# Conservatives and Empathy



## midcan5 (Aug 23, 2011)

Think UHC. Extrapolate UHC. 

"[T]rying to measure a life of poverty as a collection of stuff isn't really going to come close to measuring that same life as a whole life."

Category: But we knew this already, why does it now matter? 

Note my new category of thought, I have always wondered what goes into making a person of conscience and what goes into making a conservative? So the piece below struck me again as well, 'I already knew that.' But a Fox conservative talking head learning something still is worth a thought, if only to say why did she not know that before she knew that. How is it we know anything. 

'Falling into the empathy gap'

"Fox, of course, would be the very same news network that endorsed a comparison between birth control and "pedicures," so this is no small change of heart on Kelly's part. The Family and Medical Leave Act, under which she received her post-birth benefits, was introduced by a Democratic representative, approved almost entirely by Democratic legislators (with Republicans voting almost entirely against it*), and signed into law by a Democratic president - and Kelly, believe it or not, doesn't think the bill is liberal enough. As tempting as it is, though, just to deride her for lacking the sort of minimal empathy that we expect from children, I want to add a little bit of a wrinkle to Savage's analysis."

Rust Belt Philosophy: Falling into the empathy gap


----------



## editec (Aug 23, 2011)

Empathy is the ability to imagine the plight of another.

You'll no doubt note that most of the self proclaiming cons on this board display a complete lack of empthy.


Now whether these folks are just trying to sound like tough guys, or they're truly incapable of getting outside of their own shoes, is anyone's guess.

But one does frequently encounter people who are permanently stuck in their own heads who truly cannot remotely imagine another's POV, and almost without exception those types tend to be dogmatic cons.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 23, 2011)

Empathy comes from the heart, not from an edict from on high.

Then again, the left has shown themselves to be in possession of the tiniest hearts out there -as evidenced by the widely circulated annual lists of political types who give the most and least to private charities- so it's little surprise that they'd project their callousness onto everyone else.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 23, 2011)

editec said:


> Empathy is the ability to imagine the plight of another.
> 
> You'll no doubt note that most of the self proclaiming cons on this board display a complete lack of empthy.
> 
> ...


Yeah, leftists are really caring and empathetic...As long as they don't have to foot the bill for their "generosity"  themselves.


----------



## FuelRod (Aug 23, 2011)

Is it more empathetic to believe all people have the same abilities and can rise above circumstance ?  Or to support policy that hinders such?


----------



## Sallow (Aug 23, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Empathy comes from the heart, not from an edict from on high.
> 
> Then again, the left has shown themselves to be in possession of the tiniest hearts out there -as evidenced by the widely circulated annual lists of political types who give the most and least to private charities- so it's little surprise that they'd project their callousness onto everyone else.



You guys keep posting this crap like a badge of courage or something. Speaking as someone who's actually given to charity..and worked for charity..making sure all our citizens share in the wealth of the nation should be a given.

There is absolutely no reason, none, nadda..that any American citizen should starve, be denied health care or live in squalor.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 23, 2011)

Empathy has no bearing on the ability or will of a society to assist those at the lower end of it. Empathy can, in fact, be used as an excuse to patronize those at the lower end, giving them just enough to keep them alive and reasonably comfortable without a chance to elevate thier status, in return for poltical support.   

The object of any support given to the lower strata of society should have the sole goal of making those people self supporting, not keeping them on the dole. This however is the exact opposite effect progressive authoritarians want, after all a self reliant voter is an unreliable voter. A voter still on the dole will keep supporting the dole controllers.


----------



## Sallow (Aug 23, 2011)

FuelRod said:


> Is it more empathetic to believe all people have the same abilities and can rise above circumstance ?  Or to support policy that hinders such?



All people do not have the same abilities, come from the same point in life or have the same means.

That's total nonsense.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 23, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Empathy comes from the heart, not from an edict from on high.
> ...



Then create a charirty to accomplish this, get private financial support, and do what you see as needed. Or at least do it at the state level, and create state laws appropriate to it. 

Just stop using the federal government as your big bully boy to force others to pay for your social works. Stop being lazy, stop using the governments bully power of taxation.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 23, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Empathy comes from the heart, not from an edict from on high.
> ...


No badge of courage...Just the facts.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers



Sallow said:


> There is absolutely no reason, none, nadda..that any American citizen should starve, be denied health care or live in squalor.


Platitudes don't count as charity either, dude.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 23, 2011)

What kind of empathy did it take for LBJ to fund the "great (liberal) society" that tore Black families apart and greated the welfare state? We are still paying for the abject failure. Maybe political pundit Michael Savage was right when he said "liberalism is a mental illness".


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 23, 2011)

editec said:


> Empathy is the ability to imagine the plight of another.
> 
> You'll no doubt note that most of the self proclaiming cons on this board display a complete lack of empthy.
> 
> ...



Part of the mindset that makes on a con also limits their ability to percieve the world from any other viewpoint but their own.
They learn to go thru the motions of being sympathetic to others but it is a sham.
For instance, they will never understand that many muslims have valid reasons to hate the USA.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 23, 2011)

editec said:


> Empathy is the ability to imagine the plight of another.
> 
> You'll no doubt note that most of the self proclaiming cons on this board display a complete lack of empthy.
> 
> ...



oh give me a break with the fucking melodrama. You are so full of shit ed. A problem with obamacare now equals a lack of empathy? Come up with something a little less transparent. The healthcare issue has NOTHING to do with empathy or a lack of it. You are all deluded if you think the right doesn't want the same thing you do. We all want access to health care. 

This is not an example of a lack of a lack of empathy from the right. It is a display of a lack of integrity of the left and a ploy that is as old as time. Dress up government sanctioned theft and redistribution of wealth and abolishment of freedom in the robe of 'empathy'. No incredibly weak argument you make (and this is a weak one) explains why your health is my responsibility.

On top of that you can't even be honest. Empathy is an emotion, not an action. And that is what your are really after, not empathy. What you really want is for that empathy to translate into freely giving money to every poor soul you think deserves it.


----------



## Cuyo (Aug 23, 2011)

Oddball said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Empathy is the ability to imagine the plight of another.
> ...



That's horse shit Oddy.  Get bent.


----------



## California Girl (Aug 23, 2011)

Ok, who stole my violin?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 23, 2011)

Who stole my Tibetan bell?


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 23, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> The healthcare issue has NOTHING to do with empathy or a lack of it. You are all deluded if you think the right doesn't want the same thing you do. We all want access to health care.



Not sure if you were trying to illustrate the OP's thesis so brilliantly or if it was accidental.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 23, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Unfortunately it's true. Really who or what is stopping any of you from putting this empathy you preach so righteously to others into action? Who is preventing you from putting YOUR money where your mouth is and helping all these poor souls? If you want to help people so badly, GO FUCKING HELP THEM. Hell I'll even support a change to the tax code to help you out. If you really think government has to have more money, I will gladly support legislation that allows anyone to give as much money beyond what they owe in taxes as they want. Certainly enough people must feel as you do and would certainly open their wallets like I'm sure you would right? Of course you won't you fucking hypocrite.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 23, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > The healthcare issue has NOTHING to do with empathy or a lack of it. You are all deluded if you think the right doesn't want the same thing you do. We all want access to health care.
> ...



Illustrating would be showing my lack of empathy. Believe me I am more empathatic than most. I just don't translate that empathy as you do to mean taking money from some to give to others as the best and only course of helping people.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 23, 2011)

> There is absolutely no reason, none, nadda..that any American citizen should starve, be denied health care or live in squalor.



For conservatives, of course, there is a reason. 

The prospect of an American citizen starving, going without healthcare, or living in squalor acts as an incentive for all to do better. Its the conservative doctrine of fear, the only real motivator.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 23, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > There is absolutely no reason, none, nadda..that any American citizen should starve, be denied health care or live in squalor.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fear does seem to be the major right wing motivator.
Just watch the upcoming presidential campaign for further proof of this.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 23, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > There is absolutely no reason, none, nadda..that any American citizen should starve, be denied health care or live in squalor.
> ...



come on dude. u know better than to purport a myth that the right holds the corner on fear mongering. As a point of fact it was the left that last engaged in it when the President promised us that we were headed for economic ruin and default if we didn't allow him to borrow more money. The right doesn't fear monger so much as politicians in general fear monger to get votes.

As for empathy, a perceived lack of it by the right is not what the left is really concerned with. It's just another redefining of terms for the sake of transparent rhetoric. So if I think I'm better off keeping more of what I earned and I don't trust the one authority who has the power to take it involuntarily from me to efficiently and effectively or actually even has any real obligation to fix all of societies so called social problems....... then yeah you can call me un-empathatic. THAT is what the left really means by lack of empathy. And that's fine. All I ask is that you submit your new defintion to Miriam-Webster for review.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 23, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Empathy is the ability to imagine the plight of another.
> ...



That was an unbelievably stupid thing to post.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 23, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > There is absolutely no reason, none, nadda..that any American citizen should starve, be denied health care or live in squalor.
> ...



Is that why the left keeps trying to scare seniors every time a realistic approach to reforming medicare is proposed?


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 24, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> Is that why the left keeps trying to scare seniors every time a realistic approach to reforming medicare is proposed?









You probably missed the 2010 elections. (Hint: it wasn't the left scaring seniors about Medicare reform.)

As it is, when one party takes the extraordinary step of proposing to end the Medicare program and all but four of its members in the House and five in the Senate vote in favor of it--well, it would just be irresponsible to let that pass unnoticed. The agenda the party leadership denied it had prior to the 2010 elections ("Representative John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, the minority leader, has praised Mr. Ryan but said the Roadmap would not be a part of the Republican agenda this fall.") has been amped up on Tea Party steroids and is now the official party line. And that's a matter of public record.

All the whining and hand-wringing in the world won't change that.


----------



## Christopher (Aug 24, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> Think UHC. Extrapolate UHC.
> 
> "[T]rying to measure a life of poverty as a collection of stuff isn't really going to come close to measuring that same life as a whole life."
> 
> ...



A government can have empathy?  How?


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 24, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Empathy comes from the heart, not from an edict from on high.
> ...




Actually, making sure all of our citizens have the OPPORTUNITY to share in the wealth of the nation should be a given.  What made this country great in the past was that we gave our citizens more opportunities to be successful than any other country on earth.  We didn't give them an automatic "share" of the wealth...we gave them the means to become wealthy.


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 24, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Is that why the left keeps trying to scare seniors every time a realistic approach to reforming medicare is proposed?
> ...



So that ad by Democrats showing Granny being pushed off a cliff in her wheelchair wasn't an attempt to scare seniors?  Really?


----------



## tonystewart1 (Aug 24, 2011)

So here we go again.

An example of the great liberal ability to percieve themselves as better than everyone else and that they know whats best for everyone.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 24, 2011)

I think one could actually make the argument that it is the left that has less empathy than the right. While members of the right can empathize with those in a difficult situation, just as the left can, it is difficult to argue that the left has much empathy for business owners. The veracity with which the left attacks these people shows they don't have clue one what it's like to 'be in the shoes' of someone who has the responsibility of managing and operating a successful business and the stress that surrounds it (much of it government induced).


----------



## dcbl (Aug 24, 2011)

Sallow said:


> FuelRod said:
> 
> 
> > Is it more empathetic to believe all people have the same abilities and can rise above circumstance ?  Or to support policy that hinders such?
> ...



Each according to his ability and each according to his need?

Yeah! That seems like a GREAT plan!!


----------



## Oddball (Aug 24, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



...under the arrogant pretext that the left's view of "empathy" is so pure and righteous that it needs to be imposed upon everyone else by force.

You left out that part.


----------



## MoistTrout (Aug 24, 2011)

Considering organizations like the Jaycees and the Shriners have a conservative foundation, and have done more to actually help people than any "progressive" government program I can think of, I'd say there isn't much merit to the base of this thread.

Empathy is not a bleeding heart. Empathy is recognizing the situation someone is in and understanding what they need to do to get out of it. Maybe more importantly, it doesn't go into things with a blind eye.

Anyone reading this can debate with themselves if I would be considered a conservative or not, but I don't have a problem with people getting assistance of some kind. I don't even have a problem with some of that assistance coming from the federal government. 

What I do have a problem with is the way these programs are run, the fact that is has become "free money", and the regulations that go along with some of this so called assistance.

I believe I have commented on this site before about the difficulty in getting a blue collar job. Have you applied for a factory job, or something of that nature lately? I'm old enough to remember when you could put in an application, sit for an interview, and start work all in the same day. Now, it can be a month or more before you even make it to the floor for one of these jobs, and it's another week or two before you get an actual check. It's all because of the regulations that have been put in place. Someone relying on government assistance can't afford to get a job because of the regulations, so they stay on government assistance. Frankly, I think there are some people who want it to stay this way.

It's like setting someone's house on fire, preventing them from getting to water, then wanting to be praised because you show up with a bucket of sand.

Are there people who would be considered conservative that are heartless and just don't care? Sure. It would be silly to assume there aren't. It's just as silly as assuming that all liberals are champions of the needy that want to help people better their lives.


----------



## MoistTrout (Aug 24, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > There is absolutely no reason, none, nadda..that any American citizen should starve, be denied health care or live in squalor.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The establishment of fear... You mean like:

"They want to take away social security!"
"They don't want you to have health care!"
"They want you to die!"

Something along those lies...er, I mean lines?


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 24, 2011)

editec said:


> Empathy is the ability to imagine the plight of another.
> 
> *You'll no doubt note that most of the self proclaiming cons on this board display a complete lack of empthy.*
> 
> ...



Pure hyperbole.

You seem to see only in black and white. 

Democrats are compassionate souls and Republicans are evil rat-bastards with no soul whatsoever. 

Many of us have family members that are poor, disabled, or in a group that Democrats claim to want to help.

Problem is Democrats only seem to want to keep them in their current state rather then get them out of it.


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 24, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



Empathy.....in other words....feeling sorry for someone.

Yes, the left has cornered the market on that....and on using it to their advantage.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 24, 2011)

mudwhistle said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Empathy is the ability to imagine the plight of another.
> ...


...and trot them out them as political props, to cynically claim that they have the market cornered on empathy and compassion.


----------



## 2twsted4colorTV (Aug 24, 2011)

tonystewart1 said:


> So here we go again.
> 
> An example of the great liberal ability to percieve themselves as better than everyone else and that they know whats best for everyone.



Not only that, but they know what is best for everyone else, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily think it's best for THEM.  

I have empathy for people who truly believe the government is going to fix them with free housing, free medical care, free food, etc. Of course they can't see that's the reason they are living in poverty and are made to believe they can't be successful.  I am 4 years away from Medicare and I wish to God I didn't have to sign up for it, even though I've paid into it, I don't like it.   if I'm poor I want to be poor all by myself of my own doing and not because I've been on welfare forever.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 24, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Empathy comes from the heart, not from an edict from on high.
> 
> Then again, the left has shown themselves to be in possession of the tiniest hearts out there -as evidenced by the widely circulated annual lists of political types who give the most and least to private charities- so it's little surprise that they'd project their callousness onto everyone else.



Ah, *THE Arthur Brooks study*

Arthur Brooks writes: "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* [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 24, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



No new legislation needed.  There are already numerous cases on record where somebody got a twinge of conscience and sent a large check to the government to pay for taxes they owed and no doubt over looked somewhere down the line.  Or some yokel doesn't have anybody to leave his estate to so leaves it to the United States of America.  The government accepts all such windfalls, no questions asked.

So of course Uncle Sam would accept and be most grateful for any donations anybody wants to send in to help out.

As Oddball pointed out, all serious studies conducted have concluded that conservatives, more than liberals, are more likely to contribute to the less fortunate not only money and property but also they give more blood, donate more time to charitable causes, and poorer conservatives contrbute proportionately more than do the rich.

So who is more empathetic?   Those who give of themselves and their resources?  Or those who are more generous with other people's property/money than they are with their own?

I suggest that our more 'generous' friends who think the government should take more money from the people to provide to the less fortunate should put their compassion where their mouth is and provide that extra money.  Those same studies say they make a bit more than conservatives do so they have the means to do so.


----------



## chanel (Aug 24, 2011)

I think I should start a new thread "Liberals and Envy".


----------



## chanel (Aug 24, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



How about this foxfyre? Maybe we should start a survey.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 24, 2011)

chanel said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



LOL.  I love it.

I really do think along with the presidential campaign checkoff, there ought to be a place where liberals can add a percentage to their tax returns.  Sort of like a tip in a restaurant.  I mean with all that compassion and empathy and all, they would surely jump at the chance to help the government help their poorer neighbors.


----------



## chanel (Aug 24, 2011)

Exactly foxfyre. And as someone said "Empathy is an emotion; not an action" I say "Walk the walk.."

I work in education and there are many big hearted teachers who have "empathy" for the "bad kids". I think that's great. I have empathy for the good kids, the ones that just want to learn.  It seems the OP believe only the left can choose who is "worthy" of empathy. Arrogance much?


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 24, 2011)

editec said:


> Empathy is the ability to imagine the plight of another.
> 
> You'll no doubt note that most of the self proclaiming cons on this board display a complete lack of empthy.
> 
> ...


*Empathy is the ability to imagine the plight of another.*

Sure is. And the people who need it the most deserve the leadership of Rick Perry, Republican Governor who is running for President to repeat his successful gains in employment.

He led his state to get 50% of all new jobs created in America in Texas. With the other 50% getting spread thinly over the other 49 states, they averaged 1% apiece compared to his 50%.

Empathy is giving an unemployed man or woman a job. Perry's the man who's gonna do just that.

Go, Rick Perry, 2012!!!

/"We pause for USMB Station identification."


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 24, 2011)

Footnote: While I use the term Conservative pejoratively, it must be said that it refers to the social Darwinist modern American types who have lost heart and soul in their worship of the rich and corporations. Oddball, Elvis, and other here represent this type of UN-American puppet. Whitehall seems to fit too.



whitehall said:


> What kind of empathy did it take for LBJ to fund the "great (liberal) society" that tore Black families apart and greated the welfare state? We are still paying for the abject failure. Maybe political pundit Michael Savage was right when he said "liberalism is a mental illness".



This is an interesting wingnut myth, consider that LBJ's policies had the greatest (factual) impact on poverty and mostly helped whites and you soon wonder why some still repeat this sort of nonsense. Voting rights also had great impact and today the right is trying like hell to bring Jim Crow back. I'm sure you'll be right there standing in line defending more contemporary wingnut anti-democracy nonsense. Savage is too stupid for comment, another mouth that does nothing good for the nation. 



Christopher said:


> A government can have empathy?  How?



Not sure that was mentioned anywhere, but it raises an interesting point. Ms Kelly only found the liberal policy beneficial because she benefited from it. She learned empathy? Now consider we all benefit from government in a variety of ways, but those on the right think government is the problem. Now why would that be considering we owe our freedoms to our constitutional government. But empathy is a harder topic to tackle, depends a lot on your family and life experiences as well as education. Now how will this influence Kelly's other ideas. 



MoistTrout said:


> Considering organizations like the Jaycees and the Shriners have a conservative foundation, and have done more to actually help people than any "progressive" government program I can think of, I'd say there isn't much merit to the base of this thread.



I have actually taught computer skills at Shriner's so that must make it a liberal foundation, you think? It would seem to me that helping people is liberal while telling them to get up out of that wheelchair and walk is conservative, your kind of conservative, am I close. I have no idea why these people just didn't be more careful in so many ways, you blame them right? You blame others down on their luck. And why does that bad old government even gives Shriner's tax-deductible status? Do you? Funny, I don't remember the people there being anything but concerned and caring, empathetic one would say. 

*PS The greatest progressive achievement was social security, followed by medicare and voting rights for all. I have asked for years for a conservative accomplishment equivalent to any of these and never ever get an answer. I wonder why.*


----------



## code1211 (Aug 24, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Empathy comes from the heart, not from an edict from on high.
> ...





In truth, there are reasons for all of these things.  

The business community is scared to death to use the funds they are sitting on to fire up the economy.  Why are they scared?  Because the Liberal Administration has abandoned rule of law in favor of agenda driven, capricsious creation of regulations and the threat of ever more intrusive and constrictive restaints and penalties on risk taking and investment.

As long as the policy of the US Government is to attack and restrain business, there will be fewer jobs, less opportunity and more poverty.  As a result, American citizens will, as you say, starve, be denied health care and live in squalor.

Providing charity is noble and you are admirable for doing so.  Providing opportunity is much better, though, and that is impossible given the thinking and the planning of this administration.


----------



## code1211 (Aug 24, 2011)

Sallow said:


> FuelRod said:
> 
> 
> > Is it more empathetic to believe all people have the same abilities and can rise above circumstance ?  Or to support policy that hinders such?
> ...





Is this an example of Empathy?  I have known and do know many people of lesser abilities who are proud of their accomplishments and who are happy.


----------



## code1211 (Aug 24, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Empathy is the ability to imagine the plight of another.
> ...





Wow!  Elitist?

It's difficult for me to see the world from your view point because I can't look down your nose at it.


----------



## rdean (Aug 24, 2011)

Can we say, "Oxymoron"?


----------



## code1211 (Aug 24, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > There is absolutely no reason, none, nadda..that any American citizen should starve, be denied health care or live in squalor.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





The only Conservative doctrine on this topic that I am aware of is to work hard and plan.


----------



## code1211 (Aug 24, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Is that why the left keeps trying to scare seniors every time a realistic approach to reforming medicare is proposed?
> ...





The Republicans put forth a plan to extend the lives of two of the programs most closely embraced by Seniors.  The Democrats cling to a policy of do nothing until the collapse occurs in about 10 years and you say the Republicans are the ones at fault?

Cue the circus music.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 24, 2011)

code1211 said:


> The Republicans put forth a plan to extend the lives of two of the programs most closely embraced by Seniors.



They put forth no plan for Social Security and their "plan" for Medicare is to dismantle it. Clever.



> The Democrats cling to a policy of do nothing until the collapse occurs in about 10 years and you say the Republicans are the ones at fault?



The Democrats have already passed two rounds of Medicare reforms over the past two and a half years. Lo and behold Medicare cost growth has since slowed.


----------



## code1211 (Aug 24, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > The Republicans put forth a plan to extend the lives of two of the programs most closely embraced by Seniors.
> ...





The Democrat "solution" to the rise of Medicare cost is to cover less of those of those costs by reducing the amount that a provider may charge.

What happens when no providers will continue to provide at the rates reduced too far?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 24, 2011)

Dear Fellow Conservatives:

It pains me to write that our more liberal (generic) brethren seem afflicted with some sort of permanently ingrown blinders that causes a kind of bitter tunnel vision.

They empathise with the poor man who has no job and see the only solution as to buy him groceries and pay his rent to be accomplished by taking the richer man's money and giving it to the poor.  They perceive that as the righteous path.

They can't comprehend empathy that feels s man's longing for self worth and dignity that can be restored with a paying job best produced with policies that encourage the richer man to create more jobs.  They perceive that as the path of the hard hearted, greedy, and uncompassionate.

Is there anyone with a remedy for this affliction?

Sincerely yours,


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 24, 2011)

code1211 said:


> The Democrat "solution" to the rise of Medicare cost is to cover less of those of those costs by reducing the amount that a provider may charge.



To repeat what's already been said a dozen times.

The Democratic approach thus far has been the EHR incentives (and the Regional Extension Centers that have been helping providers to adopt the technology), shared savings, paying for value instead of just procedures, reducing preventable hospital readmissions, the Multi-Payer Advanced Primary Care Initiative, greater transparency through the various Compare tools, bundled payments, quality reporting, reducing hospital-acquired conditions, the creation of the IPAB, improving patient safety, a host of new tools for fighting fraud, and so on. These are about changing the way Medicare does business to get more value out of the health care system and thus stretch health care dollars further.

Not as easy a soundbite as your "policy of do nothing" bullshit, but that's life. We'll all just have to take solace in results.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 24, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Dear Fellow Conservatives:
> 
> It pains me to write that our more liberal (generic) brethren seem afflicted with some sort of permanently ingrown blinders that causes a kind of bitter tunnel vision.
> 
> ...


Yes. Put the military in charge of the political science brainwashing academies that are teaching flag-burning and hatred of conservatives. That'll do it.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 24, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Dear Fellow Conservatives:
> ...



LOL.  Well I was thinking maybe something just a weeeeeee bit less extreme.  Maybe mandating that honest curriculum in Constitution, the Founders, the concepts of unalienable rights, self governance, and uniquely American values be taught from kindergarten through highschool might turn things around?  I honestly think those folks with the blinders don't have a clue what all that is about.

If they did, they would know that empathy that misreads the problem is not a virtue; that extended sympathy that aggravates the problem is a vice; and that modern American conservatism has produced perhaps the most genuinely caring, accepting, and benevolent society that world has ever known.


----------



## Vargulf (Aug 24, 2011)

I remember watching a newscaster talking to a woman in her twenties several years back and asking her what could be done to help the handicapped.
Her response was that they should be executed. 
The newscaster asked her how she could be so callous and her response was to be taken aback and say that she considered herself to be a nice person.
That woman clearly had a lack of empathy toward others and I am sure fits right in with the likes of Glenn Beck and the ultra-right wing conservatives.
There is no empathy from the uber-rich.  They are simply money addicts and consider all others to be no more than bugs.  They want this nation to be turned into what the third-world nations have for a work force.  No unions.  No decent wages.  No irritating government regulations for the safety of said workers.  No environmental regulations.  All such things hamper.....more riches.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 24, 2011)

Vargulf said:


> I remember watching a newscaster talking to a woman in her twenties several years back and asking her what could be done to help the handicapped.
> Her response was that they should be executed.
> The newscaster asked her how she could be so callous and her response was to be taken aback and say that she considered herself to be a nice person.
> That woman clearly had a lack of empathy toward others and I am sure fits right in with the likes of Glenn Beck and the ultra-right wing conservatives.
> There is no empathy from the uber-rich.  They are simply money addicts and consider all others to be no more than bugs.  They want this nation to be turned into what the third-world nations have for a work force.  No unions.  No decent wages.  No irritating government regulations for the safety of said workers.  No environmental regulations.  All such things hamper.....more riches.



As a rationale person it really is difficult to figure out how people like you become so deluded into believing what is observably, completely false.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 24, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Sure, the left were the ones who came up with the "death Panels" term?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 24, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> You probably missed the 2010 elections.




I remember those. Those were the midterm elections where the entire country expressed its outrage at obama and the democrats controlling both houses of Congress for ramming a bullshit 'healthcare' bill down their throats (which even the democrats hadn't bothered to read) through locked-door backroom deals, corrupt shenanigans, and utter disregard for the will of the people or any semblence of good goverance.

And when dishonest liberals like you lie about "ending" medicare any time a serious proposal to save it from its inevitable doom is offered, you remind the people why we kicked your asses in 2010 and will do so again in 2012.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 24, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...




They were the ones that came up with the idea.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 24, 2011)

I seem to remember Death panels being an anti health care reform mantra from the right.


----------



## GWV5903 (Aug 24, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> Think UHC. Extrapolate UHC.
> 
> "[T]rying to measure a life of poverty as a collection of stuff isn't really going to come close to measuring that same life as a whole life."
> 
> ...



You obviously do not understand the meaning of empathy, you infuse people to help themselves, not remain Dependant on others, I know very few people in life that would not help another human being lift their lives up, somehow the liberal ideology continues to only know how to divide...


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 24, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> I seem to remember Death panels being an anti health care reform mantra from the right.




You misremember. The term was coined in response to proposals in the clusterfuck obama healthcare bill.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 24, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> I remember those.



Are you sure? Those elections in which Republicans ran against death panels and those evil, scary cuts (that somehow found their way into the Ryan plan/FY12 budget proposal)?

Shameless, but it worked:

In the 2006 midterm election, seniors split their vote evenly between House Democrats and Republicans. This time, they went for Republicans by a twenty-one-point margin. The impact of that swing was magnified by the fact that seniors, always pretty reliable midterm voters, were particularly fired up: nearly a quarter of the votes cast were from people over sixty-five.​
I'll admit, following up a big win that was achieved largely on the backs of the elderly with a direct assault on Medicare is ballsy. 



> And when dishonest liberals like you lie about "ending" medicare any time a serious proposal to save it from its inevitable doom is offered, you remind the people why we kicked your asses in 2010 and will do so again in 2012.



Ah yes, again with the vacuous claims that Ryan is somehow "saving" Medicare with his plan to prevent anyone from ever enrolling in it in the future and phasing out its responsibilities for paying hospitals and other providers to provide services to the elderly.

"No Medicare, No Problem" will make a great campaign slogan. Good luck with that.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 24, 2011)

GWV5903 said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > Think UHC. Extrapolate UHC.
> ...



Even help a Muslim or Black, Mexican, etc up?


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 24, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > I seem to remember Death panels being an anti health care reform mantra from the right.
> ...



Umm you just said exactly the same thing I did, only in rwspeak.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 24, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > I remember those.
> ...




Yes, I'm sure I remember how pissed everyone was at the democrats who controlled both houses of Congress and the White House and used every corrupt trick in the book to 'pass' a bill they hadn't read despite the objections of the American people (including the elderly). I'm sure it was one of the worst electoral ass-kickings in American history. I'm also sure, and so are democrats when they are being honest (excludes dishonest weasels like you), that medicare cannot survive unless it is reformed and soon. I'm sure that the fact that democrats resort to trying to scare the elderly any time real reform is proposed (really proposed, in writing - which was the "party of no" again?) means they couldn't give less of a shit about said elderly if it will earn them one frightened vote. I'm sure that makes that kind of democrat a scumbag. Which kind are you again?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 24, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...





Brush up on your reading skills, champ.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 24, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> medicare cannot survive unless it is reformed and soon.



As already noted, Medicare reforms became law in early 2009 and early 2010.






You'd better hope that curve doesn't continue its bend--you might not get your wish of dismantling Medicare. And we know that would be tragic.


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 24, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > I remember those.
> ...



Lies...all lies.

We ran against the Democrat's policies.....and won.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 24, 2011)

mudwhistle said:


> We ran against the Democrat's policies.....and won.



It's certainly no secret that Republicans ran heavily against the ACA's Medicare savings, and then endorsed them after the election. Well-played.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 24, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > medicare cannot survive unless it is reformed and soon.
> ...





Trustees Report Summary



Idiot.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 24, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


First Amendment privileges extend to University professors. The way to fix it is to let the military educate the people majoring in history and poli sci. These men and women know how the cow ate the cabbage in practice and in logistics if they went to West Point, Colorado Springs, Great Lakes, or Annapolis. The current poli sci folks went to "Communism sensitivity training," "Saul Alinsky said so school," and "Conservatives deserve all bad things University." I prefer the No-bs-from-the-peanut-gallery military be placed in charge of history. I know it sounds bad, but it's the only way we can fight back the brainwashing kids are getting in their college years nowadays. *sigh*


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 24, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Do the two of really think either of you can actually win the fear mongering argument? Again usually your a bit better than this citizen. Why is it that it is so hard for either of you to admit that both sides are equally guilty of this vote getting tactic?


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 25, 2011)

A word on empathy. Empathy is an extremely hard concept to nail down for some people, they see it as a weakness. If, for instance, you are a Social Darwinist (SD) much of your thinking about any event is how you react to it, do you rise up and overcome any obstacle. While SD died as a scientific explanation of human behavior, it lives on in the ideology driven minds of modern American conservatives. How much it is just a piece of rhetoric is hard to say, but their constant use of government as 'nanny' demonstrates their thought patterns. Government rather than being an essential political entity for both creating a workable environment and also for settling and managing diverse and contradictory values and uses of property becomes a bogeyman. Bogeymen are always necessary for some as complexity often leads to anxiety. Now let me review replies.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 25, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Dear Fellow Conservatives:
> 
> It pains me to write that our more liberal (generic) brethren seem afflicted with some sort of permanently ingrown blinders that causes a kind of bitter tunnel vision.
> 
> ...



I loved the military reply, can anyone spell fascism?  Thought that idea died but I guess not. Boot camp for the mind, Mao among other dictators would love the American right. 

Your dilemma is why I have to sometimes sort out the modern American conservative from the conservative in all of us. But given the many choirs singing the same song that distinction is often not needed. Corporate think tanks, republican K street representatives, social Darwinist nationalists and racists, tea party whiners, big money wingnuts, right wing media, and young people who believe the poor are lazy and the rich not - if only we showed people tough love, life would be hunkey dory - are too prevalent to ignore and too obvious to not call out for the mess they make and the mess they leave.


----------



## editec (Aug 25, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Empathy is the ability to imagine the plight of another.
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 25, 2011)

editec said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 25, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> A word on empathy. Empathy is an extremely hard concept to nail down for some people, they see it as a weakness. If, for instance, you are a Social Darwinist (SD) much of your thinking about any event is how you react to it, do you rise up and overcome any obstacle. While SD died as a scientific explanation of human behavior, it lives on in the ideology driven minds of modern American conservatives. How much it is just a piece of rhetoric is hard to say, but their constant use of government as 'nanny' demonstrates their thought patterns. Government rather than being an essential political entity for both creating a workable environment and also for settling and managing diverse and contradictory values and uses of property becomes a bogeyman. Bogeymen are always necessary for some as complexity often leads to anxiety. Now let me review replies.



No mid, it isn't a hard concept to understand how a person might be feeling about the position there in. The hard part is what am I supposed to do about it. And that is what the left seems to be upset about. I can certainly have empathy for a homeless person for example, but the fact that I don't take the time to do everything that needs to be done to improve said person's life is NOT an example of a lack of empathy.


----------



## editec (Aug 25, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 25, 2011)

editec said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


----------



## editec (Aug 25, 2011)

> Have you ever considered that the reason you percieve a lack of empathy from the right is due the things the left does and says?


 
You're missing the point.

Empathy is NOT sympathy.

I CAN empathize with people with whom I completely disagree.

Why?

Because I CAN imagine what it is like to see the world from their POV.

I might think they're entirely wrong, but I can still understand how they arrive at their POV.

THAT is empathy.


----------



## tonystewart1 (Aug 25, 2011)

editec said:


> > Have you ever considered that the reason you percieve a lack of empathy from the right is due the things the left does and says?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is a difference between empathy and pity.

I can empathize with anyones problems.

But I pity no one. 

When you empathize with someone  you can help them find a solution. When you pity them you just give to them.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 25, 2011)

editec said:


> > Have you ever considered that the reason you percieve a lack of empathy from the right is due the things the left does and says?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I understand that sympathy is not empathy. So no ed, I am not missing the point, but this post shows you are pretty clearly trying to dodge mine.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 25, 2011)

editec said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 25, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 25, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


----------



## chanel (Aug 25, 2011)

> The leftist weltanschauung sees society's and the world's great battle as between rich and poor rather than between good and evil. Equality therefore trumps morality. This is what produces the morally confused liberal elites that can venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free and decent America that has greater inequality.
> 
> None of this matters to progressives. Against all this destructiveness, they will respond not with arguments to refute these consequences of the liberal welfare state, but by citing the terms "social justice" and "compassion," and by labeling their opponents "selfish" and worse.
> 
> If you want to feel good, liberalism is awesome. If you want to do good, it is largely awful.



RealClearPolitics - Ten Ways Progressive Policies Harm Society&#039;s Moral Character


----------



## martybegan (Aug 25, 2011)

editec said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


----------



## MoistTrout (Aug 25, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Empathy comes from the heart, not from an edict from on high.
> ...



All due respect to The Arthur Brooks... I don't think that's necessarily the case. I think a lot of the people tagged as liberals that volunteer, even if they tagged themselves with that label, are actually communitarians. There is a vast difference between a communitarian and the modern day "progressive" liberal.


----------



## MoistTrout (Aug 25, 2011)

MoistTrout said:


> Considering organizations like the Jaycees and the Shriners have a conservative foundation, and have done more to actually help people than any "progressive" government program I can think of, I'd say there isn't much merit to the base of this thread.



[/quote]I have actually taught computer skills at Shriner's so that must make it a liberal foundation, you think? It would seem to me that helping people is liberal while telling them to get up out of that wheelchair and walk is conservative, your kind of conservative, am I close. I have no idea why these people just didn't be more careful in so many ways, you blame them right? You blame others down on their luck. And why does that bad old government even gives Shriner's tax-deductible status? Do you? Funny, I don't remember the people there being anything but concerned and caring, empathetic one would say.[/quote]


Yes, obviously some random person who taught computer skills is synonymous with an organization that was founded in *1870*.

It would seem to me you are just fanning the flames of stereotypes and making baseless assumptions about me. But I suppose it only seems that way because that's exactly what you are doing.

Your offering nothing but garbage. It's tired "progressive" reasoning (I use that word loosely). "This is the reality I want to exist, so I'l simply say that it does." You break your arm patting yourself on the back while laying claim to anything good and applying anything bad to the people that don't vote the same way you do. Luckily, outside of the choir, nobody lends you any merit.

By the way, the Shriners stem from the Masons and experience their largest growth when soldiers returning home from World War II joined up. Oh, but you sat at a computer, so...


----------



## editec (Aug 25, 2011)

martybegan said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


----------



## MoistTrout (Aug 25, 2011)

Vargulf said:


> I remember watching a newscaster talking to a woman in her twenties several years back and asking her what could be done to help the handicapped.
> Her response was that they should be executed.
> The newscaster asked her how she could be so callous and her response was to be taken aback and say that she considered herself to be a nice person.
> That woman clearly had a lack of empathy toward others and I am sure fits right in with the likes of Glenn Beck and the ultra-right wing conservatives.
> There is no empathy from the uber-rich.  They are simply money addicts and consider all others to be no more than bugs.  They want this nation to be turned into what the third-world nations have for a work force.  No unions.  No decent wages.  No irritating government regulations for the safety of said workers.  No environmental regulations.  All such things hamper.....more riches.



I remember seeing a liberal try to give his ideaology credit for the very foundation of a conservative based organization because he taught basic computer skills... Oh yeah, that was just a few minutes ago.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 25, 2011)

Methinks that leftloons in general, and the pious blowhard OP in particular, equate pity with empathy.

A crying shame they have absolutely no empathy for taxpayer, who has to bear the financial burden for the imposition their faux empathy upon everyone else.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 25, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> I wish it were false Bern, but it is not. I hear it every day on this and other boards. I hear conservatives calling for cutting off extended unemployment, even though there is only ONE job for every five people out of work. But conservative solutions never include human capital. Their solutions always require some group of people to just evaporate.



No Bf, that;s your issue. Again assuming that if government won't help people they are doomed. There is a pretty good list of traits other than empathy that left is lacking; introspection, perspective and foresight immediately come to mind.



Bfgrn said:


> The social programs we have in America are the LEAST a nation who calls itself civilized should do. Social Security and Medicare are the very BEST of what government can and should do for We, the People.



The measure of a civilized nation is how much it's government takes upon itself to do for people (remembering that for our government to do something for one they must first take from another)? Sorry I simply don't buy into that premise.



Bfgrn said:


> Conservatives today are under the arrogant assumption that THEY know our founder's intent. Even though the best minds and scholars have been arguing things like the General Welfare Clause for over 200 years.



It isn't arrogance. We know their intent because they told us in accompanying documents they wrote along with constitution like the federalist papers. Madison very clearly stated in one of the federalist papers what the general welfare clause means and how it was to be applied. The only hand ringing over it is by the leftists who wish it allowed government to do more than it actually says.



Bfgrn said:


> Thomas Jefferson believed every citizen should have a free education and he also believed the levers of government belongs to the living, not the dead.



by which I'm fairly certain did not extend to ignoring the constitution if it doesn't fit your world view. And maybe he did believe in free education. That isn't the question. The quesiton is did he believe the fed was supposed to fund it. There is no authority over educuation by the fed found in the constitution, though a state would certainly have that authority.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 25, 2011)

For the thoughtful reader notice how the right can only project an often imaginary or exaggerated characteristic on the left. The right has no answers and if it were not for liberals they would have to look at their ideology's lack of any real accomplishment. 

Shriner's is conservative according to one conservative but consider it helps handicapped and injured children but our government which helps a great many more people in all conditions is bad. If you can reconcile those thoughts in the same head, you can perform any ideological magic. And that really is the problem for any rigid ideology, when the real world intrudes it becomes someone else's fault. That sort of simplistic thinking makes life easy, finger pointing has always been the weak man's crutch; note too, no one answered my perennial question below. 

*PS The greatest progressive achievement was social security, followed by medicare and voting rights for all. I have asked for years for a conservative accomplishment equivalent to any of these and never ever get an answer. I wonder why.* asked here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-conservatives-and-empathy-4.html#post4049757


"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things...every one! So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor." Matt Santos


----------



## martybegan (Aug 25, 2011)

editec said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 25, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> For the thoughtful reader notice how the right can only project an often imaginary or exaggerated characteristic on the left. The right has no answers and if it were not for liberals they would have to look at their ideology's lack of any real accomplishment.
> 
> Shriner's is conservative according to one conservative but consider it helps handicapped and injured children but our government which helps a great many more people in all conditions is bad. If you can reconcile those thoughts in the same head, you can perform any ideological magic. And that really is the problem for any rigid ideology, when the real world intrudes it becomes someone else's fault. That sort of simplistic thinking makes life easy, finger pointing has always been the weak man's crutch; note too, no one answered my perennial question below.
> 
> ...



I think if you do a careful evaluation of history you will find that it was mostly modern American conservatives, not liberals, who brought all these into reality.  There is no way that FDR could be described as a 'liberal' under the modern definition of the term.  He had no way to look ahead to see how future congressional leaders would corrupt and misuse his concept of social security.  If he had, he would not have pushed it.  It is now a far different program that what he promised it would be, it is not sustainable as it is, and it is one reason the United States is pushing headlong off the bankruptcy cliff.

The Civil Rights act would never have passed without Republican support--they supported it proportionately more than Democrats did.  It was the modern Conservatives, aka Classical liberals, in both parties, not modern day liberals, who understood the concept of unalienable rights who voted for it.  The EPA was authorized under Nixon with almost 100% Republican support.  You want to call HIM a liberal?  He is remembered for Watergate and other scandals, but in his first term he actively pursued five areas of domestic reform: welfare, civil rights (including not only desegregation and voting rights, but also additional rights for women and , economic and environmental policy, and reorganization of the federal bureaucracy.

There is a difference between a nanny state and unalienable rights.  Modern liberals honor the nanny state while modern conservatives put the focus on unalienable rightts and personal freedom.

Who is more empathetic?  Those who ignore the dependency created by well intentioned but wrong headed government largesse?  Or those who see the unintended negative consequences, understand how it is affecting those trapped in them, and who are committed to breaking the destructive cycles that put them in it?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 25, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Methinks that leftloons in general, and the pious blowhard OP in particular, equate pity with empathy.
> 
> A crying shame they have absolutely no empathy for taxpayer, who has to bear the financial burden for the imposition their faux empathy upon everyone else.



I think that is part of the problem, going back to my blinders metaphor in an earlier post, it is defnitiely tunnel vision to confuse empathy with sympathy or to confuse compassion with buying power, influence, prestige.

Let's apply some empathy to the current financial situation by translating it to more up close and personal terms:

&#8226; U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000 
&#8226; Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000 
&#8226; New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000 
&#8226; National debt: $14,271,000,000,000 
&#8226; Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000 

Remove a bunch of zeros and translate that to a young household just this year:
&#8226; Annual family income: $21,700 
&#8226; Money the family spent: $38,200 
&#8226; New debt on the credit card: $16,500 
&#8226; Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710 
&#8226; Total budget cuts: $385


----------



## 2twsted4colorTV (Aug 25, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> For the thoughtful reader notice how the right can only project an often imaginary or exaggerated characteristic on the left. The right has no answers and if it were not for liberals they would have to look at their ideology's lack of any real accomplishment.
> 
> Shriner's is conservative according to one conservative but consider it helps handicapped and injured children but our government which helps a great many more people in all conditions is bad. If you can reconcile those thoughts in the same head, you can perform any ideological magic. And that really is the problem for any rigid ideology, when the real world intrudes it becomes someone else's fault. That sort of simplistic thinking makes life easy, finger pointing has always been the weak man's crutch; note too, no one answered my perennial question below.
> 
> ...



Wilson was labeled "progressive" and was very much against women voting. Women were arrested and beaten for protesting.

As far as the black vote, the south where much of the segregation and what have you took place was ruled by Democrats who opposed blacks being treated equally.  In fact:

_Wilson did not interfere with the well-established system of Jim Crow and backed the demands of Southern Democrats that their states be left alone to deal with issues of race and black voting without interference from Washington_

Since when are people solely on Social Security rich?  They are at the poverty level.  Social Security is practically broke, it's a joke.  I wish to God we didn't have to pay into it, the government acts like it's doing us a favor paying it to us when we earned it, it is not an "entitlement" -  Medicare the same way, it's a joke. You have to have aonther insurance to pay what Medicare doesn't, which is practically everything.  I wish we didn't have to sign up for that either. 

As far as women voting:   
_Woodrow Wilson and Womens Rights
President Wilson never accepted female suffrage. Despite his Progressive leanings, allowing women to vote was anathema to the man who, as a student at Princeton University, stated that Universal suffrage is at the foundation of every evil in this country. As a professor at Bryn Mawr, he referred to the female dean  Martha Carey Thomas, as the apotheosis of the advanced woman. According to biographer Phyllis Levin, he detested her and all she stood for. Levin argues that Wilsons eventual support of the 19th Amendment was motivated by political value. Historian Kendrick Clements writes that Wilson had a patronizing approach to women._


_In November 1917 thirty-three courageous suffragettes were incarcerated at the Occoquan Workhouse for picketing the White House on behalf of women's suffrage. 
On November 15, 1917, thirty-three womens rights activists, arrested for picketing in front of the White House, were transferred to the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia. These courageous suffragettes suffered unspeakable brutalities that included beatings, humiliation, forced-feeding, and trauma. This became the National Womens Partys Night of Terror. Media publicity of the sordid event, according to New York Times coverage, helped persuade President Woodrow Wilson, a long-time opponent of womens suffrage, to support the 19th Amendment._

It was a Republican who freed the slaves and from what I've read the Democrats in congress would not vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The Republicans passed that.  so you'd best read up on your history, sweetie.


----------



## kwc57 (Aug 25, 2011)

I have a 26 year old, liberal, vegan, empathtic step-nephew who wants to save the world and feed the starving children in Africa.  He is a real hand wringer over the power of "the man" and the plight of the "oppressed".  He thinks all of those evil conservatives and corporations should give their "fair share".  Problem is, he is a deadbeat who won't keep a job, lives in my brother's house rent free and made so little when he did work that he paid no taxes.......but got a check back from the gubmint.  I'm not even sure if he knows how to wipe his own ass by himself.......but he wants to use other people's money to save the world and feed starving children.  He's liberal and he's "empathetic".  True story!


----------



## kwc57 (Aug 25, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


----------



## 2twsted4colorTV (Aug 25, 2011)

kwc57 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


----------



## kwc57 (Aug 25, 2011)

2twsted4colorTV said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 25, 2011)

2twsted4colorTV said:


> I believe in the "God helps those who helps themselves."   it is like the old saying:  "Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day;  TEACH a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime."  Don't the liberals WANT to be self-reliant? Why would you want to be dependent on somebody else forever? To be dependent on somebody else is to be under their rule? Can't they see that when you are dependent on the government, you are under their rule? You are not free? Don't they want to be free?  I guess I just don't understand that.   You raise and take care of your kids.  But I raised mine to be self-reliant and take care of herself. Because one of these days I'll be dead and if she can't take care of herself, then what?  Even the wild animals teach their young to be self-reliant.  Imagine if none of use worked and relied on the government, where would THEY get the money? print it?  When you contantly give somebody something  and never expect THEM to take care of themselves, you are not doing them any favors.



Is it really that hard to imagine? I tend of think of freedom and security on a spectrum. The more government ensures one the more it takes away of the other. And is it really so hard to imagine that some people would rather have government ensure them an outcome and risk free existence over freedom?


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 25, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > I wish it were false Bern, but it is not. I hear it every day on this and other boards. I hear conservatives calling for cutting off extended unemployment, even though there is only ONE job for every five people out of work. But conservative solutions never include human capital. Their solutions always require some group of people to just evaporate.
> ...



Bern, PLEASE don't hack up my posts. Reply in paragraphs. I know what I said.

We the People ARE the government. So what We, the People DO FOR our fellow citizens defines who and what we are.

We don't have to assume anything. We KNOW what existed before Medicare. Without government help elderly citizens were the most likely to be thrust into poverty. When President Kennedy called for Medicare over 50 years ago, over half of the retired Americans had NO health insurance. Medicare alone lifted millions of elderly Americans out of poverty. And Medicare gave elderly Americans the security of not losing everything they worked their whole lives for because of an illness. THAT is what a civil and compassionate nation does, it protects the most vulnerable among us. 



We need to strengthen our Nation by safeguarding its health:

--Our working men and women, instead of being forced to beg for help from public charity once they are old and ill, should start contributing now to their own retirement health program through the Social Security System.
*President John F. Kennedy *
State of the Union Address
January 14, 1963


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 25, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Hack up your post? Get real. If you're afraid to have what you say scrutinized that oughta say quite a lot to you about the validity of what you say. You say our social programs are the least a country can do. That implies you believe government should be doing even more for people. A position that indicates an amazing lack of foresight. You are compassionate to a fault. What you want to do at first blush sounds nice and warm and fuzzy. But the fact that you don't see what government must do to ensure those things for people shows that you lack foresight. You claim we don't know what the general welfare clause means. Which is not factually correct. We know quite specifically what it means because one of the authors told us. The only debate is from left who simply don't like what it said.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 26, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Bern, I asked you nicely not to hack up my posts. It has nothing to do with fear of being scrutinized, I welcome scrutiny. The reason I asked is because it creates a disjointed conversation.

As I read through the replies on this thread, it confirms my post on conservatives, their moral system and the way they were raise. To conservatives, empathy is seen as weakness.

Conservatives claim America is founded on Christian beliefs. The root word of Christianity is Christ. Jesus walked this earth to set an example of how we should live our lives. Jesus taught social justice and that we are our brother's keeper. The Bible addresses helping the least among us.

Matthew 25:34-40
The Final Judgment

34 Then the King will say to those on his right, Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.

37 Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?

40 The King will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe in the truth and history.

The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."

There were two primary authors of the The Federalist essays that set forth separate and conflicting interpretations:

* James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.

* Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.

And, Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, and has been heatedly debated ever since. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law. (wiki)

Thomas Jefferson also disagreed with Hamilton on what their newly born republic should look like. Jefferson preferred the French style Republic over one similar to the British Monarchy. Jefferson believed that the government was created to ensure peoples liberty. His vision for America was an agrarian society where people could become independent farmers and be self-sufficient. And he wanted to avoid what he witnessed during his years in Europe. He wanted to avoid the urban city messes that were too common in Europe, as well as to avoid the poverty and inequality.

Hamilton's vision was more of an industrialized society and he was partial to the moneyed interests of the cities. He was a believer in a militarily strong national government.

SO...America today is a Hamiltonian republic on steroids, well beyond what even Hamilton would accept. If ANY of our founding fathers were to return to see how their experiment in government turned out, they would be appalled that the corporations and moneyed interests have recreated the aristocracy they fought against.

Thomas Jefferson was probably the most intelligent of of founders IMO. His liberalism and his intellect would guide him if he were to magically reappear. He would view today's society, access the carnage and support the necessary social services that are the consequences of Hamilton's vision.

If our founders returned unrecognized and spoke out, they would be ostracized and labeled traitors, marxists, communists, and liberal fascists 24/7 on Fox News, America's Pravda.

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 26, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



I can't speak for how anyone else was raised Bf. I was raised to be as non-dependent on others as possible. I was raised Catholic, but no longer ascribe to any organized relgion, nor do I believe that one needs to be religious to have a good moral compass. You don't need god to have things like integrity, personal accountability or generosity.

I know the debate over the general welfar clause as well and do acknowledge that Hamilton's somewhat borader view has prevailed. Unfortunately winning, does not always equate to being right. It is simply better, despite whatever altrusitic intentions government may have, for their spending power to very specific and very limited. It also makes sense that Hamilton's view would prevail. Let's face it, financial discipline is hard. Look at how many people in our country are in debt. Most individuals eventually have to do something about it. If you don't have the money, you don't have the money. But a government doesn't have that constraint. It can simply vote itself more money, or even have more of it printed. The interpretation of the general welfare clause was broadened for no other real reason than because government could. It gives them more power and power is we all know is rather addicting.

I agree that the founders would be appalled at the extent to which the government and corporations are intermingling. But don't for a second think that means they would be all for all of the entitlements we have established since their time. The founders were leary of the altruism of government. They knew that road to tyranny is paved with the best of intentions meaning despite how compassionate or kind policy x may sound it really is best for government to stay the hell out of it.


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 26, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



JFK would be a Republican today. Comparing him to the Democrats of today he leans more toward the right then most liberals would be comfortable with. He believed in cutting taxes and he didn't believe in spreading the wealth. He also said *"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". *

Very good words that the left has forgotten. Instead the left instills dependency on our children. They're fostering a sense of entitlement that will change this country forever. We might as well call ourselves New France.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 26, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Bern, you keep emoting without any facts. 

HERE are the FACTS:

We tried a charity only approach...it FAILED. Maybe conservatives feel the elderly and poor need to beg.

Medicare has lifted millions of elderly Americans out of poverty. It has increased life expectancies and given our ancestors who worked, fought wars and built a better America for our benefit a dignified end of life. 

Not only is Medicare a HUGE success for the elderly in America, it is MORE cost effective that private insurance. This comes from a CONSERVATIVE...






*Is Medicare Cost Effective?*

2003

I recently spent a half-day in a meeting discussing a number of issues regarding Medicare. Most of us on the provider side of the street view Medicare as this multiheaded bureaucracy with more pages of regulations than the Internal Revenue Service's tax code. However, I came away from the meeting with some (to me at least) shocking revelations:

* Medicare beneficiaries are overwhelmingly satisfied with their Medicare coverage, except for the absence of prescription drug benefits;

* The administrative costs of Medicare are lower than any other large health plan.

In fact, Medicare is very efficient by any objective means:

According to the Urban Institute's Marilyn Moon, who testified before the Senate Committee on Aging, Medicare expenditures between 1970 and 2000 grew more slowly than those of the private sector. Initially, from 1965 through the 1980s, Medicare and private insurance costs doubled in tandem. Then Medicare tightened up, and per capita expenditures grew more slowly than private insurance, creating a significant gap. In the 1990s, private insurers got more serious about controlling their costs, and the gap narrowed. But by 2000, Medicare per capita expenditures remained significantly lower than the private sector.

* The average income of Medicare beneficiaries is closer to the poverty line than many of us working folks would like to believe: According to government statistics Moon cites, more than 90 percent of retirees covered by Medicare earn less than $32,000 per year for individuals or $40,000 for couples. In 2003, Medicare beneficiaries will spend an average of 23 percent of their income on health care!

Moon argues somewhat convincingly that Medicare has been a success. While not necessarily denying that certain reforms might be needed, she stresses the importance of preserving three essential tenets of the program:

    1. Its universal coverage nature creates the ability to redistribute benefits to those who are neediest.


    2. It pools risk in order to share the burdens of health care among the healthy and the sick.

    3. Through Medicare, the government protects the rights of all beneficiaries to essential health care.

It has been argued that, in part, Medicare's cost effectiveness arises from the fact that it does not need to expend funds on marketing and sales-functions that are obligatory for the success of competitive, private-sector health plans. Moreover, some argue that the competitive model for health insurance has not been successful. In a market-driven economy, the healthy can and will change health plans for savings of only a few dollars a month, while the sick must remain in their existing plan in order to retain their physicians. Such behaviors lead to asymmetric risk pools and cost inequities.

This was all sobering news to a market-driven entrepreneur such as yours truly. However, given the perverse incentives that frequently drive behavior in health care, my take-home lesson is that there are examples in the success of Medicare we can apply to other sectors of our population.

William Ralph Brody

Is Medicare Cost Effective?


----------



## 2twsted4colorTV (Aug 26, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



We pay into Medicare -  if you have never worked at a job, but have always been on Welfare, here's a newsflash  -- you aren't eligible for it. Same for Social Security -  since you can't be on Welfare forever, I don't think anyhow -  if you have never paid into either Medicare or SS, you aren't eligible for it.  Then you really WILL be in deep shit - poverty that is.   You can HAVE MY portion of Medicare if you want -  I don't really want it.  But, I have paid into it, and fortunately I have a wonderful insurance through hubby's retirement, but . . .  How in the hell do you think people survived for hundreds of years without it.  The fact that we have a longer life expectancy has nothing in the world to do with Medicare!! It's nutrition knowledge, antibiotics, vaccines, etc.  All came about BEFORE the invention of Medicare!!!


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 26, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



I'm not emoting anything. It's you who is failing to see reality. Facts? It is an undeniable fact that our government has far more power than it had at the time of the founding. The founders knew what too much governmental power meant for a citizenry because that is what they fled from. You on the other hand are the one changing the subject completely in order to avoid what you know to be true. Try actually responding to what I said first, then we can talk about whether a system that is going to be bankrupt can somehow be called efficient.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 26, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> To conservatives, empathy is seen as weakness.





What a stupid generalization.


----------



## aplcr0331 (Aug 26, 2011)

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compasionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216"]Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compasionate Conservatism Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters[/ame]


----------



## sassmcghee (Aug 26, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > To conservatives, empathy is seen as weakness.
> ...



Completely stupid and baseless and untrue.


----------



## hippie2049 (Aug 26, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


----------



## Oddball (Aug 26, 2011)

hippie2049 said:


> I'm guessing someone has read George Lakoff.
> 
> I have charged conservatives with a lack of empathy and felt nothing but sympathy for their lack of empathy and I have never intended to use it in a pejorative manner. Often times when I have charged a conservative with lacking empathy I've prefaced it with something to the effect of "I do not intend to hurt your feelings and I understand how it could seem that way, but consider it from their perspective. Practice empathy." They always take offense and frequently get irate further demonstrating their lack of empathy.


Pity isn't empathy and Lakoff is a piker.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 26, 2011)

hippie2049 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 26, 2011)

Oddball said:


> hippie2049 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm guessing someone has read George Lakoff.
> ...



That is true, and empathy in and of itself is not necessarily a virtue.  I can and do empathise with the man who is provoked to rage and violence sufficient to cause harm or injury to another.   I can empathise with road rage or anger that wants to do violence to a kid throwing a temper tantrum.

But empathizing with the dynamics involved does not translate into tolerance or excuse for violence that causes injury or pain or risks the life or well being of another.

I can an do empathise with being frustrated at not being able to find a job--been there, done that, trashed the T-shirt.  I can empathise with longing to be like some who don't even bother to check prices but just pick up whatever looks good to them at the market.  I don't know how many times I looked at the rib roast or rack of ribs and passed them by because they were budget busters.  I can empathise with the young person who can't afford a nice apartment or a good car or an Ipad or a vacation.  Been there too.

But empathizing with the longings and frustrations of others does not translate into justification to just give up, to unlawfully take what another has, to demand that others, via the government, provide me with what I want.

It is not empathy that suggests the 'rich' man should have less and the government should give the poor more.  That is something far more sinister and dangerous than any lack of empathy could produce.


----------



## AquaAthena (Aug 26, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Empathy comes from the heart, not from an edict from on high.
> 
> Then again, the left has shown themselves to be in possession of the tiniest hearts out there -as evidenced by the widely circulated annual lists of political types who give the most and least to private charities- so it's little surprise that they'd project their callousness onto everyone else.



True. And at least we can spell...empathy.   ( "lack of empthy" from OP )


----------



## derk (Aug 26, 2011)

AquaAthena said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Empathy comes from the heart, not from an edict from on high.
> ...



Lack of empathy for the OP.


----------



## hippie2049 (Aug 27, 2011)

> Pity isn't empathy and Lakoff is a piker.



It's tricky empathizing with those without empathy.


----------



## code1211 (Aug 27, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > The Democrat "solution" to the rise of Medicare cost is to cover less of those of those costs by reducing the amount that a provider may charge.
> ...





Liberals love complexity.  It shrouds the truth from review.  However you want to package the lies of the Democrats, the truth is that the method to save dollars that the Democrats employ is to simply reduce the amounts paid to the doctors.

In this industry advice piece, it exhorts doctors to find ways to harvest more money fronm non-government sources if they want to maintain their cashflows.

The question is unanswered.  What happens when the providers refuse to offer care for the reduced rates?

Poor planning and platitudes don't get the job done.



As Medicare Payment Reduction Takes Effect, Physicians Need to Look at Options -- AAFP News Now -- American Academy of Family Physicians

As Medicare Payment Reduction Takes Effect, Physicians Need to Look at Options
How to Cope With Lower Medicare Payments in Your Practice
By Sheri Porter  

Posted: 6/18/2010, 4:15 p.m. -- As of June 18, CMS began processing Medicare claims with dates of service of June 1 and later with a 21.3 percent physician fee cut. What does this mean for physicians, and how can they minimize the effect on their immediate cash flow?

http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-...ents-new-medicare-patients-medicare-providers

&#8220;This is a very serious problem for us,&#8217;&#8217; said Dr. Lynda Young, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society. &#8220;Obviously we recognize the need for cost cutting, but the depth of the projected cuts is really going to have a serious impact on access. Physicians are going to say, &#8216;We can&#8217;t take any new Medicare patients because we just can&#8217;t survive.&#8217; &#8217;&#8217;


----------



## code1211 (Aug 27, 2011)

Vargulf said:


> I remember watching a newscaster talking to a woman in her twenties several years back and asking her what could be done to help the handicapped.
> Her response was that they should be executed.
> The newscaster asked her how she could be so callous and her response was to be taken aback and say that she considered herself to be a nice person.
> That woman clearly had a lack of empathy toward others and I am sure fits right in with the likes of Glenn Beck and the ultra-right wing conservatives.
> There is no empathy from the uber-rich.  They are simply money addicts and consider all others to be no more than bugs.  They want this nation to be turned into what the third-world nations have for a work force.  No unions.  No decent wages.  No irritating government regulations for the safety of said workers.  No environmental regulations.  All such things hamper.....more riches.




Bill Gates?  Carnegie?  You're an idiot.


----------



## editec (Aug 27, 2011)

I see that most of you right wing cranks are still confusing empathy with sympathy.

It really doesn't really surprise me that you cannot even imagine what the difference really is.

In fact that that's exactly my point about the blindness that I think many of our RW cranks have.

Talking about empathy to some of you is like trying to describe COLOR to a colorblind person.


----------



## chanel (Aug 27, 2011)

It's such a bogus semantic argument. It's like saying "Who loves more? Men or women?" Can anyone define "love"?

I have deep respect for the do-gooders of this world. There are people who contribute time and money to their communities, schools, and all different organizations. I have far more respect for people who "empathize" with people they know, rather than blathering about the plight of those they don't.  

Personally, I have more "empathy" for abused and neglected kids than I do for a 20 something without health insurance.( Heartless I know.)


----------



## Oddball (Aug 27, 2011)

editec said:


> I see that most of you right wing cranks are still confusing empathy with sympathy.
> 
> It really doesn't really surprise me that you cannot even imagine what the difference really is.
> 
> ...


Empathy doesn't come from compulsion and bureaucracy, Skippy.

Talk about blind.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 27, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



FACTS are 'reality' Bern. You keep repeating what you feel, or misinformation that you have been indoctrinated with.

I have provided facts, you emote opinion.

I noticed your signature line. THESE FACTS should really blow up your dogma...

Ronald Reagan looted Social Security.

Looting Social Security

By Paul Craig Roberts

Hank Paulson, the Gold Sacks bankster/US Treasury Secretary, who deregulated the financial system, caused a world crisis that wrecked the prospects of foreign banks and governments, caused millions of Americans to lose retirement savings, homes, and jobs, and left taxpayers burdened with multi-trillions of dollars of new US debt, is still not in jail. He is writing in the New York Times urging that the mess he caused be fixed by taking away from working Americans the Social Security and Medicare for which they have paid in earmarked taxes all their working lives.

Wall Street&#8217;s approach to the poor has always been to drive them deeper into the ground.

As there is no money to be made from the poor, Wall Street fleeces them by yanking away their entitlements. It has always been thus. During the Reagan administration, Wall Street decided to boost the values of its bond and stock portfolios by using Social Security revenues to lower budget deficits. Wall Street figured that lower deficits would mean lower interest rates and higher bond and stock prices.

Two Wall Street henchmen, Alan Greenspan and David Stockman, set up the Social Security raid in this way: The Carter administration had put Social Security in the black for the foreseeable future by establishing a schedule for future Social Security payroll tax increases. Greenspan and Stockman conspired to phase in the payroll tax increases earlier than was needed in order to gain surplus Social Security revenues that could be used to finance other government spending, thus reducing the budget deficit. They sold it to President Reagan as &#8220;putting Social Security on a sound basis.&#8221;

We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we can&#8217;t afford, an &#8220;unfunded liability.&#8221; This is a lie. Social Security is funded with an earmarked tax. People pay for Social Security and Medicare all their working lives. It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the taxes paid by those working fund those who are retired.

Currently these systems are not in deficit. The problem is that government is using earmarked revenues for other purposes. Indeed, since the 1980s Social Security revenues have been used to fund general government. Today Social Security revenues are being used to fund trillion dollar bailouts for Wall Street and to fund the Bush/Obama wars of aggression against Muslims.

Having diverted Social Security revenues to war and Wall Street, Paulson says there is no alternative but to take the promised benefits away from those who have paid for them.

Republicans have extraordinary animosity toward the poor. In an effort to talk retirees out of their support systems, Republicans frequently describe Social Security as a Ponzi scheme and &#8220;unsustainable.&#8221; They ought to know. The phony trust fund, which they set up to hide the fact that Wall Street and the Pentagon are running off with Social Security revenues, is a Ponzi scheme. Social Security itself has been with us since the 1930s and has yet to wreck our lives and budget. But it only took Hank Paulson&#8217;s derivative Ponzi scheme and its bailout a few years to inflict irreparable damage on our lives and budget.

Years ago with stagflation defeated and a rising stock market, I favored privatizing Social Security as a way of creating a funded retirement system and producing greater savings and larger incomes for retirees. At that time Wall Street was interested, not for my reasons, but in order to collect the fees from managing the funds.

Had Social Security been privatized, I doubt that Wall Street would have been permitted to deregulate the financial system. Too much would have been at stake.

After the latest crisis brought on by Wall Street&#8217;s dishonesty and greed, trusting Wall Street to manage anyone&#8217;s old age pension requires a leap of faith that no intelligent person can make.

Wall Street has got away with its raid on the public treasury. Now, pockets full, it wants to pay for the heist by curtailing Social Security and Medicare. Having deprived the working population of homes, jobs, and health care, Wall Street is now after the elderly&#8217;s old age security.

Social Security, formerly an untouchable &#8220;third rail of politics,&#8221; is now &#8220;unsustainable,&#8221; while the real unsustainables&#8211;a pre-1929 unregulated financial system and open-ended multi-trillion dollar Global War Against Terror&#8211;are the new untouchables. This transformation signals the complete capture of American democracy by an oligarchy of special interests.

More

*Paul Craig Roberts - Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics.*


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 27, 2011)

editec said:


> I see that most of you right wing cranks are still confusing empathy with sympathy.
> 
> It really doesn't really surprise me that you cannot even imagine what the difference really is.
> 
> ...



And it seems to me that you leftwingers are accusing rightwingers of something of which they are not guilty.  We have provided numerous examples of empathy resulting in wrongheaded policy and programs all of which have been thoroughly ignored by the leftwingers.  It doesn't fit your road map of blame and your self righteous assumption that you are somehow more compassionate and noble because you can 'empathize' with the less fortunate and if the rightwing could do that, they would see things differently.

And we eeeeeeeevul rightwingers have called bullshit on that.  Seeing that empathy converted into sympathetic action is not always a good thing is not the same thing as not having empathy.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 27, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Liberals love complexity.  It shrouds the truth from review.  However you want to package the lies of the Democrats, the truth is that the method to save dollars that the Democrats employ is to simply reduce the amounts paid to the doctors. [...]
> 
> Posted: 6/18/2010, 4:15 p.m. -- As of June 18, CMS began processing Medicare claims with dates of service of June 1 and later with a 21.3 percent physician fee cut. What does this mean for physicians, and how can they minimize the effect on their immediate cash flow?



You're under the impression that physicians face these cuts because of a Democratic law? They don't. The SGR that threatens to slash Medicare physician payments every year was passed by the Republican Congress in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. A greater appreciation for complexity might have prevented that mistake, which still hasn't been resolved, aside from short-term overrides.


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 27, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> Think UHC. Extrapolate UHC.
> 
> "[T]rying to measure a life of poverty as a collection of stuff isn't really going to come close to measuring that same life as a whole life."
> 
> ...



I saw the title and thought "Oxymoron much? Empathetic Conservatives HAS to rate right up there with Military Intelligence!"


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 27, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals love complexity.  It shrouds the truth from review.  However you want to package the lies of the Democrats, the truth is that the method to save dollars that the Democrats employ is to simply reduce the amounts paid to the doctors. [...]
> ...



Which was signed, without any quibble, by a Democratic President who then took full credit for achieving a balanced budget and has been given credit for that and a good economy by the leftwing ever since.  He deserves props for signing it.  The GOP deserves props for passing it.  Both share responsibility for unintended consequences that are inevitable in any large scale piece of legislation.

And none of that has one iota to do with anything re empathizing with the less fortunate.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 27, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Which was signed, without any quibble, by a Democratic President who then took full credit for achieving a balanced budget and has been given credit for that and a good economy by the leftwing ever since.  He deserves props for signing it.  The GOP deserves props for passing it.



Oh good lord. "The Balanced Budget Act" was a name. It didn't actually balance the budget. The fact that its primary budget balancing mechanism--cuts to Medicare physician payments--is manually overridden by Congress every year or two should be the first clue to that. As I've pointed out before, the BBA was actually _adding_ to the deficit in the first year that the Clinton Administration registered a surplus.

Looking back at the CBO's analysis of the Republican's Balanced Budget Act in 1997, the deficit impact at the end of the '90s/beginning of the '00s was supposed to be:


FY98: Net increase in the deficit of $200 million
 FY99: $12.6 billion in deficit reduction
 FY00: $35 billion in deficit reduction (note that some of the Medicare cuts that were to account for this reduction were eliminated by the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999)
 FY01: $18.2 billion in deficit reduction

In reality, the large deficit reductions in the BBA were scheduled to start taking place in FY02 and thereafter (two-thirds of which was to come from cuts to federal health spending in FY02 and virtually all of which was to come from those sources in subsequent years). When Congress began overriding those Medicare cuts manually in 2003--the "doc fix" to cope with the BBA's broken SGR formula that we're still stuck with today--the deficit reduction potential of the BBA was officially rescinded.

The budgets of the late '90s owe nothing to the BBA. The balanced budgets (ha?) of the mid-'00s would have, if the BBA had actually been capable of doing what it promised.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 27, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Which was signed, without any quibble, by a Democratic President who then took full credit for achieving a balanced budget and has been given credit for that and a good economy by the leftwing ever since.  He deserves props for signing it.  The GOP deserves props for passing it.
> ...



You're right.  It didn't balance the budget because the debt clock kept running.  I should have added 'act' to balanced budget, but in fact the popular claim is that the budget was balanced and a surplus produced--remember that 'surplus' that Bush is constantly accused of erasing?

I am not attempting to argue those economics.  I just intend to set the record straight in the blame game here.

And it is NOT empathy that drives most of the politics and actions of the left any more than it is lack of empathy that drives most of the politics and actions of the right.


----------



## bill5 (Aug 27, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> Think UHC. Extrapolate UHC.


I will if you tell me what it is first. 



> "[T]rying to measure a life of poverty as a collection of stuff isn't really going to come close to measuring that same life as a whole life."


If that means the value of a person's life can't be measured solely by material things, well duh.  And?



> Note my new category of thought, I have always wondered what goes into making a person of conscience and what goes into making a conservative?


 I have always wondered what would cause someone so be so mind-numbingly blind/stupid as to think the two are mutually exclusive.   

Honestly the left vs right gibberish on this site is so excessive/extreme sometimes it's only possible value is as entertainment value  





editec said:


> Empathy is the ability to imagine the plight of another.


No, Empathy is the ability to imagine _and sympathize with _the plight of another.



> You'll no doubt note that most of the self proclaiming cons on this board display a complete lack of empthy.


 I've noticed no difference whatsoever between either the so-called left or right.  



> But one does frequently encounter people who are permanently stuck in their own heads who truly cannot remotely imagine another's POV, and almost without exception those types tend to be dogmatic cons.


  Yeah right.  That speaks for itself.  Enjoy those blinders you have on, my goodness they're large.

This board should rename itself "My side right your side is wrong!" as that is the mentality which so dominates it.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 27, 2011)

I see no need for rebuttal to any of bill5's argument except this one:



> No, Empathy is the ability to imagine and sympathize with the plight of another.



Here I gently disagree.  I may empathize with the person's temptation to steal or smack somebody, physically or verbally, without feeling the least bit of sympathy for the person who acts on their temptation.  In fact, knowing that the other person and I shared a feeling, desire, hope, temptation etc., does not necessarily keep me from disliking or disapproving of that person in a particular situation.

Empathy is emotionally sharing a feeling, desire, situation without necessarily condoning it or even understanding it.

Sympathy is a form of understanding the condition or behavior of another, but still does not automatically translate into excuse for that person's response or conduct or provoke a response.

Neither empathy nor sympathy may be a valid reason to respond in a particular way, however, and both can be misplaced.  Misguided response based on empathy or sympathy may be far less productive and/or more destructive than might a response based on hard, cold objectivity devoid of either empathy or sympathy.

Being one who cries at supermarket openings, and also one who describes herself as a Modern American Conservative, aka classical liberal, I categorically deny that conservatives are incapable or unlikely to have empathy.  I do think conservatives are more likely to be able to distinguish between empathy and sympathy and the different reality of the situation which liberals are far less likely to be able to do do.  But that could reflect my own ideological bias and perception more than being grounded in any verifiable fact.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 27, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> I see no need for rebuttal to any of bill5's argument except this one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You state:
"And it is NOT empathy that drives most of the politics and actions of the left any more than it is lack of empathy that drives most of the politics and actions of the right."

How can you say what drives liberals? You can only speak for you. 

Every meaningful piece of legislation crafted in this nation that has benefited the poor and middle class has been authored by and passed by liberals and Democrats.

And conservatives have mostly been in opposition. Their concerns are for the opulent and elite. It is nothing new, but it is getting worse, much, MUCH worse. Barry Goldwater was extremely concerned about the far right direction conservatism was heading at the end of his life. He had numerous conversations with John Dean. It was the genesis of his book 'Conservatives Without Conscience'. Goldwater had planned to collaborate on this book before his death.







Synopses & Reviews
Publisher Comments:

John Dean takes a sobering look at how radical elements are destroying the Republican Party along with the very foundations of American democracy.

John Dean's last New York Times bestseller, Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, offered the former White House insider's unique and telling perspective on George W. Bush's presidency. Once again, Dean employs his distinctive knowledge and understanding of Washington politics and process to examine the conservative movement's current inner circle of radical Republican leaders  from Capitol Hill to Pennsylvania Avenue to K Street and beyond. In Conservatives Without Conscience, Dean not only highlights specific right-wing-driven GOP policies but also probes the conservative mind-set, identifying recurring qualities such as the unbridled viciousness toward those daring to disagree with them, as well as the big business favoritism that costs taxpayers billions. Dean identifies specific examples of how court packing is seeking to form a judiciary that is activist by its very nature, how religious piety is producing politics run amok, and how concealed indifference to the founding principles of liberty and equality is pushing America further and further from its constitutional foundations.

By the end, Dean paints a vivid picture of what's happening at the top levels of the Republican Party, a noble political party corrupted by its current leaders who cloak their actions in moral superiority while packaging their programs as blatant propaganda. Dean, certainly no alarmist, finds disturbing signs that current right-wing authoritarian thinking, when conflated with the dominating personalities of the conservative leadership could take the United States toward its own version of fascism. 


"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 27, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I see no need for rebuttal to any of bill5's argument except this one:
> ...



In all due respect, if I cannot state my opinion about what drives liberals and conservatives, your appeal to authority via John Dean and Goldwater doesn't carry any weight either.  So let's just deal with your two statements.

You haven't been participating in this, the redistribution of wealth thread, the separation of church and state thread, and other currently active threads on this subject have you.  In those threads I and others have already refuted your opinion that 'every meaningful piece of legislation crafted in this nation that has benefited the poor and middle class has been authored by and passed by liberals and Democrats'.   Right out of the box you demonstrate an ignorance of history and who has pushed what.  I can 'sympathize' with the problem of being subjected to a liberal school system that poorly educates so many on these subjects; and I can  'empathize' with how much you want it to be true.

My opinion was not based on empathy or sympathy, however, but rather on decades of observing and working hands on in various programs intended to help the poor and middle class.  I have observed up front and personal how so many of these have produced unintended negative moral, emotional, ethical, physical, and/or material consequences.  No amount of empathy or sympathy can fix a system that is riddled with so many negatives.

But I would think those truly concerned with the poor and middle class would have more empathy and sympathy for the effect misguided or poorly thought out government programs have had on them.

You may take comfort in blaming the eeeeeeevul conservatives and eeeeeeevul Republicans.   I prefer to try to teach reality apart from empathy or sympathy.  Concern for the poor born of empathy and sympathy resulting in bad policy may make us feel righteous and/or noble that we cared, but it doesn't do diddly squat to fix any problems.

I think conservatives are likely to understand that truth much more than are liberals.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 27, 2011)

editec said:


> I see that most of you right wing cranks are still confusing empathy with sympathy.
> 
> It really doesn't really surprise me that you cannot even imagine what the difference really is.
> 
> ...



Some people are harder to empathize with the others ed. Liberals happen to be one of those groups. It really is quite hard to wrap one's ahead around the irrational, illogical thought process of the avg. liberal.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 27, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



NAME the legislation authored and passed by Republicans that have helped the poor and middle class.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 28, 2011)

Modern American republicans and libertarians have fought every piece of legislation that helps working class and the working poor since FDR. Probably even before but my history knowledge of those times is sparse. Even our revolutionary war period had internal revolts between the haves and the have nots. Only from the thirties (till eighties?) did a sense of 'we are all in this together' work for most Americans. But even then, Blacks were discriminated upon and corporations worked hard to make fair wages and unions the bad guys. Any reading of history demonstrates this fact, that it is still argued just amazes me. Consider the republican fight against minimum wage as just one example. 


"In the political turnover in the United States in the autumn of 1994, as previously indicated, those opposing aid to the poor in its several forms won their stunning victory with the support of less than one quarter all eligible voters, fewer than half of whom had gone to the polls.  The popular and media response was that those who had prevailed represented the view and voice of the public.  Had there been a full turnout at the election, both the result and the reaction would have been decidedly different.  The sense of social responsibility for the poor would have been greatly enhanced." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Good Society'

"'Practical' politics, it is held, calls for policies that appeal to the fortunate. The poor do not vote; the alert politician bids for the comfortable and the rich. This would be politically foolish for the Democratic Party; those whose primary concern is to protect their income, their capital and their business interest will always vote for the party that most strongly affirms its service to their pecuniary well-being. This is and has always been the republicans. The Democrats have no future as a low grade substitute.."  John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Good Society'


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 28, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> NAME the legislation authored and passed by Republicans that have helped the poor and middle class.





democrats just love to repeat this disingenuous bullshit. It is bullshit because the only acceptable answer to a democrat is essentially democrat legislation. You jackasses are really jackasses.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 28, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > NAME the legislation authored and passed by Republicans that have helped the poor and middle class.
> ...



PROVE it is disingenuous...NAME the legislation authored and passed by Republicans that have helped the poor and middle class.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 28, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> Modern American republicans and libertarians have fought every piece of legislation that helps working class and the working poor since FDR. Probably even before but my history knowledge of those times is sparse. Even our revolutionary war period had internal revolts between the haves and the have nots. Only from the thirties (till eighties?) did a sense of 'we are all in this together' work for most Americans. But even then, Blacks were discriminated upon and corporations worked hard to make fair wages and unions the bad guys. Any reading of history demonstrates this fact, that it is still argued just amazes me.
> Consider the republican fight against minimum wage as an excellent example.
> 
> 
> ...




I never gave anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell. 
Harry S. Truman

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 28, 2011)

It is not a vice to oppose legislation that has a noble and compassionate sounding title, but will inevitably produce unintended negative consequences.

It is not a virtue to support legislation that has a noble and compassionate sounding title, but will inevitably produce unintended negative consequences.

It is not a vice to appreciate that the best hope for all people, rich and poor alike, is within their own opportunities, choices, innovation, drive, ambition, and hopes and this happens mostly in the private sector free market.

It is not a virtue to promote government as the big brother, nanny, end all for all solution to most human problems and thereby make people dependent upon government.

It is not a vice to see the purpose of government as to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives.

It is not a virtue to see people as incapable of solving their own problems and needing a 'king' to rule over them.


----------



## editec (Aug 28, 2011)

The Republican USED to be a party whose primary interest was on behalf of this nation AS A WHOLE.


That is NOT to say that they haven't been the party of the rich my entire lifetime, but there was a time, kiddies, when EVEN THE RICH loved this nation and its people.

Those days are past.

Now neither party, it seems to me, works for anyone but BIG CAPITAL.

The dems play the good cop role (if you're working class, I mean) while the GOP plays the bad cops (unless you're of the manor born, then they're your good cops).

WE are, I think, a really on the cusp of the decline of the USA as a world power.

Naturally big cvapital is hightailing their money offshore so when the USA goes down, they won't.

Can't really blame those of the investment classes who see the handwriting on the wall and act in their own best interests, of course.

But to those who are actually responsible for this?

They should die.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 28, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Empathy comes from the heart, not from an edict from on high.
> ...


You need to try a real private sector job and learn what it's like to have to do both, make the money for charity to exist AND pay into it.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 28, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Fighting against poor legislation is as helpful to the poor and middle class as authoring legislation if not more important.

Immie


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 28, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> It is not a vice to oppose legislation that has a noble and compassionate sounding title, but will inevitably produce unintended negative consequences.
> 
> It is not a virtue to support legislation that has a noble and compassionate sounding title, but will inevitably produce unintended negative consequences.
> 
> ...



WHY is the right wing argument always a polarized one and radical one? Tell me Foxfyre, can a person promote and support government programs that REALLY help fellow Americans, and at the same time NOT believe government as the big brother, nanny, end all for all solution to most human problems, or needing a 'king' to rule over them?

You couldn't come up with ONE piece of legislation authored by Republicans that helped poor or middle class Americans. And now you want to pontificate about 'unintended consequences'

What programs, and what 'unintended consequences'? Be specific and provide proof.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 28, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



What those people need is not help, they just need punishment. How else are they going to learn...right Immie??? You were so indignant when I posted the 'strict father' model of child rearing conservatives use. But just READ the replies in this thread from your conservative cohorts...it verifies my claims.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 28, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Good lord, I had forgotten about that!  You do hold grudges.    What was that two years ago?  More? 

I have not read this thread as I got into it way to late.

My comment was what it was.  Fighting bad legislation can be as important as authoring good legislation.

I don't believe that the Republicans have any better idea with what to do than the Democrats do.  There are some parts of ACA that I agree with and some that I think SUCK!  One of those is that it is bad for business (unless your business is Health Insurance) and being unemployed, that is a major thought in my mind these days.

Quite frankly, I wish we didn't have "parties".  I wish our politicians would sit down and work together to solve the problems facing this country.  I think the parties are a detriment to that goal.  There are definitely good people on both sides of the aisle whom could come up with some good ideas if the system did not corrupt them.

And in regards to your comment about the conservative replies to this thread, I hope you will excuse me from that request.  I will take your word for it that many are partisan and inappropriate.

Immie


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 28, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




And....like a typical liberal, you didn't even read what I wrote.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 28, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> There are some parts of ACA that I agree with and some that I think SUCK!  One of those is that it is bad for business (unless your business is Health Insurance) and being unemployed, that is a major thought in my mind these days.



The Commonwealth Fund released an issue brief just a few days ago that might be of interest to you.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 28, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > There are some parts of ACA that I agree with and some that I think SUCK!  One of those is that it is bad for business (unless your business is Health Insurance) and being unemployed, that is a major thought in my mind these days.
> ...



Thank you for the link.

This deals with the unemployed and health coverage.  My concern is more getting re-employed and I believe that the ACA is inhibiting that along with other factors.

The issue that I have in this regard is what the ACA is doing to the unemployment figures.  One reason employers aren't hiring is because they still don't know what the hell this bill means and how it is going to affect them in the future.  

And what happens in 2014 if I am still unemployed? Our dear President and the morons in Congress of both parties are going to force me to either pay for my own insurance or become indebted to their "generosity" and beg for it.  I am not exactly pleased with those options.

Immie


----------



## boedicca (Aug 28, 2011)

I'd like the OP to explain the type of Empathy which consists of the Federal Government colluding with its Cronies to dupe people to take on mortgages which they cannot afford and student loans for nonmarketable degrees (which cannot be discharged in bankruptcy - how convenient) which they will spend the rest of their lives repaying.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 28, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> NAME the legislation authored and passed by Republicans that have helped the poor and middle class.


The Republican Party was created in 1854 by anti-slavery activists. 

 The 13th amendment, which formally abolished slavery in the United  States, passed the Senate on April 8, 1864, and the House on January 31,  1865. On February 1, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln&#8203;  approved the Joint Resolution of Congress submitting the proposed  amendment to the state legislatures. *The necessary number of states  ratified it by December 6, 1865. The 13th amendment to the United States  Constitution provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,  except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly  convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to  their jurisdiction."*

The 14th Amendment 

*Text of the 14th Amendment*

*Section 1.* 
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to  the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the  State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which  shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United  States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or  property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its  jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.  
*Section 2.* 
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States  according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of  persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right  to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and  Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the  Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the  Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such  State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United  States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion,  or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in  the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the  whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.  
*Section 3.* 
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or  elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or  military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having  previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of  the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an  executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution  of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion  against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But  Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such  disability.  
*Section 4.* 
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by  law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for  services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be  questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or  pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion  against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of  any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held  illegal and void.  
*Section 5.* 
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.  
*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

The 15th Amendment

The 15th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified on February 3, 1870 during Reconstruction. Along with the 13th amendment and the 14th amendment, it is one of the three Reconstruction amendments.   
*Text of the 15th Amendment*

*Section 1.* 
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be  denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of  race, color, or previous condition of servitude.   
*Section. 2.* 
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

*Admission of Wyoming to the Union gave Wyoming women the right to vote.*
*Date Admitted to the Union:*

July 10, 1890 - Wyoming was the 44th state.


The 19th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified on August 18, 1920. This amendment gave women the right to vote. 

*Text of the 19th Amendment*

 The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be  denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of  sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

*The Civil Rights Act of 1957*

*Text is here.*

 After it was proposed to Congress by Republican President Eisenhower,  Democrat Senator Strom Thurmond set the longest 1-man filibuster in  history of 24 hours and 18 minutes. The bill passed the House with a  vote of 270 to 97 and the Senate 60 to 15. President Eisenhower&#8203; signed it on 9 September 1957. Senator John F Kennedy voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

The  Democrats in power have removed this online document from the national  archives about Republican President Eisenhower's role in desegregating  the Little Rock Schools in 1954. All you get is a blank page. They have  also excised all information on Republican activities from Wikipedia due  to their extremism which is thoroughly Disgusting: 

Civil Rights: The *Little* *Rock* *School* Integration Crisis. On May 17, 1954 ... A Moderate Among Extremists: Dwight D. *Eisenhower* and the *School* *Desegregation* Crisis by James C ...
www.*eisenhower*.archives.gov/Research/Digital_Documents/&#8203;*LittleRock*/&#8203;*littlerock*documents.html

​Reublican opponents have systematically removed all references to Republican accomplishments. They  did more, I've been on this for several hours it seems, because headers  leading into pages about Eisenhower omit Eisenhower's and Republicans  entirely disappear when you get there on the first several pages of internet  findings. The Democrats have excised Republican activities from the  internet except where Republicans control the content. That is most evil  in my humble opinion. They want to take credit for everything my party  did, so they're doing it in extremely underhanded and diabolical, lying  ways oft referred to as "errors of omission".

 Sandy Berger was the first Democrat to get caught messing with the National Archives.. for those who are new to the net and don't know. He was convicted and fined $50,000 among other things.


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 28, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > NAME the legislation authored and passed by Republicans that have helped the poor and middle class.
> ...



The slavers have co-opted an old Republican platform.

Now they're masquerading as defenders of the poor.

A party who's leadership wants to control health care through single-payer.

A party that wants to control energy through Cap & Trade.

A party that wants to control Black voters through peer-pressure and demonizing the GOP.

A party that wants to control lending through the Dodd-Frank act.

And a party that wants to tell you how to eat, how much money you can make, what you can or cannot put in your body, wants to take God out of our lives, wants to embrace our enemies and condemn millions of our own people, wants to hassle us and terrorize us at our airports, wants to ban everything they can think of, force us to pay more and more for their green legislation and their social programs, and won't listen to us when we tell them to stop spending.

I'm feeling kind of like a slave these days.


----------



## naomibee (Aug 28, 2011)

mudwhistle said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



that sounds about right and i feel the same.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 28, 2011)

mudwhistle said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Well, it's no wonder Mudwhistle. 

Saul Alinsky method calls for massive fraud.

With no Republicans standing over and guarding the National Archives, I  wonder what will be left when they're done revising the true history to  their false one. I don't like the business of lying and changing  archives when the Democrats control the keys.

Sandy Berger is very closely associated with Hillary Clinton. After he cheated his pants and shoes off at the National Archives, he resigned his law practice before he got disbarred. Hillary Clinton then hired him to run her Campaign. They're nothing but crooks who know all the tricks of cheating their way to power.

I'm sick of the Clintons control freakism.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 28, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> The issue that I have in this regard is what the ACA is doing to the unemployment figures.  One reason employers aren't hiring is because they still don't know what the hell this bill means and how it is going to affect them in the future.



Given that economists and employers alike point to weak demand as the largest obstacle to hiring, there are significantly bigger economic fish to fry than alleged uncertainty three years down the road.



> And what happens in 2014 if I am still unemployed? Our dear President and the morons in Congress of both parties are going to force me to either pay for my own insurance or become indebted to their "generosity" and beg for it.  I am not exactly pleased with those options.



Uninsurance will always be an option, if you prefer to transfer your risks onto society that way.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 28, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > The issue that I have in this regard is what the ACA is doing to the unemployment figures.  One reason employers aren't hiring is because they still don't know what the hell this bill means and how it is going to affect them in the future.
> ...



Well, I have been unemployed for 18 months and no one has paid any of my medical bills to date.  That doesn't mean I can afford to pay $1250 or more per month for my family when 2014 arrives.  

And $1250/month was what I paid in 2009, in 2014 it will more than likely be $1500/month or more.  How the hell are the unemployed going to pay that?  And uninsurance is not an option... it will be a crime punishable by heavy fines.

Immie


----------



## GWV5903 (Aug 28, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > midcan5 said:
> ...



I married a Mexican American, some days she would tell you I'm no help at all...


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 28, 2011)

GWV5903 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > GWV5903 said:
> ...



She's probably right too.  

Immie


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 28, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> And $1250/month was what I paid in 2009, in 2014 it will more than likely be $1500/month or more.  How the hell are the unemployed going to pay that?  And uninsurance is not an option... it will be a crime punishable by heavy fines.



The brief I linked you to is very short--11 pages, with half of that being boxes or tables or graphs. It will give you a very brief and to-the-point picture of what the ACA does. There is no universe in which it demands that an unemployed person pay $1500/month for health insurance. Low incomes qualify for public health insurance, lowish-to-medium incomes can get support (limiting the individual's contribution to a percentage of their income) for private plans sold through an Exchange. Play with KFF's calculator to see what you would realistically be paying annually for health insurance.

Aside from that, you're not characterizing the individual mandate correctly. If your income is below the filing threshold, you're not subject to the mandate. There are no criminal penalties associated with it. The tax penalty is hardly a heavy fine, as it was watered down multiple times. All of this was covered in that brief.



> Beginning in 2014, all U.S. citizens and legal residents will be required to maintain minimum essential health coverage through the individual insurance market, insurance exchanges, public programs, or employers, or face a penalty. There are some exemptions, including: individuals who cannot find a health plan that costs less than 8 percent of their income, net of subsidies and employer contributions; people who have incomes below the tax-filing threshold ($9,500 for individuals and $19,000 for couples); and people who have been without insurance for less than three months.
> 
> People who are not exempt from the mandate and cannot demonstrate on a tax form that they have health insurance will be required to pay a penalty equal to the greater of $95 or 1 percent of applicable income (i.e., income in excess of the tax-filing threshold) in 2014, $325 or 2 percent of applicable income in 2015, and $695 or 2.5 percent of applicable income in 2016, up to a maximum of $2,085 per family. The tax, which will be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of federal tax owed, will be prorated for partial years of noncompliance.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 28, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > And $1250/month was what I paid in 2009, in 2014 it will more than likely be $1500/month or more.  How the hell are the unemployed going to pay that?  And uninsurance is not an option... it will be a crime punishable by heavy fines.
> ...



That again makes the unemployed indebted to the "generosity" of our President and the morons in Congress.  Right now, I can't afford $95 or one percent of my income.  I have been paying my own way for 18 months and depleting my retirement account.  I have been paying penalties to the government for using my own money and paying my bills (and now they want to penalize me further), until last month that is when I finally realized bankruptcy is my only option.  Because my wife works a minimum wage job and I have unemployment compensation plus the funds I have removed from my retirement account which gets added to my AGI, our income has been over $19,000 as a couple.  Thus, I would suffer the penalties as per your quote. And those penalties are a heavy fine when you are unemployed and trying to survive.

Basically, people in my position are screwed by Obama et al.  

And as stated earlier, the ACA is affecting the hiring decisions of employers which only makes things worse.

In re your calculator this is what I get with the following data:

1) 2014 dollars
2) $40000 annual income
3) Age of policyholder - 53
4) Family of 4
5) Employer Coverage Available - No (note if you put yes, it removes the numbers so assuming that the figure below is correct for annual premiums employers will have to pay over $1500/month for coverage. No wonder they are not hiring!)
6) medium regional cost factor (note: this is undefined what does it mean?)

Unsubsidized premium = $18,475/year or $1,539.58/month

Now, If I am lucky and fully subsidized, which would be highly unlikely, my premium would be $1,982 per year.  Since, it is unlikely that I would be fully subsidized, my premiums would be somewhere between $165.17 and $1,539.58.  

I have to tell you that even the $165/month is stretching my budget right now.

If we change income to $30,000 I get to thank President Obama for his generous medicaid gift.  

If I make $35,000 then my monthly premium will be somewhere between $115.67 and 1,539.58.  I can't wait!

Immie


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 28, 2011)

However did liberals determine what kind of lives consevatives have led and the hardships they have encountered ? Might it be that they simply weigh in on the side that thinks the government does a disservice to those in need and those very people might be better helped by those close to them like family or neighbors ?
Could it be that they know that government WASTES millions instead of using it compassionately?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 28, 2011)

dilloduck said:


> However did liberals determine what kind of lives consevatives have led and the hardships they have encountered ? Might it be that they simply weigh in on the side that thinks the government does a disservice to those in need and those very people might be better helped by those close to them like family or neighbors ?
> Could it be that they know that government WASTES millions instead of using it compassionately?



Immie just spelled out of many many good intentions resulting in unintended negative consequences.  Again it is neither empathy nor virtue that drives us to salve our collective conscience or whatever we are salving by pushing noble sounding titles on programs that are literally creating as many problems as they address.

And it is neither lack of empathy nor lack of virtue that persuades some to oppose bad bills with noble virtuous sounding titles knowing that those bills will likely create as many problems as they address.

Our more fanatical ideologues, in addition to pushing a distorted view of the actual history,  want to think that liberals and Democrats are the only empathetic and virtuous segment of our society.  They have found various ways to express that for the last couple of days in this thread.

I say it is far more empathetic to understand that for many a job that pays the bills and allows for savings for retirement on down the road is far more preferred than a government handout.  It is far more virtuous to promote policy that will promote means for people to provide for themselves rather than promote policy that results in generations of dependency on government programs and creates whole societies of virtually unemployable people.

Not to mention policy that saddles future generations with more and more crushing debt with each passing day.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 29, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > However did liberals determine what kind of lives consevatives have led and the hardships they have encountered ? Might it be that they simply weigh in on the side that thinks the government does a disservice to those in need and those very people might be better helped by those close to them like family or neighbors ?
> ...



Here are some FACTS for you on what the War on Poverty.

When President Kennedy's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted President Johnson's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished. 

To address some of the players in your fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...Sargent Shriver. But I hate to disappoint you. Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action, opportunity, responsibility, and empowerment. 

The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program's goal was maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.) Ref

Here is one of the agencies created by the WOP...

Job Corps is a program administered by the United States Department of Labor that offers free-of-charge education and vocational training to youth ages 16 to 24.

Job Corps offers career planning, on-the-job training, job placement, residential housing, food service, driver's education, basic health and dental care, a bi-weekly basic living allowance and clothing allowance. Some centers offer childcare programs for single parents as well.

Besides vocational training, the Job Corps program also offers academic training, including basic reading and math, GED attainment, college preparatory, and Limited English Proficiency courses. Some centers also offer programs that allow students to remain in residence at their center while attending college.[citation needed] Job Corps provides career counseling and transition support to its students for up to one year after they graduate from the program.

Career paths

Career paths offered by Job Corps include:

Advanced manufacturing

    Communication design
    Drafting
    Electronic assembly
    Machine appliance repair
    Machining
    Welding
    Manufacturing technology
    Sign, billboard, and display

Automotive and machine repair

    Automobile technician
    General services technician
    Collision repair and refinish
    Heavy construction equipment mechanic
    Diesel mechanic
    Medium/heavy truck repair
    Electronics tech
    Stationary engineering

Construction

    Bricklaying
    Carpentry
    Cement masonry
    Concrete and terrazzo
    Construction craft laborer
    Electrical
    Electrical overhead line
    Facilities maintenance
    Floor covering
    Glazing
    HVAC
    Industrial engineering technician
    Licensed electrician (bilingual)
    Mechanical engineering technician
    Painting
    Plastering
    Plumbing
    Roto-Rooter plumbing
    Tile setting

Extension programs

    Advanced Career Training (ACT)
    General Educational Development (GED)
    Commercial driver's license (CDL)
    Off-Center Training (OCT Program)
    High school diploma (HSD Program)

Finance and Business

    Accounting services
    Business management
    Clerical occupations
    Legal secretary
    Insurance and financial services
    Marketing
    Medical insurance specialist
    Office administration
    Paralegal
    Purchasing

Health care/allied health professions

    Clinical medical assistant
    Dental assistant
    EKG technician
    Emergency medical technician
    Exercise/massage therapy
    Hemodialysis technician
    Licensed practical/vocational nurse
    Medical office support
    Nurse assistant/home health aide
    Opticianry
    Pharmacy technician
    Phlebotomy
    Physical therapy assistant
    Rehabilitation therapy
    Rehabilitation technician
    Registered nurse
    Respiratory therapy
    Sterile processing
    Surgical technician

Homeland security

    Corrections officer
    Seamanship
    Security and protective services

Hospitality

    Culinary arts
    Hotel and lodging

Information technology

    A+ Microsoft MSCE
    Computer Networking/Cisco
    Computer systems administrator
    Computer support specialist
    Computer technician
    Integrated system tech
    Network cable installation
    Visual communications

Renewable resources and energy

    Forest conservation and urban forestry
    Firefighting
    Wastewater
    Landscaping

Retail sales and services

    Behavioral health aide
    Criminal justice
    Child development
    Residential advisor
    Cosmetology
    Retail sales

Transportation

    Asphalt paving
    Material and distribution operations
    Clerical occupations
    Heavy equipment operations
    Roustabout operator
    Heavy truck driving
    TCU administrative clerk


----------



## edjax1952 (Aug 29, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Empathy comes from the heart, not from an edict from on high.
> ...


 
"Making sure all our citizens share in the wealth of the nation" is pure and unadulterated socialism if the idea is implemented into law.

In the original post there was an article cited.  In that article it stated 





> This is one of the reasons I always say that good philosophy cannot operate without good facts underlying it. We philosophers have a reputation for dealing with only the least substantial and most conjectural of matters, but there are almost always some tangible, observable, testable facts that motivate or inspire our reasoning. Get these facts right and you can reach some elegant and surprising conclusions, but get them wrong and you end up with ideas that are totally ridiculous, like the human dignity account of ethics or the idea that we should do more to help the rich than the poor.


 
"Get these facts right and you can reach some elegant and surprising conclusions, but get them wrong and you end up with ideas that are totally ridiculous...." 

We live in a Democratic Republic.  That Democratic Republic was instituted in the premise that all men are created equal and that all men had a right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness.  Nowhere in the founding of the country does it say that we should be  "Making sure all our citizens share in the wealth of the nation" as a matter of fact it avoided that senario.

I hope I will not see the day that the United States of America goes socialist.


----------



## waltky (Aug 29, 2011)

Granny says, "So what...

... `long as its happenin' to a lib'ral...

... who cares?


----------



## edjax1952 (Aug 29, 2011)

Social Justice vs Equal Justice « American Ideas and Solutions



> Social justice is based on the idea that a group of people are entitled to certain treatment or resources due to circumstances other than what the general population experiences. It usually involves taking resources, provided by someone else, and providing them to the group of people. It also involves allowing for different treatment or rights when a group of people do not have access to liberties, rights or resources due to a disadvantaged position in society. It requires government to dictate conditions in order to regulate private affairs and gain &#8220;equality&#8221; for the disadvantaged group of people. This is one main tool of politicians who call themselves Progressives. Why are they called Progressives? One brick at a time they progressively dismantle the original foundation of our nation, based on freedom and equality for all, to gain government control over each of the issues brought to &#8220;social justice&#8221;. The government must regulate these issues in order to maintain &#8220;equality&#8221; through &#8220;social justice&#8221;. In order to maintain social justice, the government must regulate the behavior of the people to comply with each issue addressed. Each time a law is passed in the name of Social Justice, there is a chip taken away from the liberties and rights of someone. I submit that this practice must be stopped in order to preserve the original foundation of our great country! Read Wikipedia&#8217;s definition of Social Justice: Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 29, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Fighting against poor legislation is as helpful to the poor and middle class as authoring legislation if not more important.
> 
> Immie



Wow!  That line could sum up so much of modern America, it contains the 'I got mine' attitude of today, the negativity of hope, it assumes we have done enough, in its background is an attitude of mild, or maybe not so mild, social Darwinism. Immie as a religious person you surprise me. I have always wondered at the change in religion from help to defeatism. When and how did that happen? 

Taming the Savage Market 


The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology: Scientific American


----------



## cloudy (Aug 29, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Empathy comes from the heart, not from an edict from on high.
> 
> Then again, the left has shown themselves to be in possession of the tiniest hearts out there -as evidenced by the widely circulated annual lists of political types who give the most and least to private charities- so it's little surprise that they'd project their callousness onto everyone else.


Ahh yes, conservative empathy:
Racine Post: Billionaire Curt Johnson charged with sexually assaulting a teenager
Give them your weak and vulnerable, so they can take advantage of the SYSTEM.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 29, 2011)

edjax1952 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Choke on this...

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482 

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29 

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

"In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower


----------



## edjax1952 (Aug 29, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> edjax1952 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


 
In all of these rights and entitlements of legislation, nowhere does it preclude my right to the persuit of happines.  I still stand strong on my ideas that the present generation is in the midst of destroying the structure that made America great.  If they cannot see the result of those actions, maybe it is the responsibility of myself and people who are like minded to bring it to their attention.


----------



## edjax1952 (Aug 29, 2011)

edjax1952 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > edjax1952 said:
> ...


 


> Choke on this...


 
In order to choke on it I must try to swallow it first.  I will not swallow it or try to.  I give people the right to pass laws in a lawfull manner.  But I do not have to agree with them or tolerate their ligitimacy in our culture by standing aside and remaining silent.  Socialism did not work for the USSR and it will not work in America.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 29, 2011)

edjax1952 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > edjax1952 said:
> ...



Hey edjax1952, WHAT 'rights and entitlements of legislation' are destroying the structure that made America great?


----------



## edjax1952 (Aug 29, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> edjax1952 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


 
American Ideas and Solutions &#8250; Log In



> Social justice is based on the idea that a group of people are entitled to certain treatment or resources due to circumstances other than what the general population experiences. It usually involves taking resources, provided by someone else, and providing them to the group of people. It also involves allowing for different treatment or rights when a group of people do not have access to liberties, rights or resources due to a disadvantaged position in society. It requires government to dictate conditions in order to regulate private affairs and gain &#8220;equality&#8221; for the disadvantaged group of people. This is one main tool of politicians who call themselves Progressives. Why are they called Progressives? One brick at a time they progressively dismantle the original foundation of our nation, based on freedom and equality for all, to gain government control over each of the issues brought to &#8220;social justice&#8221;. The government must regulate these issues in order to maintain &#8220;equality&#8221; through &#8220;social justice&#8221;. In order to maintain social justice, the government must regulate the behavior of the people to comply with each issue addressed. Each time a law is passed in the name of Social Justice, there is a chip taken away from the liberties and rights of someone. I submit that this practice must be stopped in order to preserve the original foundation of our great country! Read Wikipedia&#8217;s definition of Social Justice: Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





> Here are some examples:
> Using equal justice, the Civil Rights Act gave all people, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preference equal rights to participate in the workforce having equal rights to access public resources. This allowed for the freedom of all citizens to access any public resources available without requiring government or institutions to instill mandates to comply with the law. The law was self explanatory and required no physical resources to administer it with the exception that the individual citizen would have to use his own resources to gain access to public resources such as getting to a certain school or job.
> Using social justice, integration legislation required employers to hire a ratio of races, and required schools to enroll a ratio of races disregarding cost or need of the institutions. This put the burden of cost on the institutions instead of the individual in order to comply with the law. It required taxpayer money to be spent, such as in the case of school busing.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 29, 2011)

edjax1952 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > edjax1952 said:
> ...



So passing a law is enough...enforcing that law is the problem?

What about programs like Social Security and Medicare?


----------



## edjax1952 (Aug 29, 2011)

martybegan said:


> Empathy has no bearing on the ability or will of a society to assist those at the lower end of it. Empathy can, in fact, be used as an excuse to patronize those at the lower end, giving them just enough to keep them alive and reasonably comfortable without a chance to elevate thier status, in return for poltical support.
> 
> The object of any support given to the lower strata of society should have the sole goal of making those people self supporting, not keeping them on the dole. This however is the exact opposite effect progressive authoritarians want, after all a self reliant voter is an unreliable voter. A voter still on the dole will keep supporting the dole controllers.


 
This statement alsosays it well.


----------



## edjax1952 (Aug 29, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> edjax1952 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


 
I got caught up in your misleading statement.  Good job on your part in swaying the topic.   I did not challenge the 'rights and entitlements of legislation'  I challenged the result of legislation they may pass.


> In all of these rights and entitlements of legislation, nowhere does it preclude my right to the persuit of happines.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 29, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Fighting against poor legislation is as helpful to the poor and middle class as authoring legislation if not more important.
> ...




What is says is that stopping us from making terrible mistakes is as important as adding more legislation.  No where did I say that we should not try to come up with good legislation.  I believe strongly and have for many many years before Obamacare came along that we need to repair our broken healthcare system.  

I simply do not believe that Obamacare did that and conservatives who fought against it were doing this country a favor.

Obamacare has made things worse for the poor and unemployed, not better.

Immie


----------



## edjax1952 (Aug 29, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> edjax1952 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


 
You can enforce laws without providing entitlements to those who may not be able to take advantage of any given situation.  The problem arises when resources or priveledges are taken and reallocated by government dictate.

As for Social Security.  It began as a workable solution.  The problem arose when succeeding genrerations started tweeking it.

Read my blog on the History and Evolution of Social Security.  It show a timetable of changes to make it into the problem it is now.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 29, 2011)

Bfgrn, I didn't see your response to this post.



freedombecki said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > NAME the legislation authored and passed by Republicans that have helped the poor and middle class.
> ...


Bfgrn, I didn't see your response to this post.

What say you?


----------



## edjax1952 (Aug 29, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Bfgrn, I didn't see your response to this post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
And some people say that 'Big Brother' is just a character in a book.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 29, 2011)

edjax1952 said:


> edjax1952 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


It's not worked anywhere, and it only has killed off 250 million people worldwide throughout history.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 29, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> It's not worked anywhere, and it only has killed off 250 million people worldwide throughout history.



Huh? Not sure what that refers to, but you and I and most posters here live in liberal democratic republics. Democracy does not war against each other, and until Bush Jr's invasion of Iraq did not cause massive unnecessary deaths. Dictators and tyrants whether they presume to be right or left or are labeled right or left are not democratic republican nor liberal.


"President Eisenhower describes his administration's political philosophy as 'dynamic conservatism,' then as 'progressive, dynamic conservatism,' then as 'progressive moderation,' then as 'moderate progressivism,' and then as 'positive progressivism.'"  William Manchester


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 29, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > It's not worked anywhere, and it only has killed off 250 million people worldwide throughout history.
> ...


Mao and Red China starved 50 million to death before they finally realized their central planning wasn't working.

Stalin's purges and pogroms killed upwards of 18 million Jews alone.  

Hitler killed over 10 million Jews (Fascism is just a type of socialism)

Pol Pot killed a few million including exterminating an entire city the size of Milwaukee of all those tainted by western capitalist culture.

And those are just the biggest on the hit parade.  It doesn't even touch on those who cannot be accounted for.

That's what I'm talking about.


----------



## editec (Aug 29, 2011)

I think, judging from the TOPIC DRIFT into the health care debate, that many of you do not really GET the difference between empathy and sympathy.

If one is capable of it, one can EMPATHIZE with people who we truly loathe.

For instance, a detective tracking down a serial killer who can EMPATAIZE with that killer is more likely to understand his next move.

The detective can GET OUT OF HIS OWN HEAD and IMAGINE the POV of the killer. 

GET it NOW?

*Empathy is NOT sympathy.*

Empathy does not_ force one_ to be NICE to the other.

Successful sociopathic personalities are capable of EMPATHIZING the other but NOT synpathizing with the other.

EMPATHY is really one of the 7 known types of human intelligence --AKA the interpersonal intelligence. 

*Interpersonal intelligence* is the ability to understand another POV and the interactions that occur between the empathizer and the other.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 29, 2011)

editec said:


> I think, judging from the TOPIC DRIFT into the health care debate, that many of you do not really GET the difference between empathy and sympathy.
> 
> If one is capable of it, one can EMPATHIZE with people who we truly loathe.
> 
> ...


Empathy NOR sympathy feed the bulldog either.  Practicality does.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 29, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Bfgrn, I didn't see your response to this post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yea, in the 19th century, two principal groups stood opposed to human bondage - liberals and Christian abolitionists. Lincoln was a liberal.

HOW do you connect the 19th amendment to Republicans and/or conservatives? 

Proposal and ratification
A flurry of activity began in 1910 and 1911 with surprise successes in Washington and California. Over the next few years, most western states passed legislation or voter referenda enacting full or partial suffrage for women. These successes were linked to the 1912 election, which saw the rise of the Progressive and Socialist parties, as well as the election of Democratic President Woodrow Wilson. Not until 1914 was the constitutional amendment again considered by the Senate, where it was again rejected.

On January 12, 1915, a proposal to amend the Constitution to provide for women's suffrage was brought before the House of Representatives, but was defeated by a vote of 204 to 174. Another proposal was brought before the House on January 10, 1918. During the previous evening, President Wilson made a strong and widely published appeal to the House to pass the amendment. It was passed by the required two-thirds of the House, with only one vote to spare. The vote was then carried into the Senate. Wilson again made an appeal, but on September 30, 1918, the proposal fell two votes short of passage. On February 10, 1919, it was again voted upon and failed by only one vote.

There was considerable desire among politicians of both parties to have the proposal made part of the Constitution before the 1920 general elections, so the President called a special session of the Congress so the proposal would be brought before the House again. On May 21, 1919, it passed the House, 42 votes more than necessary being obtained. On June 4, 1919, it was brought before the Senate and, after a long discussion, it was passed with 56 ayes and 25 nays. Within a few days, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan ratified the amendment, their legislatures being in session. Other states followed suit at a regular pace, until the amendment had been ratified by 35 of the necessary 36 state legislatures. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee narrowly approved the Nineteenth Amendment, with 50 of 99 members of the Tennessee House of Representatives voting yes. This provided the final ratification necessary to enact the amendment.


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 29, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn, I didn't see your response to this post.
> ...



I believe that Lincoln was a Republican.


----------



## edjax1952 (Aug 29, 2011)

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...


 
Abraham Lincoln - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> After deftly opposing the expansion of slavery in the United States in his campaign debates and speeches,[2] Lincoln secured the Republican nomination and was elected president in 1860.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 29, 2011)

edjax1952 said:


> In order to choke on it I must try to swallow it first.  I will not swallow it or try to.  I give people the right to pass laws in a lawfull manner.  But I do not have to agree with them or tolerate their ligitimacy in our culture by standing aside and remaining silent.  Socialism did not work for the USSR and it will not work in America.



That is indicative of the unintended hypocrisy in these forum discussions.

First, every culture and time has its plusses and minuses, its virtues and sins, its commendable attributes and those nobody would now tolerate.  But there are those who will point to the worst of those past cultures as evidence that nothing good came out of them or, worse, as evidence of the way things and people are now.

Second, some will hold up court rulings as evidence of the rightness and virtue of this or that law or policy, but ignore or shrug it off when the sins of past courts are pointed out as evidence that the courts, too, can get things wrong.

Our less enlightened brethren sanctimoniously demand that the GOP is unempatheic, unsympathetic, and opposed everything that is good and virtuous while ignoring or blowing off all the evidence to the contrary.  Likewise, some others will say that nothing good ever came out of the liberal point of view which can be proved to be just as wrong.

And those of us watching this drama play out day after day wonder if it is possible to have a serious give and take discussion without accusing or blaming somebody or demanding that the discussion become another flame thread?


----------



## edjax1952 (Aug 29, 2011)

edjax1952 said:


> edjax1952 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


 


> That is indicative of the unintended hypocrisy in these forum discussions.
> 
> First, every culture and time has its plusses and minuses, its virtues and sins, its commendable attributes and those nobody would now tolerate. But there are those who will point to the worst of those past cultures as evidence that nothing good came out of them or, worse, as evidence of the way things and people are now.
> 
> ...


 
You could have posted the preceding posts to give clarity to the statement.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 29, 2011)

edjax1952 said:


> edjax1952 said:
> 
> 
> > edjax1952 said:
> ...



I could have, but there comes a time when long, looooooooong posts become intimidating in themselves.  I usually don't read a long, wordy tedious post--though I sometimes am guilty of producing them--and I appreciate things being kept more manageable.  Huge blocks of nested quotes are especially off putting to me, and I believe others.

In this case, my intent was not to distort your comment in any way, but was to comment on the one paragraph I posted.  And it was in close enough proximity to the full context, I didn't think anybody would miss that there was a larger context.

I do apologize if you think this mischaracterized your intent in any way as that was not my intent.


----------



## edjax1952 (Aug 29, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> edjax1952 said:
> 
> 
> > edjax1952 said:
> ...


 
What is that you got in your coffee today?


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 29, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> edjax1952 said:
> 
> 
> > edjax1952 said:
> ...



Agreed and I am guilty of the long posts occasionally myself.  

I rarely read Frazzled(?) can't remember his full handle, despite the fact that his posts are usually well written and make sense, but he thinks every post has to be a doggone book by itself.

And imbedded quotes!  Hate them and hate replying to them.

Immie


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 29, 2011)

edjax1952 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > edjax1952 said:
> ...



Well I seem to have unintentionally offended you and I again apologize.  I was attempting to agree with and expand on what I thought was a good comment by you.  My mistake.  I won't make it again.


----------



## edjax1952 (Aug 29, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> edjax1952 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


 
It was so eloquently put, that I could not understand what you were saying. I have not learned the personalities in here and I appreciate the kudos, but you could have said something like ...good post...or git'er done.....<:^}


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 29, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > It is not a vice to oppose legislation that has a noble and compassionate sounding title, but will inevitably produce unintended negative consequences.
> ...



Do you know why he couldn't Bf? Because it isn't government's job to help people. Their job is to protect your liberties and that's about it. How can such a large group of people be so blind to the unintended consequences of compassionate government that is 'just doing what's best for people'.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 29, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Not only that but he has consistently ignored the considerable efforts of several to educate him on how wrong he is about that.  It is true that true conservatives are very suspicious of and rightfully oppose so-called 'benevolent' government that will always provide some anecdotal evidence of positives, but will also almost always produce unacceptable negative results.  Meanwhile, the government makes whole societies dependent on the government while the fame, fortune, prestige, power, and personal fortunes of politicans and bureaucrats are increased with each borrowed dollar allocated at the taxpayer's expense.

Where is the liberal empathy for the plight of those trapped in government programs and the taxpayer who is ever increasingly burdened because of it?


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 29, 2011)

edjax1952 said:


> edjax1952 said:
> 
> 
> > edjax1952 said:
> ...



Socialism was never tried in the USSR. It was a communist country.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.

The Difference Between Socialism and Communism


----------



## Maple (Aug 29, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> Think UHC. Extrapolate UHC.
> 
> "[T]rying to measure a life of poverty as a collection of stuff isn't really going to come close to measuring that same life as a whole life."
> 
> ...



I just hate to break your bubble, but it is a long known fact, Republicans by far give more to charity than do Democrats. Democrats like to raise everyone else's taxes to give to the poor, they have very difficult time splitting with their own cash to do that. You can google all of this, if you do not like the link I provide it is there on their tax statements and it is now public record.

Archived-Articles: Obama's Charity Problem


----------



## Maple (Aug 29, 2011)

Maple said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > Think UHC. Extrapolate UHC.
> ...



As a tipoff on how the comparison goes, remember that Obama's youngest half-brother lives in wretched poverty in a 65-sqare-foot shack in Nairobi. Like many liberals, the president cares deeply for the poor; so long as the poor are helped with taxpayer money. Even without any trickle-down assistance from his older brother, George Obama nevertheless proudly adorns his dilapidated hovel with a front-page newspaper photo of his wealthy relative who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (but I digress).


According to their tax returns [notes Coulter], in 2006 and 2007, the Obamas gave 5.8 percent and 6.1 percent of their income to charity. I guess Michelle Obama has to draw the line someplace with all this giving back' stuff. The Bidens gave 0.15 percent and 0.31 percent of the income to charity.


Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year. 

For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.


----------



## edjax1952 (Aug 29, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> edjax1952 said:
> 
> 
> > edjax1952 said:
> ...


 
Even if I concede the idea that USSR did not have socialism as a government.  I still maintain that socialism was not the intent of the founding fathers, has not been the intent of the general population of the US. And was not the intent of the federal government until the liberal progressive movement began in the early 20th centry.  Now we have had about 70-80 years since that idea became part of the 'American way' and look where we are at.  I believe with every breath I take that every peice of socialist oriented legislation passed in Congess takes us one more step toward disaster and possible doom.  By socialist legislation, I mean legislation designed to 'help' somebody get something they did not have through federal dictate.

The federal government should;
1.defend our borders from foriegn intrusion
2.provide an infrastructure to promote productivity
3.provide a basic set of laws for the citizens to prevent chaos
All other activities should be considered outside the realm of federal government.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Aug 29, 2011)

Debs is rolling in his grave.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 29, 2011)

edjax1952 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > edjax1952 said:
> ...



edjax1952, I don't know if the 1952 in your name has any significance, but it CAN'T be the year you were born. No one born in that era could possibly be oblivious to the drastic catastrophic changes in America brought about by a conservative era that began with Nixon and Reagan.

Social programs like Medicare are the very BEST of what America SHOULD do for We, the People. You mention our founding fathers, but dismiss the quotes I provided by Jefferson. And you forget in the 'government' they created We, the People ARE the government.

Old age is not a reversible condition. When people retire, and move out of the way for younger people to fill jobs, they retire on a lower income. Medicare lifted millions of elderly Americans from the most likely to live in poverty and go without medical insurance to among the least likely group of citizens to live below the poverty line or suffer without medical care.

Only the strong survive is the law of the jungle. It is not a civil society and it is NOT the nation our founders envisioned. I suggest you take a course in civics.

Your vision of America invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."

"In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower


----------



## edjax1952 (Aug 29, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> edjax1952 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


 

I will not keep repeating myself just because you do not believe what I say.  Just look for me at the polls next voting day.  And as for all those 'downtrodden people' I have been talking to some of them they have a message for you. here is the message:

Us rednecks are gittin a little tarred of bein cornered up intuh a special pen by all you guys that think that we aint smart enuf to know whats good and what aint an we kaint make any difrence anyway about what you do so  we decided dat, since we know how to put a chek box on one dem voten papers, we gonna load up ar pick-ups next time we git to vote an get-er done.  And theres a lot of us!   Ya might not think we are smart enuff to make a good dicision.  Well the way we got it is a good decision for us mite not be a good dicision fer you so too bad about that.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 29, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> edjax1952 said:
> 
> 
> > edjax1952 said:
> ...



If you're going to quote Marx, at least keep it in the proper context.  Yes, Marx said in the "Communist Manifesto" that "Democracy is the road to socialism."  But if you continue his argument, socialism was the next step on the way to communism.  And one of Marx's other famous quotations:  "The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property"

Of course communism was never tried because governments being the way they are, once those in government acquire power, it is extremely rare that they voluntarily give it up.  Marx did not think to deal with that in his Manifesto.

And the more power the government has, the less freedom the people will have.  Lenin was an avid student and great admirer of Marx's theories.  But he too was cvorrupted by power and never got around to moving from totalitarianism to communism.  And he was no modern American conservative as the conservatives of America are in no way in favor of a more powerful federal government and certainly not a dictatorship or totalitarian authority.

It is that fact that the Founders of this country, classical liberals aka modern American conservatives all, did understand and they put their lives and fortune on the line to give us a Republic in which the government would secure the rights of the people and then the people would govern themselves.  They intended the Federal government to have absolutely no power other than that.

The OP suggested that conservatives have no empathy?  Where is the liberal empathy for those who desire more freedom, opportunity, options, choices, ability to innovate?   Where is the liberal empathy for the true motives of those who want to put more and more power in the hands of those in the federal government?


----------



## manu1959 (Aug 29, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> edjax1952 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 29, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn, I didn't see your response to this post.
> ...


I just furnished you proof of Republican caring for the human rights of slaves. We proposed antislavery steps, won a Presidential election which caused Democrats in the South to secede from the Union. You are woefully in error if you think the Republicans had nothing to do with women's suffrage so I'm going to share this link with you on the 19th Amendment that outlines and shows Republican women defending womens' suffrage and rights:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0zXymkXykE&feature=player_embedded"]RNC Celebrates the 91st Anniversary of the Nineteenth Amendment - YouTube[/ame]

​


----------



## Trajan (Aug 29, 2011)

editec said:


> Empathy is the ability to imagine the plight of another.
> 
> You'll no doubt note that most of the self proclaiming cons on this board display a complete lack of empthy.
> 
> ...



versus what? the pretend empathy the left likes to warp themselves up in, the smarmy superior attitude etc. as exemplified by your won quote?  ask your average African American how much 'empathy' the left has for him or her,  then go check the stats....empathy? oh sure........ better lives? Not so much, but hey, they're an empathetic bunch, just ask them....


----------



## OODA_Loop (Aug 29, 2011)

With vilification the empathetic spirit wanes.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 29, 2011)

manu1959 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > edjax1952 said:
> ...


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 29, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > edjax1952 said:
> ...



Do you folks on the right believe the only threat we need to guard against comes from government? The Boston Tea Party was a protest against the largest transnational corporation in the world at that time. 

Our founding fathers believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.


A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.


*Early laws regulating corporations in America*

    *Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

    *Corporations licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

    *The state legislature could revoke a corporations charter if it misbehaved.

    *The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

    *As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldnt break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were just doing their job when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

    *Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

    *Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

    *Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted in perpetuity, as is now the practice).

    *Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

    *Corporations real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

    *Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

    *Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

    *State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

    *All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents



Education is the cheap defense of nations.
Edmund Burke


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 30, 2011)

To BFGM, the government is a threat to our unalienable rights and the concept of self government when it oversteps its Constitutional authority.  The Boston Tea Party was an event that highlighted the anger and frustrations of a people who wanted self governance but were trapped in a monarchal system that dictated to the people what rights they would and would not have.  In business, relationships, and revolutions, sonetimes it is a relatively small thing piled on a whole lot of other stuff that finally provokes the people to action.

A government that enforces laws and regulation that protects each person's rights by prohibiting the people from doing economic, social, or physical violence to each other is what the Constitution intends.  The Founders also intended that the federal government then leave the people alone to live their lives and form whatever sort of society they wished to have.

That is what freedom is.


----------



## bill5 (Aug 30, 2011)

OODA_Loop said:


> Debs is rolling in his grave.


Pardon the side bar but the only thing scarier than your name here is that I know what it means.  I bet you love powerpoint.  :shiver:


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 30, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Of course government is not the only danger to society. the difference is, and well illustrated by the many regulations you laid out, is that those same regulations meant to keep corproations in line can not be enforced on government if they decide to get out of line, which is why it is even more important that the power of government be severly restricted as opposed to private corporations. At least we have legal recourses if corporations become too powerful. We don't (short of a new revolution) if the government does.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 30, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country."
Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482 


Our founding fathers created an entity to address the needs of We, the People. It was not a corporation, it was not a private entity...it was GOVERNMENT. It is the seminal achievement of their lives. It is a representative republic where any one of We, the People can run for office. We have the right to sanction our elected representatives by voting them out of office. And we have the right to elect representatives who share our aspirations, vision and beliefs. We, the People are STAKEholders in our government.

A corporation is only beholden to it's STOCKholders. It does not have the same aspirations, vision or beliefs as We, the People. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage.

Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs, but they should not be running our government. Our founding fathers recognized that and if your read the regulations our founders placed on corporations, our founding fathers FORBID corporations from running their government.

* Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 30, 2011)

Ben Franklin: "When the people find they can vote themselves money,
     that will herald the end of the republic."


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 30, 2011)

editec said:


> Empathy is the ability to imagine the plight of another.
> 
> You'll no doubt note that most of the self proclaiming cons on this board display a complete lack of empthy.
> 
> ...



Its one thing to be empathetic and its another to be completely stupid.

Problem is progressives don't know where to draw the line and it's usually because they're the ones seeking empathy.

I mean would you feed the homeless man before your family?

I bet most progressives would say yes and that makes them stupid, however the truth is most progressives wouldn't give a homeless man their table scraps.

Many studies have been done on human dishonesty. 

Progressives are personally some of the most stingy people when it comes to their personal wealth - which is why they look to the government to redistribute wealth. They have a big fucking problem when its them who have to feed the homeless man but have no problem if their neighbor is forced to.

That's the problem with progressives - they talk or scream the talk but don't walk the walk.

The reality is that when a progressive advocates empathetic social programs they think of themselves being the beneficiaries of those programs...

In short progressives are really just sociopaths....

Look at their rioting as proof of that - what type of person who cares about another would actually destroy his property?

How many riots have we had this year from the so called "progressives" that care about humanity and were protesting for "humanity" right before they started throwing bricks through windows?

So how does a person go from "we care about people" to "we're going to destroy your community and cause millions worth of damage" in a matter of seconds??

How about the greedy posers never cared about people or community in the first place - they only cared about themselves and were so filled with envy and hate that they couldn't help but throw a brick through a common mans store window or house window...

Anyone remember G20...

Any empathy for the small business owners just trying to make a dollar and feed their families?? no didn't think so.

Wait until the G8 here in Chicago because I will poach my sell on a rooftop and watch as the Chicago police bust progressive melons..... Of course the progressives will be posting all over the net demanding empathy then....


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 30, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Ben Franklin: "When the people find they can vote themselves money,
> that will herald the end of the republic."



Unattributed quote


----------



## Trajan (Aug 30, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Ben Franklin: "When the people find they can vote themselves money,
> ...



here; when politicians learn they can bribe the people with their own money, its over...paraphrased but spot on.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 30, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



A sentiment I completely agree with, but corporations are bound by laws of the government yet governments are bound by the laws they get to make themselves, thus governments are by far the greater risk to freedom.

Never mind that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. We have two contrasting views. I believe the founders formed our government to be limited and primarily insure people's liberty. You believe as you say above, it was formed to meet people's needs. Well the evidence isn't on your side. The constitution, bill of rights, and federalist papers all speak volumes of the sanctity of freedom and government's role in protecting it. Providing for people's needs, which while altruistic and nice sounding have serious negative ramifications that most of us not so blinded by our compassion via government (as opposed to YOU putting YOUR money where your mouth is) can readily see. Those same documents speak very little of any government obligation to meet people's needs. Why is it you liberals don't get that you can't have a government that protects freedom AND provides people's needs at the same time.


----------



## Maple (Aug 30, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Our founders wrote the declaration of independence and the constitution to protect personal property rights and to restrict government intervention. Personal property, ia also the money you earn. the home and the land you own. It was never intended to grow an invasive government that restricts freedom or confiscates personal property.It was written to ensure freedom to the individual by restricting government. It was not written to protect the government it was written to protect the individual from government.

" Tryanny is when the people fear their government, freedom is when the government fears the people." Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Maple (Aug 30, 2011)

Maple said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



The bill of rights was something that the people insisted on even though it was covered in the Constitution and The Declaration of Independence. The reason for the Bill of Rights, was that the people  had come to America from Tyrannical governments insisted on that too. It was reassurance to them. The federalist papers is a detailed study in the way in which our Founders thought. They were fascinating,  intelligent men that wrote from their experiences with other governments. They were self-taught individuals as well.

The Constitution guaranteed equal opportunity it never guaranteed equal outcome.


----------



## Maple (Aug 30, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



What do you think about Unions confiscating money from their union members to finance the campaigns of the Democrat party?? Is that okay with you?


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 30, 2011)

Trajan said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



You are a little confused there Trajan. Maybe it dyslexia, make a doctors appointment ASAP.

When people (i.e. special interests, corporations) can vote themselves money (subsidies, regulatory capture, authoring laws) that will herald the end of the republic.

ALL those malfeasance of power were rampant during the Republican reign especially during the Bush years.

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 31, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



The statistics suggest that while there are certainly cases of malfeasance seen in both political parties at the local, country, state, and federal levels, the Democrats, being the party of big government and the nanny state, have the edge.  I haven't analyzed the Bush years with a GOP controlled Congress against the Clinton years when he had a Democratically controlled Congress or the Obama years with a Democratically controlled Congress--I'm pretty sure you haven't either--but overall. . . .

According to a 2009 study published in the esteemed American Political Science Review, Democrats are several times more likely than Republicans to find themselves in federal court on public corruption charges. 
Assessing Partisan Bias in Federal Public Corruption Prosecutions by Sanford Gordon :: SSRN

This situation will continue in both parties, however, until we take away Congress's ability to use the people's money for any form of charity, benevolence, favor, gift, or payoff.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 31, 2011)

Interesting seeing this discussion continue, it must have touched a nerve. 

Minor complaints, Socialism has never existed anywhere in this world, and the so called 'Nanny State' is a poor nanny for anyone who has seen the people who live on welfare or assistance - this isn't Sweden.  

As for Socialism, it, like any considered pure ( place ideology here ) is myth. Elements of socialism exist side by side with capitalism, check China out, there you have bits of communism, socialism and capitalism all together in a strange blend. 

While this is a good debate, has anyone considered the OP premise that Megyn Kelly's empathy grew from experience and the implications of that thought? All we need is experience experience, experience is all you need .....



Immanuel said:


> What is says is that stopping us from making terrible mistakes is as important as adding more legislation.  No where did I say that we should not try to come up with good legislation.  I believe strongly and have for many many years before Obamacare came along that we need to repair our broken healthcare system.
> 
> I simply do not believe that Obamacare did that and conservatives who fought against it were doing this country a favor.
> 
> ...



Immie,  that would be impossible on a number of levels, one, most of it has not even been implemented and the bill took the form it did because of the republicans and K Street. If having healthcare makes thing worse, you'd need to prove that, you 'believe' because you do not take the time or are in a position to see the good of UHC for all Americans. The same argument can be and is made against Social Security and medicare, two programs that have done more real good than a billion words of opposition. 


"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy." Proverbs 31:8-9


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 31, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> Interesting seeing this discussion continue, it must have touched a nerve.
> 
> Minor complaints, Socialism has never existed anywhere in this world, and the so called 'Nanny State' is a poor nanny for anyone who has seen the people who live on welfare or assistance - this isn't Sweden.
> 
> ...



There are links above that clearly state that ACA has hurt the job market.  Some jobs have been added to the health care industry, but many more have been lost in all other sectors.  Employers are not hiring because of this damned legislation and they won't be for several more years.  Thus it hurts the unemployed.

How does it hurt the poor?  I was speaking of those people who will be poor when it is implemented. Those people who are just over the 133% of poverty income level are going to be devastated.  They are going to have to start forking over at least another $150/month for insurance.  Trust me, $150/month goes a hell of a long way.  

Of course, Obama doesn't give a shit because by the time 2014 rolls around he won't be campaigning any longer.  He'll be in retirement as we all know he doesn't have a clue as to how to lead this country.

Immie


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 31, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting seeing this discussion continue, it must have touched a nerve.
> ...



Hey Immie, check out this article. It is written by a guy who was an executive VP at Cigna for 15 years.

Volunteer Doctors Can't Keep Up with Needs of Uninsured and Underinsured


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 31, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> Interesting seeing this discussion continue, it must have touched a nerve.
> 
> Minor complaints, Socialism has never existed anywhere in this world, and the so called 'Nanny State' is a poor nanny for anyone who has seen the people who live on welfare or assistance - this isn't Sweden.
> 
> ...



As ed pointed out earlier, empathy is not sympathy and now I'm wondering if the latter is what the OP meant all along. I don't understand how the OP can conclude conservatives don't have empathy unless he is somehow translating empathy into an action. Because I imagine two people, one with right wing beliefs and another with left wing beliefs could both spend time with and/or as a homeless person or single mother of three for example and empathize with what it's like living that kind of life. They would come away with an understanding of what it is like to be in that situation. The difference is in what I would do about it. Whereas the left would just give the homeless person a house and say problem solved, the first thing I would do is ask the person 'what are you doing to not be homeless anymore?' Do you ever watch any of those drug rehab programs like Celebrity Rehab or Intervention? They all have a central theme to getting off of drugs and it starts with the addict choosing to get off of drugs. And THAT requires something the left seems to have a HUGE problem with. Personal responsibility. Nothing can truly change about your life until YOU decide to do something about it. All the outside help in the world from you oh so compassionate libs isn't going to do shit until a person decided to help themselves first.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 31, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > midcan5 said:
> ...



I don't have a lot of time and only scanned your article.  I don't see anything that contradicts what I said.

As I am currently unemployed, with very little hope of finding a job in the next two and a half years or beyond thank to ACA, I can tell you that if it were now 2014, I would be in a world of hurt having to come up with an additional $150/month.  

That is where I am coming from.  The ACA is severely limiting my chances of becoming employed again and if I had to throw away $150/month today for insurance, I simply could not keep pace.

Immie


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 31, 2011)

The healthcare system has needed to be reformed for many decades.  This healthcare bill does not go far enough, but it's a good first step.  Private and individual acts of kindness are all well and good, but they don't address the needs of the populace well.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 31, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



You are currently unemployed, and listening to LIES... 

There's no 'job-killing health-care law'


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 31, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> The healthcare system has needed to be reformed for many decades.  This healthcare bill does not go far enough, but it's a good first step.  Private and individual acts of kindness are all well and good, but they don't address the needs of the populace well.



Again, this notion that it does not go far enough only assumes that a role of government is to meet people's needs. If there is a need to be meat the private sector will, and far more efficiently, meet those needs. Just perhaps, the founders were smart enough to figure out what government was best able to do and what givernment would not be so suited to doing.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 31, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > The healthcare system has needed to be reformed for many decades.  This healthcare bill does not go far enough, but it's a good first step.  Private and individual acts of kindness are all well and good, but they don't address the needs of the populace well.
> ...



A huge pile of bullshit. Health insurance will NEVER, EVER be a fit for the private sector. The 'free market' model CANNOT work for both the consumer and the insurance corporations. Are you folks on the right so thoroughly indoctrinated that you can't see the built in conflicts?


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 31, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Why not? It works for the consumer and every other type of corporation that produces good or services for consumption. What is this conflict you speak of that ONLY exists in the health insurance industry?


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 31, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



You REALLY can't see the problem? 

OK, let's take buying a car. You buy a Chevy and you are not satisfied with the car, what are your options?


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 31, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Sorry, I live in the real world and have felt and heard the facts out of employer mouths.

Ezra Klein lives in a fantasy world fed to him by liberal politicians that want to justify the bullshit they forced down our throats in 2009.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 31, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Part of the problem is that there is no "free market" involved at the moment.  Government regulations in such things as limiting which insurers can do business in which states has wiped out the "free market" in every state.

Immie


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 31, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Pretty sure I know where you're going to try to go with this, but I'll play along for the moment. If you buy a new car and aren't satisfied with it, your options depend on the situation. My parents just happened to have bought a new car and weren't competely satisified with a few things. Had a spot on the interior roof or something and the dealership fixed it for them. If you are talking about it just not being the car you want or something like that, then I would imagine you could return the car for refund if you're within the exchange period. So I'm guessing this is the part where you explain to me why it is not possible for the free market to provide a similar level of service where health insurance is concerned.........


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 31, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Immie, you keep parroting the same BS. There is no free market model that will ever work. Are you also oblivious to the built in conflict?


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 31, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I'm not parroting anything and I didn't say there was a "free market". Hence the "there is no 'free market'".  We do not have a free market anywhere in America.  However, the freer the market is the better things work to a certain extent.

Government interference should be kept to the absolute minimum possible.

I think it is you socialists who are the ones that are absolutely clueless.  You have no concept of the word freedom.

Immie


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 31, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



No Immie, they do have a concept of freedom. It's just that freedom to them means no one should have a care in the world and if you do, government ought to fix it for you.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 31, 2011)

Freedom is a meaningless word outside of context. As for jobs the worse record on jobs has always been the republicans, that is fact. Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As long as American corporations outsource and Americans buy foreign products because they are cheaper, we will have high unemployment, seems simple but blaming Obama is the easiest job. 

15 Shocking Facts Show That the Middle Class is Being Wiped Out | Economy | AlterNet


----------



## 2twsted4colorTV (Aug 31, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> Freedom is a meaningless word outside of context. As for jobs the worse record on jobs has always been the republicans, that is fact. Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> As long as American corporations outsource and Americans buy foreign products because they are cheaper, we will have high unemployment, seems simple but blaming Obama is the easiest job.
> 
> 15 Shocking Facts Show That the Middle Class is Being Wiped Out | Economy | AlterNet



And just why do you think corporations outsource?  They can't afford to pay the ungodly wages the unions want them to pay.  These people want more and more money, they simply can't afford it.  Start a business why don't you and see how well you do.  There are people around the world who are willing to work for wages people here in American don't.  People here was 30 bucks an hour without even so much as a high school diploma. Then they won't work, won't show up on time, do shoddy work and want more and more money.  It's that simple.  Wake up.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 31, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Well Immie, I turned your head around on Rev. Wright, but you absolutely refuse to listen to Wendell Potter who was an Executive VP for Cigna, one of the largest insurance corporations in America. I guess the truth would be too uncomfortable for you, carry on.

Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 31, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> Freedom is a meaningless word outside of context. As for jobs the worse record on jobs has always been the republicans, that is fact. Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> As long as American corporations outsource and Americans buy foreign products because they are cheaper, we will have high unemployment, seems simple but blaming Obama is the easiest job.
> 
> 15 Shocking Facts Show That the Middle Class is Being Wiped Out | Economy | AlterNet



Freedom, in the context the Founders understood it, was the unalienable right to think anything, say anything, want anything, believe anything, create anything, aspire to anything, acquire anything, own anything, or DO anything that requires no involuntary contribution or participation by any other person other than his/her noninterference.

Absolutely nothing apart from that is a right.

The concept of the Constitution was to provide a central federal government with sufficient authority to secure the rights of the people and would then leave them entirely alone to form whatever society and state and local government they wished to have.  In other words the people would govern themselves in whatever way they saw fit short of being able to violate anybody else's unalienable rights with impunity.

It was the recognition of unalienable rights that made this different from anarchy that respects nobody's rights and also different from any form of government the world had ever known.  It also produced the most free, most innovative, most productive, most prosperous nation the world had ever known.

We are at risk of losing it if we continue to allow the federal government to acquire more and more power and dictate more and more of what we may own or keep of our property, what we may say, how we must work, and otherwise how we may legally live our lives.

Conservatives seem to have a great deal of empathy for these concepts.

Liberals too often seem to have had their empathy bone removed when it comes to the concept of unalienable rights.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 31, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



I have read plenty from Mr. Potter.  He has not convinced me that I am wrong.  ACA is/was a jobs killer.  I am a living victim of that piece of shit legislation.  

What don't you understand about that?

The article from Mr. Potter, that you presented earlier, didn't even discuss the effect this legislation had on jobs.  It speaks of access to health care.  

Volunteer Doctors Can&#039;t Keep Up with Needs of Uninsured and Underinsured | Center for Media and Democracy

I'm no fan of insurance companies, but I damned sure would prefer them to bureaucrats in Washington who can begin taxing us what ever the hell they want as soon as they have destroyed the private industry.

Immie


----------



## midcan5 (Sep 1, 2011)

*"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." James Madison*



Foxfyre said:


> Freedom, in the context the Founders understood it, was the unalienable right to think anything, say anything, want anything, believe anything, create anything, aspire to anything, acquire anything, own anything, or DO anything that requires no involuntary contribution or participation by any other person other than his/her noninterference.
> 
> Absolutely nothing apart from that is a right.
> [...]
> ...



I don't pretend to be an expert on thought in early America but I know your interpretation is way too simplistic and almost utopian. It would only take a few quotations from the time to contradict your assumptions. Here's one: "... legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right." Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison 1785 [more quotes below]

The constitution and federation of America occurred because people ( and states ) don't get along, plain and simple, the idea today that government is the problem grows not out of our founding, but out of the oppositional rhetoric of power and money when faced with regulation and law. Plutocracy along with corporate power and big money are powerful forces today. (see book at bottom)

Unalienable rights, like freedom, are meaningless concepts outside of context and community. No one has unalienable rights as that is one enormous abstraction given everyone can only act within a time and a place. Empathy as I use it in this thread is not favorable opinions on concepts, I consider it about people. That is a consistent distinction between liberal thought and conservative thought: conservatives live by formula, liberals by utility. Read Tom Paine sometimes as he influneced our revolution. 

If government were to leave people alone we'd have anarchy. Law and its consequence is the only thing that keeps some - many - most people honest in affairs of profit and property. Our recent real estate crash demonstrates this once more, but humans do not seem to learn. Just think if some regulator had done their job with Madoff? 

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government."  Thomas Jefferson

"Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came." Thomas Paine

"The republican [not party] ideology derives from a variety of sources, both ancient and early modern.  Within the context of early American history, republican ideology usually refers to a strain of political thought that emphasized the need for the government to pursue the public good. Republican thinkers believed that liberty was a very fragile thing that had to be carefully guarded. In order to successfully protect liberty, politics had to be carried out by virtuous men who would protect the public good rather than seeking to benefit private interests."  David J. Voelker http://www.uwgb.edu/voelkerd/handouts/republicanism-by-david-voelker.pdf


"Historian Phillips-Fein traces the hidden history of the Reagan revolution to a coterie of business executives, including General Electric official and Reagan mentor Lemuel Boulware, who saw labor unions, government regulation, high taxes and welfare spending as dire threats to their profits and power. From the 1930s onward, the author argues, they provided the money, organization and fervor for a decades-long war against New Deal liberalism&#8212;funding campaigns, think tanks, magazines and lobbying groups, and indoctrinating employees in the virtues of unfettered capitalism."  [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Hands-Making-Conservative-Movement/dp/0393059308/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247845984&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan (9780393059304): Kim Phillips-Fein: Books[/ame] 
.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 1, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> *"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." James Madison*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Unfortunately that isn't true. Science has shown through social experiements time and time again that lack of some authority does not automatically lead to chaos. Not that I am advocating for no government but an anarchist would argue that anarchy is not chaos, simply a lack of central authority in the absence of which spontaneous order would come about. 

It is ridiculous to believe that the founders were big government lovers given what they came from. You quote Jefferson, but cleary out of context. While he stating how something could be done he clearly not advocating it. No one is advocating for no regulation midcan. But to believe a central authority (government) with ever more power is not the greatest threat there is to one's freedom is to be about as blind as one can be.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 1, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> I don't pretend to be an expert on thought in early America.......



Then carries on as though he's the expert on thought in early America, complete with the all-too-usual strawmen, post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacies, quotes taken out of context, outright lies, all topped off with condescending "read this epic liberoidal tome and you too might end up a bloviating genius like me" crapola.

Pure tragicomic gold.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 1, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > *"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." James Madison*
> ...



Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.

BLIND FAITH

The gap between rich and poor is now the widest in US history. This is disturbing, for if history is any guide we have unwittingly placed ourselves in grave danger.

Over the last millennium Europe has witnessed long cycles of widening and narrowing economic disparity. In each cycle, once the gap between the rich and the rest widened beyond a certain point, it presaged decline and disaster for all of society, the rich as well as the poor. Could we be seeing the first tremors of a new cycle, the outliers of the next menacing storm? In recent decades, many US citizens have come under increasing financial pressure. Since the 1970s, our number of working poor has increased sharply. Nearly all of our much-vaunted newly-created wealth has gone to the richest.

For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address such problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies. These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).

The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.

The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.

It may seem odd, given the parabolic arc of our financial markets and the swelling chorus of paeans to free market economics, but despite the important role of the market, purer free market economies have consistently underperformed well-focused mixed economies. In the latter part of the nineteenth century the mixed economies of Meiji Japan and Bismarcks Germany clearly outperformed the free market economies of Britain and France. Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > midcan5 said:
> ...



How about you answer my last response to you before we start getting into new territory. But for the record it is the blind compassion of liberals via government that sounds nice on paper but does not pass even a cursory logistical inspection.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 1, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



This is not 'new' territory Bern. My post does address your response. As we moved toward an ideology driven 'free market' ONLY belief economically, and away from a mixed economy, the results have been disastrous.

Over the past half-century we have seen lower tax rates and less government interference. We have come a long way toward free enterprise from the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Since the Kennedy Administration we have reduced the marginal tax rate on our highest incomes from the 91% that remained in effect from the 1940s into the mid-1960s (and a brief peak of 94% during World War II) to 28% in the 1986 tax code. Yet our economic growth has slowed.

Decade/Average Real GNP/per Capita GNP Growth
1960-1969 4.18% 2.79%
1970-1979 3.18% 2.09%
1980-1989 2.75% 1.81%
1990-1994 1.95% 0.79%
(Maddison, Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992 p. .183, 197)

Despite our adoption of the most enlightened free market policies, our performance resembles that of a declining Great Britain in the late nineteenth century.

Free market apologists contend the closer we come to pure laissez faire, the better. But there is little evidence for even this position. The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 1, 2011)

You want empathy from me?  

Look in the dictionary between eczema and enema.  That's where you'll find my empathy.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 1, 2011)

Skull Pilot said:


> You want empathy from me?
> 
> Look in the dictionary between eczema and enema.  That's where you'll find my empathy.



Thank you for adding proof...

One politically popular myth, that free market economics and government non-intervention provide the basis for true democracy, flies in the face of history. The first democrats, the classical Athenians, had a word for the ideal free marketer, the _homo economicus_, working for his own economic gain but unconcerned with the community. It was not particularly complimentary, the ancestor of our word* idiot.* Pericles expressed the sentiment underlying this: We regard the citizen who takes no part in these [public] duties not as unambitious but as useless


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > You want empathy from me?
> ...



Proof of what?

All you hand wringers who sit around and empathize don't usually do anything to rectify a problem.

I can empathize all you want but I'd rather do something about what I see as wrong.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Correlation is not causation Bf. What else has happened in that time? Government has gotten bigger and bigger and bigger requiring more and more of people's money, so much more that what they spend outstrips what they collect which has caused us to go into debt which has devalued the dollar....but of course that can't possibly have anything to do with it right?

P.S. the post I am asking you to repond to is this one. 





Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Pretty sure I know where you're going to try to go with this, but I'll play along for the moment. If you buy a new car and aren't satisfied with it, your options depend on the situation. My parents just happened to have bought a new car and weren't competely satisified with a few things. Had a spot on the interior roof or something and the dealership fixed it for them. If you are talking about it just not being the car you want or something like that, then I would imagine you could return the car for refund if you're within the exchange period. So I'm guessing this is the part where you explain to me why it is not possible for the free market to provide a similar level of service where health insurance is concerned.........


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 1, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Government has gotten bigger than during the New Deal? No Bern, the government has become less and less an advocate for all it's citizens, and MUCH more an advocate for extremely well funded special interests, corporations and Wall Street.

On the healthcare question...your parents were not satisfied with a car. If they were unable to gain satisfaction, they can take their business elsewhere. A car (current of next car) is their leverage in the transaction.

If your mother was diagnosed with cancer, and her insurance refused to pay for life saving treatments and medications, what are her options? Choose a different insurance company IN THE NEXT LIFE???

The patient pays a monthly premium for health insurance, to cover illness and injury. And when they do face an illness or injury, the patient wants a healthy outcome.

The 'for profit' insurance corporations only seek profit. They gladly accept those monthly premiums, but payout for illness and injury REDUCES profit. The insurance corporations are not concerned with patient outcomes.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



The options are to sue for breach of contract if the policy specified coverage and the insurance company refused to pay.  The options are to appeal for help from a benevolent organization.  I have a friend who, through no fault of her own, was fairly indigent and received all her cancer treatment free at Bellevue in NYC--a state run hospital.  That is the alternative if the people support it--set up a state or city hospital to serve the very poor and indigent.

Alternatively, if the government takes over and controls all healthcare in the country and they decide your mother isn't worth the cancer treatment and send her home to die, THEN what would your options be?  Our fearless leader actually suggested that scenario would be possible when he was selling his healthcare overhaul.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 1, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Proof???


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Government has gotten bigger than during the New Deal? No Bern, the government has become less and less an advocate for all it's citizens, and MUCH more an advocate for extremely well funded special interests, corporations and Wall Street.



Yes, Bf. You really are blind if you think otherwise. Government takes in more money than it ever has, spends more than it ever has and it still isn't enough. As far as expansion of social services you may be right, but what matters to the citizens you claim to care so much about is their pocket book and government's runaway spending is having the biggest impact on it. I am all for severing the ties that currently exist between government and business. How that is going to help the pocket book of the poor and middle class I'm really not sure.



Bfgrn said:


> On the healthcare question...your parents were not satisfied with a car. If they were unable to gain satisfaction, they can take their business elsewhere. A car (current of next car) is their leverage in the transaction.
> 
> If your mother was diagnosed with cancer, and her insurance refused to pay for life saving treatments and medications, what are her options? Choose a different insurance company IN THE NEXT LIFE???
> 
> ...



Whether your plan covers the costs of cancer treatment or not would the responsibility of you, the consumer, to know before you purchase your plan. The typical argument over the cost of health care is that people can't foresee and prepare for their health care eventualities even that isnt completely true, but even if it were, just because a problem is out of your control does not automatically absolve you of responsibility for it and/or obligate someone else to fix it. But let's stick with this scenario a second. Ma's insurance won't cover cancer? What are her options? Find another isurance plan that will would be one. There isn't any reason there can't exist an insurance company that say only takes preexisting conditions. Think outside the box for a second instead of always running to mommy government's tit. Or how about loans for healthcare costs. We do it for cars all the time. Most people don't have the cost of a car on them so they get a loan and pay it back. In the end your 35k car ends up costing you maybe 38k once you're done paying it off with interest. Why can't a similar product be offered for health care. If you have a 100k in health care costs you take out loan for it at some percentage rate and pay it back or x amount of time. I just don't get why health care is viewed as this service that we shouldn't have to compensate providers for like any other service we don't think twice about paying for. De-regulate the industry so that insurance companies can find tune plans to what people actually want. If you purchase a plan then that doesn't cover your condition that isn't anyone's fault but your own and you need to find alternative means of dealing with it.

Of course insurance companies care about the health of their customers. The healthier they are the less they have to pay out, so it is in their best interests to make sure they are healthy and guess what? Insurance companies are doing just that. My cousin was recently hired by Medica as health advocate. Know what her job is. She talks on the phone all day trying to help Medica customers live healthier lives. She said a single mother called her and didn't know where she was going to get the money to pay for her premiums so she spent an hour on the phone with the lady go over her grocery bills showing her where she could not only save money but purchase things that improve her diet. There is one bottom line to a business making money in the long term Bf. Do right by your customers. There is a very obvious (one you fail to see though) incentive for a business, health insurance companies included, to do so. There are very, very few businesses that have such a monopoly that they can afford to screw over their customers and expect them to keep coming back. Admittedly health insurance is pretty close, but it is government regulations that have resulted in that, requiring employers to provide health care, and what plans must cover, that have caused that. NOT the insruance companies. The fact that government has dictated that people have little choice in insurance providers keeps them from having to know anythig about the plans they have. What difference does it make when you're employer can only provide one option, right? As always Bf, TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT has created our insurance problem not the insurance companies, but an idiot like you that doesn't know thing one about running a business clearly isnt going to get that.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Here's just one of several statements he made along these lines:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo[/ame]

Note he did suggest that families would participate in the decision, but the obvious intent was that ultimately it would be the government who would decide.  The point is, if I want to buy additional coverage for catastophic insurance now, I have that option and I or my loved one decides whether it is worth going through the treatment.  Once the government is in control of who gets paid and how much, however, that option is no longer mine.  The government decides for me.

And I'm sorry.  But I prefer to make that choice myself and, based on its track record over many decades now, I do not trust government to have the best interests of anybody at heart.


----------



## editec (Sep 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


 
They cannot see that it is in the best interests of for profit HC insurance companies that the cost of HC continues to rise.

They cannot understand that, although for the life of me, I cannot see how they can miss something so obvious as that.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 1, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Government has gotten bigger than during the New Deal? No Bern, the government has become less and less an advocate for all it's citizens, and MUCH more an advocate for extremely well funded special interests, corporations and Wall Street.
> ...



I will provide some enlightenment, but view it at your own risk, it might open your eyes.

Wendell Potter, who retired last April from his job as head of communications for the CIGNA health insurance company, has been in the news since then as a whistle-blowing critic of the insurance industry. Today I belatedly read his June 24 testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation (see here) watched his July 10 interview with Bill Moyers (see here).

Potter is especially clear about the way short term considerations drive the behavior of for-profit insurers:

The top priority of for-profit companies is to drive up the value of their stock. Stocks fluctuate based on companies quarterly reports, which are discussed every three months in conference calls with investors and analysts. On these calls, Wall Street investors and analysts look for two key figures: earnings per share and the "medical-loss" ratio - the ratio between what the company actually pays out in claims and what it has left over to cover sales, marketing, underwriting and other administrative expenses and, of course, profits.

To win the favor of powerful analysts, for-profit insurers must prove that they made more money during the previous quarter than a year earlier and that the portion of the premium going to medical costs is falling. Even very profitable companies can see sharp declines in stock prices moments after admitting theyve failed to trim medical costs. I have seen an insurers stock price fall 20 percent or more in a single day after executives disclosed that the company had to spend a slightly higher percentage of premiums on medical claims during the quarter than it did during a previous period. The smoking gun was the companys first-quarter medical loss ratio, which had increased from 77.9% to 79.4% a year later.

Health Care Organizational Ethics: Wendell Potter on For-Profit Health Insurance

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwX_soZ1GI]BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Wendell Potter | PBS - YouTube[/ame]

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 1, 2011)

editec said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Read my last post ed.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 1, 2011)

The free market worked quite nicely for healthcare insurance prior to the advent of Medicare in 1966 (when it first went into effect) followed by Medicaid followed by government mandates to private hospitals that they MUST treat the poor and indigent for free, etc.   The very day that such government healthcare and interference went into effect, healthcare costs began spiraling out of control.

Those who sanctimoniously say that the free market doesn't work in insurance as it does in everything else simply have never lived at a time in which it did.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 1, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> The free market worked quite nicely for healthcare insurance prior to the advent of Medicare in 1966 (when it first went into effect) followed by Medicaid followed by government mandates to private hospitals that they MUST treat the poor and indigent for free, etc.   The very day that such government healthcare and interference went into effect, healthcare costs began spiraling out of control.
> 
> Those who sanctimoniously say that the free market doesn't work in insurance as it does in everything else simply have never lived at a time in which it did.



FALSE...

Dr. Bill Roy: Don't return to life before Medicare, Medicaid

Most people have never known our country before Medicare and Medicaid, which was enacted 46 years ago. Those of us who were practicing medicine before 1965 knew it well.

About half of older people did not have health insurance. Only unionized or government employees whose employment contracts provided for retirement health insurance were so lucky. But there weren't many such people in small-town Kansas.

Then, just as today, many seniors were living at or below the poverty line. Half of Medicare recipients today are living on $28,000 a year or less. But they do have Medicare Part A for hospital services.

To have Part B, physician services, and Part D, the drug benefit, they must buy them. Also, they must pay deductibles and co-pays unless they purchase an insurance policy that pays for what Medicare doesn't cover.

It costs a Medicare recipient $7,000 to $10,000 a year for complete coverage. That's a lot for someone whose income is $28,000.

But that's so much better than before Medicare. If you were among those without insurance, you either delayed care for as long as you could or you asked for charity  never a pleasant task for elderly people who always have taken pride in paying their bills.

Many died from delaying care. For those who finally sought care and were treatable, getting hospital care went something like this:

"Sister Kathleen, I have a woman with large uterine fibroids who is almost bleeding to death each month. Neither she nor anyone in the family has any money. Can you help her?"

Sometimes the sister would suggest we admit the woman next month when the census would be down. Or she would say to admit her Sunday for Monday surgery.

I also could call Carl Lamley, the former administrator at Stormont-Vail Hospital in Topeka, and get the same result.

Both knew that I was not charging these patients a penny. Nor were other doctors in our fine medical community. They took special pride in providing care for anyone who needed it, in contrast to physicians today who will not accept Medicare patients.

Read more: Dr. Bill Roy: Don't return to life before Medicare, Medicaid | Wichita Eagle


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



It is the goal of any for profit company to keep costs down. Paying out claims is one of those costs. An insurance company can not deny a claim that it is contracutally obligated to pay. But maybe that is something you lefties don't get. I imagine it is because you, like most people, don't realy know a whole lot about the specifics of your insurance plan. You don't know much about it because, due to government regs, you really don't need to. If you're employer provides health insurance your 'choice' of plan is whatever they pick so what difference does it make what's on it right? The realty is an insurance plan is not a service that covers any and all health care costs for a person. It is a plan, much like an auto insurance policies that says we will cover x costs under x conditions. At some point you whiners need to start taking personal responsibility. You need to know what your plan does and does not cover and quit pissing and moaning when you have to pay for something that your plan has no obligation to cover. People are so used to costs of their health care being an out of sight out of mind thing and you idiots wonder why the cost of something that most consumers don't have to deal with is going up. You remove a market force that keeps prices down and wonder why prices are going up. Are you people for real?

As to the guy in your clip. I don't disagree with much of what he had to say. One way a health insurance company reduce its medical loss ratio is by keeping the people paying premiums healthy, which as mentioned earlier many major insurance companies are already doing through various means.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The free market worked quite nicely for healthcare insurance prior to the advent of Medicare in 1966 (when it first went into effect) followed by Medicaid followed by government mandates to private hospitals that they MUST treat the poor and indigent for free, etc.   The very day that such government healthcare and interference went into effect, healthcare costs began spiraling out of control.
> ...



Sorry but I WAS working in the industry when Medicare went into effect and saw first hand the results of that.   I KNOW how we handled the poor and indigent at that time because it was my job.  Nobody was turned away from necessary care, but they were expected to pay what they could to get it even if they could pay no more than $1/week.  $10/month payments for a hospital stay to have a baby was quite common.   But knowing there would be a bill prevented people from using the emergency room instead of a personal physician who would charge much less.  That was the free market at work.

And if somebody needed an expensive operation and couldn't afford it, the local community took up collections or held fund raisers, the surgeon took a discount, the hospital set up time payments for any unpaid portion of the bill, and it was taken care of.  That was America at its best at work.

Government healthcare has resulted in making insurance unaffordable for many and healthcare impossible for many unless it is provided to them free which costs everybody else much more.  That is not the way it should be.

A pregnancy and hospitalization to have a baby before Medicare involved three or four days of hospitalization for mom and baby and ran about $2,200 total.  My husband recently had some minor outpatient surgery utilizing the hospital for about six hours and his bill was almost $12,000.  Medicare paid most of it, but that was ridiculous.

THAT is what government interference in the free market does for us.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 1, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



WTF is wrong with you? I didn't just fall off the back of a turnip truck, I've been around since Harry Truman was President.

In 1965 doctors were middle class practitioners who came to your house. In 1965 a house cost $15,000, a car cost $2,500, a gallon of gas was 31 cents and a pound of ground beef was 35 cents.

You need to join reality and stop spreading your ideology driven ditzy boloney...

Here is some REAL external forces that can help explain skyrocketing medical costs.

Medical care costs in the U.S. have not always been this excessive. This year, we will spend more than $2.5 trillion on medical care. But in 1950, five years before Ray Kroc opened the first franchised McDonald's restaurant, Americans only spent $8.4 billion ($70 billion in today's dollars). Even after adjusting for inflation, we now spend as much on health care every 10 days as we did in the entire year of 1950.

Has this enormous increase in spending made us healthier? Earlier this year, when the World Health Organization assessed the overall health outcomes of different nations, it placed 36 other nations ahead of the United States.

Today, we have an epidemic of largely preventable diseases. To these illnesses, Americans are losing not only their health but also their life savings. Meanwhile, the evidence keeps growing that the path to improved health lies in eating more vegetables, fruits, whole grains and legumes, and eating far less processed foods, sugars and animal products.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



So with all this wonderful government healthcare, free to the poor, subsidized by the government for the elderly and low income folks, etc. etc. etc., the USA spends the most on healthcare and ranks 37th in effectivenes?   Doesn't that at least give you pause for thought??????????

Yes everything was cheaper in the 1950s and 60s, but healthcare was also affordable then and available to pretty much everybody.  And I'm pretty sure the USA was also ranked in at least the top two to five nations in the world in quality of healthcare.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 1, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Before Medicare, 56% of people 65 and older had no health insurance. Most couldn't afford it. Before Medicare, the elderly were among the most likely to be forced into poverty. Medicare alone lifted millions of elderly Americans out of poverty, and removed the ominous threat of being one diagnosis away from losing everything they worked their whole lives for. And it gave the elderly the dignity to sustain their life without begging for help. Today, nearly all seniors have access to affordable health care and only about 14 percent of seniors are below the poverty line.

It is the BEST of what this nation stands for.

You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
Leviticus 19:32


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



It does not honor the aged to enslave them into a program that crowds out all other options; it does not honor the aged to make things so expensive they have to be enslaved to the government or die.  It does not honor the aged to keep pushing an insolvent program with ever escalating costs (and premiums)  that threaten to bankrupt the country.  It does not honor the aged to terrify them with the threat of losing their healthcare if they don't vote a certain way.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 1, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



HERE are the FACTS:

We tried a charity only approach...it FAILED. Maybe conservatives feel the elderly and poor need to beg.

Medicare has lifted millions of elderly Americans out of poverty. It has increased life expectancies and given our ancestors who worked, fought wars and built a better America for our benefit a dignified end of life. 

Not only is Medicare a HUGE success for the elderly in America, it is MORE cost effective that private insurance. This comes from a CONSERVATIVE...Here is a market-driven entrepreneur admitting that Medicare is MORE cost effective than private insurance.






*Is Medicare Cost Effective?*

2003

I recently spent a half-day in a meeting discussing a number of issues regarding Medicare. Most of us on the provider side of the street view Medicare as this multiheaded bureaucracy with more pages of regulations than the Internal Revenue Service's tax code. However, I came away from the meeting with some (to me at least) shocking revelations:

* Medicare beneficiaries are overwhelmingly satisfied with their Medicare coverage, except for the absence of prescription drug benefits;

* The administrative costs of Medicare are lower than any other large health plan.

In fact, Medicare is very efficient by any objective means:

According to the Urban Institute's Marilyn Moon, who testified before the Senate Committee on Aging, Medicare expenditures between 1970 and 2000 grew more slowly than those of the private sector. Initially, from 1965 through the 1980s, Medicare and private insurance costs doubled in tandem. Then Medicare tightened up, and per capita expenditures grew more slowly than private insurance, creating a significant gap. In the 1990s, private insurers got more serious about controlling their costs, and the gap narrowed. But by 2000, Medicare per capita expenditures remained significantly lower than the private sector.

* The average income of Medicare beneficiaries is closer to the poverty line than many of us working folks would like to believe: According to government statistics Moon cites, more than 90 percent of retirees covered by Medicare earn less than $32,000 per year for individuals or $40,000 for couples. In 2003, Medicare beneficiaries will spend an average of 23 percent of their income on health care!

Moon argues somewhat convincingly that Medicare has been a success. While not necessarily denying that certain reforms might be needed, she stresses the importance of preserving three essential tenets of the program:

    1. Its universal coverage nature creates the ability to redistribute benefits to those who are neediest.


    2. It pools risk in order to share the burdens of health care among the healthy and the sick.

    3. Through Medicare, the government protects the rights of all beneficiaries to essential health care.

It has been argued that, in part, Medicare's cost effectiveness arises from the fact that it does not need to expend funds on marketing and sales-functions that are obligatory for the success of competitive, private-sector health plans. Moreover, some argue that the competitive model for health insurance has not been successful. In a market-driven economy, the healthy can and will change health plans for savings of only a few dollars a month, while the sick must remain in their existing plan in order to retain their physicians. Such behaviors lead to asymmetric risk pools and cost inequities.

This was all sobering news to a market-driven entrepreneur such as yours truly. However, given the perverse incentives that frequently drive behavior in health care, my take-home lesson is that there are examples in the success of Medicare we can apply to other sectors of our population.

William Ralph Brody

Is Medicare Cost Effective?


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 1, 2011)

If Medicare is so cost effective, how come so many doctors are refusing to take Medicare patients?  Do you honestly think the government lowballing Medicare payments does not result in higher insurance premiums and costs for everybody else?


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 1, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> If Medicare is so cost effective, how come so many doctors are refusing to take Medicare patients?  Do you honestly think the government lowballing Medicare payments does not result in higher insurance premiums and costs for everybody else?



Your dogma keeps failing the fact test.

We already pay far more than any other industrialized nation for health care. Why? Because too much of our health system is run by private insurers who take a profit for themselves and have no real incentive to control costs or improve quality.

Most of our best cost and quality initiatives come from Medicare and Medicaid. The less medical care they manage, the more overall costs are likely to rise.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > If Medicare is so cost effective, how come so many doctors are refusing to take Medicare patients?  Do you honestly think the government lowballing Medicare payments does not result in higher insurance premiums and costs for everybody else?
> ...



I thought we already established that and we rank 37th in effectiveness according to your list posted just a few posts above.  I remember when we were in at least the top five if not No. 1 in healthcare excellence and that was when the government wasn't involved in anything other than the V.A. which, being government run, was some of the worst healthcare provided.

There are many things the government can do to help the free market work and succeed in healthcare.   But the government running the show is not the way to go.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 2, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Medicare has been in existence since 1965. NO American citizens have been euthanized or just allowed to die without it being the patients request or the family's request (i.e. - DNR) You are spewing right wing paranoia.

What the President is referring to is this comprehensive study:


U.S. Health System Performance: A National Scorecard

Substantial Room for Improvement

A central goal of the health care system is its capacity to contribute to long, healthy, and productive lives. In the Scorecard, this goal is measured by a series of indicators on health outcomes like preventable mortality, life expectancy, and certain health-related limitations faced by adults and children. The U.S. scored 69 out of 100 in this area, with wide variations in performance seen across the country.

Among 19 industrialized countries, the U.S. ranked 15th on "mortality from conditions amenable to health care," or deaths before age 75 that are potentially preventable with timely, effective care. The U.S. rate was more than 30 percent worse than the benchmarkthe top three countries. The U.S. also ranks at the bottom for healthy life expectancy and last on infant mortality.

In terms of access to care, including health system participation and affordability of care, the Scorecard revealed generally poor performance. The authors say this is primarily a result of rising rates of uninsured and "underinsured" Americans, as well as health care costs that are outstripping growth in median income.

In the area of health system efficiency, the U.S. scored only 51. Efficiency indicators illustrate that quality, access, and costs are interconnected: poor quality often contributes to higher costs (through higher hospital readmission rates, for example), and poor access undermines quality, while simultaneously contributing to less-efficient care. Efficiency scores also reflect the nation's low use of electronic medical records and relatively high insurance administrative costs.


Performance Widely Variable

Across indicators, there was often a substantial spread between the top and bottom group of states, hospitals, or health plans, with those at the bottom well below the leaders and the national average. For instance, patients discharged from the hospital with congestive heart failure receive written discharge instructionsa measure of well-coordinated careonly 50 percent of the time, on average. There is an 80-percentage-point spread between the top and bottom 10 percent of hospitals, with the top group at 87 percent and the lowest-performers at 9 percent. On certain indicators, simply raising the bottom of the distribution to average performance would yield substantial net national gains, the authors say.


Improving Quality and Saving Lives

Overall, the Scorecard makes a compelling case for fundamental change in the nation's health care system. In addition to saving lives and reducing preventable complications, a better coordinated, more accessible system of care could achieve substantial savings with a net gain in value. The Scorecard provides evidence that quality and efficiency can be improved together: more efficient use of expensive resources can produce the same or better quality care at lower cost.

Moving forward, however, requires policies that address the interaction of access, quality, and cost and take a strategic, whole-system viewrather than a fragmented approach to change. The authors conclude that investment in information capacity as well as guaranteeing affordable health insurance will be essential to progress. With cost and coverage vital signs moving in the wrong direction, say the authors, the nation's health system is in urgent need of transformation.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 2, 2011)

What has happened up until now is irrelevent except when observing what has not worked well, the corruption involved, and the unsustainable costs.

But our current fearless leader wants the government to have the power to decide whether somebody will receive treatment or whether that person just isn't worth it and should be kept comfortable but allowed to die.

As a freedom loving America, I do NOT want the government having that kind of power over law abiding citizens.  I do NOT want Obama to get his way in that matter.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 2, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



The study by the WHO was done in 2000. It was the FIRST study done by that organization. So you are just emoting again.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 2, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> What has happened up until now is irrelevent except when observing what has not worked well, the corruption involved, and the unsustainable costs.
> 
> But our current fearless leader wants the government to have the power to decide whether somebody will receive treatment or whether that person just isn't worth it and should be kept comfortable but allowed to die.
> 
> As a freedom loving America, I do NOT want the government having that kind of power over law abiding citizens.  I do NOT want Obama to get his way in that matter.



Oh, so our president is a murderer? I wouldn't even accuse George Bush of being that evil. You folks on the right are wacky. What has happened in the past DOES matter. We don't off grandma. The President is NOT advocating for government 'deciding whether somebody will receive treatment or whether that person just isn't worth it and should be kept comfortable but allowed to die.'

Maybe you are referring to the phony 'death panels', which was a TOTALLY false representation of advanced directives by Republicans who made a collective effort to undermine reform for political gain?

*Promoting advanced directives puts decisions in proper hands*

It&#8217;s hard to imagine how a compassionate, family-friendly measure &#8212; a measure that ultimately respects individual rights &#8212; could be twisted so grossly into the erroneous phrase &#8220;death panels.&#8221;

But, prepare yourself for more lies and more nonsense, because President Barack Obama has decided to do the right thing &#8212; and his critics already have resorted to fear-mongering and name-calling.

The concept of advanced directives was pioneered in La Crosse, thanks to our two first-class health care institutions.

It&#8217;s a simple concept: An individual, with the help of family, should have the ultimate say in the type of end-of-life care the individual receives. The best way to do that is through a careful consultation, with family and physician, before there is a health crisis &#8212; while the individual is still capable of having a rational voice in the decision.

Too often, those decisions are made when it&#8217;s too late for the individual to make the decisions. Instead, grieving family members are left to make the decision &#8212; and at times it&#8217;s nothing more than a guess.

Would the individual want extraordinary measures taken when the end is near? Why wouldn&#8217;t we trust the individual &#8212; in advance and when thinking clearly &#8212; to make that decision?

For those who crusade for the rights of the individual, here&#8217;s the question: Why are you so opposed to the individual being able to set down on paper, with help from family and physician, the standards and wishes for end-of-life care?

The issue of death panels became so hot during this year&#8217;s debate on health-care reform legislation that Democrats decided to pull that provision from the bill.

Read more: Our view: Promoting advanced directives puts decisions in proper hands


----------



## waltky (Sep 2, 2011)

Granny says don't try to get her to feel sorry for dem lefty lib'rals...

... `cause it ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Greenbeard (Sep 2, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Those who sanctimoniously say that the free market doesn't work in insurance as it does in everything else simply have never lived at a time in which it did.





Foxfyre said:


> Do you honestly think the government lowballing Medicare payments does not result in higher insurance premiums and costs for everybody else?



These are irreconciliable propositions. You can't simultaneously argue that all we need is a more competitive health insurance market _and_ suggest that the private health insurance market is already diffuse enough relative to the market power of providers that providers can easily shift costs to private insurers at will.



Foxfyre said:


> But our current fearless leader wants the government to have the power to decide whether somebody will receive treatment or whether that person just isn't worth it and should be kept comfortable but allowed to die.



So you took a town hall response in which Obama explicitly said he didn't want bureaucracies making end-of-life decisions and concluded that "ultimately that's going to be between physicians and patients," and you came up with "our current fearless leader wants the government to have the power to decide whether somebody will receive treatment or whether that person just isn't worth it and should be kept comfortable but allowed to die"? Brilliant. 



> First of all, I want to meet your mom and I want to find out what she's eating. But look, the first thing for all of us to understand is that we actually have some choices to make about how we want to deal with our own end-of-life care. That's one of the things I think we can all promote. And this is not a big government program, this is something that each of us individually can do--draft and sign a living will so we're very clear with our doctors about how we want to approach the end of life.
> 
> I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's spirit. That'd be a pretty subjective decision to be making, I think. I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality care for all people.
> 
> ...


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 2, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



If you think the study isn't valid you shouldn't have posted it to defend your argument.

I took it at face value as it actually sounded about right and wasn't much different than a lot of such statistics I've seen.

I haven't been emoting at all.  I am simply of the conviction that the federal government should not be doing that which can be done more efficiently, effectively, and economically at more local levels or by the private sector.  The Federal government should not be doing healthcare.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 3, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Hello??? The study is valid. What has no validity is YOUR claim that America used to be number one in these categories. You offer no proof, just opinion. I merely pointed out that this was the first time the WHO did this study.

You ARE emoting, because NOTHING you have argued holds up to the FACTS. You are parroting right wing dogma and ideology that we MUST cling to the failed Wall Street controlled 'for profit' health care system that puts America at the bottom of the list of all industrialized countries. It is handicapping all our industries in the marketplace and is literally KILLING America citizens who are dying from preventable diseases that are not being diagnosed and treated.

Again you emote about efficiency. The reason insurance cartels spent millions of dollars to kill a public option, is because they know they can't compete. Private 'for profit' insurance corporations have administrative expenses around 30%, Medicare has an administrative expense around 3%.

You really need to educate yourself to the FACTS. The only thing you've proven on this thread is the depth and scope of your ignorance.


----------



## editec (Sep 3, 2011)

> The only thing you've proven on this thread is the depth and scope of your ignorance.


 
And ~  _man oh man! ~_ is _that_ proven here on a daily basis by a LOT of us, too.


----------



## Listening (Sep 3, 2011)

Sallow said:


> There is absolutely no reason, none, nadda..that any American citizen should starve, be denied health care or live in squalor.



Sounds good to me.

Now please define "starve".

Please define "health care".

Please define "squalor".


----------



## Meister (Sep 3, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Empathy comes from the heart, not from an edict from on high.
> ...



This from a blue state:
*Medicaid cuts target ER visits*

The latest round of Medicaid cutbacks will begin Oct. 1, including efforts to curb repeated use of hospital emergency rooms and similar services at private clinics.
Especially worrisome, he said, is that two-thirds of Medicaid patients are children. After the third non-emergency visit to the ER, the state will send a letter to the patient and the family warning them they will be asked to pay for the next such visit. Some worry parents will be less likely to take their children for medical help for fear that they might be billed if the malady is not on the states list of emergency problems.
Medicaid cuts target ER visits - Spokesman.com - Sept. 3, 2011


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 3, 2011)

Listening said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > There is absolutely no reason, none, nadda..that any American citizen should starve, be denied health care or live in squalor.
> ...



Since most any able bodied person is completely capable of exuding the minimal effort it takes to prevent that, I would agree completely. But we all know you didn't actually mean for everyone to provide those things for themselves, did you.


----------



## Texanmike (Sep 5, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Empathy comes from the heart, not from an edict from on high.
> ...




I love the high and mighty regard you hold yourself in.  You have never seen poverty if you've never left this country.  The poorest person in the entire country lives the life of a king in many countries.  Where's your empathy for them?  Or are all people equal only when it involves letting people come here?  Until they get here though, they are vermin that are not worthy of your much lauded charity?  

My charitable donations and actions are plenty and I'm not here to brag about what I've done but who the hell are you to tell another man he's not charitable?  And sharing in the wealth of this nation?  That's a joke.  They should share in the work of the nation too.  

And this "be denied health care".  At who's expense?  If you think that more needs to be done then why aren't you living a minimalist lifestyle and donating all of your money to charity beyond what is absolutely necessary to live above squalor? There is nothing more pathetic and disgusting than someone sitting on the other end of a conversation on a computer (I doubt your public library is open at midnight for you to make your posts) that at the least cost them a few hundred dollars lecturing someone on the other side of the fence about charity.  

The fact is that your rant against the right for their lack of compassion and empathy is based solely on the fact that you disagree with them ideologically.  You lack the empathy to see their point because you're too stuck up on your "high horse".  Spare me the "you republicans..." bit of seventh grade political banter.  I watch the two sides fight like cats and dogs about nothing.  You think people should give more?  Then give all that you have.  Do you have a savings account?  How about a car? Designer clothes?  A cell phone?  You pathetic hypocritical excuse for a liberal. Before you campaign for the "rich right" to be giving money you should be banging Hollywood's door down demanding that they turn over all of their money to the poor.  
/7th grader rant.

"Speaking as someone who has..." Oh my God.  Can you be more melodramatic?  Why don't you stfu about your charity work and go do some more.  In fact every minute you waste on here is a minute you could be donating to charity.  

I don't care if you're on the left or the right.  If you are pointing out that someone else doesn't do enough charity you're a joke.  You should instead be doing it yourself.  Neither the left or the right has a monopoly on empathy.  For you guys to go back and forth is ridiculous.  Sorry Sallow, you just happened to be the first one in the thread I heard refer to himself like he was some sort of martyr for going out and donating a little time at the local soup kitchen or the girls and boys club, other than your message there is nothing personal.

Mike


----------



## editec (Sep 5, 2011)

I see most of you are STILL confusing empathy for sympathy.

Oh well... we tried to explain the difference (they have VASTLY different meanings, ya know?) but apparently some of you will never get it.

Empthy is NOT sympathy, folks.


----------



## Texanmike (Sep 5, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Source time?

Mike


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 5, 2011)

Texanmike said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


make sure you check the sources of his sources.  Tardtard loves special interests, advocacy blogs and propagandist charts to back up his faulty 'logic'.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 5, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Texanmike said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



And, he gets quite agitated when he fails to read his own sources carefully and then it is pointed out that they support YOUR argument.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 5, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Texanmike said:
> ...




Touche!


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 5, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Texanmike said:
> ...



Translation: Foxfyre got chewed up and spit out by me. So her only retort is a false accusation and whining.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 5, 2011)

Texanmike said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Post 273...try to pay attention, or seek adult assistance.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 6, 2011)

editec said:


> I see most of you are STILL confusing empathy for sympathy.
> 
> Oh well... we tried to explain the difference (they have VASTLY different meanings, ya know?) but apparently some of you will never get it.
> 
> Empthy is NOT sympathy, folks.



Again, ed, yes we do know the difference. It is simply our contention (at least mine anyway) that when you argue that the right lacks empathy, what you claim we are lacking does not meet any defintion of empathy. That's simply the emotionally charged word you've chosen to use to cast the right in a negative light. 

Whether you care to admit it or not what I suspect you _really_ mean is that the right doesn't DO enough for other people, which you are calling a lack of empathy.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 6, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I see most of you are STILL confusing empathy for sympathy.
> ...



Empathy is feeling what other people feel.

Sympathy is feeling sorry for the situation of another.

Neither is an action such as charity which is our response to feelings of empathy or sympathy or given simply out of concern for others.

The records shows that American Conservatives give a good deal more to charity--giving of money or property, giving of blood, and giving of time/talent/experience--than do liberals.

In my opinion charity, which is measurable, is a far more noble thing than claiming virtue due to our empathy or sympathy which are actually unmeasurable.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 6, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



In your dreams maybe.  Certainly not on this thread.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 6, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


He couldn't gum Jello on a bet.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 6, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



WHY do you keep forwarding the same lie?

THE Arthur Brooks study

Arthur Brooks writes: "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 [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 6, 2011)

Brooks was very well researched in his published study and uses data from many sources to prove that the one overwhelming predictor of generosity is religion. Political affiliation is almost irrelevent - the statistics for religious liberals and religious conservaties are identical. Religious people are statistically more likely to give than secularists (91% to 66%), and give more of their money (3.5 times more than secularists), are more likely to volunteer their time (67% to 44%), and volunteer more of their time (almost twice as much). And, according to Brooks:  *The fact that the conservative population is more charitable than the liberal population is due to the fact that more religious people tend to be politically conservative. *

Brooks defines religious people as those who attend a place of worship once a week or so (roughly 30% of the population), and secularists as those who do not believe in a diety or attend a place of worship one time a year or less (20% of the population). That leaves about 50% for which statistics are less clear, but Brooks still gives the edge to conservatives.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 6, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



A few problems with your contention. First, it's one person's study. Secondly, giving of themselves is pretty vague. If it means volunteering, I'm sorry my observation has been that the coservatives I know volunteer their time more so than the liberals I know. Maybe if you mean 'raising awareness' or complaining to government, liberals 'give' more of themselves.....


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 6, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



It is one person's study...BUT it is *THE* study conservatives have used beyond reason in the debate here and everywhere. It has gone viral on the internet and being cited and twisted in the right wing echo chamber.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 6, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Nothing is being twisted Bf. You yourself noted the stats cited show conservatives give slightly more than liberals. Call it 50/50 if you want, but that in itself ought to be enough to debunk this b.s. notion that liberals are more empathetic than conservatives. On top of that it is hard to deny that Fox's analysis is incorrect. Are you really going to disagree that conservatives tend to be more religious than liberals?


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 7, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Yes it IS being twisted. It is being twisted right here!

Originally Posted by Foxfyre
"The records shows that American Conservatives give a good deal more to charity--giving of money or property, giving of blood, and giving of time/talent/experience--than do liberals." ... FALSE


The records shows that American Conservatives are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people. But liberals are more likely to volunteer (giving of time/talent/experience)


Arthur Brooks writes: "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 [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 7, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Now who's doing the twisting? You don't give credit to conservatives when they give more money than liberals, but when it's the liberals that are the same percentage point or two ahead of conservatives in giving of their time, you 'conclude' that liberals are more giving of themselves. A percentage point or two is statsitically negligible Bf.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 7, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



WTF!!! I am not twisting anything! I set the fucking record straight. Foxfyre is the one that was doing the twisting when SHE SAID:
"The records shows that American Conservatives give a good deal more to charity--giving of money or property, giving of blood, and giving of time/talent/experience--than do liberals." ... 

Foxfyre is saying that conservatives give more money (a good deal more) FALSE, they don't give a good deal more, they are a percentage point or two more likely to give money! 

Foxfyre is saying that conservatives give more of their time. TOTALLY FALSE! Conservatives are a percentage point or so LESS likely to volunteer (give of their time)


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 7, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Quit being such a transparent weasel Bf. You said:

"So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves." 

Everyone here can see what your trying to say (just in a manner you won't have to commit to if pinned down on it). You're a liberal so at the end of the day you're going to try to somehow rationalize despite this statistical dead heat, that liberals are still more charitable than conservatives by insinuating that giving time is better than giving money.


----------



## editec (Sep 7, 2011)

Reminder:

*em·pa·thy*/&#712;emp&#601;TH&#275;/ 

Noun: The ability to understand and share the feelings of another.  More »
Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster


*sym·pa·thyNoun/&#712;simp&#601;TH&#275;/ 
*

1. Feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune.
2. Formal expression of such feelings; condolences.  More »
Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster

Not the same thing although it is clear, from the debates going on here, that some of you still fail to understand the difference.

One can EMPATHIZE with somebody that one HATES.  All that is required is that you UNDERSTAND their point of view or can imagine WHY they have that POV.

SYMPATHY is something different than empathy.  That doesn't really demand that you understand one's POV, merely that you feel sorry for the person in question.

I think what is going on here is that some of you are unable to imagine the POV of another (naturally this probably means that sympathy is also unlikely).

I can EMPATHIZE, for example, with somebody who is an objectivist libertarian, even though I have no SYMPATHY with their POV.

Those of us who tend to express the opinion that the world is black and white, are probably incapable of empathizing.

It's really a form of brain damage if one cannot imagine the POV of another.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 7, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



NO................................I SAID: "conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves." 

I give conservatives credit for giving money, and liberals for giving of themselves.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 7, 2011)

editec said:


> Reminder:
> 
> *em·pa·thy*/&#712;emp&#601;TH&#275;/
> 
> ...


Well that being the case. the left has an overabundance of Sympathy and far less Empathy.

This of coruse makes your diagnosis of brain damage dead on.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 7, 2011)

editec said:


> Reminder:
> 
> *em·pa·thy*/&#712;emp&#601;TH&#275;/
> 
> ...



For the umpteenth time, we know.  It is quite clear after reading this thread that the only person who does not understand the definition of empathy is the OP.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 7, 2011)

Despite Bfgm's screeds trying to deny it, Brooks' research has been peer reviewed and peer reviewed and peer reviewed and the concusion is fairly consistent.  Conservatives are significantly more liberal in general.  And the primary reason is that Conservative are generally significantly more religious in general.



> Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
> 
> If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
> 
> ...



It seems that religious conservatives, which most, not all, conservatives are, do not look to government to take care of the poor, sick, hungry, etc. but do what they can to take care of that themselves.

It seems that the more liberals reject religion, the more they look to government to assume that role and they call that charity.

In fairness to liberals, religious liberals are also usually personally generous.

Now the question is:  Does American conservatism tend to make people more religious?  Or does American religion tend to make people more conservative?


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 7, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Despite Bfgm's screeds trying to deny it, Brooks' research has been peer reviewed and peer reviewed and peer reviewed and the concusion is fairly consistent.  Conservatives are significantly more liberal in general.  And the primary reason is that Conservative are generally significantly more religious in general.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This quote I provided is from the Brooks study, not from George Will's right wing blog.

Jesus was a liberal who preached social justice. Right wing conservative Christians preach God the avenger.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 7, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Despite Bfgm's screeds trying to deny it, Brooks' research has been peer reviewed and peer reviewed and peer reviewed and the concusion is fairly consistent.  Conservatives are significantly more liberal in general.  And the primary reason is that Conservative are generally significantly more religious in general.
> ...



Well if you think Will got it wrong, so did 90% of others who have reviewed and commented on the study.  And doesn't it make you feel really foolish to make stupid statements about Jesus and Conservative Christians?


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 7, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



As I said in a previous post, the study has gone viral in the right wing echo chamber. The actual facts are unimportant to the right, they only look for ammunition to create propaganda. There is never any self examination or moderation from the right. So what you are saying is Brooks lied, because I provided a direct quote from his study.

In regards to Jesus, you are talking to a liberal who was raised Christian. So I know that Jesus preached social justice. And conservative Christians represent the biggest danger to this nation...

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater 


THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT AND THE RISE OF AMERICAN FASCISM 
by Chris Hedges - Pulitzer Prize author was born in St. Johnsbury, Vermont, the son of a Presbyterian minister, the Rev. Thomas Hedges. He grew up in rural Schoharie County, New York, graduated from the Loomis Chaffee School in Windsor, Connecticut in 1975 and attended Colgate University where he received a B.A. in English Literature. He later obtained a Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School, where he studied under James Luther Adams. He was awarded an honorary doctorate in May 2009 from the Unitarian Universalist seminary, Starr King School for the Ministry, in Berkeley, California.


----------



## midcan5 (Sep 11, 2011)

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."  Dom Helder Camara 

It seems that all one needs is to point to a study that purports that we are better than you, and presto all confusion ceases. I posted most of below a bit ago, but am too lazy at the moment to find link. 

Religious people, be they conservative or liberal, tend to be more generous on the whole as that is a significant aspect of their life and of their values. Generosity though, runs across any barrier you can make up and tends to be personal rather than ideological. My mom, liberal with the exception of abortion, would give you her last cent. 

Consider too that religious conservatives, in a sort of self congratulatory piety, contribute to churches that build huge Babel like edifices where they can sing their own praises. Look at the televangelists and you realize indulgences have returned, but this time they sparkle like a mass celebration of privilege. In the end what has done more good, Social Security or religious offerings which usually include salvation for the giver? When the so called charity monies are used to defeat the rights of other citizens, as they did in proposition 8, or enter into the political sphere, then if that is charity, you can keep your good work. 

But Catholic Charities and the Salvation Army do good things, many good things. So while not all is cynical or expectant giving, pretending charity is not motivated by selfish goals is off base as well. 

Personally, with the exception of the religious, all my friends and acquaintances who would classify themselves as conservative are less generous than the more liberal person. This makes sense to them, as they see their position as a reward or as expected. Conservatives rarely mention the hierarchical aspect of their ideology.

My aunt who was a sister of charity, for many years in some of the worst neighborhoods, would tell us that without big business gifts they could not carry on, helping others just has low appeal, helping yourself is another story.

Even Hobbes was empathetic and he is sometimes claimed to be the start of the more conservative view of mankind. 

"A famous story is told about Thomas Hobbes, the 17th-century English philosopher, who argued that we all act in our own interests. On seeing him give alms to a beggar, a cleric asked Hobbes if he would have done this if Christ had not commanded us to do so. Yes, Hobbes replied, he was in pain to see the miserable condition of the old man, and his gift, by providing the man with some relief from that misery, also eased Hobbes&#8217;s pain. That reply reconciles Hobbes&#8217;s charity with his egoistic theory of human motivation, but at the cost of emptying egoism of much of its bite. If egoists suffer when they see a stranger in distress, they are capable of being as charitable as any altruist." Peter Singer What Should a Billionaire Give &#8211; and What Should You? - New York Times


"Can we be sure that our donation will really get to the people who need it? Doesn&#8217;t most aid get swallowed up in administrative costs, or waste, or downright corruption? Isn&#8217;t the real problem the growing world population, and is there any point in saving lives until the problem has been solved? These questions can all be answered: but I also point out that even if a substantial proportion of our donations were wasted, the cost to us of making the donation is so small, compared to the benefits that it provides when it, or some of it, does get through to those who need our help, that we would still be saving lives at a small cost to ourselves &#8211; even if aid organizations were much less efficient than they actually are."  Peter Singer  The Drowning Child and the Expanding Circle, by Peter Singer


----------

