Previous 11 - 20 Next
Sorrentino is correct about the crony relationship of Obama/Democrats with rich 1% owners of insurance companies. I'm sure the NYT was aware of this all along - this is after all how government works. The only reason it's reporting it now, is to repair its reputation in time for the next election, and because Obama can no longer be elected and is not popular. Obama is being thrown under the bus by Democrats, or at least they are trying to, but many Democrats have found they are tied to Obama and are going down with him.
In response to:

What the Midterms in Texas Taught Us

MoreFreedom Wrote: Nov 19, 2014 4:38 PM
"But with record spending and so much at stake, why were Democrats unable to turn out their vote?" Seems like most people that are voting, are voting against politicians: politicians long on promises, and very short on delivery (often delivering lies instead). What's to vote for, if what politicians are promising are just lies? Seems like Obama was an anti-politician vote against Bush's lies of fiscal responsibility, compassionate conservatism, and building democracies in the Middle East. Now voters are fed up with Obama's lies. Which brings up the next election. What will the GOP do? Nothing as usual because they really want the socialist schemes to drive voters to vote GOP? That's my bet. Except for expansion of the wars in the Middle East, and spending for them. Republican politicians are always for more war, except for the libertarian leaning ones.
This is happening in NJ, where Chris Christie, one of the Republican establishment leading candidates for president, is governor. NJ is also one of the states with the highest tax burden in the USA. Sullum doesn't say, but Christie was all for this. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/09/02/christies-game-changer-revel-closes-doors-amid-casino-ruin-in-atlantic-city/ From what I see, the Republican establishment is exactly for what NJ has: high taxes, lots of regulation, abuse of eminent domain, government spending for the politically connected rich (Revel's former owners, and the bureaucrats at the CRDA), and using government to punish your political enemies (Bridgegate) provided it can't be tied to the political leader. Seems just like what the Democrats offer too. Politicians like Christie will never get my vote, no matter how bad the other guy is.
Slanting history to a pro-American viewpoint, is propagandizing that our government is better than it really is, and that government in general is a good thing. Government at best is an evil, that prevents worse evil. At worst, government is Hilter, Stalin, Pol Pot, and tens of millions of dead people. Governments are instituted among men, to protect our lives, property, liberty and pursuit of happiness, from those who'd harm us. ALL government actions are force used against individuals. Even if this force is only used against criminals and foreign enemies, government still forcibly takes money from taxpayers who've harmed no one, to do this. And you can't tell me using force against individuals to take their money is good (normally this is considered theft). Another thing wrong with "slanting history" is that government is doing it in government schools, rather than people being free to choose a school for their child. Separting school and state, eliminates the problem of government slanting history for the benefit of control freaks who want to control what your children are taught.
Separate school and state. Then you can send your children to the schools that you believe are best for them, and you won't have this problem. This creates many more options for students, parents, teachers, and schools, rather than the one size fits all (depending upon who's in power and in charge) non-choice for everyone (the only choice being who you vote for). As a teacher, you then have a choice about what you teach in history, provided it is acceptable to those who run the school and their customers. So you can choose a liberal, conservative or relatively non-partisan school.
Seems to me Robbins is missing the forest because of the trees. She's concerned about students being exposed to leftist history "that presents American history in a relentlessly negative light" that isn't balanced. The forest, is government control of education. Rather than fighting over who gets to decide what is taught in government schools, she should be advocating to separate school and state. Then parents can send their children to their choice of the best school for their children, teaching history (and all other subjects) in a format acceptable to parents. No government force will be used in such a scenario, while Robbins is advocating government to force her ideas onto the leftists because she believes her ideas are better. This is the problem with social conservatives: you can't have freedom unless you are first willing to give it to others. And if you don't allow leftists to teach their children the way they want, then they won't allow you to either. Separate school and state.
Government provides welfare money to those who meet the qualifications. Just like it provides tax breaks to those who meet the qualifications. There is nothing immoral about her taking the money, other than the fact that government is taking it from others. It's the action of government here that is immoral. The other bit of immorality here, is the many voters who asked for government to take from taxpayers for the benefit of others. You can have freedom when everyone quits asking the government to take from others for their own desires, rather than doing its job of protecting us from criminals and foreign enemies.
The good news, is that since Obama did this via executive action, it can be undone via executive action. Alternatively, if the GOP were really fiscally conservative, they'd just not pass any legislation funding welfare from the House where all spending bills must originate.
A good law, would be one that eliminates government welfare, in all its forms, including corporate and personal welfare. Government's job is to protect our lives, our property, our liberty and our pursuit of happiness. It's job is not to protect us from the challenges of life: it's to protect us from others who'd harm us, by prosecuting those who do harm us. Those who'd take our money via a majority vote for their own purposes and desires, are simply thieves. And that includes those who suppport Social Security, Medicare and other redistribution schemes of government. And people would be far better off if instead, they got to keep their money and invest it in retirement and health care savings. At least the responsible people. Those who want to live off others would suffer until they take responsibility for themselves. And that's the way it should be.
"It [health care reform] needs to be done correctly, though, and in a way that does not create different levels of access and treatment." It's this kind of statement from Dr. Carson that bothers me and is a good reason to not support him. If we aren't free to offer and buy different levels of access and treatment, then the alternative is government control and one size fits all. Which is exactly Carson's objection to Obamacare. So what is he proposing? It sounds like universal care, controlled by government, but he has put out an idea: http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Ben_Carson_Health_Care.htm Instead, he's proposed a savings account (which you can contribute to pre-tax) which can be used for healthcare, and passed on as part of an estate. This is just as technocratic as Obamacare. And a means by which billionaires can pass on practically all of their earnings tax free to their heirs. He also supports government providing catastrophic coverage, which begs the question, "What's considered catastrophic?" And something we can be sure statists will continually be redefining until it includes the common cold. What's wrong with people being responsible for their own health care, so others are not FORCED to support others? There is nothing wrong with voluntary charity dealing with those who've been unable to provide for themselves? Seems like many have so much faith in government, they believe it can outlaw dying of old age.
In response to:

Control Freaks

MoreFreedom Wrote: Nov 19, 2014 2:51 PM
Right. Another way of looking at it, is that that we'll have freedom, once people in the US quit asking government to take from others so government can take care of them. You can't have freedom unless you are willing to give it to others, and asking government to take from others isn't giving them freedom - it's taking their freedom.
Previous 11 - 20 Next