loud.

If the people vote them in, then the people have spoken. When those tea party members who hold up signs that say “keep your hands off my medicare” actually repeal medicare I will accept it as the will of the people (although I will fight them tooth and nail). When those tea party members who have been living off unemployment for the last year give the money back – I will believe their cry of liberty and freedom. When I watch them raise 1 trillion dollars (2,000 times the amount raised for Haiti) for charity that will be necessary when they have stopped the government programs and we turn entirely to private charity, I will applaud them.

But you think the individual is subordinate to the collective. That's an concept that diminishes the individual profoundly unamerican.

I don’t think that the individual is subordinate to the collective, I think it is a mutual relationship. You can’t deny society, you can’t oppress the individual. There needs to be a working relationship between the two.

So you think we will evolve, or PROGRESS, towards socialism.

We will progress – that is what we do as Americans. Progression that the people want – what they vote in, where they want the country to head. If people believe that they can support the needy with voluntary contributions, they will repeal the government programs.

Unlike you Cal – I still think this country is run by the people. I see the government as a reflection of the people and our society. Our society decided they could no longer bear the burden of the poor, ill, elderly, so they voted in people that would devise government solutions for those problems.

If our society changes and really believes, after understanding the size and scope of the task in front of them if they take those solutions away from the government, and placing it in the hands of charity, that we will be better off – it will do that.

And the marixist prison that you hope to control this population with is dangerous and it's being exposed. And once regular people, people who might not spend as much time or energy involved in these issues as I do, see what is happening they will reject it. And they will be pissed that you've been stealing their freedom.

Given enough time, even someone like you can't keep up the charade indefinitely.... eventually you slip up and exposure yourself for what you really are.. Just like you have in this thread.

That I am a Marxist? Last week I was a post modernist critical thinker (I think).

What I am is a realist. I know the problem inside and out, I know that our society evolves, I know how removed we are from the problem as a whole, and I know that your hope of turning back the clock won’t work. Time moves on, our needs change, our solutions change. We aren’t the same society that was present in 1776. We are the same people – we have our liberty, we have our freedom. What we, the people, have decided to do with those liberties and those freedoms is what we have in our society today. These are the solutions the people decided would work. If they aren’t working for the next phase of society-it will change.

 

[fossten]

Cal – why can’t you address the points I made –

I've said this repeatedly.

DO NOT DEMAND THE SAME RESPECT FROM OTHERS THAT YOU DO NOT GIVE.

You are no different than Freddie Flash, a.k.a. Jaggerbot.

 

[foxpaws]

Don't care. Your desire to steal from me to feed your conscience is evil. Suck on that.

We got it, you hate America.

Get that through your thick, Stalinist skull.

Suck on that.

Cry me a freaking river, fox.

Rant rant rant. Dear God, you are delusional.

You duplicitous little twit.

You're just full of FAIL today.

Brevity is the soul of wit, fox. Your long, whiny rants are tiresome and uninteresting to read. You're repetitive and pedantic. Take your own advice: Take Creative Writing 101 and learn to say something in less than a Galactic Standard Century.

Hell, you could sum up all your posts in this thread with "I, foxpaws, am a Marxist."

FAIL.

Foss - I would rather discuss this with adults if you don't mind. But I do appreciate the fact that you do read my posts - obviously in their entirety - contrary to your critique of them...

However, I never realized how close to home my 'creative writing 101' comment really hit...

Even Cal thinks I am one of the better propagandist he has seen...

You don't acquire stature like that unless you know how to communicate to the masses....

(since you don't seem to understand sarcasm, even when it hits you on the side of the head Foss - this entire response to you is...)

jealous much?

 

[fossten]

Foss - I would rather discuss this with adults if you don't mind. But I do appreciate the fact that you do read my posts - obviously in their entirety - contrary to your critique of them...

However, I never realized how close to home my 'creative writing 101' comment really hit...

Even Cal thinks I am one of the better propagandist he has seen...

You don't acquire stature like that unless you know how to communicate to the masses....

(since you don't seem to understand sarcasm, even when it hits you on the side of the head Foss - this entire response to you is...)

jealous much?

You're the only senior citizen here, fox...If you can't post without getting your wittle feewings hurt, maybe you should leave.

Proverbs 12:15.

If you don't like what I say to you, don't whine about it, just don't respond. After all, it's what you're good at. Of course, it's more likely that you just don't have a response.

And now you admit you're a propagandist.

Today is becoming a watershed...and a waterloo for you.

 

[foxpaws]

You're the only senior citizen here, fox...If you can't post without getting your wittle feewings hurt, maybe you should leave.

Proverbs 12:15.

If you don't like what I say to you, don't whine about it, just don't respond. After all, it's what you're good at. Of course, it's more likely that you just don't have a response.

And now you admit you're a propagandist.

Today is becoming a watershed...and a waterloo for you.

should I hearkeneth unto your counsel Foss....

 

[fossten]

Google

Advanced Search
View customizations
Web
Hide optionsShow options...

Results 1 - 10 of about 97,700 for subtlties. (0.29 seconds)
Search Results

1.

Did you mean: subtleties Top 2 results shown