Image via Wikipedia
I’ve often read and heard conservatives speak of traditional values of the past. I’m not entirely certain what that means. I’ve previously proposed that it is some kind of post-WWII Mayberry-Leave-it-to-Beaver illusion left over from the prosperity and peace after that great industrial defeat of Fascism. Does it mean family values? Well, I don’t know any progressives who don’t value their families or love them any less than conservatives do.
Fiscal responsibility is often bandied about, yet today Eric Cantor said “no compromise” on repealing the Bush tax cuts despite repeated economists and the Congressional Research Service saying (depending on to whom you listen) this would lead to 4 and 7 trillion dollars over the next ten years in additional debt we’d have to borrow from, presumably, China. The CBO estimates 4.84 Trillion. I’m a little fuzzy on how that equates to fiscal responsibility regardless whose math you use.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/07/eric-cantor-compromise-tax-cuts-obama_n_780029.html
There is at least one member of the GOP who concedes that extending the Bush tax cuts will increase the deficit. Guess whom?
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/cantor-admits-bush-tax-cuts-will-add-to-deficits.php
No, that seems more to me like the continued milking of the middle class for personal gain. Republicans don’t mind spending the money, they just want to be in charge of who gets it.
What else? Are these the traditional values that took American Indian lands in broken treaty after treaty and sequestered them into compounds (reservations) as though they were animals? Are these the values that enslaved an entire people based on their skin colour? Are these the same values that made women second-class citizens for so long? Are these the values that had no problem with dispensing with labour laws over profit? Are these the same values that cause more discrimination to the brown people from below our southern border? Despite the rhetorical tone, I actually don’t want to believe it. I’d like to believe that worm has finally turned.
But the political Tea Party rhetoric has been tinged with some of that innuendo. And there’s the self-righteous tone behind it. ‘We’ve got Jesus on our side’ kind of entitlement attitude. You know, if Jesus came down right now and I told him a little of our history and asked him ‘What would you have done?’, I bet he would give me a completely different report than how we handle stuff. If you guys read your Bible closely, Jesus was the world’s biggest socialist (gasp!).
There is one value that the Bible espouses that I think is a really good one. The Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have done to you. Well, there’s a bunch of us out in America who don’t like what the conservatives are trying to do to us.
Tune in to tomorrow for ‘Just What do Progressives Consider Progress?’.
538 Refugees 
conserve? The fiscal plans being laid out would reduce a significant amount of the status quo.
Mr. U,What else? Are these the traditional values that took American Indian lands in broken treaty after treaty and sequestered them into compounds (reservations) as though they were animals? Are these the values that enslaved an entire people based on their skin colour? Are these the same values that made women second-class citizens for so long? Are these the values that had no problem with dispensing with labour laws over profit? Are these the same values that cause more discrimination to the brown people from below our southern border?Geesh. Here we go with the victim card again. You always need a victim and an oppressor.
Can we have one post that doesn’t play the victim card?
GROG.. you’ve only just come up with this “liberals play the victim card” schtick, and I’m, already really tired of it.Every single Republican meme out there is based on them being the poor paranoid victims of Big Bad Liberals. I can think of half a dozen without even breaking a sweat.* They’re taking away our guns!* They’re takign away our country!* They’re making all our kids gay!* They’re taxing our money away from us and giving it to nasty brown people!* They’re making us press 1 for English! * They’re coming between us and our religion!Wahhh, we’re all DOOMED! Oh, boo-hoo, woe is us!It’s a constant “Poor-Widdle-Us” whine- fest from beginning to end. I’ll bet others here can come up with a dozen more “We’re just pitiful helpless victims” whines from the right. If you pathetic critters are any more victimized, the empathetic left will start wanting to take up your cause, you poor trodden-upon little dears.
Can we have one post that doesn’t play the victim card?Can “we” have one post from grog where he doesn’t disingenuously mention the winger victim card meme as grog felt compelled to mention it twice in (1) minute, eh.>grog, having just (((escaped))) 😛 the birther thread where he got totally buried! B) as per usual …
Indeed, as Fili just mentioned, oh the irony of grog et al conservative lemmings bringing up his victim meme, when 538 winger trolls have been whining!, moaning/groaning ad nauseam, ever since Obama won the election …becoming the 44th President of the United States of America! :)grog, when you’re in a hole, stop digging …or not!
@fili,And us evil conservatives took the Indian’s land, treated them like animals and then killed them, enslaved black people, made women 2nd class citizens, take profits and torture workers, and we all just plain hate Mexicans. If it wasn’t so funny it would be pathetic.
And us evil conservatives took the Indian’s land, treated them like animals and then killed them, enslaved black people, made women 2nd class citizens, take profits and torture workers, and we all just plain hate Mexicans.As grog continues to deflect lol ~ shocking!Pathetic indeed!
The conservatives are trying to conserve white, Christian America. Pretty simple.
Hey while we are at it to add to fili’s list:* They’re taking away our guns!* They’re takign away our country!* They’re making all our kids gay!* They’re taxing our money away from us and giving it to nasty brown people!* They’re making us press 1 for English! * They’re coming between us and our religion!& They are stealing all the elections& They are don’t understand us real Americans& They don’t respect our bimbo dejure& They don’t want our super rich oligarchy to have to pay a fair share& They are going to take god off our coins& They are letting Muslims over run us and institute Sharia law& They have this Federal Education department thing that will nt let us turn out as many dumb bigoted kids& Their liberal media isn’t fair to us& They expect our homophobes to grow up if they are in the military& They want to actually inspect our food and drugs and diminish our rights& They want to control our right to free speech so they should be made to shut up& They wont let us interpret the constitution any way we want toAnd on and on and on. Good god man grow up.
GROG… I think in your standard winger “Poor me, they’re blaming me for stuff!” kind of knee-jerk paranoia, you are misunderstanding what Mr U is syaing. He’s not blaming conservatives for all those sins. He’s saying that when conservatives yearn for those “vanishing American values”… they are yearning for a time that had some pretty nasty components to it, which makes one wonder what kind of world they really want to live in.But feel free to get all offended regardless. Seeing slights where none exist and getting REALLY UPSET about it and CRANKING UP THE OUTRAGE MACHINE… that’s a winger specialty, after all 😉
Mainer… wow, awesome list! I especially like the “dissing our bimbo de jour” and “mean old liberal media” whines… They really ARE victims, aren’t they? Maybe we should stop being so mean to them.Really, the poor things… (sniffle)
Big difference guys. We are trying to prevent the country from being victims of the left wing, liberal/progressive agenda. (See election Nov. 2010)The left is constantly whining about having already been victims of the right.
I can remember a time when being conservative was not the same as being regressive. There is nothing wrong with wanting to get the best bang for the buck when one is trying to accomplish some public end or good. That is not the same as saying I don’t want to accomplish any public good because I do not want to spend any money. We have many things to do in this country and it is going to take time, effort and money to do it. We have people that want oh so bad to define themselves as conservatives but what they really are seems to come out as regressive reactionaries. We can not go backwards in this country. It is just not set up to function very well that way. We are at our best moving ahead, leading. I wish I could name one progressive thing that the current Republican party espouses, or any branch of it. I would be good with any of them even saying ok yeah we need to build a better transportation net but we need to do it in a more efficient manner. We need to move toward a more dispersed energy posture not because we beleive in Global Warming but because we are uneasy with shipping so much money out of country and giving people that don’t like us leverage…..all good points but geeeze can’t we do it by not spending so much money on unproven technology or how do we get industry more involved. It is fine to be conservative or fall on the Myers/Briggs in a corner that isn’t afraid to say gee are you sure the brakes work on this? We really need to redefine the sides in this because what we are using now doesn’t work any more.
AND GROG PLAYS THE VICITM CARD!Big difference guys. We are trying to prevent the country from being victims of the left wing, Yeah, poor downtrodden victims!When the other guys win an election (c. 2008) the Republicans are victims.GROG, stop playing the “you’re playing the victim card on me!” victim card. It’s silly 🙂
@ Mainer and filsitroYou forgot:* They’re trying to con us with a global warming conspiracy!* They’re trying to demand that my car gets better mileage!* They want me and my children to have socialist healthcare!* They’ve been trying to outlaw my hate speech!* They keep telling the truth about me! Make them stop!!* They want to increase the deficit (beyond what our guys do)!* Obama has created a bipartisan balanced-budget commission! It’s just not fair!* They want to destroy democracy by following the agenda they were elected on!* They want to know who’s paying for political ads, and thus taking away the free speech of corporations!Okay, some of those boarder on paranoia or mere hypocrisy rather than straightforward victimhood. But say them with a whine in your voice.
@GROGWell you’ll love my next two articles; part of a trilogy of articles leading to an overarching point (foreshadowing). And if you don’t lay off the victim meme, I ‘ll be forced to have shiloh pommel you with metaphors.
ooooooooh metaphor fight in the blog……clean up on aisle 3. Liberals are so into metaphors and scarcasm and humor and the opposition is so into whinning and lieing and propaganda. I think the progressive side is just more fun. Now we just need to have more biting scarcasm 24/7 even some on the right will eventually get it.
I prefer similies, spoonerisms and onomatopoeiae …All of grog’s nonsensical chatter about winger victimization ends w/a thud!>Tune in tomorrow for ‘Just What do Progressives Consider Progress?’.Same bat time, same bat channel …
@MainerI think the progressive side is just more fun.There’s a reason why a conservative version of the Daily Show or Colbert Report can’t work. Their sense of humor is just too blunt. They’ll spend the time farting and throwing pies. Satire and subtle parody are simply beyond them.
@ Mainer and filsitro
Oh, I forget the most basic conservative victim whine:
* They want government to actually work the way it was intended to! That’s totalitarian! That’s socialist! That’s a total destruction of liberty! Everybody should be very very scared! They’re going to make government do stuff!!!
shrinkers,re: Oh, I forget the most basic conservative victim whine: . . .And don’t forget in a whining voice).. . that Dems are ignoring the “will of the people”, totally discounting the fact that the “will of the people” elected Barack Hussein Obama.
GROG,By the way, GROG, I’m still waiting for an answer . . . GROG: What? Some temporary jobs being created at the expense of billions of borrowed dollars, pushing the states further and further into debt? That’s the left’s idea of job creation. We need real, sustainable, private secotor job creation.What then, GROG, do you consider “real, sustainable private sector jobs?Most private sector company work is temporary; it is a specific project a private sector company bids on and then completes. It is private sector businesses who actively seek a mix of government and private sector projects that their companies successfully bid on. Quite a few private sector businesses actively seek work that did not originate in the private sector. Regardless where it originated, it is work for their private companies and their employees.
Honestly, why all the who ha about having a government that actually works and is efficient, and ensures that we have decent health care, education, infrastructure, safe skies, clean water and earth, safe food, etc.. and enable its citizens their right to pursue happiness. Give it a rest righties your arguments always fall short. Study after study since world war 2 show that under democrat administrations that companies prosper more as well as the middle class. We are always better off with democrats, true in the past as it is today
:::yawn:::Actually, conservatives and progressives want the same thing – we want to run our lives and so do you.Progressive rants always remind me of “Sunshine” by Jonathan EdwardsSunshine, go away todayI don’t feel much like dancin’Some man’s come, he’s tried to run my lifeDon’t know what he’s askingHe tells me I better get in line,Can’t hear what he’s sayin’When I grow up, I’m gonna make him mindThese ain’t dues I’ve been payin’How much does it cost? I’ll buy itThe time is all we’ve lost, I’ll try itHe can’t even run his own lifeI’ll be damned if he’ll run mine, Sunshine…Go live your own lives and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.
Mr Universe wrote:”I’m a little fuzzy on how that equates to fiscal responsibility regardless whose math you use.” Spot on. If we were dealing with real fiscal conservatives, they would raise taxes to reduce the debt. Instead, we hear about penny and nickel reductions in “earmarks”, which are 1% of the budget. And even Rand Paul is now saying that “earmarks” are okay as long as they are “transparent”.Instead, taxes themselves are constantly referred to as something inherently evil -it’s “picking my pocket”, and so forth. Odd that the grocery store isn’t “picking your pocket” when they brazenly expect payment at the checkout, though. When you go to the supermarket and get your groceries, what would happen if you got indignant and said you don’t want to pay for the refrigeration, stocking, transport, labelling, etc. of all the other products in the store that you didn’t buy? You didn’t even walk down aisle 3, but the cost of the lighting for that aisle is rolled into the price of the canned peas you’re buying from aisle 5! What a scam! You’re subsidising other people’s meals, and that’s socialism! Why are you paying the cost of refrigerating the asparagus that some elitist snob is going to buy? It’s an outrage, isn’t it? See, it’s a package deal, much like government. It’s how businesses operate. If you buy a truckload of widgets, you’re paying the overhead for the maintenance on the truck that delivers it, and for the guy who loaded ten other trucks that day that weren’t going to your business. Taxes are the price of citizenship. Is the judicial system supposed to run on spare change that passers-by toss into a tin cup? Business itself operates on the basis of enforceable contracts, which means courts and judges and record-keeping and clerks. The mere fact that a broken contract can be enforced prevents them form being broken in the first place. Business benefits from that, either directly or indirectly, and it should be paid for. That sounds pretty “common-sense” and conservative, doesn’t it? You don’t get a lock for your door, and then refuse to pay for it because nobody tried to break in, do you?A real fiscal conservative wouldn’t reflexively scream that criminals should be locked away forever, and then refuse to pay for the jail and the jailers.Conservatives want to run government like a business, but they forget that a business charges customers and they expect to be paid for goods and services rendered. There’s nothing inherently evil in that. And there’s nothing particularly good or noble about refusing to pay the bill.
Only the Democrats would think of this…http://www.politico.com/blogs/maggiehaberman/1110/Grief_counseling_after_the_wipeout.html
Bart, We would love to leave you alone, but repubs keep screwin up our government, and then we have to clean it up and fix it per usual. It’s exhausting. But I am so glad that some of your tax money is going to that “public” university in CO and educating some up and coming real progressive liberals. Thanks Bart you are the greatest…
@Just Sayin’ I think Bart is having trouble coming to terms with the fact that Colorado is going blue. Just bucked what he thinks is a trend, and elected a Democratic Senator. Poor Bart. All he can do is bleat impotently about this or that poll, or about how really successful Democrats have been about enacting the legislation we voted for in 2008. He imagines the election last Tuesday was about something other than the poor state of the economy — because that’s a reminder of just how badly the Republicans screwed up the world for the eight years of Bush.What do conservatives what to conserve? Their power.They want to keep their elites running the world. Because they feel like such victims when they’re not in charge.
@Bartles:::yawn:::~~~~~Then why did you reply ?!?Go live your own lives and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.Indeed, then why do you post ad nauseam at 538 if one wants to be left alone! :-PBartles, I promise if you leave 538 forever, I’ll leave you alone! ;)Honest! :)solo estoy diciendoYea Bart, if you’re gonna get on your disingenuous high horse, at least make some sense little buddy. :D>btw, one never said if you were enjoying your (((bogus/pretend))) self-imposed break from 538 started a couple days ago lol:::yawn::: indeed!>There’s nothing in the streetLooks any different to meAnd the slogans are replaced, by-the-byeAnd the parting on the leftIs now the parting on the rightAnd the beards have all grown longer overnightI’ll tip my hat to the new constitutionTake a bow for the new revolutionSmile and grin 😉 at the change all around mePick up my guitar and playJust like yesterdayThen I’ll get on my knees and prayWe don’t get fooled againDon’t get fooled againNo, no!YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!Meet the new bossSame as the old boss~~~~~apologies for wasting Pete Townsend’s lyrics on an inane winger troll …
You progressives would be glad to leave the rest of us alone?Name a single problem for which you would would not propose a government solution that involved telling others what they should do and/or taking others’ money or property?Remember, this is limited to issues that you actually think are problems.If you seriously address this question, you will discover that your default is having government run others’ lives.
@Mr. U,I ‘ll be forced to have shiloh pommel you with metaphors.Who is shiloh?
Speaking of voter rebellion against government running our lives…http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/-1-2-3-15.html
Shorter Bart: “we object to those intrusions on our personal freedoms which prevent us from stepping on other people in our scramble to get ahead.”Conservatives fear other people in power because they are convinced that those other people are scheming to use them for their own enrichment — just as conservatives do to those in their power. They don’t even trust other conservatives, so they typically choose the dullest and most predictable of their members as leaders, so as to minimize the danger from them.They fear the break-up of the traditional social structure because it was the milieu in which they came into their own, and such change threatens their place.Conservatives view people, en mass, much the way ranchers view cattle. Having a lot of them is good, and having troublemakers in the herd is bad. Having a strong leader is good, as long as the strong leader is going in the “right” direction, because that makes the herd more predictable.Most of these fears take place below the level of conscious thought. Analysis and education tends to make people less conservative — and is, therefore, to be avoided at all costs.
Nice segue to the next topic by shortchain…People with higher levels of education are perhaps more likely to trust experts and specialists in other areas, because they are themselves familiar with the effort required to gain specialized knowledge.
@Bart… Go live your own lives and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.I am getting so tired of this endless, meaningless, mendacious whining from self-pitying wingers. I’m going to start calling it out.Bart, please list THREE things you would like to do that you are constrained from doing by an intrusive government.No winger talking-point generalities, please. I don’t want to hear that you would like to “manage your own retirement” because that is so broad as to mean nothing.I want three specifics as in: “I would like to smoke in the restaurant after a good steak dinner and I’m not allowed to.”Let’s see how valid your constant complaints are. Put up or shut up.
@shortchain… Conservatives view people, en mass, much the way ranchers view cattle. Having a lot of them is good, and having troublemakers in the herd is bad. Having a strong leader is good, as long as the strong leader is going in the “right” direction, because that makes the herd more predictable.I think this may be one of the best metaphors I’ve ever read. Brilliant.And just like people who’ve herded a lot of cattle, conservatives know they must do whatever they can to keep the herd bunched together and stepping along briskly, because trouble inevitably arises when individuals start wandering off from the herd and thinking for themselves.
BD “Go live your own lives and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.”filistro wrote: “Bart, please list THREE things you would like to do that you are constrained from doing by an intrusive government.”Only three?Choose my own health, home and auto liability insurance without government approval. First three.With consultation with my doctor, choose which medications to take without FDA approval.Buy goods and services at any time a seller wishes to provide them without government limitation.Drive without government licensure.Fly without government approval (ex. no fly lists based upon suspicion)Build on my own property without government permit. I had to pull a permit just to frigging drywall my utility room last summer.Not be compelled by the government to buy more expensive wind power as we are here in CO.There are a myriad of options I would probably like to exercise but will never even know existed because they were prohibited behind the scenes by unaccountable regulators.Do you realize that federal regulations alone fill 155,000 small print pages, dwarfing the entire US Code enacted by Congress? Then you have the state and local layers of rules, which in places like CA match the federal output.Things have become so insane that the regulators themselves have no idea what the rules require. Try asking DMV the same question on three different occasions and see if you get the same answer. I have done this more than once for my clients.Folks are not up in arms simply because they all woke up morning and decided to hold a Tea Party.
Bart… most of the privileges you claim to want for yourself are too generalized for intelligent discussion. The few specifics you mention are things I suspect you don’t want for your neighbor, just yourself.Choose my own health, home and auto liability insurance without government approval. First three.That’s too generalized. I asked for specifics.With consultation with my doctor, choose which medications to take without FDA approval.This is a privilege you want to deny to every woman in America.Buy goods and services at any time a seller wishes to provide them without government limitation.Too general. Which specific goods are you forbidden to buy?Drive without government licensure.Do you want the same privilege for your neighbor’s 14-year-old son… or the guy down the street with intractable epilepsy?Fly without government approval (ex. no fly lists based upon suspicion)Which govt. created those lists? I forget .:-)Build on my own property without government permit. I had to pull a permit just to frigging drywall my utility room last summer.Do you want your neighbor to be free to build a big metal storage quonset that touches your property line?Not be compelled by the government to buy more expensive wind power as we are here in CO.“Compelled?” Like, at gunpoint, or what?
BD: Choose my own health, home and auto liability insurance without government approval. First three.filistro wrote: That’s too generalized. I asked for specifics.I don’t have the time for this. Here are two quickies: Obamacare is progressively outlawing my HSA and, until recently, CO prohibited me from buying any auto insurance apart from no fault.BD: With consultation with my doctor, choose which medications to take without FDA approval.filistro wrote: This is a privilege you want to deny to every woman in America.How so? Remember that we are talking about medications here, not drugs used to kill unborn children.BD: Buy goods and services at any time a seller wishes to provide them without government limitation.filistro wrote: Too general. Which specific goods are you forbidden to buy?I was referring to time restrictions like blue laws forbidding me to buy alcohol in Sunday.BD: Drive without government licensure.filistro wrote: Do you want the same privilege for your neighbor’s 14-year-old son… or the guy down the street with intractable epilepsy?You can enact and enforce reasonable traffic laws without licensure. Licenses do not prevent either one of your examples from driving.BD: “Build on my own property without government permit. I had to pull a permit just to frigging drywall my utility room last summer.filistro wrote: Do you want your neighbor to be free to build a big metal storage quonset that touches your property line?So long as my neighbor does not build on my property or create a public nuisance affecting my property, he or she can build whatever they damn well please on their own land. You do not need permitting to enforce laws against trespass and public nuisanceBD: Not be compelled by the government to buy more expensive wind power as we are here in CO.filistro wrote: “Compelled?” Like, at gunpoint, or what?Indirectly, yes. If the local utility does not purchase government approved energy, it can be fined or put out of business with the threat of armed police enforcement.
Bart (quickly.. I’m also working on other stuff):1.) many posters here have PROVEN that you are lying when you say “Obamacare is outlawing your HSA.” Not that you are ever bothered by facts. 2.) the fact remains that you want the government involved in most private medical decisions. What about necessary drugs (say, anti-seizure meds) with the potential to harm a fetus? Do you want government to enforce bans on them for pregnant women? Should pregnant women be charged with child abuse if they drink while pregnant? It appears there is NO LIMIT to the government intrusion you want to force on other people.3.) you don’t want your neighbor to have freedom to “create a public nuisance affecting my property”… even on his own property. Who is going to decide what constitutes a public nuisance (and who is going to prevent him from building it) if not the government?It appears you want freedom to do what you want, and also the freedom (and the government power) to prevent others from doing what they want as well.That’s not freedom. It’s hypocrisy.
Bartles I don’t have the time for this.Stop lying Bart as 538 has become part of your daily routine. btw, again are you enjoying your (((bogus/pretend))) self-imposed break from 538 started a couple days ago lolYou’re such a fraud! 😀Choose my own health, home and auto liability insurance without government approval. First three.Bartles, I have all (3) w/out govt. approval, although some (states) do require specific car coverage. As Charles would say, next …>grog, in order to totally ignore someone, you can never mention their name. Just trying to be helpful. grog is the complete idiot who once asked me how I could be an Ohio State football fan knowing Jim Tressel was a die hard Republican ?!?grog, how can you continue to live in America, knowing you are surrounded by liberals? ;)grog has also sheepishly left this thread after, as Mr. U would say, being (((pommeled!))) by the facts, as per usual.take care grog
Bart… in this totally “free world” you envision, what would you do about the anorexic teenager who doesn’t want to be pregnant, isn’t allowed an abortion and refuses to eat enough for the fetal brain to develop properly?Would you require that the government hospitalize her and nourish her forcibly though a feeding tube? Or does your dogma just extend as far as forcing these fetuses to be carried to term, without regard for their subsequent quality of life?
@fili,Freedoms are being taken away in installments, one after the other in this country. And the “victimization of America” is the catalyst.We have been taught to resent doctors, insurance companies and even people with “Cadillac health insurance plans,” who were to be singled out for special taxes, because they have been victimizing the rest of us. Meanwhile our freedom to make our own medical decisions are being taken away and transfered to Washington bureaucrats. We have also been taught to despise “obsene” wealth and “unconscionable” profits. Politicians want to dictate how much an executive can make. On the right we think poverty is “obsene”. Not wealth. Profits are unconscionable to them but taxes never are. The left wants to dictate to us who and what to resent and who the victims are so they can gain more control of our lives.
Notice grog did not say one word about the birthers ~ shocking!>and grog, feel free to stop talkin’ in unsupported generalizations at any time …or not!
@GROG,You know, I’m getting tired of your blanket statements regarding what the left wants to do and why. If you’re not one of them, you don’t know what they want to do, nor do you know why they want to do it.
@Realist,Yes, because no one else on there ever makes blanket statement regarding whate the left want to do and why.
Good comeback grog as third graders are impressed! Eager looking forward to your next kindergarten retort …take care
“But everyone else is doing it…”Seriously, GROG, that’s what you’re going with? Because I’ll pull that rug out now:I’m getting tired of any conservative’s blanket statements regarding what the left wants to do and why. For the same reason as I stated with respect to you.
filistro wrote: “many posters here have PROVEN that you are lying when you say “Obamacare is outlawing your HSA.”Alleging something is not true is not the same as proving it. I laid out the elements of Obamacare which outlaw my current HSA. I have already received notice that the HSA is changing next month to meet Obamacare mandates.Fili: 2.) the fact remains that you want the government involved in most private medical decisions. Where do you get this stuff from. I have never said any such thing.Fili: “What about necessary drugs (say, anti-seizure meds) with the potential to harm a fetus?”From prior debates, you know that I apply a self defense standard to abortion. The mother has every right to take whatever action necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury.Fili: “Should pregnant women be charged with child abuse if they drink while pregnant?”What on Earth does this have to do with FDA denying me medicine? You are in full rant.Fili: “3.) you don’t want your neighbor to have freedom to “create a public nuisance affecting my property”… even on his own property. Who is going to decide what constitutes a public nuisance (and who is going to prevent him from building it) if not the government?”Once again, the only legitimate law is one that prevents one person from harming another. Furthermore, no one is talking about outlawing courts. We are talking about having to obtain permits to build on your own land.
@Bart,I laid out the elements of Obamacare which outlaw my current HSA.Yes you have. Let’s call a spade a spade. The extent to which the PPACA “outlaws” your current HSA is by reducing your tax deduction. Correct?
Bart,If your purpose in arguing here is to hone your arguments, you might try actually modifying them when the prove ineffective.In the current case, we know pretty precisely what you mean when you claim “Obamacare is outlawing my HSA”. Under the new rules you won’t be able to shelter as much money from your taxable income as you could, and you won’t be able to purchase OTC material with an HSA.Now, these may, in fact, represent a hideous burden on your life and finances — but it would appear that they are more in the nature of a tiny pin-prick, and, since many of us share these same new circumstances and do not find them excessively onerous, perhaps you might understand that we find them less than compelling.Further, that you represent them as some huge problem appears, frankly, as rank dishonesty. Since this has all been pointed out to you repeatedly by several people, yet you keep dragging it back in, it’s starting to appear pathologically dishonest — and I would suggest that’s a bad thing to appear, argument-wise.My suggestion to help you improve your arguments is: Get some new material.
Bart… please answer this question. You have a 19-year-old anorexic who has been raped. She doesn’t want a baby, but in Bart-world she will be tried for homicide if she gets an abortion.She weighs 90 pounds and refuses to eat enough each day to deliver a healthy baby with normal brain function. (Most of her calories are from soft drinks.)In Bart world there are two options. You can:a.) deprive her of her freedom and force-feed her for 9 months while she gestates her rapist’s babyb.) leave her to her own devices and allow her to deliver (and abandon to the mercies of a society that’s pretty cold in Bart-world) a child that will be deficient mentally and physicallyWhich do we choose, in Bart-world? And YOU’D BETTER ANSWER THIS QUESTION… because when you undertake to impose your personal morality not just on your own life but on everybody’s, by force of law… then you’d damned well better be able to explain and justify what you propose.
Realist:I will go over this one last time with the near certainty that you will not address the argument in good willHSA’s are a combination of high deductible catastrophic insurance and a untaxed savings account used to pay non-catastrphic medical care.What makes an HSA work is placing the consumer in charge of self rationing her care by engaging in the same cost benefit analysis we do for all other goods and services.Health care socialists hate HSAs for just that reason and Obamacare was designed to shrink the savings account and thus consumer choice to irrelevance. Obamacare accomplishes this by first eliminating OTA drugs from the account, then moving nearly all non-catstrophic care into the insurance and then lowering the deductible of the insurance. The HSA then becomes nearly indistinguishable from all other government approve Obamacare insurance.
Moderator help please.
@Bart,I am well aware of what HSAs are, and how they work.Just as before, you will still have an HSA. Just as before, you will still have catastrophic coverage. Just as before, you will be able to spend your dollars on OTA drugs.The net result of the only changes you spoke of before is that the number of your tax-sheltered dollars is reduced.This is the first time I heard you say that you are required to have a reduced deductible as well. What was your deductible before, and what is it after?
filistro wrote: “Bart… please answer this question.”Since you asked nicely.filistro wrote: “You have a 19-year-old anorexic who has been raped. She doesn’t want a baby, but in Bart-world she will be tried for homicide if she gets an abortion. She weighs 90 pounds and refuses to eat enough each day to deliver a healthy baby with normal brain function. (Most of her calories are from soft drinks.)In Bart world there are two options. You can:a.) deprive her of her freedom and force-feed her for 9 months while she gestates her rapist’s babyb.) leave her to her own devices and allow her to deliver (and abandon to the mercies of a society that’s pretty cold in Bart-world) a child that will be deficient mentally and physically”Could you have possibly come up with a more convoluted and unlikely scenario?Anyway, in a free society where the only proper laws are those which prevents one person from killing another, there is no way to prevent a mother from committing suicide and bringing her child with her by declining to eat. Homicide is an affirmative act and this scenario is not homicide.Also, even if you changed this to a standard abortion scenario, I have posted before that you can make a reasoned self defense argument for making an exception for rape because the mother did not agree to intercourse and all pregnancies are dangerous to some degree.
Realist wrote: “This is the first time I heard you say that you are required to have a reduced deductible as well. What was your deductible before, and what is it after?”My HSA gives a choice of deductibles. I think we chose something north of $3,000 per year.I have no idea what the Obamacare deductible will end up being given that the bureacrats have complete arbitrary discretion to set them or grant waivers. You may recall there was a big stink a month or so ago when a McDonald’s memo to the Obamacare bureaucracy was published and threatened that McDonalds would have to cut all employer provided health insurance if the new regs lowering deductibles went into effect. McD denied the memo and then HHS mumbled something about being able to grant waivers.Welcome to government directed health care Obama style.The GOP had better defund this insanity.
@Bart… Could you have possibly come up with a more convoluted and unlikely scenario? It’s not at all convoluted or unlikely, Bart. If women are not allowed to abort unwanted fetuses, there will be many, many women forced to bear babies they don’t want. Do you think they’ll all be eating healthy foods, abstaining from alcohol and drugs and taking their prenatal vitamins? There would be a huge epidemic of unhealthy and subnormal infants that society would have to care for. Are you prepared for that? (In addition to an incalculable amount of human suffering, I’m afraid it will also mean your taxes have to go up.)
@Bart,So let me see if I understand you correctly. There are two aspects of the PPACA that you claim directly affect you:1) Your tax deductions are reduced2) Your deductibles might be reduced, which if they were would increase your premiums, but you really don’t know yetDo I have the essence correct there?
The Defective Conservative Mentality, example 42063:That McDonald’s issue with health insurance was nothing like you describe, Bart. The issue was that McD has incredibly substandard health plans for part-time workers. (See E.D. Kain, here.)