Queen Peelosi and her cohort of guffawing jesters march in the nation's capitol to cram a bill down our collective throats that the governed have clearly rejected. They do this because they believe you just aren't smart enough to know what is good for you.
What will they cram down our throats next?
Instead of finding jobs for Americans, they increase our taxes.
For every dollar they tax from you, they reduce your freedom; your freedom to choose the type of house you will buy; the freedom to choose the model car you will own; the freedom to buy your children better clothing or better food.
For every dollar they steal from us, they personify the evil that the Founders warned us against...the evil of a corrupt strong central government that rules the people, rather than being ruled by the people.
Why should they continue to keep their jobs in November?
What will they cram down our throats next?
Instead of finding jobs for Americans, they increase our taxes.
For every dollar they tax from you, they reduce your freedom; your freedom to choose the type of house you will buy; the freedom to choose the model car you will own; the freedom to buy your children better clothing or better food.
For every dollar they steal from us, they personify the evil that the Founders warned us against...the evil of a corrupt strong central government that rules the people, rather than being ruled by the people.
Why should they continue to keep their jobs in November?
6 comments:
The next thing to be crammed down our throats will be amnesty, mark my words.
The old curse seems to apply here: "May you live in interesting times." And then, there's the 2nd part to that curse: "May you find what you're looking for."
I can't help but wonder if that last applies to both sides of the isle in this long, difficult, and unpleasant process. And how many, if any, of them really have studied the economics, the history, and the forces at play in our country's predicament(s) in this area.
Not may, I suspect. I hear too much rhetoric and not enough reason. Too much FUD and not enough Fact. Too many Principles overriding Practicality. Things haven't changed much in 200 years, have they?
But, today, everyone's playing to the media and the pundit crowd, and the rest of us - I like your word "sheeple" - shift around and baa, manipulated by wolves sowing fear. Michael Crichton got it right: we live in a "State of Fear" now, and, as a result, we will get the government and system we well truly deserve, for abdicating reason in favor of allowing ourselves to be manipulated by emotional sound bites.
For what it's worth, I believe, in spite of its limitations, new mandates, costs, and potential unintended consequences, it is a first step in resolving some of the systemic problems we face as a country in this area. And, because of that, I think it is - in the long run - a good thing. And, I will give it to the Democrats for doing the hard thing, rather than the easy thing, and being ready to suffer the consequences (whatever they may be) in the fall. That is the essence of leadership, not followership. They may have done something good - but only time will tell.
In the same vein as your own venting, I'll allow a bit of my own. One thing that really pisses me off is the hypocrisy of the right in this - more broadly, the GOP - that could, with a straight face, criticize the Democratic majority for using the exact same tactics that they used, while in power, to do exactly the same thing in pushing through unpopular, expensive, controversial legislation. More specifically, the Bush Tax Cuts. Likewise, Medicare part D - which was estimated to cost at least as much as the Obama Health Care bill. And, in exactly the same way did nothing to contain drug costs. Yet the GOP left theirs completely unfunded. At least the Democrats had the honesty (if you can call it that) to "fund" their bill.
So for all of their ranting about excessive spending and whatnot - well, I remember. These were the same voices, the same votes, that approved exactly the same thing in the previously largest expansion of Medicare - in the form of an unfunded mandate - in history. And, in case you've lost track, I'm talking about Medicare Part D, not so-called "Obamacare."
And I won't forget.
As for what comes next, the arguments against the constitutionality of it will be interesting. We're mandated to buy automobile insurance. And, we've had socialized insurance for 40 years - anyone that doesn't think that Medicare isn't the "full meal deal" on socialized medicine hasn't had a long heart-to-heart conversation with a doctor or hospital administrator.
Good to see you back and fighting the good fight, Rogue. Never surrender.
Best -
LEB
LEB,
1. The republicans were kicked out of office for their spending. 2. The Democrats voted for THAT bill too. They didn't need backroom deals and gimmicks to pass Medicare Part D (which I also opposed).
3. Reconciliation is properly used for taxation and revenue procedures (read the damned thing), not for new mandated social programs.
4. What makes you think this new program will be more solvent than the other two (Social Security and Medicare) that are engulfing larger pieces of the budget every year?
Never before have we been told by the government that we will be directly punished for not buying what they tell us to buy. Your freedom is slipping from you and you quietly acquiesce? Are you really an American or just pretending to be one? We fought a war against just this type of authoritarian control a couple a hundred years ago.
And if you lack to clarity or imagination to find a better way to insure the 15 million who really couldn't afford (not the 17 million of those who exercised their freedom to spend their money elsewhere), then you must continue to vote Democrat. Why Democrat? Because Pelosi has you pegged -- you aren't really smart enough to know what is good for you.
Rogue -
Nothing makes me thing this will be more solvent; the only thing that will make this country "solvent" - not just Medicare/Medicaid - is to start unwinding both the federal debt burden, but also the largely unfunded I.O.U.'s sitting in that binder somewhere in Virginia that claim to be the Social Security Trust Fund.
And the only thing that will do that are either massively higher taxes, or massively higher growth (the latter appearing less likely than ever). Or we can just print bales and bales of more money, until China and everybody else dumps their dollars and we become the New Peso of the western world. But I digress.
You're quite right about the government telling us that we have to buy something. This will be a completely novel test of federal vs. states rights against the constitution, and it's going to rocket right up to the supreme court. Where it will make for a very, very interesting argument. And decision. By a conservative majority court. So the game well and truly ain't over yet, the fat lady ain't sung, and we are all far from counting hatched chickens.
If they decide that the *Federal* Guv'ment can force us to buy something, like they can force us to pay personal income taxes for things we don't want, or to fight in wars we don't agree to, or to go to jail for smoking rope, then the point will be proven, and we can all move on.
If they decide that the guv'ment can't tell us what to buy (or penalize us if we don't), then that begs the question - how can the state government require me to buy car insurance to own a car? Or to wear a helmet, to ride a motorcycle? Pithy comparisons, to be sure, but in the same vein.
There is no doubt in my mind that we fought a couple of wars on this subject. One was the civil war, in which one could argue that we proved that federal rule overrides states' rule, but I don't think that argument really goes very far in this case, do you?
No, the interesting footnote to your comment on a hundred years ago, is that it isn't a hundred years ago any more. If we want to go back to the way things were in 1900, then I guess we can forgo social security, medicare, medicaid, and the like - and rid ourselves of the majority of the Federal budget. Hell, just burn up the Social Security Trust Fund I.O.U's in the binder; that'll really set things to rights.
I have no doubt that this is not the last word on this; if anything, it is merely the first salvo in what will be an increasingly savage culture war: framed as conservatives against liberals, it will really be haves against have nots, and old against young.
Ah, interesting times indeed -
L
Interesting perspective here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100322/cm_csm/289333
L
How can the state government require me to buy car insurance to own a car? Or to wear a helmet, to ride a motorcycle?
Because operating a vehicle on a motorway built by the gummint is a privilege not a right. You sign an Implied Consent waiver when you sign for your operator's license.
I don't remember signing a waiver to allow these motherfuckers to rip off my children.
And yes, we should get rid of Social Security. If you're relying on that for your retirement, you are slaves to the central politburo. Medicaid should go the way of welfare -- it is welfare after all.
We should have learned from the Elizabethan Poor Laws..care for the old, the young and the infirm; the able-bodied are on their own. Get a fuckin' job or start your own business so you don't have to work for someone else. Find your niche in Life. Be worried about failure so that you actually work harder and create things that are better. This new "safety net" we are creating destroys risk-taking by many (but not all -- the risk-takers will be taxed out of the effort by this communist in the White House.)
Now I'm pissed, and I'm going to spread my money all over this country to defeat these arrogant aristocratic assholes.
None of them better cross my path in the flesh or they will need their new health care plan.
Post a Comment