The Case for Republican Economic Sabotage

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I don't care a whit about GOP politics. The topic being discussed was the Tea Party, particularly the neo-cons. Smarter than Yurt said that steps were being taken to remove the neo-con influence. I want to know what these steps are. Pay attention, or don't get involved.

you said MONIED neo cons. thus showing you have an issue with money. i'm not at all surprised you once again dodge a tough question. keep that in mind next time you keep bumping a post asking others to answer your questions. the point is simple, is it really the money you care about, or which party has control of the money. care to step up and actually answer the question on the topic YOU brought up.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Where is the hard proof that Obama has a half-billion war chest?

I'm discounting bloggers on freerepublic, sodahead, Newsmax, etc.

are you actually denying obama had that much for his 2008 campaign? wow. if so, you really have huge blinders when it comes to your party.

Barack Obama (IL), raised a total of $745.7 million in private funds for his primary nomination and general election campaign. It was the first time in the history of presidential public financing that a major party nominee declined to accept public funds for the general election.

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2009/20090608PresStat.shtml

 

[apple0154]

Doesn't say who's fault it is, or it was caused by inability to pay. As I correctly stated, every state has indigent care laws and MUST, BY LAW, treat anyone, regardless of ability to pay. If you die due to lack of proper medical care, it's pretty much your own stupid fault for not obtaining proper medical care, because it IS available.

\I'm still waiting on a name.... don't see one in your post... must not be anyone you know who has this problem, huh?

Dixie, you're quite the character. Are you suggesting 45,000 people, every year, refuse to go for medical help and choose to die?

I'm truly worried about you, Dix. And I have to admit I'm somewhat fascinated with how you've managed to go through life with your "understanding" of the world.

Someone once told me the good Lord looks after those who are "different".

 

[Rune]

you said MONIED neo cons. thus showing you have an issue with money. i'm not at all surprised you once again dodge a tough question. keep that in mind next time you keep bumping a post asking others to answer your questions. the point is simple, is it really the money you care about, or which party has control of the money. care to step up and actually answer the question on the topic YOU brought up.

Yes, yurt, the neo-cons have money. According to the golden rule "he who has the gold, makes the rules" I am wondering how the Tea Party base intends to root out the neo-con influence. Get it?

As to Obama's war chest, if that is what your question is, yes, he has one, and it is big. That is a good part of why he won. What of it? Seperately who gives a fuck what McCain did? Stupid enough to allow Palin to be picked as his running mate, he is regaled to history's dust bin, where he belongs. If I were running for president, I would use whatever means where within my grasp, as has always been the case. If you have an actual point, just make it, or shut up.

 

[Rune]

Dixie, you're quite the character. Are you suggesting 45,000 people, every year, refuse to go for medical help and choose to die?

I'm truly worried about you, Dix. And I have to admit I'm somewhat fascinated with how you've managed to go through life with your "understanding" of the world.

Someone once told me the good Lord looks after those who are "different".

Yeah, fools and drunks. Which are you Dixie?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Yes, yurt, the neo-cons have money. According to the golden rule "he who has the gold, makes the rules" I am wondering how the Tea Party base intends to root out the neo-con influence. Get it?

As to Obama's war chest, if that is what your question is, yes, he has one, and it is big. That is a good part of why he won. What of it? Seperately who gives a fuck what McCain did? Stupid enough to allow Palin to be picked as his running mate, he is regaled to history's dust bin, where he belongs. If I were running for president, I would use whatever means where within my grasp, as has always been the case. If you have an actual point, just make it, or shut up.

amazing...dune finally addresses the question. did you have to ask someone for help?

i don't think the the tea party will ever be truly free of gop influence...they might be more free if they form their own party.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, you're quite the character. Are you suggesting 45,000 people, every year, refuse to go for medical help and choose to die?

I'm truly worried about you, Dix. And I have to admit I'm somewhat fascinated with how you've managed to go through life with your "understanding" of the world.

Someone once told me the good Lord looks after those who are "different".

Oh apple, I wouldn't resort to discussing 'character' here if I were you, this is going badly enough for you already. "Are you suggesting 45,000 people, every year, refuse to go for medical help and choose to die?" I'm not suggesting anything, I am merely pointing out the fact that all 45k of them could have gotten free medical attention in America. Why they didn't, I have no idea, everyone's story is different. People aren't dying because they can't get medical attention, that's just not happening here, and you can't give an example... not one! While you are unable to give me any example of these poor unfortunate people, I give you a million legitimate charity organizations devoted to helping those in need, even those who are sick and need medical attention. While you can't cite one example of someone who can't get medical care, I point out that indigent care law legally binds hospitals to treat ANYONE who walks through the door, regardless of ability to pay. Maybe that's why you can't find an example?

In other words, you have been schooled in this debate. Every time you've opened your lying trap, it has been shut with facts and truth, and you've been exposed for the liar you are. Yet, you continue to return to your vomit like a dog. Yeah, it's good the Lord looks after idiots like you.

 

[apple0154]

Where did I say conservatives out-do government? How CAN conservatives out-do government when government has the power to TAKE money from people, whereas conservative organizations can only ASK.

Then we agree it is necessary for government programs as private organizations can not meet the need as people, when asked, won't donate the necessary funds.

You make the claim that conservatives do not like high taxes and government programs because they are greedy selfish assholes. You ask why conservatives do not like big government programs. You were answered: conservatives give more in time and money to the causes of the needy, thereby proving the claim that conservatives are selfish is a lie. It was explained why conservatives do not like big government programs: they are wasteful, they spend as much if not more on their own bureaucracies than they do on the poor they're supposed to be helping, and federal programs are almost invariably designed to trap poor people in their system in order to garner political power from a helpless, government dependent populous. The data on charitable giving as well as how government programs work supports what I- and others - have tried to tell you. But you cannot accept these facts, can you? You have your nice, comfortable, big mommy government paradigm set in steel reinforced concrete about how you are the more compassionate because you want government to do the job for you, and conservatives are selfish because they prefer to take care of the needy through their own efforts. It is truly pathetic how tightly you cling to your lies.

Conservatives are selfish because, as you just noted, knowing they can not out-do government due to people being unwilling to voluntarily contribute sufficient funds they still oppose government plans. In other words the Conservative message to the needy is, "We can not help you and we don't agree with government plans so to hell with you."

Maybe if more LIBERALS, who claim to be the ones who actually CARE about the needy, while us uncaring selfish low-tax conservatives hate the needy, would start doing more than shoving their supposed commitments to the needy off on government, there would be that one community - or even a whole bunch of them - available. But since you are more than convinced that by supporting government programs, you are doing your part for the needy, that will never happen. One more item showing that when push comes to shove, liberals of your type hate the entire concept of personal responsibility of ANY kind.

I see you haven't thought this through very well. It's fine for a carpenter or plumber or electrician to help in projects like Habitat for Humanity, however, most needy people already have a place to live and are struggling to pay the rent and feed their family. If the carpenter and plumber and electrician are willing to work 3 or 4 Saturdays (say 30 hours a year) for such organizations as Habitat for Humanity they can work that extra time at their regular job and donate the money to government programs via taxes. It would probably be in the area of $1,000/yr.

Then there's the bookkeepers and accountants. I don't think the average individual in need requires someone to keep their "books", however, 30 hours of salary from those folks would certainly help. From dishwashers to computer programmers does it not make more sense to have a person work at what they know and then donate a portion of their salary rather than....well, what help does the average needy person require? Unless the dishwasher can make a pair of shoes and the computer programmer can hack the hydro company and mark the bill as paid there's really not much demand for their services.

It comes back to the same thing whether it's welfare for the poor or medical care or pensions or any other government program. Almost every government program has been in effect for less than 100 years, many dating for the 30s, about 75 years ago. Before that, for the thousands of years prior, there were no government programs, however, there were charities and churches and different organizations. For literally thousands of years "private" organizations had the opportunity to fine tune their programs. They had the opportunity to try it in large and small countries, rich and poor countries, capitalist countries, communist countries....you name it. In over a hundred countries over thousands of years it has been shown nothing can equal government run programs. Now, that's not saying government programs are perfect. Far from it but they are closer to perfect than any private program has been shown to be in hundreds of countries over thousands of years.

Putting the responsibility of looking after the poor in private hands has been tried more ways than there are stars in the Heavens. To paraphrase President Obama, "Please, no more old, tired, worn out ideas."

 

[apple0154]

How CAN conservatives out-do government when government has the power to TAKE money from people, whereas conservative organizations can only ASK.

Then we agree it is necessary for government programs as private organizations can not meet the need as people, when asked, won't donate the necessary funds.

You have your nice, comfortable, big mommy government paradigm set in steel reinforced concrete about how you are the more compassionate because you want government to do the job for you, and conservatives are selfish because they prefer to take care of the needy through their own efforts. It is truly pathetic how tightly you cling to your lies.

Conservatives are selfish because, as you just noted, knowing they can not out-do government due to people being unwilling to voluntarily contribute sufficient funds they still oppose government plans. In other words the Conservative message to the needy is, "We can not help you and we don't agree with government plans so to hell with you."

Maybe if more LIBERALS, who claim to be the ones who actually CARE about the needy, while us uncaring selfish low-tax conservatives hate the needy, would start doing more than shoving their supposed commitments to the needy off on government, there would be that one community - or even a whole bunch of them - available. But since you are more than convinced that by supporting government programs, you are doing your part for the needy, that will never happen. One more item showing that when push comes to shove, liberals of your type hate the entire concept of personal responsibility of ANY kind.

I see you haven't thought this through very well. It's fine for a carpenter or plumber or electrician to help in projects like Habitat for Humanity, however, most needy people already have a place to live and are struggling to pay the rent and feed their family. If the carpenter and plumber and electrician are willing to work 3 or 4 Saturdays (say 30 hours a year) for such organizations as Habitat for Humanity they can work that extra time at their regular job and donate the money to government programs via taxes. It would probably be in the area of $1,000/yr.

Then there's the bookkeepers and accountants. I don't think the average individual in need requires someone to keep their "books", however, 30 hours of salary from those folks would certainly help. From dishwashers to computer programmers does it not make more sense to have a person work at what they know and then donate a portion of their salary rather than....well, what help does the average needy person require? Unless the dishwasher can make a pair of shoes and the computer programmer can hack the hydro company and mark the bill as paid there's really not much demand for their services.

It comes back to the same thing whether it's welfare for the poor or medical care or pensions or any other government program. Almost every government program has been in effect for less than 100 years, many dating for the 30s, about 75 years ago. Before that, for the thousands of years prior, there were no government programs, however, there were charities and churches and different organizations. For literally thousands of years "private" organizations had the opportunity to fine tune their programs. They had the opportunity to try it in large and small countries, rich and poor countries, capitalist countries, communist countries....you name it. In over a hundred countries over thousands of years it has been shown nothing can equal government run programs. Now, that's not saying government programs are perfect. Far from it but they are closer to perfect than any private program has been shown to be in hundreds of countries over thousands of years.

Putting the responsibility of looking after the poor in private hands has been tried more ways than there are stars in the Heavens. To paraphrase President Obama, "Please, no more old, tired, worn out ideas."

 

[apple0154]

What a HUGE pile of bullshit. 'Conservative Christian and mostly-conservative run community help programs.'... you are delusional. I already debunked your argument.

Are there some conservatives who help the poor and needy, yes. But the CORE of conservatism rejects the belief that a human being benefits from assistance. Conservatism is based on the strict father model of raising children. Liberalism is based on the nurturing parent model. The differences couldn't be GREATER in the area of how to help the poor and needy.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.

But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally. ref.

WOW!! You hit the nail on the head! While reading your last paragraph I had flashbacks to the religious folks when I was growing up. To paraphrase Charlton Heston in Planet of the Apes, "Damn them. Damn them all to hell."

 

[apple0154]

Oh apple, I wouldn't resort to discussing 'character' here if I were you, this is going badly enough for you already. "Are you suggesting 45,000 people, every year, refuse to go for medical help and choose to die?" I'm not suggesting anything, I am merely pointing out the fact that all 45k of them could have gotten free medical attention in America. Why they didn't, I have no idea, everyone's story is different. People aren't dying because they can't get medical attention, that's just not happening here, and you can't give an example... not one! While you are unable to give me any example of these poor unfortunate people, I give you a million legitimate charity organizations devoted to helping those in need, even those who are sick and need medical attention. While you can't cite one example of someone who can't get medical care, I point out that indigent care law legally binds hospitals to treat ANYONE who walks through the door, regardless of ability to pay. Maybe that's why you can't find an example?

In other words, you have been schooled in this debate. Every time you've opened your lying trap, it has been shut with facts and truth, and you've been exposed for the liar you are. Yet, you continue to return to your vomit like a dog. Yeah, it's good the Lord looks after idiots like you.

I know I said I wouldn't supply a link but obviously you're unable to find it so here it is.

Harvard Medical Study Links Lack of Insurance to 45,000 U.S. Deaths a Year
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes....000-us-deaths-a-year/?scp=2&sq=harvard&st=cse

I recommend you take this conversation up with them as they have a psychiatry department.
http://www.hms.harvard.edu/psych/programs.htm

 

[Phantasmal]

WOW!! You hit the nail on the head! While reading your last paragraph I had flashbacks to the religious folks when I was growing up. To paraphrase Charlton Heston in Planet of the Apes, "Damn them. Damn them all to hell."

Great post, last paragraph, standing ovation!

 

[Phantasmal]

Doesn't say who's fault it is, or it was caused by inability to pay. As I correctly stated, every state has indigent care laws and MUST, BY LAW, treat anyone, regardless of ability to pay. If you die due to lack of proper medical care, it's pretty much your own stupid fault for not obtaining proper medical care, because it IS available.


I'm still waiting on a name.... don't see one in your post... must not be anyone you know who has this problem, huh?

Are you kidding me, so emergency room care is what you are saying is available to all, and then what? You can't get chemo at the Emergency room! Indigent care, it doesn't even sound nice! It is the last straw, the no more hope, the screw you, you don't need a full time doctor, just the impersonal care that benefits your property, you low status scum.

 

[apple0154]

Great post, last paragraph, standing ovation!

When I was reading the part about being moral and prospering I recalled when the authorities questioned Jim Bakker about his extravagant lifestyle and he said God wanted His people to live well. Meanwhile, he was ripping off people selling non-existent housing/properties.

One thing those religious folks don't lack is nerve.

 

[Phantasmal]

When I was reading the part about being moral and prospering I recalled when the authorities questioned Jim Bakker about his extravagant lifestyle and he said God wanted His people to live well. Meanwhile, he was ripping off people selling non-existent housing/properties.

One thing those religious folks don't lack is nerve.

Do as I say, not as I do, and check out this study published last year

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-...rribly-stingy-when-it-comes-to-charity-2010-7

 

[Phantasmal]

When I was reading the part about being moral and prospering I recalled when the authorities questioned Jim Bakker about his extravagant lifestyle and he said God wanted His people to live well. Meanwhile, he was ripping off people selling non-existent housing/properties.

One thing those religious folks don't lack is nerve.

The 700 Club evangelist invested in blood diamonds! Good ole Pat R.!