Who wants cradle to grave?

[francoHFW]

At last O-care gets health insurance regulated...in 2014, dupes.

 

[dblack]

At last O-care gets health insurance regulated...in 2014, dupes.

At last.

 

[American_Jihad]

At last O-care gets health insurance regulated...in 2014, dupes.

Larger Health Care System Changes in 2014 In 2014, all U.S. citizens and legal residents, with a few exceptions, will be required to have qualifying health insurance coverage or they will have to pay a tax penalty. Individuals will be able to obtain coverage through their employer, Medicare, Medicaid—which will be expanded in 2014 to include all non-Medicare eligible individuals under age 65 who have incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level (FPL), including adults without children—other federal programs such as veterans’ health care, or by purchasing coverage through state-based health insurance exchanges.

Unless you have a Union Health Care Waiver...

 

[dblack]

Unless you have a Union Health Care Waiver...

Or any other of countless exceptions and special cases. This is the true nature of corporatism. It's a mode of government that trades in rule of law and a focus on protecting individual rights for special perks and favors granted to groups with enough clout to demand them.

Under corporatism, group rights reign supreme, and government functions as a power broker, divvying up influence and wealth among the competing organized interests in society.

The process of legislating PPACA was a prime example of corporatist government in action. Obama focused quite openly on bringing all the "key players to the table", each encouraged to negotiate and bargain for their piece of the pie. The purpose was never to protect the rights of health care consumers, but, instead, to manipulate society toward the various aims of the "key players".

 

[American_Jihad]

Unless you have a Union Health Care Waiver...

Or any other of countless exceptions and special cases. This is the true nature of corporatism. It's a mode of government that trades in rule of law and a focus on protecting individual rights for special perks and favors granted to groups with enough clout to demand them.

Under corporatism, group rights reign supreme, and government functions as a power broker, divvying up influence and wealth among the competing organized interests in society.

The process of legislating PPACA was a prime example of corporatist government in action. Obama focused quite openly on bringing all the "key players to the table", each encouraged to negotiate and bargain for their piece of the pie. The purpose was never to protect the rights of health care consumers, but, instead, to manipulate society toward the various aims of the "key players".

Progressive corporatism From the 1850s onward progressive corporatism developed in response to classical liberalism and Marxism.[4] These corporatists supported providing group rights to members of the middle classes and working classes in order to secure cooperation among the classes.[4] .

 

[The Professor]

Unfortunately for you, you're not meek - you're fucking stupid. So the only thing you will inherit is a reputation of others laughing at you...

hey...I'll respond to two of your posts at one time...first this one....Fuck you.

now the previous one....show me in the Bible where it says we aren't supposed to help our poor, sick and elderly as a society.

We're supposed to help individually. Generosity mandated by threat of government force isn't really generosity.

Furthermore:

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."
-- 2 Thessalonians 3:10

One more:

"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel" (1 Timothy 5:8, KJV).

 

[American_Jihad]

Bill O’Reilly: Romney’s ‘Gifts’ Remark Is ‘Stone Cold Fact’ [Video]​

11/20/12


On Monday night, Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly launched on critics of Mitt Romney’s “gifts” remark (which include many GOP members) saying that the former candidate’s sentiment is “a stone cold fact.”

O’Reilly and many others are referring to a conference call between Mitt Romney and some of his top donors during which the candidate said that he lost the election because of the various “gifts” that President Obama promised minorities and young voters. Since that time, several high-profile political figures on both sides of the aisle have condemned Romney’s “gifts” remark, and some have attacked Bill O’Reilly, who said a very similar thing during election night.

“It’s not a traditional America anymore, and there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama,” O’Reilly said.

Now, O’Reilly has returned to the criticism of this sentiment, questioning the outrage. “That’s the truth,” O’Reilly said, noting that 63 percent of Americans making less than $30,000 a year voted for Obama. “It is a stone-cold fact.” Figures on the left “don’t want to consider the fact that entitlements buy votes,” O’Reilly said.

---

Read more at Bill O’Reilly: Romney’s ‘Gifts’ Remark Is ‘Stone Cold Fact’ [Video]

 

[rightwinger]

“It’s not a traditional America anymore, and there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff.

Gotta love the Republicans. The gift that keeps on giving

50% of Americans do not want free stuff. Americans work as hard as anyone on the planet. What Americans want is to be able to support their families. They want to be able to survive if someone becomes seriously ill. They want to be able to someday afford a home and if they work long enough to retire comfortably

This is what we used to call the American Dream. 50% of Americans are seeing their American Dream disappear. They looked at more Republican promises of Trickle Down from the 1% and they said they are not buying into that bullshit anymore.

Americans saw Romney for what he is....a tool for the rich to get richer

That is why Romney lost

 

[007]

Is President Obama Creating A Nation Of Dependents?

How else do you think the kenyan dick head socialist got reelected?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax-2i71bqGw]GOT OBAMA PHONE - Remix - #ObamaPhone - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mac1958]

.

Seems pretty clear to me that we're moving in the cradle-to-grave direction. The only way to change this will be to change hearts and minds, to change the direction of the culture with reason and effective communication. I haven't seen conservatives trying to do that, they're too busy screaming "Marxist socialist commie!" and thinking that their absolutism is the way to change hearts and minds.

How's that working out so far for ya?

.

 

[007]

“It’s not a traditional America anymore, and there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff.

Gotta love the Republicans.

Don't gotta love democrats. The party has been taken over by radicals and commies, and the rest are stupid and lazy enough to follow.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Seems pretty clear to me that we're moving in the cradle-to-grave direction. The only way to change this will be to change hearts and minds, to change the direction of the culture with reason and effective communication. I haven't seen conservatives trying to do that, they're too busy screaming "Marxist socialist commie!" and thinking that their absolutism is the way to change hearts and minds.

How's that working out so far for ya?

.

And as if by example, the very next post in the thread:

Don't gotta love democrats. The party has been taken over by radicals and commies, and the rest are stupid and lazy enough to follow.

.

 

[Seawytch]

On radio this morning, Glenn spent the opening few minutes looking at the political philosophy of Barack Obama and what his policies reveal about the role of government. Unsurprisingly, he finds Obama to be one of the worst big government progressives of all time. But how bad is it? Worse than you’d think.

Was he smearing on Vics Vapor rub as he was talking?

 

[rightwinger]

“It’s not a traditional America anymore, and there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff.

Gotta love the Republicans.

Don't gotta love democrats. The party has been taken over by radicals and commies, and the rest are stupid and lazy enough to follow.

More reason to love the Republicans......Bizarre rhetoric that makes them appear to be deranged

Allen West tried that Democrats are all commies crap...how did it work out for him?

 

[Seawytch]

Gotta love the Republicans.

Don't gotta love democrats. The party has been taken over by radicals and commies, and the rest are stupid and lazy enough to follow.

More reason to love the Republicans......Bizarre rhetoric that makes them appear to be deranged

Allen West tried that Democrats are all commies crap...how did it work out for him?

He just conceded. Buh bye.

 

[rightwinger]

.

Seems pretty clear to me that we're moving in the cradle-to-grave direction. The only way to change this will be to change hearts and minds, to change the direction of the culture with reason and effective communication. I haven't seen conservatives trying to do that, they're too busy screaming "Marxist socialist commie!" and thinking that their absolutism is the way to change hearts and minds.

How's that working out so far for ya?

.

We do not have cradle to grave in this country, we never will

Like most modern nations, what we have is a safety net

If during your lifetime, something catastrophic happens, you will not be destroyed

Young children will be taken care of....regardless of poor decisions by their parents
You will be provided with a free education
If you are sick...we will find a way to take care of you
If you lose your job...you will get unemployment
When you are too old to work....you will be taken care of

Is that "cradle to grave" care? No, it isn't. Most people will not need to take advantage of most of those programs ....but they are there if you need them

 

[Mac1958]

.

Seems pretty clear to me that we're moving in the cradle-to-grave direction. The only way to change this will be to change hearts and minds, to change the direction of the culture with reason and effective communication. I haven't seen conservatives trying to do that, they're too busy screaming "Marxist socialist commie!" and thinking that their absolutism is the way to change hearts and minds.

How's that working out so far for ya?

.

We do not have cradle to grave in this country, we never will

Like most modern nations, what we have is a safety net

If during your lifetime, something catastrophic happens, you will not be destroyed

Young children will be taken care of....regardless of poor decisions by their parents
You will be provided with a free education
If you are sick...we will find a way to take care of you
If you lose your job...you will get unemployment
When you are too old to work....you will be taken care of

Is that "cradle to grave" care? No, it isn't. Most people will not need to take advantage of most of those programs ....but they are there if you need them

Sure, the question is, as with most things, the degree.

My concern that we retain a proper equilibrium, that we not reach a point where we are hurting people more than we are helping them by creating dependence that retards their own growth. With both ends of the spectrum tugging so hard for their "side", the danger is that we go too far in one direction or the other.

.

 

[rightwinger]

.

Seems pretty clear to me that we're moving in the cradle-to-grave direction. The only way to change this will be to change hearts and minds, to change the direction of the culture with reason and effective communication. I haven't seen conservatives trying to do that, they're too busy screaming "Marxist socialist commie!" and thinking that their absolutism is the way to change hearts and minds.

How's that working out so far for ya?

.

We do not have cradle to grave in this country, we never will

Like most modern nations, what we have is a safety net

If during your lifetime, something catastrophic happens, you will not be destroyed

Young children will be taken care of....regardless of poor decisions by their parents
You will be provided with a free education
If you are sick...we will find a way to take care of you
If you lose your job...you will get unemployment
When you are too old to work....you will be taken care of

Is that "cradle to grave" care? No, it isn't. Most people will not need to take advantage of most of those programs ....but they are there if you need them

Sure, the question is, as with most things, the degree.

My concern that we retain a proper equilibrium, that we not reach a point where we are hurting people more than we are helping them by creating dependence that retards their own growth. With both ends of the spectrum tugging so hard for their "side", the danger is that we go too far in one direction or the other.

.

I agree

In a booming economy, most people do not need to take advantage of safety net programs.

In a struggling economy, people who were once fully capable of taking care of themselves now find the need to take advantage of government programs

I think, for the most part, people want to be gainfully employed to the degree that they can take care of their families. To call these people moochers and freeloaders does not solve anything

 

[daveman]

hey...I'll respond to two of your posts at one time...first this one....Fuck you.

now the previous one....show me in the Bible where it says we aren't supposed to help our poor, sick and elderly as a society.

We're supposed to help individually. Generosity mandated by threat of government force isn't really generosity.

Furthermore:

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."
-- 2 Thessalonians 3:10

One more:

"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel" (1 Timothy 5:8, KJV).

Yeah. Taking responsibility for your family is a good thing.

Is that verse supposed to be justification for government wealth redistribution? Because, you know...it isn't.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Is President Obama Creating A Nation Of Dependents?

1/26/12



If the Republican primaries are any indication, one big debate in the upcoming election will be whether President Obama is pushing the country toward a European-style welfare culture.

---

"Once we thought 'entitlement' meant that Americans were entitled to the privilege of trying to succeed in the greatest country in the world," Romney said in a recent speech. "But today the new entitlement battle is over the size of the check you get from Washington."

Is Obama Creating A Nation Of Dependents? Nearly Half Now Get Government Benefits - Investors.com

Baby Huey Beck probably didn't tell you that most food stamp recipients are the elderly and children.

Being a retired baby boomer, I can tell you where those elderly came from - more older people in our country than ever before.

Being a human being who can read, I also know where the hungry children came from - high unemployement because of the #$%^&*( pubs as led by the worst president in our history, GWBush.

So, rw's, what do you propose to do about all those old people and all those children who are now getting food stamps?

Thanks to the pubpots, we're running low on ice floes but there are probably still enough to set them all afloat to die.

Idiots.