MP Revolt Charles and Joel seem of like minds. They seem to think that all of us Church going Conservatives are actual closet Sadists who are out to cause suffering... Here are Charles' thoughts and my response.
"Too Call It a revolt Against the Elites
Is true but completely misleading. If you understand why the middle and lower classes have been economically and culturally eviscerated over the past 40 years, you supported Sanders. If the Republican base understood, there’d be a majority for a true populist movement inclusive of all ordinary folks regardless of skin color.
But for 40 years, the Republican base has had its existential fear and atavistic hate stoked by the Republican elites and the establishment media against everyone except those who actually are screwing them. They revolted against the Republican elites not because the elites failed for 40 years to make their lives better, but because the elites promised for so long that they’d make others suffer, and they haven’t come thru. The base voted for Trump not because they actually have any conception of what will result from his economics, but because they believe that he’ll keep his promise to truly cause others to suffer.
Since Trump is as economically elitist as they come, their condition will continue to decline. But if he does keep his promise to make others suffer, all will be good." Charles
"Who do these folks want to suffer and in what way?
Now I do agree that many Republicans disagree with the government policies that transfer negative consequences from the person making poor choices to other tax payers. Some easy examples are:
- a single Mom who has 3 children from 3 different Men receiving money from tax payers
- people who failed to learn in school or are unwilling to take on harder jobs receiving higher "minimum wages" that must be paid by all Americans and/or receiving Medicaid from the tax payers
- public employees making more than a market based wage, having high job security and few performance requirements at the expense of the tax payers.
I don't think anyone is interested in seeing people suffer. But there is a real desire to transfer these personal consequences back to the individuals and off the backs of the tax payers. Please remember that tax payers are people too." G2A
9 comments:
"The examples you cite are "easy" because they are cultural stereotypes. I can hardly believe we're still arguing about the same topics as the 1960's.
Sure, there are plenty of single mothers from 3 different men. But AFDC ended 20 years ago. What public largesse are these single moms living on? Food stamps? A program that's directly linked to farm subsidies,which few people I hear ever complain about.
People who "failed to learn in school" or "unwilling to take on harder jobs". Have you ever worked at a McDonalds or other fast food McJob that fails to pay a living wage, a wage that an adult can support themselves or a family on? And "easy"? What's a "harder job" anyway? They used to say "digging ditches" but that job hasn't existed since, well, probably the 1960's or before. I know people who try to live on Social Security Disability which the public believes in rife with fraud. Most of the people who object to this would never accept the humiliation and degradation that comes with living on so meager an amount. Plus, you have to be disabled and unable to hold a steady job because of your disability.
Public employees making more than a "market based wage. Who are these people? " Teachers? University professors? University football coaches? What kind of public employees? what are "market based wages" these days anyway?
Not all, but there are too many who either like to hear about suffering or just don't want to think about it. They've convinced themselves that this is not their problem so "don't bother me." I know many kind and generous conservative people who would share their shirts with a suffering person. But these people fail or refuse to see these problems as systemic and solvable over time with government action. These same people shrug their shoulders when a VP Dick Cheney awards his multinational government contracting corporation a no-bid contract. It's not about the money: it's about enforcing a code of personal morality." Jon
"Agreed. It is sad that after 50+ years and trillions of dollars spent in the war on poverty, Single Parent households are at an all time high, which translates directly to more poverty and difficulties in raising successful kids. We definitely did something wrong... And though the money is in the "farm bill", it should be called the food bill since 75+% of the bill goes to children and families.
Please remember that Conservatives are fine caring for the truly needy and disabled, though you are correct that they would like to ensure zero fraudulent cases exist. And if there is a way to get them off disability, they want it to happen.
As for McDonald's jobs, I once worked there for a year. The reality is that many of those types of jobs are supposed to be entry jobs and / or temporary. And if not the capable dedicated people pursued the Supervisory / Management path. Do you truly want an entry level McDonald's job to support a single parent household?
And yes there are still many construction, truck driver jobs, fork lift operator, etc jobs that require good dedicated employees with common sense.
If you don't understand the amount of waste that exist in the Public Sector, I will not be able to convince you.
As for systemic, yes the war on poverty was systemic and created a lot of dependent people who make poor choices. Hopefully something will change."G2A
This is just elaboration on typical liberal cant-- that if you do not believe as they do (that the government can give everything to everybody without first taking it from somebody else) then you are either stupid or evil and most likely both.
Remember one of my favorite sayings:
"Companies who have Unions and the challenges associated with them probably deserved them..."
The GOP had decades to do something / anything about high insurance costs for low income and pre-existing condition people and THEY FAILED MISERABLY...
ACA had it's flaws but it was a step in the right direction... People being free to choose to carry no or poor health insurance is not an acceptable option in a country where the public / system has to bear the cost when they get seriously injured or ill. (ie no one allowed to die in street)
Now the burden is on the GOP to do better... This will be amusing.
As I said before, my good health insurance plan for the 5 of us apparently costs ~$20,000/ yr. (Me: $6,000 Company: $14,000) And beyond that I paid out ~$3,500 in co-pays / deductibles. This not an option for many many Americans with family incomes of <$50,000...
Your logic seems to have one terrible flaw: "People being free to choose to carry no or poor health insurance is not an acceptable option in a country where the public / system has to bear the cost when they get seriously injured or ill."
WHY is it our collective responsibility to insure those who irresponsibly choose not to have it for themselves, and should they not have that freedom? MY health insurance plan cost me $100/month, and my employer picked up another $280, but we all lost our plans that we liked and wanted to keep. Do NOT tell me Obamacare is "a step in the right direction." Utter and complete failure, both personally and in general. The status quo ante would be an improvement.
Now that is a simple answer...
Since our society has decided that NO One should die for lack of care. Our society will pay the cost of their poor / risky choice. Be it in banks / hospitals charging us more when a bankruptcy occurs. We having to pay higher premiums because the free treatments being baked into the system's costs. Government paying to maintain entities like the Hennepin county medical center.
Just like retirement, disability, medicare, unemployment and liability insurance on cars... Society needs to force the individuals to carry some minimal amount of insurance so society does not get stuck with the bill.
You are sounding like a Liberal in that you seem fine with people making poor decisions and transferring the bill on to the tax payers... :-)
You are the one suggesting that society should not be subsidizing irresponsibility-- people having "more kids than they can afford," and I agree with you. But you make the same mistake as Obamacare supporters in suggesting that the answer is subsidized health insurance. Insurance is NOT health care! In fact, more and more doctors are refusing those with government health insurance because of all the strings and price fixing attached to it. We previously had an exception in that anybody could get health care in the emergency room, and many chose to take advantage of that. Obamacare was supposed to "fix" that and the problem is now WORSE. Good intentions do not make good policy. We used to have charity hospitals, high-risk pools for pre-existing conditions, Medicaid for anybody with the need, and Obamacare negatively affected all of those things, as well as the 85% of us who already HAD plans we liked and wanted to keep.
The big problem with liberals and things like Obamacare is that reality simply does not cooperate and they continue to believe in their fantasies until it totally fails, at which point they decide it was all the Republicans' or conservatives' fault. It's really tough, because O'care was passed, as you recall, without a single Republican vote, but I guarantee they will try.
Well I can not wait to see the GOPs great solution !!! :-)
Why wait? Step 1 is to repeal O'care, which will be a tremendous and immediate improvement. After that, the elements of the "replacement" are well known-- insurance across state lines, unlimited HSAs, return Medicaid to the states as a block grant, and malpractice reform, transfer of the tax deduction for corporate health insurance to the employee.
Post a Comment