I had a discussion this past week with a fairly “progressive” client on a wide variety of topics. Mostly cordial, of course. He was the client.
One of his positions was that access to healthcard should be a right, not a privilege. I took the position that while I agree that individuals should be given access to healthcare, it was just as moral to make sure our country was fiscally solvent if it was to take on the role of healthcare. To do otherwise would limit healthcare for all and simultaneously lead the USA down the road of fiscal ruin.
I fear for my country the last couple of years. I see the amount of spending from our government seen as a “right” by progressives. And if they can’t tax and spend, then at least they’ll spend and worry about taxing later. And before you jump all over me for being partisan, I include George W. Bush (and George H.W. Bush) and Barack Obama.
Whatever Aristotle might or might not have said, the flip side of establishing a “right” to medical care is that it also entails empowering the government to define the limits of that right.
I think he’s right on. While compassionately I care that all people receive full healthcare, I also compassionately care about the country we leave to our children, one that isn’t bankrupt. In order to provide “affordable” healthcare, the government will be forced to “limit healthcare to the lowest common denominator. That means cutting edge technology will no longer be used, which means future innovations will be canceled.
There are many good reasons to oppose letting the government into our healthcare decisions. Find some other, simple way if you must – a minimum guaranteed payment or tax credit or something. But if the government takes over healthcare, they will both bankrupt our country and hope we will “die quickly” as the Democratic representative Alan Grayson has been saying.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Rep. Grayson Says No Apology for ‘Die Quickly!’ Remark (blogs.wsj.com)
Kevin Hassett’s article is funny and sad. Sad becuse it’s true; funny because of his observations. Sample of funny:
The federal picture is so bleak because the Obama administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the U.S. I would imagine that he would be the intergalactic champion as well, if we could gather the data on deficits on other worlds. Obama has taken George W. Bush’s inattention to deficits and elevated it to an art form.
Sample of sad:
It takes years and years to make a mess as terrible as the California debacle, but the recipe is simple. All that you need is two political parties that are always willing to offer easy government solutions for every need of the voters, but never willing to make the tough decisions necessary to finance the government largess that results. Voters will occasionally change their allegiance from one party to the other, but the bacchanal will continue regardless of the names on the office doors.
To get into our current financial mess, we started with the idea that banks should loan money to people who couldn’t afford to pay them back. When banks balked, the US government bought the worthless loans. Now banks are happy, they can loan money to everybody.
This system flourished under George Bush, and collectively we happily spent our children’s future. When the system started to collapse in 2008, we spent more money to try and make it through the election cycle. It didn’t work.
Now our children are broke. Obama’s solution, then, is to also spend our grandchildren’s future. This is also unsustainable. We are spending money we have not earned, and selling IOU’s to China to pay for it. Eventually, China will not want to buy our IOU’s, and the value of the dollar will collapse. The Fed will be forced to raise interest rates to try to entice people to buy our IOUs.
Do we want the US to become a third world country? Is that our goal? At this point, I don’t care what the government wants to spend money on, I’m against it. I don’t want to pay for abortions in Africa or studying the drinking behavior of Chinese prostitutes. And I don’t want to spend so-called “Stimulus Package” money or pay for universal healthcare or credits to by housing or cars or energy efficient appliances. I don’t want the US government to suck money from our wallets via cap-and-trade or “taxing the wealthy.” I would be happy if Washington would just put the pens down and sat on their thumbs for a few years and did absolutely nothing.
Remember this: government does not grant freedom. Liberty is given to us by our Creator. Government can only pass laws which limit freedom.
I want to be free.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )
Obama’s first executive orders are about to gives us a hint what the next four years will be like.
Presidents long have used executive orders to impose policy and set priorities. One of Bush’s first acts was to reinstate full abortion restrictions on U.S. overseas aid. The restrictions were first ordered by President Reagan and the first President Bush followed suit. President Clinton lifted them soon after he occupied the Oval Office and it wouldn’t be surprising if Obama did the same.
Because obviously the biggest failure of the United States over the last four years is neglecting our responsibility in eliminating the lives of unborn minorities in impovershed nations. Kill them all.
Is that our new message of “Hope” and “Change” to the World? God help us.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
If the major news media has succeeded today in discouraging conservatives from voting, the trifecta will be complete – Legislative, Executive, and Media.
The blame for such a loss can be spread to many people. Let’s start at the top.
I like President Bush, and I threw my entire support behind him for the Iraq War. I think he is a good, honest President. But as a communicator, he failed. The left managed to brand him with a paint of hate, and Bush stoically didn’t respond. Terrible mistake. He also mistakenly believed he could appease the left with vastly expanded programs; Medicare, prescription drugs, No Child Left Behind, etc. Soon the spending of the Republicans put the spending of the Liberals to shame.
McCain reflects that belief that if we’re more liberal, liberals will like us. They don’t. And they can out-liberal us any day of the week. The real reason Republicans are losing is that once in power, they forgot they were the party of limited government. Just like the elder George Bush losing office because of his broken “No new taxes” pledge, the Republicans are being voted out of office because they are too liberal.
Americans won’t stand for the ultra-liberal policies about to be imposed on us, but by the time the Democrats are tossed out, the next incremental step toward a socialist nanny-state will be firmly in place. We’re about to lurch to the left -
But much of their agenda — the “card check” proposal to end secret ballots in union elections, the Fairness Doctrine to stifle conservative talk radio, liberal judicial nominees, trade restrictions, retreat from Iraq, talks with Iran — doesn’t require spending. And after 14 years of Republican control of Congress, the presidency, or both, Democrats are impatient. They want to move quickly.
They’ll be able to do this because they hold nearly fillibuster-proof majorities, a far left puppet president who will vote “present” rather than tackle hard issues, and an ecstatic liberal news media. Toss in the liberal court system they will immediately appoint, and conservatism will be a little-remembered philosophy confined to the flyover states.
Conservatives, we did this to ourselves by trying to out-liberal the liberals. I sure hope we learn the lesson this time. We only win when we hold to our conservative principles. We didn’t do that thel ast 4 years, and we’re about to pay heavily for it.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Georgia, once part of the Soviet Union, has become a strong ally of the US. Three quarters of their country voted to join Nato. That must gall Russia.
So they weighed their options, and decided to invade. Because it’s Russia, because they have so much of Europe’s energy supplies, because Georgia is so small, Russia knows we will do nothing except watch and complain.
This letter from the Georgia president, Mikheil Saakashvili, will document the historical and future significance of this invasion. And then he and his government will be replaced with former Russian KGB agents.
We are losing an ally and doing nothing except lobbing opinion articles at Russia.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Barrack Hussein Obama describes himself as a Christian and the New York Times is almost besides itself with glee. Notice the picture and how holy Obama appears.
I like Christians, I really do. I happen to be one. But those people that routinely exhibit their Christian faith are routinely trashed by the New York Times. George W. Bush, for instance, would never get a glowing NY Times article abut his faith. Instead, we get scare stories about upcoming theocracies and how important the separation of church and state is. So why does Obama get special treatment for his faith? If the New York Times trashes most Christians but praises Obama, then it’s likely Obama is not like the other Christians. My hackles of suspicion are raised.
I repeat my repetition: liberals are going to try to split the conservative Christian vote by portraying themselves as Christian. Conservative Christianity is bad (separation of church and state! we don’t want a theocracy!) while liberal Christianity is good (wow, Obama is practically a saint!) according to liberal media.
â€œBe strong and have courage, for I am with you wherever you go,â€ Mr. Obama said in paraphrasing Godâ€™s message to Joshua.
Now, I’m all in favor of liberals quoting scripture. In fact, I’m all in favor of liberals quoting the entire bible. I think liberals (and conservatives, for that matter) that selectively quote scripture to support their position ought to be challenged by scripture the candidate doesn’t like.
As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama is reaching out to both liberal skeptics and committed Christians. In many speeches or discussions, he never mentions religion. When Mr. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, does speak of faith, he tends to add a footnote about keeping church and state separate.
What I’ve seen in the news recently is more than just a challenge to church and state; it’s a downright hostility to any public policy that mirrors faith. The recent decision by the Supreme Court to uphold partial birth abortion – a decision Obama “strongly disagrees” with – was decided 5-4 justices. All the justices that upheld the ban had Catholic upbringing; those that voted against it did not. This same New York Times that praises the most holy Barack Obama also decries the influence of Catholics in the partial-birth abortion ban. As if any belief that a Christian might hold is automatically suspect, and Christians are OK only if they actively vote against Christian principle in order to demonstrate their progressiveness.
Color me unimpressed with the New York Times hypocrisy.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )
I’ve been playing with this idea for a while, and I’m giving it a shot today. If it turns out I don’t like this idea, I can always delete it later. :P (I’m going to edit this post as necessary to clarify the intent, so don’t be surprised when the wording changes.)
I want to start building a list of famous people, stores, mayors, whatever, that captures how they feel about Christians, and a similar page about how famous people feel about America. When somebody expresses their faith in Jesus Christ publicly, they’ve announced to the world that they are a disciple of Christ and called to share their faith. I think if you’re trying to support actors or stores or whatever that are delivering a positive Christian message, such a list might help you determine what store to shop in or what movie to see. Here’s the list on Where they stand on Christianity, and it also shows up under the Links on the Sidebar.
Likewise, you might want to avoid some movies or stores because they’re actively working against Christians. One does not get listed if they have some other faith (or no faith at all) but if they’re actively trying to stop Christianity, then I’ll add them to the list.
I’m making a similar list based on Where they stand on America. In each case, I’ll try to minimize the commentary and let the public figures own words speak for him or her. I’ve populated some of the names off the top of my head, but I’ll update the links as I get around to it.
I don’t want to be disparaging; just noting whether they have expressed an opinion one way or the other. In other words, a person so listed won’t mind that he’s listed under a certain category. The Dixie Chicks, for example, certainly wouldn’t mind being listed under a category called “Dislikes George W. Bush.”
What do you think? Good idea or a bad one?Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )
On the surface, that doesn’t sound so bad. The Left hates inequality. Nobody need be better or worse than anybody else.
Trouble is, enforced equality is socialism, communism. Instead of bringing people up from the bottom, equality is enforced by shackling the achievers. When you see a special tax on oil profits, opposition to school vouchers, and tax breaks, you’re seeing opposition to programs designed to make people equal.
Dennis Prager at Townhall has an excellent article on this, be sure to read the whole thing. Here’s a snippet:
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
From the 1930s to the 1950s, liberals and social democrats vigorously opposed communism. But the rest of the world’s Left, especially its intellectuals and artists, not only did not oppose communist governments, they were the greatest defenders of communism.
By the end of the Vietnam War (begun and prosecuted by liberals), however, most liberals abandoned anti-tyranny, anti-evil liberalism and joined the rest of the Left. Thus, when President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” the liberal world condemned him. The Cold War, once regarded as an epochal battle between freedom and tyranny, came to be regarded by liberals as an amoral battle between “two superpowers.”
Likewise liberals almost universally mocked President George W. Bush when he labeled Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, North Korea and Iran an “axis of evil.” It takes a mind that either has little comprehension of evil or little desire to confront it to object to characterizing three of the worst regimes in modern history as “evil.”
How else can one explain the Left’s enchantment with Fidel Castro, the totalitarian ruler of Cuba? Clearly his evil is of little consequence. What matters to people on the Left is that there is free health care and almost universal literacy in Cuba. Whereas non-leftists believe that it is far better to be illiterate but free, leftists believe that it is better to be a literate slave.
Today, this inability to either recognize or to hate evil is manifested in the liberal opposition to the war in Iraq. As I pointed out in a previous column, opponents of the war should be asked to at least acknowledge that America is fighting evil people and an evil doctrine in Iraq. But even that is difficult, if not impossible, for most people on the Left.
As noted above, everyone hates someone, and that includes people on the Left. The problem is that because they don’t hate evil, they hate those who oppose evil. That is how liberals went from anti-communist to anti-anti-communist. To paraphrase one of the greatest moral insights of the Talmud, those who show mercy to the cruel will be cruel to the merciful. So, George W. Bush, not the Islamic terror world, is the Left’s villain; life-embracing Israel is the Left’s villain, not their death-loving enemies; and religious Christians who note moral weaknesses within the Islamic world are the real danger, not the moral weaknesses within the Islamic world.
When Bush pushed for Harriet Miers, I balked. The Republicans are not only not acting like the majority party, but the few battles they win seem like they’re for the other side. The size of government balloons. From the lack of social security reform to the nomonation of Harriet Miers, I’m done giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. The Republicans are winning elections because they talk conservative. Then they forget to act on it.
Another conservative blows his lid today for the same reason.
Okay, I have had it.
Not a damned thing distinguishes the Republicans from the Democrats anymore…not a damned thing. “No Child Left Behind” in essence, and unconstitutionally, federalized education. The GOP-engineered federal prescription drug subsidy program for seniors was another huge and costly step toward total socialized medicine. The Administration’s response to recent natural disasters — here and abroad — establishes the premise of federalizing all local emergencies globally, and reducing the U.S. military into becoming the logistics wing of the International Red Cross.
And so on, and so on.
During George W. Bush’s first term, you could argue (I did) that his tougher foreign policy against Islamofascist terrorists distinguished him from the Democrats. But even that is disintegrating now. Many top Republicans, succumbing to PC critics and sinking polls, are turning tail and running from the war against the perpetrators of 9/11.
Politically, their effort to ape the Democrats won’t work, of course. Me-tooism never does. Voters will ask themselves: Why get our liberal welfare statism on the rocks, when the Dems offer it straight up? As a result, the GOP is going to be badly, and deservedly, chastened at the polls next time. (It already started to happen during this past week’s elections.)
But this leaves the glaring problem of where people like me — the lonely advocates of rational, principled individualism — are supposed to turn, politically.
For now, nowhere. (No, the incoherent Libertarian Party is not an option.)
Excellent reading thanks to a tip from Right Voices.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )
From the children’s book, “Captain Underpants, & the Perilous Plot of Professor Poopypants” by Dave Pilkey.
The evil Professor forces everyone to assume new
Use the third letter of your first name to determine your new first name:
a = snickle
b = doombah
c = goober
d = cheesey
e = crusty
f = greasy
g = dumbo
h = farcus
i = dorky
j = doofus
k = funky
l = boobie
m = sleezy
n = sloopy
o = fluffy
p = stinky
q = slimy
r = dorfus
s = snooty
t = tootsie
u = dipsy
v = sneezy
w = liver
x = skippy
y = dinky
z = zippy
Use the second letter of your middle name to determine the first half of your new last name:
a = dippin
b = feather
c = giggle
d = burger
e = chicken
f = barffy
g = lizard
h = waffle
i = farkle
j = monkey
k = flippin
l = fricken
m = bubble
n = rhino
o = potty
p = hamster
q = buckle
r = gizzard
s = licking
t = snickle
u = chuckle
v = pickle
w = hubble
x = dingle
y = gorilla
z = girdle
Use the third letter of your last name to determine the second half of your new last name:
a = butt
b = boob
c = face
d = nose
e = hump
f = breath
g = pants
h = shorts
i = lips
j = honker
k = head
l = tush
m = chunks
n = dunkin
o = brains
p = biscuits
q = toes
r = doodle
s = fanny
t = sniffer
u = sprinkles
v = frack
w = squirt
x = humperdink
y = hiney
z = juice
Thus, for example, George W. Bush’s new name is Fluffy Chucklefanny.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 14 so far )
« Previous Entries