Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, September 08, 2006
Burt Prelutsky :: Townhall.com Columnist
The high cost of free lunches
by Burt Prelutsky
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Sometimes I think I spend more time trying to figure out what makes liberals tick than Einstein spent coming up with his Theory of Relativity, but, then, he was merely dealing with time and space. I, on the other hand, am trying to bring sanity to bear on what gives every appearance of being sheer lunacy.

For instance, if I’d heard liberals suggest that the U.S. should adopt Canada’s health care plan once, I’ve heard it a hundred times. Until recently, the drawbacks I was aware of were that it took huge taxes to support the plan and it could take months to schedule an operation. The one thing I never heard criticized was their drug program. Because the Canadian government negotiated directly with the pharmaceutical companies, we’ve been told incessantly, the cost of drugs was a lot cheaper once you went north of the border.

What I recently discovered painted quite a different picture; one more along the lines of the portrait up in Dorian Gray’s attic. For one thing, the wait for certain operations can take, not just months, but years. Which is why many Canadians, who have already been bled dry to support the program, opt to come south and pay for surgery out of their own threadbare pockets.

Other people who come across the border, but never go back, are doctors and surgeons. Tired of paying those exorbitant taxes and earning far less than their American colleagues, they’re creating a brain drain of sizable proportions.

Even Canada’s highly-touted pharmaceutical program isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. It seems that the way it works, Canadians pay less than we do for patented drugs; however, once the patent runs out in a very few years, they have to pay more than we do for most generic drugs.

So, why is it that leftists are so enamored with Canada’s system? Just because they are. It’s for the same reason they’re against capital punishment for serial killers, but for abortions on demand for 13-year-olds. It’s why they’re vehemently opposed to having “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, but they’re for handing out sex questionnaires to eight-year-old kids, and condoms to their slightly older brothers. It’s why they’re against locking up the borders to illegal aliens, but they’re for denying law- abiding citizens the right to own guns. Why? Why? Why? Because they’re nuts. Because they read from the playbook that’s been assembled by the likes of James Carville and Ted Kennedy, Chris Matthews and Barbara Boxer, George Soros and Jimmy Carter, John Kerry and Michael Moore.

I can no more get into the head of a liberal than that proverbial camel can stroll through the eye of a needle.

Maybe the height of their lunacy is their belief that Muslim terrorists, whether beheading civilians in Iraq, blowing up school children in Tel Aviv, or placing phone calls in New York City, are entitled to all the Constitutional guarantees of American citizens.

Why did five left-wing members of the Supreme Court decide in the Kelo case that city governments have the right to take away your home if some developer decides it’s a good site for a mini-mall? As the Russian landowners discovered to their dismay 75 years ago, Stalin, like Kennedy, Souter and the other three lunkheads who get to wear their bathrobes to work, didn’t believe in private ownership of land and property.

Perhaps I’m on to something here. People like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, recognized that a constant threat to their regimes came from a strong middle class. And so they either killed them, imprisoned them, or re-educated them by means of whips, clubs and electrodes.

American liberals, deprived of such tools, have had to settle for the next-best weapon; namely, the very good friend of just about every tyrant who’s ever lived, the tax collector. It is the easiest means by which to destroy America’s middle class. The less of their own money that Americans get to keep, the more dependent they become on the federal government to provide health, education and housing.

Forty-two years ago, Barry Goldwater was ridiculed for pointing out that Uncle Sam was our uncle, not our daddy. These days, it seems, we all need reminding that he’s supposed to be our uncle, not our Big Brother.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
W. Burt Prelutsky is an accomplished, well-rounded writer and author of "The Secret of Their Success: Interviews with Legends and Luminaries."
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
liberals
Maybe you would have an easier time understanding if you would not choose straw men that are easy to ridicule. I am sure you can find the same letter on a liberal blog only setting up conservative straw men to sneer at.

Live under Socialism and you'll see
I moved to Canada in 1998, not only to gain the European point of view without having to remove both feet from the USA, but to find out from the inside why socialism does not work no matter where it is tried.

Up here we say "It's All About The Goodies." What the goodies are, who gets them, and more importantly who doesn't get them -- and they don't have to be real Goodies, the mere promise of Goodies is frequently enough. That's why socialism relies so heavily on government sponsored lotteries. The promise of Goodies keeps the proletariat trudging away at the treadmill and maybe not so upset at the fact that they never get ahead. The required "two minutes hate" against the United States keeps them from wondering why the Americans live so much better than they do. And the true socialist prole sees no cognitive dissonance between their crushing tax burden and death on waiting lists and their opinion that "free" health care and the "free" paid year off for getting pregnant are something the Americans are "not progressive enough to have."

The free lunch socialists believe they can have ("I just don't think I should have to pay for anything!" as the BNA commercial put it) costs not only all their money, but all their optimism, all their hopes and dreams, and all their joy. But after awhile those who have never known anything else begin to believe that this trudge on the hamster wheel is normal and "what can you do?" is their motto.

And you can't really understand this until you have lived in it. For the sake of Capitalism, universities ought to require their students to do Peace Corps type work in Canada, without their American safety net, so they can experience for themselves why the Goodie Rainbow is a hopeless utopian dream and in fact will destroy their lives.

Good job, Burt

Prelutsky has a way of getting into my head and pulling my ideas out and putting them on paper before I can and in a far better way than I ever could. There's not a single thing I could disagree with him about when he talks so "warmly" of our liberal brothers and sisters. It's infuriating when these clowns keep whining about the so-called rights of turban-wearing terrorists who want nothing more than to kill as many of our women and children as possible and ultimately to destroy western civilization. The democrats see them as morally equivalent to POW's. I don't get it.

Our poor are getting richer
And our rich are inventing new words for wealth!

But, sadly, our middle class is not going very well. It lacks a certain something.

They mostly have jobs. Mostly have bank accounts. Mostly have pensions.

They lack the security of KNOWING these things WON'T be taken from them. With Kelo, everything was thrown into chaos. And pensions have been going under. And those bank accounts just don't look so big anymore.

And sadly, some have begun to wonder if government SHOULDN'T take care of them. But, that is the insecurity talking. If we could secure their property rights again and make pensions more solvent...

tenordavid: sorry, bud
A "straw man" is a false and diversionary argument.

Everything Burt wrote is true.

The government is
our servant, not our sugar daddy. It provides us services that we are required to pay for. The money for government programs does not materialize out of thin air, it is confiscated. The income tax was supposed to apply "only to the wealthiest" when it was conceived. Look how well that worked out.

Perhaps a better course would be to reduce the government, lower taxes, and take more responsibiltiy for ourselves. At this point, the federal and state governments are the largest businesses on the entire planet, and they can't even produce a coherent set of accounting records.

More pundit shenanigans
More Republican propaganda. You gripe about the money liberals would spend yet I hear no comment on the record deficit Republicans have created with their total disregard for the debt they are creating - money windfalls for the rich and politically connected, war machines that fail miserably, etc.

Don't even start to bore me with that "trickle down" bunk. Those of us in the middle class have been looking up for a drop from that trickle since Reagan. All I see is the rich getter richer, and y'all in-the-money-folks blathering about great the economy is. GREAT FOR YOU, MAYBE.

I'm not a liberal or Democratic propagandist. All things political turn my stomach most days. Our government and most of the pundits and the media who report their shenanigans are all caught up in a dangerous dance of power, money, waste, and the propaganda that gets them the most toys.

You, Prelutsky, are right in there with them and this article is a fine example of what I mean.

If the people of this country do not get off their individual duffs and collectively fight back against their government and the pundits who carry their water, we are in for some rude awakenings as a society.



TIMES CHANGE
And so should politicians. Senator Kennedy has been around entirely way to long. what's amazing though is the number of Liberals who continue to vote for this card carrying member of the ACLU. Linda and Tenordavid, would the two of you amuse the rest of us and give your reasons of why you believe that the ACLU is good for America? Visit http://www.headsneedtoroll.org and post your views and opinions.
Heads Need To Roll.

Gosh, Burt!
Maybe you’re right. Maybe conservatives are easier to understand than liberals. After all, viciousness, ignorance, and greed are such simple emotions. If we set up the same sort of exaggerated, one-dimensional straw men to represent conservatives that you employ against liberals, we won’t need to wonder about their motivation.

Thus, conservatives oppose taxation, because they’re selfish jerks, who couldn’t care less about those less fortunate than themselves. They’re against gun controls because they’re violent, short-sighted egotists, who don’t care how many five year olds accidentally shoot their little sisters. They’re against sex-education and birth control, because they’re sexually repressed closet deviates, who get off on punishing others for doing what they’d really love to do themselves. They support the use of torture, because they’re sadistic creeps, who …

Gee, this is fun, Burt! Why bother to think, when you can use stereotypes to appeal to your readers’ baser instincts? And it’s so much easier than trying to contribute to an effective social dialogue.

Just a thought for just a thought:

You suggest that the American middle class lacks “a certain something.” I agree, but beyond that, you’re way off the mark.

The middle class “mostly” have jobs? Yeah, and those jobs are increasingly low-paying service sector jobs that won’t support a family. The United States has been losing high-quality manufacturing jobs to third world countries for decades and the rate of job loss is increasing. Bush’s low unemployment figures are impressive only because they don’t include the number of eligible workers who have given up in dispair and are no longer seeking work. If you want to know what you’re talking about, instead of just pretending you do, try reading, Hidden Unemployment by Richard du Boff at http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2004/duboff0204.html


The middle class “mostly” have bank accounts? Wrong again. Americans currently have an average negative savings rate (in 2005 it was minus 0.5%): that is, they’re going into debt rather than saving money. But that’s okay. Under BushCo the whole country has sunk nearly 3 trillion dollars deeper into debt, so why shouldn’t the middle class follow suit?

The middle class “mostly” have pensions. No, most Americans do not have pensions, and those who do can no longer rely on them. Ask the employees of Delta and United! The current underfunding of private pensions plans in the U.S. is $450 billion and rising.

BrianR: Basic logic
The ability to spot obvious logical fallacies functions as a highly-effective "truth" machine.

Conservatives frequently call for more economics classes in our schools, as opposed to indoctrinating our youngest students into the proper tolerance of those with "alternative" sexual lifestyles instead of, say, playing dodge ball. Teachers obliviously overlook the basic premise that children are NOT simply small adults.

I would add courses in logic as well. A universal functional grasp of basic economics and logic would eliminate perhaps half or more of arguments that have raged for decades.

To argue logical or economical points with those who have no knowledge of either is essentially having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

And I regard as a truism the old saw: You can't win an argument with an ignorant person. While the educated have bounds, ignorance is potentially infinite.

Throw in an adversary with a total disregard for history and current events (while acting upon stirring slogans and misleading headlines), and you have an intractable opponent with nothing to say, but will speak at length given the opportunity (as on news channels that allow "debates" over which the "hosts" seem to have no control whatsoever). And some consider this "progressive." The logic of *this* eludes me.

I thought you showed great restraint in making a self-evident response. Those with a liberal mindset are limited largely to name-calling and naked hysteria because they do not have the ability to form logical arguments. They are little more than "pod" people...with the right to vote. We can only depend upon their unwillingness to not waste their time voting!

God bless.

voxoreason: LOL
I can only hope the last sentence of your last para comes true!

God bless you, too, my friend.

Apparently
Ajhil is NOT a part of the middle class (like the nuttiest of the libs). The middle class jobs are increasingly low paying service sector jobs??? Pardon me??? I guess I've been laboring (pun intended) in a false universe for years....Here I have always thought myself middle class, when according to Ajhil, I must be one rich SOB!!!! If the middle class is increasingly consisting of low-paid service sector laborers, then I guess I'm movin' on up!!!

Hey, bud, why don't you get out more and take a look at the real middle class....we're everywhere, and despite your likely urban outlook, we do not predominantly rely on low paying service sector work. And those not working have not "given up in despair". I can't go a day without seeing Help Wanted signs EVERYWHERE. Do a Monster.com job search for any variety of work, and you will see numerous listings of job opportunities.

Middle class out.

P.S. Nice "unbiased" source you use for your "facts".

TANSTAAFL !
TANSTFAAL is an old Dutch word (according to science fiction author Robert Heinlein) meaning "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch". This an immutable law of nature that liberals and big spending RINOs try their best to ignore.

Burt's "American liberals ... have had to settle for ... the very good friend of just about every tyrant who’s ever lived, the tax collector. It is the easiest means by which to destroy America’s middle class. The less of their own money that Americans get to keep, the more dependent they become on the federal government to provide health, education and housing." is another excellent argument in support of the Fair Tax. I can't imagine anything a tax-and-spend liberal or RINO would less like to see than every American reminded of how much their "free lunch" costs every time they make a purchase. Go to http://www.fairtax.org for more information and sign their petition supporting the Fair Tax.

Abolish the thievery of our income tax and make April 15 just another spring day.

Linda writes . . .
"I'm not a liberal or Democratic propagandist" then proceeds to call Burt Prelutsky's article "Republican propaganda".

Linda, maybe you aren't a Democrat, but you sure border on being a socialist.

That was the point of Burt's article.

hntr admin
It's obvious that some of you can't fathom a person who takes no political party side:

"Linda and Tenordavid, would the two of you amuse the rest of us and give your reasons of why you believe that the ACLU is good for America?"

Because I poke at Prelutsky, you assume that I would defend the ACLU? Why not think past the party talking points for a change?

What we need in this country are more people who will look at issues without peering through the glass of their political party's blah-blah-blah.

Try it sometime. You might like it - not having to figure out how to explain away some outrage that your own party serves up, when you know in your heart it's pooh. Those times when you look for one of the pundits to come up with a good spin for the bunk, close your eyes to the truth and swallow - then spit it out as "Comments."

It's very freeing to be able to speak your OWN mind.

Of course, if your comment really is your own mind, so sorry - in more ways than one.



Closet Capitalists
No, No, No, Mr. Prelutsky….you have it all wrong. Liberals are actually closet capitalists. Their contributions and investments in the following industries are legendary!

Junk Science – whenever and wherever they can unearth it. (See A. Gore publications.)

The Arts – pee into a bottle containing a cross (short term investment) and MSM can generate a sizable income from articles, documentaries, and endless pontifications for at least a year, maybe more.

Education – (very long term investment) controlling interest in textbook publishing companies, instructional videos, college curriculum, grants, etc.

S&P 500 – (see Nichols’ article at today’s Townhall.com site) Participation by 34 of the top 100 corporations in the Corporate Social Responsibility statements. (Investment value may depend on next quarterly earnings statement AFTER the CSR is published.)

Medicine – Psychiatry – practically the entire industry due to endless supply of client/customers in need of relief from endless guilt about being an American. (One of THE top ten investments for the foreseeable future.) (See also subset investments in pharmaceutical companies, liquor industry.)

Entertainment Industry – Actually, this one is harder to put a dollar value on (smaller customer base). For the Conservative, a Liberal is entertainment. (Annuity?)


DavidMac
"Linda, maybe you aren't a Democrat, but you sure border on being a socialist."

So only a liberal or a socialist would call Prelutsky a propagandist? That's the ONLY possibility? Really?

Get out there and talk with someone other than your own political buddies for a change. I'm not the only person sick of the right wing/left wing tripe.

Point out to me where you see socialist reasoning or rhetoric in my comment.

Linda
You claim to take "no political party side", but you don't hesitate to villify the Republicans, who are pro-free market capitalists.

You dismiss Burt Prelutsky's article with an independent wave of your hand, citing it as mere Republican propaganda. Burt is right on factually; propaganda is, by its nature, fictional.

Socialism is, again by definition, anti-capitalism. No, Linda, I don't see you waving a copy of the Communist Manifesto as you post your criticisms, but you certainly aren't waving the US Constitution, either.

Linda, by saying you are politically neutral is saying you believe in nothing political. I find that not only hard to believe, but incredible. If you have an actual political position, state it. If you are simply sniping at both sides for the sheer joy of sniping, then you are weird.

ajhil...
...why are so concerned about jobs and bank accounts and those of other people? You either own a computer with internet access, which by the way is not a necessity, or you have public access, which means everybody does. Spend your money more wisely or thank your hard working conservatives who pay taxes.

Linda, maybe you need a man with money to help you release some this leftist anger...

Dear confused Linda
To quote Aaron Tippin "you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything" as obviously you have. To take no stance at all is, in itself a stance.

voxsansreason
Vox spends an entire post flattering conservatives and insulting liberals with nary a fact or cogent argument to be seen, then observes primly that "those with a liberal mindset are limited largely to name-calling ... ." Pretty effective self-mockery, I'd say.
Okay, hot shot, pick a topic and we'll have a go. Let's see how impressive your vaunted command of logic, history, etc. really is. Taxes, unemployment, sex-ed ... It's your call.

Ms. Oz speculates that I’m not part of the middle class.
Right you are, Ozzie. I retired when I was fifty with a six figure income.

Next she opines that I have an “urban outlook.”
Well now, Ozzie, I live in the Rocky Mountains, twenty miles from the nearest city. Urban? I hardly think so.
My outlook? “Intellectual” will do nicely, as opposed to yours, which is what exactly?

The source of my facts? Try U.S. Department of Labor statistics. What’s your source? Oh, yes, it appears you pulled them out of your rear end. Typical.

Divide and Conquer
Bill Clinton's first actions as president were: creating class warfare by resurrecting phony racism; largest tax increase in American history;taxing the major part of Social Security payments (double taxation); forcing homosexualism on our military; decimating our military in numbers, equipment and financial support; weakening our national defense and moral structure; free trade agreements detrimental to America; and selling American jobs to foreign companies.

The American middle class is meant to be the casualty of a global agenda. The American middle class supports the poor and the wealthy have means to skirt or pass on the majority of taxes. So, the 'poor' don't try to work their way out of comfortable poverty and the wealthy are self-protected.

The only way that America can be destroyed as planned is for the American middle class, who are the worker bees, to be eliminated or at least severely weakened in numbers and resources.

By the way, this is bipartisan. Both political parties are united in their zeal to divide and conquer for global power.





ajhil
Just a guess, but you are:
1) Female and
2) liberal.
3) Had until recently a secure job with Delta or United, and
4) got laid off,
5) You looked for another cushy job and realized you are
6) unqualified,
7) too old, or
8) unwilling to start at entry level.
9) Now your piggy bank is running low.
10) You feel betrayed as the veil of liberalism is lifted from your eyes and
11) reality dawns on you.
12) You blame conservative for surreptitiously having created the unsatisfying real world you now find yourself inhabiting.

Oh, BTW, since you are so concerned about the well being of other, may I suggest you go canvass your neighborhood to start a wealth and income equalization program so that you can all have the same standard of living. Let us know how you make out!

FYI, communism only spreads the poverty evenly.

ajhill Ms. Oz and Voxoreason
How do you know so much about the midle class if you retired at 50 with a six figure income? Are you perhaps an educated person from liberal acedamia? Were you a large company executive who retired off of the efforts of middle class workers? You flatter yourself when taking the affectation of "intellectual". Ms. Oz is correct in her assumption that you have an urban outlook, regardless of where you live. Then you attack Ms. Oz on her personal observations that there are indeed jobs available. I concur with her, there are many jobs and opportunities available for thos who will seek them. Myself, I am 22 miles from a city of about 25,000. The trip to town generally takes about 30 minutes, except when the middle class workers and the retired are out in force (every nice summer day) in their $150,000 RVs, pulling their ski boats, riding their motor cycles etc. Oh yeah, when going to town yesterday I saw no less than 6 help wanted signs posted all the way out on the main street, just so people could see them.

By the way it is voxoreason, and not voxanreason as you wrote. Perhaps your superior intellect overlooked that. Vox makes plenty of sense to most conservatives. Who am I? Well just a poor uneducated (1 year of college and the only person in the class to get a perfect 100% for the semester of "Intro to Logic and Problem Solving) guy who ,after 18 years of working whatever job I could find, finally go off by duff, studied for 1 weekend and paid $50 to sit for my state insurance exam and started making an income almost equal to that of doctors and laywers. Married a woman who has 1 year of college and 1 year of trade school who has her own freelance court reporting business. Theese 2 "menial service" jobs allowed me to retire at 46. No, I do not have a 6 figure income, don't need it. Everything I have, I own . Took early retirement to spend time with the family and raise my kids with a true "rural" conservative outlook on God, family and country.

DavidMac. Geez.
Your Post -

DAVIDMAC:You claim to take "no political party side", but you don't hesitate to villify the Republicans, who are pro-free market capitalists.

LINDA: So, the only possibility that I could villify the Republicans is to be a Democrat or Socialist? How about just being a reasoning human being? When did we pass a law that everybody has to choose a side?

BTW: YOU DID NOT ANSWER MY ORIGINAL QUESTION - WHERE IN MY ORIGINAL POST DID YOU SEE SOCIALIST REASONING OR RHETORIC? Do you mean my chiding Prelutsky and the Republicans prove it?

DAVIDMAC: You dismiss Burt Prelutsky's article with an independent wave of your hand, citing it as mere Republican propaganda. Burt is right on factually; propaganda is, by its nature, fictional.

LINDA: Well, that certainly proves the point beyond argument - "Burt is right." Hmmm. Answers to life's questions must be very easy for you.

DAVIDMAC: Socialism is, again by definition, anti-capitalism. No, Linda, I don't see you waving a copy of the Communist Manifesto as you post your criticisms, but you certainly aren't waving the US Constitution, either.

LINDA: Oh, I get it. If you argue with the Republican side, you must be Socialist because Socialists are anti-capitalist and Republicans are not. Thank you for the lesson in logic.

I've got another one for you. If a train leaves Washington traveling 50 mph, how long would it take a rhino to eat Chicago?

DAVIDMAC: by saying you are politically neutral is saying you believe in nothing political. I find that not only hard to believe, but incredible. If you have an actual political position, state it. If you are simply sniping at both sides for the sheer joy of sniping, then you are weird.

LINDA: I invite you again to point out to me where I said I was politically neutral in any of my posts. Honestly, you make me think you never heard of independent, issue-oriented thinking.

You remind me of what people go through when they see a baby and don't know what sex it is. "Oh, hey there little...umm...

I have positions on everything I feel comfortable that I have enough data to support. On those things about which I have not heard and seen enough to come to a belief or position, I am (Oh, no) neutral, and I keep looking for the answer. Isn't that weird?

You want to know some positions I take on things political? Read my original post again and see if you can find a couple - or three - or four. If not, then I can't help you.


cat trapper
Your Post -

"Dear confused Linda. To quote Aaron Tippin "you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything" as obviously you have. To take no stance at all is, in itself a stance."

I invite you to read the last five paragraphs of my just previous post - "DavidMac. Geez"

Linda
You do make some good arguements for your having a "neutral" position. Perhaps your time would be better spent familiarizing yourself with the issues on which you admit you don't have an opinion on, instead of justifying neutrality with those who do. Just an observation.

Cat Trapper.
Maybe my point is that people might spend a little more time investigating and reasoning - before they take positions, or mouth the spin of their particular spinners.

Another point: Since I have started posting on this website a few days ago, I have encountered assumption after assumption about my politics that are grounded in...nothing.

And I've been amused with the proliferation of name calling, again grounded in....nothing. (Not just limited to me.)

Thanks for the advice on how I should spend my time. That doesn't even merit a response.

I have tried to make the point repeatedly that a little independent thinking would be a good thing. Why the dickens that that seem to bug you and, apparently, DavidMac?

Please give that a little (independent) thought.


Jimmy Carter: Where is your brain?
Your Post -

"Linda, maybe you need a man with money to help you release some this leftist anger..."

Independent thinking is leftist? Independent thinking is anger? You are so easily threatened. What's the problem? Afraid of someone who doesn't spout a party line - especially yours?

Get a grip.

Let's see - so far, there's name-calling, then insulting, now the last ditch "idiot male" retort that in so many words, what I "need is a good..."

Jimmy, we're talking about the thinking process here. Oh, sorry. I forgot for a moment where some of you guys think your brain is.

(Before the tirades start, I said "idiot male" which refers ONLY to males who ARE idiots. A female who would make such an asinine statement as JC made would be an idiot too. So don't even go down that road.)

Linda
I didn't realize that I had personaly cast any aspersions to which political diretion you lean. You do, however, seem to spend more than a little of your time bashing conservatives. I will agree with you that this current republican congress needs to be reighned in. They are out of control and out of touch with their base.That being said, the liberal dems are way to scary to vote for. I also don't recall calling anybody any names. Unless you are refering to the adjective "confused" which to me seemed apropo. Sorry if that statement ruffled your feathers.
I also agree with you that we need to get off our collective duffs and fight.

Now just to clarify a few things. I am a registered Independent who, prior to coming to TH was probabbly just a little right of center. I must admit, however, that the more time I spend both reading the articles and the diatribe posted on this site, I just about (with independent thinking) have to take a giant side-step to the right each and every day.

Linda,
"More Republican propaganda. You gripe about the money liberals would spend yet I hear no comment on the record deficit Republicans have created with their total disregard for the debt they are creating - money windfalls for the rich and politically connected, war machines that fail miserably, etc."

Actually, if you stick around long enough (more than a couple days), you'll see all of the conservatives on this site gripe about Republican spending. Regarding your last three lines, someone said, "What we need in this country are more people who will look at issues without peering through the glass of their political party's blah-blah-blah." You should take that advice, since your last three lines above all come from the Dems' blah-blah-blah.

"I'm not a liberal or Democratic propagandist. All things political turn my stomach most days. Our government and most of the pundits and the media who report their shenanigans are all caught up in a dangerous dance of power, money, waste, and the propaganda that gets them the most toys."

You say you'r not a liberal or Democratic propagandist, but so far, your remarks have been adverse to conservatives and you seem to favor some Dem talking points. Granted, this is one thread, and you haven't really expounded on anything, but given what's here, how did you think people were going to perceive you?

"You, Prelutsky, are right in there with them and this article is a fine example of what I mean."

How so? How is it propaganda? He's basically saying he doesn't understand how liberals think. Then he points out a socialist connection to libs (their praise of socialist countries). Are you saying that connection doesn't exist?

"If the people of this country do not get off their individual duffs and collectively fight back against their government and the pundits who carry their water, we are in for some rude awakenings as a society."

Doesn't Prelutsky fight against his govt. when he takes the Supreme Court to task? He says govt. is turning into Big Brother. Is that carring govt. water?

"Point out to me where you see socialist reasoning or rhetoric in my comment."

I think DavidMac was getting at the fact that Prelutsky was making a statement against socialism and that you were making a statement against Prelutsky. It looks as though you were defending what Prelutsky was against. Also, you talk about the rich gettin richer, etc. Most people would take that as socialist rhetoric. But I'm will to give you the benefit of the doubt. Expound on your reasons why you think Prelutsky's piece is a work of propaganda. What specifically do you think is wrong with the economy and what do you think we should do about it? When you say we're in for some rude awakenings, what do you mean? How do you propose we fight it?

Good one, Cynewulf.


So now I’m supposed to write a book for you about this article - in specifics, you say? Nifty tactic. That oughta overwhelm me.

You first. I don’t know your politics. So tell me where you stand on the Canadian healthcare system, healthcare in general, capital punishment, abortion, birth control, sex education, illegal immigration, gun control, tax cuts, the state of the middle class, education, government housing, monitoring of phone calls, the Constitution, terrorism – in specifics, please.

These are the various references in Perlutsky’s article, and certainly you nor I should make a comment on any one or more points without explaining – in specifics – where we stand on each and every one.

(I’m just making a point. Please don’t write me a book. I believe you could, and would.)

Perlutsky’s article is like a raving tirade. He refers to liberals as nuts, lunatics, insane, lunkheads – which, he explains, is the sole reason (according to this article) why they believe in the list of positions he names. That’s real insight for all of us.

Of course, he picks the liberal positions most vulnerable to ridicule. Now that’s good, balanced journalism. That really makes me trust him. Not.

What other cheap shot is he using that might slide by me?

I, along with many people, I believe, want to see something done about the travesty of health care in this country. Do I think national healthcare is the solution? I don’t know. It’s a complicated issue. Do I embrace Canada’s system? Likely not – I’m a fiscal conservative. But there might be some things there we can learn from it if we could get a little un-politicized truth. Certainly a much needed national dialog of un-spun substance would go a long way toward helping us all figure it out.

I need more info.

AND THAT”S THE POINT!

I can’t get believable information when I read pundits like Perlutsky – he trots out a bunch of “facts” that I am suppose to accept on their face just because he says it. But my pooh meter goes on tilt when he takes cheap shots by using vulnerable positions of the other side, and calls them crazy so that he can dismiss them without examination.

I find it equally despicable when liberals do the same thing. And they do.

It’s almost impossible to find balanced, reasonable dialog in today’s political arena. The name of the game seems to be pick a side, defend it to the death even if that means twisting the truth every which way from Sunday to brow beat the other side into submission.

Why is that? My primary point today has been that I am sick of this kind of political, sensationalized, unbelievable spinning – and the people who condone it.

Liberal Crap Talk!
People, I’m a semiretired remodeler, originally from Chicago, lived in MI for 13 years and became the largest remodeler (26 field staff) in 3 counties. I started my business as a handyman with $200 in the bank, a wife and four kids. One day in 1976 when I only had about 6 guys, I bought a mint condition ‘74 Chrysler Fifth Avenue for my wife. I had One of my employees, Floyd made a cocky comment about be being Mr. Got-Rocks. I said ”Floyd, lets sit down for a minute.”

I told him that in back in ‘71 in Chicago, I was broke with a wife, 4 kids and $200 in the bank. I squeezed a few bucks to buy magazines like Handyman, Popular Mechanics, and a set of Do-It-Yourself encyclopedia books. I bought the above while you, Floyd, were spending your money on grass and beer. And at night while you were smoking your grass and sitting in front of the “tube”, I was reading those magazines and books. I also spent evenings and Saturdays at our library. In other words, Floyd I taught myself what I needed to get ahead in life.

I finalized my comments by saying: “So you see, Floyd, except for the decisions you made and the decisions I made, I could be working for you. So take your Mr. Got-Rocks comment and stick it up your azz.”

This is the greatest country in the world, and the one with the greatest opportunities. It takes one heck of a lot of gall to throw one’s hands up and in effect say to the world: “Please help me because I am such a pathetic person that I cannot even support myself, much less my family” in AMERICA!

Every single one of us is the sum or our life’s decisions - every one of them. It’s called accountability!

My son currently pays carpenters $27 per hour, and Project Managers $80K/year and all with extremely good benefits. Each of them "learned" their repsective trades, and "learned" how to manage remodeling projects. My son now makes over $500K annually and back in '99 when he was working for my when I owned the company, I was paying him $500/week. So please, let's cut the crap talk about service people not making money.

You want to make money? Make yourself valuable to the business world instead of watching TV or whining. Yes! Take responsibilty for your own life. And by the way, my parents came to America broke around 1910, learned - read LEARNED - and when my Dad died at 56, he left my Mother rich, and while sending 4 kids to college. Like Floyd above, all of you "American citizens" whiners you can all stick it up yor azz!

Move to Canada - PLEASE!


More jerks.
Linda:
Nicely written post. You're right about the disgracefully partisan rhetoric on this and similar blogs. So far I haven't found one, liberal or conservative, that encouraged genuinely constructive dialogue.

troglodyte:
You're 0 for 12. Probably a typical score for you, I'd guess.

cat trapper:
Well informed people know better than to generalize from anecdotal evidence, but that seems to be all you know.
As for my alteration of "voxoreason", that was a mocking play on words, but evidently a bit too much for you. Get someone with an IQ above 90 to explain it to you.

Sonny:
You became a success all by yourself, did you? That's just great. But here's the thing: if you weren't so busy basking in the glory of your own accomplishments, you'd recognize that the world is full of people who made all the "right" decisions, just as you did, only weren't as lucky, and even more people who didn't have a library in which to study, as you apparently did, or the time to use one, if it existed. We liberals acknowledge a shared responsibility for those folks. "Azzholes" like you don't.
One more thing. The high-paying carpentry and remodelling jobs you describe aren't in the service sector. Try going back to the library.

ajhil: look who's blogging
ajhil,

Amazingly, with one posting, you managed to reinforce all the negative stereotypes of the liberal (and, unfortunately, sometimes the conservative) blogosphere and pretty much pull down a very intelligent posting by Linda in the process.

I read through the entire string, and Linda has done a commendable job in defending herself, without resorting to the cheap shots so often found in your posts.

I wonder if she'd rather stand on her own than have your type of "assistance"?

"More jerks"? How pathetic.

Handy: Conservative Catnip
I just want to clarify that I, in no way, am looking for anyone on this site to educate me.

So far, it seems to be a group - with a couple of exceptions - mostly swooning to the lyrics of conservative catnip served up by the likes of Perlutsky.

Moderates, Independents, Free Thinkers are euphemisms for indecision, you say? When was the last time you looked at a dictionary?

Do you consider Perlutsky and this kind of blog to be "ample historical reference," as you put it, for your quick decision-making process?

It's stunning that you can actually say people who take time to think things over reasonably are impeding "intellectual traffic." What traffic would that be in your world - this article and the conservative pep rally that follows it?

Have you ever openly looked at all sides of an issue before making up your mind? Or do you confine your intellectual traffic to this one-way street of a website?

I gotta admit, just looking at one side of things certainly allows you to make fast decisions.

I'm hoping you see your worst nightmare on election day - polls full of Moderates, Independents and Free-thinkers who have had a belly full of the extremists on both sides.



"Right Decisions?"
Sorry ajhil, wrong. At 39 I went bankrupt in '81 - lost everything.

But I didn't whine!

I didn't play the "victim" game.

I didn't blame someone else for my "decisions" that tled to my financial demise. And I eventually STILL paid off all of my debtors.

And I started over again, smarter. I "learned" from my bad decision."

Everyone is responsible for their own lives, their own statements, their own actions, and their own decisions. Years ago I stopped trying to help he Floyds around me because they have proven time and again that they are nothing more than parasites. They don't want help. They only want someone else's money.

Cheap shots.
Paulie:
You're right, Linda doesn't need my assistance, nor do I offer it. I complimented her post and added my own opinion. If that "pulls down" her post in your opinion, then you couldn't have admired it that much in the first place.

Cheap shots? Like Linda I get tired of the personal jibes that pass for debate on these sites and, when I do, I hit back hard. Cat trapper hasn't a clue what "voxsansreason" means, but feels free to suggest that it's a mistake caused by my inadequate intellect. Is it a cheap shot to suggest that the fault lies in his own ignorance and stupidity?

Ms Oz spends her entire post citing her personal day-to-day observations, as if these were definitive arguments about the state of the national economy. This is dumb and I don't feel badly about pointing that out.

As for Sonny, he expatiates at great length about his accomplishments in achieving financial success. Ordinarily I'd admire him for this and say so; but he uses his account as a springboard for the kind of naively self-centered and callous social darwinism that has disgraced conservatism for generations. Only a fool believes that anyone "makes it" totally on his own in this country; and Scotty reveals himself to be selfish and cruel to boot. A jerk? Yeah!

Alone among the contributors to this thread, I've offered data and sources to support my assertions and challenged anyone to take me on in objective debate. Any takers? Nope. Just more Billingsgate. Under the circumstances do I feel abashed by your remarks?

Not likely!

Linda,
It wasn't meant to overwhelm you, just to get more info out of you. Which it did. Thanks for replying.

"Please don’t write me a book. I believe you could, and would." You're right. Thanks for saving me the time.

Your main point, in regards to this article, seems to be that Prelutsky is distorting the other sides position to further his own side's position. You're looking for a reasoned discussion on issues that takes viewpoints from both sides into account. The problem is that these are op/eds, not scholarly dissertations. They're basically going to state an opinion and back it up with a few observations. The reader is either going to agree, kind of agree, or disagree. Not just based on what the writer said, but on whether what the writer said matches the readers' own experience or not. Burt saying that he can't understand how libs think or that there's a socialist bent to the libs stance on issues matches what most conservatives here have experienced. Most people here have already looked at both sides of the issue before they comment. They know what the other side has said.

"It’s almost impossible to find balanced, reasonable dialog in today’s political arena. The name of the game seems to be pick a side, defend it to the death even if that means twisting the truth every which way from Sunday to brow beat the other side into submission."

Have you ever read any of the editorials from when Thomas Jefferson was running for office? If anything, things have gotten better.

"I'm hoping you see your worst nightmare on election day - polls full of Moderates, Independents and Free-thinkers who have had a belly full of the extremists on both sides."

I didn't think there were too many moderates left, hence the polarization of today's electorate. Besides, it wouldn't matter anyway. They'd still only have two selections to choose from, and, as you said, both have their extremes. That wouldn't be our worst nightmare; our worst nightmare would be if all those moderates, independents, etc. turned out to be lefties in moderate clothing.

ajhil: cheap shots
We really like ourselves, don't we?

Of course, it would have been nicer had someone else built your pedestal for you, but I guess you couldn't wait. Careful up there.

Thank you, o, wise one.

May I return to the cave now?

Cynewulf: Op-eds?
CYNEWOLF: "The problem is that these are op/eds, not scholarly dissertations. They're basically going to state an opinion and back it up with a few observations."

LINDA: Opinion-editorial is by definition a writing of viewpoint or opinion, not fact or news.

The problem I have with Preluksky is that he states FACTS in his article - about the Canadian healthcare system, for example. That's not opinion or editorial. Nor would I characterize it as observation. He clearly means for us to take it as fact.

From there, he launches a tirade about liberals that smacks more of bashing than viewpoint. His incessant name-calling undermines his credibility.

What good is an opinion or viewpoint if you can't trust that it's backed up by solid research and critical thought? I can't trust that Perlutsky has done either, given his level of discourse.

I realize that journalism has reached sickening depths of commercial warp-idity, but I can't give a pass to anyone hiding behind op-ed to distort fact - and as I have said repeatedly, Perlusky is suspect in my view.

CYNEWULF: "Most people here have already looked at both sides of the issue before they comment. They know what the other side has said."

LINDA: Hmmmm. I'll believe that you believe that. I would be hard pressed to accept that the blogging I have seen on this site is the result of objective research and critical thought. Too much anger, too much defensiveness, too much fragile ego, too much obvious anxiety about differing opinion.

Thanks for a reasonable dialog. It's refreshing.


ajhil and Paulie
Thanks for the nice comments in my direction.

Handy: Right/left/center - I believe...
You are a very tiresome person who epitomizes the worst of this kind of blog. It took me very little time to make up my mind about you. It is a position of which you can be sure I am extremely confident. Anything further you have to say will undoubtedly contain more useless, hateful rhetoric to reinforce my opinion. Why not hop on your computer and prove my point further?

Those liberals are nuts...
'A "straw man" is a false and diversionary argument.

Everything Burt wrote is true.'

I pretty much agree. Kennedy, Boxer, Carville, et al. THOSE liberals are nuts. I'm a sort-of-liberal (I agree with you guys on some issues) and I'm not nuts.

The Canadian system may not be perfect (I know I've heard Canucks complain about it on my trips there), but ours is way broken. Malpractice is part of it. Another thing I found is that drug costs are on average 40-48% advertising costs. More than half these drugs on TV don't even tell you what condition they're supposed to treat. "See your doctor."
"Doctor, do I need to take Xyloprilobanotril?"
"No, you don't even have the condition it treats."
Wasted health care dollars, and more importantly, a doctor's time.

1) Abolish drug advertising on TV and radio.

2) Rein in malpractice awards. Make sure doctors are punished for true malpractice and not just for being not perfect, or not being to totally treat a condition. Even mechanics don't get things right there first time every time, and human bodies are way more complex than cars.

3) Penalize a lawyer who brings forth a specious malpractice suit.

4) Do something about exclusive patents on drugs to bring down the cost of treating diseases that are emerging. The companies have to recoup their costs and make a decent profit (1 drug in 100 comes to market). Exact solution? Don't know.

5) Bring about a standardized form that ALL insurance companies are required to use, and one computer data format that they're all required to use. This avoids single-payer socialist issues, but lowers administration costs because it enables free data interchange for coordination of benefits.

6) Penalize health insurance companies for excessive administration costs. They've become bloated pigs because they can pass on the costs.

The single biggest cost in health insurance is administration, sometimes upwards of 50%. Medicare's is about 8%. Which is more efficient? Dump administration, lower the costs.

For Justathought
He said, "They lack the security of KNOWING these things WON'T be taken from them. With Kelo, everything was thrown into chaos. And pensions have been going under. And those bank accounts just don't look so big anymore."

I don't worry much about Kelo for myself. It's for others.

Pensions were a cost that the actuaries dropped the ball on. They were overly optimistic in the growth of those funds or something, plus people started living longer.

With the gotta-have-it-now mentality people don't have money to bank. My parents were married 23 years before they had their first new car. Many have new cars before they're married. If people scaled back what they "had to" have, they'd have money to bank. That'd also funnel less money to China, our communist enemy. I'm not too worried about it cutting jobs here, because everybody knows Americans don't make anything anymore (not really; we do).

Pensions are just another broken promise from the past, and I expect SocSec will be too.

FWIW, I was born on the cusp of the Boom and Gen X, so I'm kind of confused about which I am.

To Linda:
"Don't even start to bore me with that "trickle down" bunk. Those of us in the middle class have been looking up for a drop from that trickle since Reagan."

From the book "It's _Still_ the Economy, Stupid", the average tax cut nets the average middle class family ($32-46,000) about $10 a week. As the author says, "A case of beer. Oh, boy." He noted it saved the upper 5% (those over about $250K) about $1400 a week (maybe a month; don't remember which).

Pension underfunding
"The middle class “mostly” have pensions. No, most Americans do not have pensions, and those who do can no longer rely on them. Ask the employees of Delta and United! The current underfunding of private pensions plans in the U.S. is $450 billion and rising."

Perhaps those corporations ought to be paying into pensions instead of paying dividends. Is that what you're saying? I see pension underfunding as a broken promise and near-criminal (fraud, bait-and-switch, what have you).

voxoreason wrote 9/9 at 11:41
And I agree with your first few paragraphs. Logic and economics indeed! Maybe a PoliSci course or two. Certainly American Government.

But then sometimes a government wants the masses uninformed so they can run their games with empty slogans and no real substance. Bread and circuses, I believe is the term. Except we don't even get bread.


Playing Jeopardy, I said, "I'll take 'Definitions' for $500, Vox"

Voxoreason said, "you have an intractable opponent with nothing to say, but will speak at length given the opportunity (as on news channels that allow "debates" over which the "hosts" seem to have no control whatsoever)."

I answered, "What is a politician?"

Well.....
"I thought you showed great restraint in making a self-evident response. Those with a liberal mindset are limited largely to name-calling and naked hysteria because they do not have the ability to form logical arguments."

Voxoreason, I can't count the number of times in the last 10 days I've been insulted for simply asking hardball questions. Hysteria comes not only from the left. It comes from any extreme (or any one) who cares not to apply simple rules for constructing a valid and coherent logical syllogism.

You are guilty of a sweeping generalization, which could also be construed to include a straw man and an ad hominem.

To Ms Oz
"Ajhil is NOT a part of the middle class (like the nuttiest of the libs)."

Are you trying to convince me that Kennedy, Boxer, Carville, and the rest of those left-wing nutball pundits earn between $32,000 and $46,000 per year? Please.

I haven't read enough of Ajhil's posts to draw any conclusion about him/her.

Unlike your self-answered complex question, which would be "Are some liberals extremely nutty?" (Yes) and "Are liberals part of the middle class?" (Yes), but you put those two together and opined that the nuttiest of libs ARE in the middle class. Prove it! I submit that the nuttiest of liberals are in the upper class (upper 20% of household incomes; over ~$105,000/annum). You made the charge. Defend it.

I read Ajhil's post...
having quoted it previously.

I agree with his/her statements. The percentage of people still working with pensions has declined sharply from the time I was a kid. They are primarily teachers (union job), postal workers (union job), government employees (some union jobs), auto/vehicle workers (and maybe some suppliers) (union), airlines workers (union). Are there any categories I've missed?

I've been a professional most of my working life, and I've never had a pension plan, nor do I know anyone my age (40-ish) who has, outside of professions mentioned above. Security? I have none. My career (programming) almost got shipped to India. I have no bank account (outside of checking), nor do most people I know.

Ajhil, in his/her last 3 paragraphs, hit it right on the head, although I might argue exact stats.

For Prelutsky:
paragraph 1: ad hominem attack
paragraph 6: construction
paragraph 7: there's something implied there; can't name it.
paragraph 8: red herring. Outside US on 2 out of 3. Does not apply to those 2. Other one goes for any of us on the all-or-none principle.
paragraph 12: straw man

Ajhil did basically the same thing and got flogged for it. Sheesh. Nothing like a good double standard.

Psychiatry...
"Psychiatry – ...One of THE top ten investments for the foreseeable future."

Of course. A counselor's motivation to "cure" you is what? You quit coming back! Some comedian said it first, but I can't argue the logic of it.


Minimum Wage
Visiting with a very smart and wealthy guy, who believes that the Mimimum Wage should be raised, quite a bit, so that anyone who works hard can earn enough to have a good living. Because when gasoline goes up they should have the dough to pay for it.

Which is really the reason why the Mimimum Wage shouldn't go up because if they had enough dough to keep buying gasoline, we would have lines at the gas stations and instead of making decisions about how to do with less gasoline, people would simply not have gasoline sometimes when they needed it most. Well maybe some people won't have gasoline when they need it most. What do we do about that.

We could create a government that was very powerful to see that people get the gasoline when they need it most. The government could send thugs out to the homes of people who have money and take their homes if they don't pay for gasoline for people who need it most.

And if anyone refuses you can simply have the thugs to kill them.

Health
Cost has to do with rationing. The problem with not using cost to ration medicine, is that the sky is awfully high for a limit.

Insurance is bad enough. Cost was raised for medical care irrationally by our provision of insurance to most Americans. At one time in the distant past, veterinary care was reasonably close in cost to medical care for people. Insurance changed that so that Medical care for humans increased 10 billion times as fast as medical care for pets.

Put the power and earning capacity of a confiscatory government behind medical care, and you risk your GNP moving directly to health care, or like Canada's plan to have its cake and eat it too - long lines at the pump!

Clinton Health plan - give $s to lawyers
When Billary tackled health care early on in Bill's presidency, I hoped for some improvement. Our system is definitely not wonderful. But quickly it was apparent that Bill, and Hillary were attempting to arrange for massive transfers of health dollars to lawyers. Now thats a good idea.

How about liability coverage for health treatment similar to auto insurance which covers damages, and Doctor's licences could be treated like drivers licenses. Three speeding tickets, and a wreckless driving and you lose your license to practice medicine.

People injured would collect for damages, doctors who screw up would be retired, and people would save the 45 cents on the medical dollor going to lawyers, or insurance covering the threat of lawyers.


The amoral Left in America
The problem with our Leftest friends is that they lack any kind of moral out-look. It all about their feeling and what make them feel good.
The Islamist facist want to kill us and the Left worries about Global warming. Not only insane, but stupid and evil as well. God bless America and our imperfect, buy for the most part right President Bush.

Handy: How sad.
Poor Baby...or should I say "infant."

Can't think well enough to form a response of your own, so you plagiarize the best one you can find - mine? Thanks for the compliment.

Hey, do yourself, and everybody else, a favor. Stop embarrassing yourself.

jay_in_milwaukee
Nice to see that someone actually paid attention to the substantive part of my first post. Now don't tell me you didn't recognize the first part as parody!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.