Sunday, August 16, 2009

How Much More Reform Can We Afford?

"The real distinction is between those who adapt their purposes to reality and those who seek to mold reality in the light of their purposes." ~ Henry Kissinger

The preceding quotation perfectly describes the the difference between thinking people and Liberals in general.

In my last post's comment thread, Liberal Jim asked a question of me and some of my commenters. He wrote: "Do you have private health insurance today?"

As I am sometimes wont to do, I began to type out a response to his question, but it became so long, I decided to create a new post to answer his question:

Jim, it's none of your business, but I'll answer your question:

No, I don't have health insurance. Private or otherwise.

I can't afford health insurance.

But, do you know why I can't afford it? Because the Federal government's harebrained intrusion into my business has reduced my income by 2/3 of what it used to be.

First, they passed a law which severely limited how my business could market to their prospects, and then, after I changed vocations to improve my situation, along comes Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd, and Obama to cut everyone else's income by forcing banks to make bad loans, and by so doing, pull the country into a recession.

Just about every business' success in America depends on customers ability to pay for their products or services, and so does mine.

If customers can't pay, I can't make money.

Plus, the Federal Government's over-regulation of the Health care and the pharmaceutical industries has caused health care costs to skyrocket.

And now Obama is pushing this ridiculously expensive so-called health care reform, in which I will have to pay taxes from my already weakened paycheck to pay for.

(Graphic by yours truly)

Health care is not the government's business. They have no right to take over the health care industry.

Government has already ruined my career by sticking it's nose in where it doesn't belong, and now it's trying to take what I have left by intruding further into my private life.

All because Obama wants a Marxist "utopia" in which everyone has an equal share in all the resources, whether they deserve it or not.

And, which has been proven beyond a doubt, is impossible to sustain.

Oh, except for him and his cronies. They will be the only ones with any power, money, or freedom. Power to control every aspect of your private life. Freedom to oppress the people further.


You seem to be overly concerned with the income of others (Such as Health Insurance CEO's). Why aren't you concerned about your own income? Or with how Obama intends to increase his?

No, Jim, I don't have health insurance.

I don't want it if it has to come with so great a price.

25 comments:

Jim said...

"forcing banks to make bad loans, and by so doing, pull the country into a recession."

Well, this is a LIE, proven LIE, and you keep using it. So it basically shoots to hell everything else you say here. Why would anyone believe anything after you start off with this proven LIE. If you have read ANYTHING by a reputable source on the subject, you would know that this is a LIE.

"All because Obama wants a Marxist "utopia" in which everyone has an equal share in all the resources, whether they deserve it or not."

Another falsehood. I think you are living in the wrong country, since you obviously don't believe that it works for you anymore.

Mark said...

It's not a lie.

Just because you and the Kos Kiddies don't want to believe it, it doesn't make it a lie, Jim.

Jim, Obama himself said it, out of his own mouth. "I think if we spread the wealth around, it's better for everybody"

"Spread the wealth around", Jim. If that isn't a Marxist idea of utopia, what is?

Jim said...

That isn't. Spreading the wealth around doesn't mean we divvy it up equally to everyone.

Reagan's trickle down economics is all about spreading the wealth-incenting the wealthy to create more jobs for the middle and lower classes. That means spreading the wealth, pure and simple. It didn't work so well, as we've seen middle and lower class incomes stagnant while the wealthy get very wealthy.

But the intent is there: trickle down is spreading the wealth.

Remember "A rising tide floats all boats"? Same thing.

Do either of these conjure up a Marxist utopia? Ask Ronnie?

Mark said...

Jim Obama is a student of Saul Alinsky. When he says spread the wealth around, he means Marxism and you know it.

Does it hurt when you twist yourself like a pretzel to spin the facts?

I'm about to re-enable comment moderation delete all your comments. Your unique kind of stupidity stinks up my otherwise respectable blog.

You must love swimming in Africa since you spend so much time in Denial.

Joe said...

Jim: It is NOT a lie. If you don't know that it is not a lie, you are just plain short sighted and uninformed. It harkens back to the Community Reinvestment act which REQUIRED lending institutions to make a considerable number of loans to minorities and other low income people, knowing full well that they could not pay them back.

The LIE is that it is a proven LIE. It not only is not proven, it could only be defended by a dishonest, or totally uninformed person.

When the Bush administration TWICE went to Congress to ask them to reinstate and strengthen banking reforms, they were told by the likes of Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd and others that there was nothing wrong, that more regulation was NOT needed and refused to go along.

That happened, whether you are smart enough to have researched it or not.

It led to the housing bubble, and ultimately to the housing bubble bursting which led us into the recession.

Mark started off with something that was NOT a proven lie. Indeed it is a proven TRUTH.

See, Jim, truth is not true because you say it is, truth is what actually happened.

Just a LITTLE research, looking for what actually happened would have led you to the truth, but, as with most liberals, you do not care one whit about the truth, all you want to do is attack someone, anyone...and so you attack conservatives with lies, innuendo, and total ignorance.

As for Reagan's "spreading the wealth": there is a VAST difference between using the economic forces of a free market system to allow wealth to be spread around on the wings of productivity and the confiscation of wealth by the government to force its spreading.

But I doubt very seriously whether the synapses in your brain can make the appropriate connections to know the difference.

Jim, effective dialog does not say "...this is a LIE, proven LIE..." without some modicum of factual information noted to back it up.

We are to accept your proclamation with no statistics, no evidence of any kind and on historical perspective of any kind.

That smacks of sophomorism and is not worthy of the bytes it took to display it on this page.

Jim said...

"I'm about to re-enable comment moderation delete all your comments. Your unique kind of stupidity stinks up my otherwise respectable blog."

Knock yourself out. This blog will then be nothing more than a mutual masturbation society. Enjoy being "otherwise respectable".

Lone Ranger said...

Jim is the poster boy for tolerant, even-handed, loving liberals.

This would be a MUCH better country overall if we didn't have to throw half our income into the government black hole. Families would be able to afford necessities and even luxuries. One parent could stay home to rear children. And most of all, the government could not afford to do the 95% of things it has absolutely no business doing.

Jim said...

LR, perhaps you should find a country more to your liking.

LL said...

Jim, how old are you?

Just curious.

Did you ever serve your country under arms? Ever in combat? How much have YOU personally sacrificed for your country?

Do you work or do you go to school full time? Somebody else pay for the schooling?

In "Dreams of My Father", BHO states that his idols growing up were Marxists. He's where he is and he's taking his shot at putting his philosophy into place.

Lone Ranger said...

This country is perfectly to my liking, despite liberals trying to turn it into North Korea.

Mark said...

Jim, perhaps you should find a country more to your liking. Cuba, for instance. Or North Korea. They have Marxist governments. And you see how "progressive" they are.

Joe said...

Mark: I have linked to this article in my FEATURES section.

Z said...

mark, you make such sense.
We'd all be so much more prosperous if government would get the H out of our lives. Where's health care in the constitution, anyhow?

I hear HOlland allows ladies to get mammograms at 50 and then only pays every five years for others...that's the healthcare Obama's raving about since yesterday. Tomorrow, it'll be Cuba.

hang in there, friend......people are waking up.
(Which finger is that Obama's pointing at himself in the picture?!:-)

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

You would have helped yourself had you provided an example of what you consider a reputable source that could debunk Mark's claims.

I would have to agree that your use of trickle-down as a means of spreading the wealth is a poor example with which to make your case. Everyone wants to see the most people prosper. The issue is how people become prosperous. Trickle-down is the better way compared to confiscatory taxation. Trickle-down allows for more people having more opportunity to grab. It does not necessarily mean that everyone's wages to will automatically rise immediately. But I would wager that that would happen if tricle-down policies were allowed to really take hold. It wasn't.

Cameron said...

Jim, when I read your very first comment on this thread I couldn't help but think about every time President Obama has promised that the health care plans in Congress won't force you onto the public option - knowing full well it will. "So it basically shoots to hell everything else you say here. Why would anyone believe anything after you start off with this proven LIE."

As for the affordability of private health insurance - no one has argued or is arguing for the status quo. Simply bashing what we have now is not a reason to support the reforms currently in Congress.

dmarks said...

I wondered who you were, Mark. I figured I had to come visit after Capt. Fogg on Swash Zone attacked us interchangably, and thought we were the same person.

Jim: The federal government DID encourage Fannie Mae/etc to make loans to undeserving people. This is widely regarded by everyone as what set off the housing meltdown. And the recession. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in fact departments of the Federal Government, so at the root of the recession you have big government and regulation causing it.

dmarks said...

Trickle-down worked very well, in terms of prosperity for those who were not rich, more tax revenue coming in, and general prosperity.

The Dems answer has been to cut off the trickle, and the country ends up suffering a drought of sorts.

"It didn't work so well, as we've seen middle and lower class incomes stagnant while the wealthy get very wealthy."

The number of middle class people grew. In particular, the size of the black middle class grew a lot large in the Reagan years.

"But the intent is there: trickle down is spreading the wealth."

The Reagan answer has this "wealth spreading" resulting from people having more control over their own lives an economic affairs, and they feel confident risking it in business ventures which helps everyone. An environment where everyone ends up working to mutual advantage.

The leftist version of "spread the wealth" involves the government taxing the hell out of everyone, keeping the lions share of the wealth, then giving out a miserly "trickle" of it out. But it is all about the rich and powerful (government) getting more rich and powerful.

Jim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim said...

"You would have helped yourself had you provided an example of what you consider a reputable source that could debunk Mark's claims."

I've debunked this one more times than you can count.

"confiscatory taxation".

"the government taxing the hell out of everyone"

You mean going from 35% to 39% top bracket only?

August 18, 2009 10:29 PM

Trader Rick said...

mARK, i DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD DISABLE jIM'S ABILITY oops to post here. As hard as it is to read his anti-American disgusting idiocy, still it serves as a stark reminder to us all, as if we needed it, how incredibly shallow and bizarre these nut jobs are, and reminds us there are too many of these over educated boobs running our country. Besides, I enjoy calling him names.

Cameron said...

Jim,

It's not rational to think that's the only tax increase we'll see when we've quadrupled the deficit in one year. In fact, it was I think two weeks ago that the administration sent out Larry Summers and Timothy Geitner to lay the groundwork for breaking the president's promise to not raise taxes on anyone making under $250k. The debts we're incurring today will have to be repaid.

Lone Ranger said...

Time to post my undeniable truths about liberals list. See how many apply to Jim.

1. Always expect the worst from a liberal and you will never be surprised.

2. Never try to reason with a liberal. They disregard any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs.

3. You can always tell what liberals are up to by what they accuse you of doing.

4. Liberals don't debate, they argue.

5. Liberals have no moral standards.

6. Liberals feel, conservatives think.

7. Whenever you don't understand a liberal's motives, just look for the money.

8. Liberals cannot be embarrassed. They lack the gene to blush.

9. The Liberal creed is, "Do as I say, not as I do.

10. Liberals get older, but they never get smarter.

11. There are no honest liberals. If they were honest -- especially to themselves -- they would not be liberal.

12. A liberal's business is nobody's business, but everyone's business is a liberal's business.

Mark said...

Jim writes, "Reagan's trickle down economics is all about spreading the wealth-incenting the wealthy to create more jobs for the middle and lower classes"

No, it isn't. It is all about enabling the middle and lower classes to earn their own wealth, through personal responsibility, without stealing it from those who are already wealthy through inequitable taxation.

Obama's plan uses the old Robin Hood "steal from the rich, give to the poor" strategy.

The very opposite of trickle down economics.

Jim said...

"Obama's plan uses the old Robin Hood "steal from the rich, give to the poor" strategy."

I'd love to see you provide a specific example of this.

Cameron said...

How about the promises to not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250k, coupled with promises to raise taxes (a lot) on those making more.

Not that the first promise will be kept mind you, but it is what he said.