July 01, 2012
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
adults know that by now, though children still have to learn it.
(I am not old enough to remember the "free" lunches, but I do remember a joint
in Chicago called the Pickle Barrel, which offered "free" popcorn and dill pickles, both likely
to make you thirsty enough to buy another beer.)
So why do people think — or at least say — that there is this kind or
that kind of "free" health care?
It's the same principle. Someone, probably you, is paying for the "free" lunch or
that "free" health care.
For example, last week political consultant
was touting all the "free" health care benefits from ObamaCare on the
John Carlson show.
She's a smart woman, so she should know that those benefits are not free.
And you have probably heard the same claim from others, perhaps even from a journalist
When she made that claim about free benefits, I was left wondering, as I often am,
whether the person making the claim understands the
and is trying to fool listeners — or whether they don't understand something all
competent adults should understand.
Cross posted at
Jim Miller on Politics.
(During the 2008 campaign, an unfortunate woman drew much attention, and considerable
derision, for saying that she was going to receive many benefits after Obama was elected
— from Obama's "stash". That woman may not be an expert on the
federal budget, but she did understand that those benefits had to come from
Posted by Jim Miller at July 01, 2012
01:33 PM | Email This
1. Taxpayers need to think of it like this: You will be paying for around 40% of the U.S. adult population - those who pay no taxes - to dine at The Herb Farm, one of the most expensive restaurants in the U.S., while you go without or maybe brown bag it.
Liberals don't look at it as a free lunch - they look at it as a community pot luck: those that have throw theirs into the pot and everyone else eats.
They think (and I use that term very loosely) it's noble when actually it's punishing to those who contribute and humiliating (yes, even though they don't realize it's humiliating) to those who don't.
Until liberals realize they are throwing into pot from which they is not allowed to dine, they will never learn.
We need to stop banging against their refusal to learn and just let the proof of their failure speak to them.
3. PJ O'Rourke's quote comes to mind; "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it becomes free".
Jim: I don't know who Cathy Allen is or why I should care about what she says. You didn't post a transcript, so I have no idea of whether she was speaking carelessly or whether she really believes health care is free. I don't see how it matters.
I've never heard a serious policy discussion that claims the benefits of the ACA are free. If your point is that the ACA doesn't really provide free healthcare, then I will concede that to you. If you had some more substantive point to make, you've failed.
Here's an example from Obama himself:
"[Insurance companies] are required to provide free preventive care like checkups and mammograms, . . ."
And with a little searching, you can find an AP Q&A that talks about the "free" vaccines that ObamaCare provides for kids.
Jim: If that's all you have, I'm unimpressed.
Insurance isn't free, most of us know that. We're already paying much more than the rest of the developed world but we're not getting better outcomes -- so it's obviously not free. I have no problem if the government requires that the insurance I buy actually provides useful benefits. They already do that with other forms of insurance.
Your complaint is basically that Obama said "free" when he should have said "at no additional charge." Meh.
I understand that you don't like the ACA. I think that's mainly for ideological reasons, but maybe not. I just haven't heard anything more substantive from you. Folks who already agree with you on ideology will probably find this post persuasive. I just don't think anyone's going to change their mind because you've pointed out that healthcare is actually not free, even under the ACA.
7. Scottd: Your remark about "better outcomes" in the rest of the developed world is silly. You need to discuss health care with someone who lives in Great Britain, for instance, or any other country that has "evolved" into a single payer system . You might learn something about outcomes.
katomar: Why would I want to restrict myself to Great Britian? They spend less than half per capita than we do. Take a look at healthcare in France, Germany, and Switzerland.
I don't wish to debate this with you. My point is that just pointing out the healthcare isn't free doesn't make much of a point. If Jim wants to make a more persuasive argument, I'm all ears.
Nor does being deliberately obtuse... but leftists are good at that.
Since this scam is a tax (Gotta wonder why the White House moron had to lie about it so much if it was such a great idea) that means that the 50% who don't pay any tax now will be paid by those of us who are paying now... in addition to the taxes you fringe leftists are already forcing us to pay for your scams.
"Lose weight... go on food stamps!"
Odd, isn't it? The disasters that are Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, England and in health care, Canada seem to teach the left nothing. And, as we all know, we are doomed to repeat the disaster of socialism if we don't wise up and learn from it.
It's the conceit of communists and liberals everywhere: 'just because it hasn't worked ANYWHERE else doesn't mean I can't make it work here and now'
Someone should study their capacity for self-delusion. Maybe the self-delusion something in their brain chemistry can be isolated and marketed... to use against our enemies.
And my question is, if communism would be so great if only
we knew the best way to make it work... why haven't we? Really. We KNOW what caused ALL the failures, so why hasn't someone corrected them?
Oh. Could it be because no one can get past the end result of death, destruction and evil dictators? Could it be because there was ultimately NO freedom after the willing restraints of freedom? Could it be that FREEDOM is a basic human need?
Regardless of what they say, no, healthcare is not free under this new system. In fact, it's designed so that everyone who uses the healthcare system has to pay for it. That's why Republicans and the Heritage Foundation first proposed the idea of the individual mandate. Medicare changes in the 1980s required that any hospital receiving funds from the federal government be disallowed from turning away patients for lack of ability to pay. So people would show up knowing they could see a doctor without paying. The individual mandate was proposed (and advocated by economists like Milton Friedman) as a way of mitigating this "free-rider" problem.
I think we should take a lesson from Bill Clinton and welfare reform in the '90s. If a democrat president wants to take a Republican idea and make it his own, why stop him?
There is no free lunch. I think a lot of people, especially young people, who don't understand that government really has no wealth-producing activities of its own. It must tax away from the productive sector (the private sector) or borrow from others in order to finance its existence and continuance.
To me, it would be in the best interest of the government to encourage wealth creation by the private sector, but I don't really think our politicians (with the exception of those who are or lean towards being Libertarians) understand how important private wealth creation is. Private wealth creation is everything in a democracy.
Remember....it's not about healthcare, or food safety, or the environment, or the deficit, or global warming, or energy independence, or any of the other smokescreen issues the left chooses to embrace. It is about power, the power to control every aspect of our lives, the power to plant a Bolshevist jackboot into the back of every American's neck and grind his/her face into the dirt. Obongo, Reid, Pelosi and Co, by corrupt, unlawful legislation and by executive order, are now able to dictate policy on taxes, food supply, energy and medical care. And with these they have the power to control every critical area of our lives.
We have one chance to rid ourselves of these vermin. How will you vote in November?
re 7: "You need to discuss health care with someone who lives in Great Britain, for instance, or any other country that has "evolved" into a single payer system . You might learn something about outcomes."
Conservatives often rely upon anecdotal evidence to support their claims.
In the face of massive statistical proof that many countries have taxpayer supported healthcare that is cheaper and better than what we have, I always hear about the guy ar gal from (Canada, Britain, France, etc...) who says that they don't like their system because, blah, blah, blah....
This is not proof and is unconvincing except to someone who shares you prejudices.
I have yet to find a Leftist that has ever been willing to explore how one might go about actually achieving better outcomes without just throwing an entirely new and unwieldy Ponzi scheme at any given problem. ACA will have no better outcome than Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, the War on Drugs, Great Society Welfare, or any other ridiculously large government effort. Leftists love Statism. Success is neither a requirement nor a record for a Leftist.
It's a never ending stream of failures and wasted tax dollars. Imagine the world we would have if Leftists actually compared about success and merit instead of skin color and class.
Here is the NYT noting that today's youths are being mugged by reality.
It's a tough lesson to learn when you are in your 20s and you realize that all of the promises made by vacuous leaders like Pelosi and Obama are just a bunch of BS.
But better that these kids learn this now, than later in life.
Hope and Change!
Jim, this is one of my biggest complaints. It's not just "Free", but it also "lowers the cost of Health Care" which is another ruse. We all know that not only OUR health care costs are going to go up (thanks to the number of health care coverage mandates included in the law) but the money that will come out of MY pay check to cover someone else is going to go up as well. It's a double hit for me.
Remember what Obama said to get this monstrosity passed, that it was deficit neutral. Seriously, how many times do people need to eat his lies?
re 16: Recounting a list of threadbare straw-man arguments that the 'Leftist' must then dispose of one-by-one is another favored method of RIGHTIST's for deflecting, delaying and wasting everyones' time.
"NOT GONNA DO IT!" George HW Bush
re 18: You are forgetting about the savings that will be had through the erasure of Reagan mandated free emergency-room medical care and the concomitant lowering of rates by insurance companies.
The people who get free medical care through emergency room visits cost us all in higher premiums.
Riiiiighhht. So the solution is to let people sign up for insurance after they get sick. The Leftist always manages to find a way to take something that doesn't work, and make it worse, and more expensive for all.
Here's a novel idea. How about just having everyone pay for their own insurance as we do with cars, homes, etc. And do so in an open market without the interference and subordination to a large consortium of healthcare lobbyists that wrote and passed the ACA?
As with soda. Leftists fear a world in which Americans are allowed to make their own insurance choices and succeed or fail as they see fit. Because absent a nanny, who would be there to tell all of the victims to vote Democrat?
RE communism and re 7: "You need to discuss health care with someone who lives in Great Britain, for instance, or any other country that has "evolved" into a single payer system . You might learn something about outcomes."
Conservatives often rely upon anecdotal evidence to support their claims.
And who is the arbiter of what's merely anecdotal? The OWS crowd with their 'claims'? The legalize dope crowd with theirs? Pelosi's claims with regards to the Catholic Church (pardon my dismissive snort). Or is anecdotal whatever is convenient to YOUR narrative?
Anecdotal evidence adds up to a great big body of direct evidence... ESPECIALLY in regard to the glories of communism and Obamacare
It's good to be kommissar when there are so many stupid and easily manipulated proletariat, eh dopey?
Uh oh ... a direct question that requires a definitive answer... Run, dopey, RUN (pssst, do you take your cues from Homeland Security? ... OOPS, another direct question...
23. The left is brain dead when it comes to economics which is why Greece is what Greece is and why the Blue cities are bankrupt moneypits and why the entire US is headed for bankruptcy. They tend to make policy based on how they wish the world would work rather than how it does.
Interesting discussion on this thread. The regulars want folks to understand that the ACA must continue to be opposed. Their reasons?
Jim: Healthcare is not free! (noted)
Hinton: The UK spends much less per person than we do on a system that in no way resembles the reforms in the ACA -- and they have some problems.
Ragnar: Communism! FREEDOM!
saltherring: Jackbooted Bolshevik thugs!
JeffB: Leftists don't have any better ideas. (Would love to hear something workable from the right. Maybe something like Romneycare? Oops, not allowed to mention that in the GOP.)
You guys are already convinced, but I doubt you're going to persuade anyone else if that's all you have.
No one seems to focus upon the fact that Obamacare concerns health care insurance not the direct delivery heath care services by the government. In effect Obamacare inserts the government as the dominant middle man with regulatory powers between insurance companies and their insureds. As such nothing is free.
Worse, the government overhead cost is ~50%. Consequently, the public benefit from taxes paid to operate Obamacare is at best 50 cents of each tax or borrowed dollar, the exclusive sources of government revenue. Add to this cost of systemic fraud and mismanagement and it becomes apparent that we real are getting screwed.
scottd @ 24:
Anyone else with a brain should not need persuading, given the government's abysmal record with Social Security, Medicare and virtually any other "entitlement" program federal bureaucrats have concocted, mismanaged, corrupted and ultimately driven into bankruptcy.
Only the delusional left and idiots who believe in free lunches could possibly believe the government will somehow get it right this time.
saltherring: Got it. Folks who disagree with you are idiots. I can't think of a more persuasive argument.
BTW, Social Security isn't a free lunch and it is doing fine. People like you have been calling it a disaster from day one. My grandmother collected her SS checks for 20 years. My mother has been collecting for 18 years and, I hope, will continue for years to come. A slight bump in the payroll tax rate or tax base can keep it running indefinitely.
If you want to get rid of it, please encourage GOP candidates to run on that platform. I'm sure it will be a real winner.
scottd@27: "Social Security isn't a free lunch and it is doing fine."
Please define "doing fine". So where is the money coming from to payoff the IOUs it has been cashing in the last few years?
A fool's errand talking facts to a leftist, ITAVTCAGJ. They have their own version of reality. Truth is Dimocrats wrecked their own creation when they plowed the SS Trust Fund into the General Fund (LBJ), and passed (on separate occasions) legislation that allowed foreigners and others who never paid into SS to collect benefits (Carter and Clinton). And yet they use any opportunity to blame Republicans for stealing grandma's Social Security.
And, yes, scottd, anyone who believes in a free lunch is an idiot.
30. My grandmother collected her SS checks for 20 years. My mother has been collecting for 18 years and, I hope, will continue for years to come.
And exactly how much of all they collected for all those years did they actually contribute to it? I suggest everything over and above their contributions was THEFT from you, your children you grandchildren and their grandchildren.
You shouldn't be: it's despicable, Robin Hood.
Also for scottd@27: "A slight bump in the payroll tax rate or tax base can keep it running indefinitely."
So why did Obama and the Democrats push so hard for a reduction in the payroll tax rate this year (and last)?
I did. Read the next paragraph. But good on you to acknowledge that the ACA is not going to work. Everyone except dork and scottd seems to have gotten the memo that we can't service all of the liabilities we have now (pension obligations, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, bailouts for Blue States, and so on) let alone new ones. And it's not viable to simple increase taxes on a declining workforce, for the sake of more of the same.
If you are paying attention, you'd know that at least the GOP is talking about the magnitude of the liability. Democrats are not even willing to entertain a discussion, and instead have passed or proposed even larger entitlements.
It's only a matter of time before there is an electoral swing from the productive or those outside the Democrat patronage. A patronage, that will necessarily continue to decline.
While I agree that no one should be naive that government programs like SS and Medicare are self funded, your retort is just as naive. Politicians like to talk out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to the self funding issue. SS and Medicare was always and will always be government programs where the working force pays for benefits of the retired community. The funds come from the general budget and may or may not be offset by the revenues the programs receive via payroll tax.
The 2% temporary tax cut that reduced government revenues is just the same as the temporary tax cut for rich Americans via the Bush Tax Cuts. It is meant to spur the economy. The only difference is the target audience. One audience spends it immediately, the other audience "invests" it in the future (or so we are led to believe by the proponents of the latter tax cut).
All the revenue (or reduction of revenue) contributes to the bottom line of government operations and funds programs both things like SS and Medicare and Defense contractors who build equipment not requested by DOD, just to satisfy local senators and congressman's reelection bids.
I will take serious a politician that addresses both sides of the equation and not ones who only talk out of one side of their mouth. Wasteful, non-requested, bloated defense spending should be on the table just as much as SS and Medicare cuts, and revenues also need to be in the discussion. Revenues need to match expenses and expenses need to match revenues. No more wishful thinking that tax cuts will grow revenues and that sacred programs can't be cut.
tc@33: Talk about naive or is that just uninformed...
How is it that you say only the "rich" benefited from the "Bush Tax Cuts", now the "Obama Tax Cuts"? Since when is an annual income of $6000 the "rich"?
I find your class warfare talking points lacking.
"For example, last week political consultant Cathy Allen was touting all the "free" health care benefits from ObamaCare on the John Carlson show. She's a smart woman, so she should know that those benefits are not free."
She is a Democrat though and a political operative, just like Stephanopolous. Once again she lies and Republicans like Carlson still play be the Marquis of Queensbury rules and let the lie pass instead of calling her on her bullcrap. That's why he lost big to Gary Locke for Gov. in 2000. Nice guy, but not a smart politician.
That's why the Republicans are in dire danger of losing to Owebama in November. The Tea Party might be the edge they need, but I have a hard time stomaching squishy Republicans during the election season. McCain was that type of a candidate and the jury is out on Romney, but he was most formidable of a mediocre lot. Mr. Romney may be a nice guy too, and he is smarter as a candidate than McCain, but there's a long ways to go. He's also running against a known disaster and a wickedly dangerous incumbent.
36. Of course now we know the mandate is not a tax, it is a penalty. Mitt even says so.
What's the difference between a penalty and a tax ? The SCOTUS did not find one. Mitt's argument is not a political winner if he said that. His achilles heel is trying to defend Romney care. His advisors either need to be fired or change their stripes. No excuses and no reason for him to say it is not a tax.
He is too smart not to see this and he had better get some new advisors because that argument does not resonate well. The future of this country is at stake !
38. @37: But now the commerce clause can't be used to justify things that the Demorats want to do. We'll just have to find another reason to federally prosecute CA pot growers.
I am not sure what Tax Cuts you are referring to. I am referring to the constant battle over the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts for those making over $250,000 per year and the Buffet Rule disagreement going on for those making over a million a year. I am not talking about the middle class tax cuts that all sides agree on but are in jeopardy since the Republicans assistance on protecting those who make $250,000 or more a year and even stronger protection on those making a million or more a year. The Republicans are about to force a tax raise on all of us due to their stubbornness on the "rich" tax cuts. The Republicans are causing the "class" warfare you describe by their insistence against letting the top end TEMPORARY Bush Tax Cuts for those in the top brackets expire.
40. The Republicans are causing the "class" warfare you describe by their insistence against letting the top end TEMPORARY Bush Tax Cuts for those in the top brackets expire.
God, your ideological blindness is really rich.
How many references to the massive tax increase that is Obamacare do you need?
Do you even understand the magnitude of what President Downgrade has perpetrated on ALL of us, especially the poor with this boondoggle, with his failed stimulus, with his debt?
Really, you need to read something more than KOS and talking point dispatches from MoveOn.
You lefty's can't have it both ways: you can't bitch that "the rich" are holding their money and not spending it then bitch because you want to tax them for that same money.
Sucks to be a confused you, eh lefty's?
Yadda @ 41: Lack of care kills far more people than rationing, which is already taking place anyway, even if you have insurance.
Ragnar @ 40: I know you are a conservative, and as such, the truth doesn't matter as much as what you feel should be true, but check out the actual facts and figures:
We used the Treasury Department's four-year data on the revenue effects of large tax increases signed by Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton; along with CBO projections of the revenue effect of the mandate adjusted for its GDP projections during the mandate's first four years.
The mandate is tiny by comparison. Not, as Scott Walker warned, a "massive tax increase on the people of Wisconsin and America."
As others have noted, even if you include the sum total of all the revenue-raising provisions in the ACA -- and there are many taxes in it -- it's still smaller than the Reagan, Bush and Clinton tax increases.
tc@40: Again with the class warfare argument. Why should the ones already paying the lion's share be taxed more, but those paying nothing shouldn't have to kick in anything?
As I asked in another thread, how much of a dent would the "Buffet Rule" or phasing out of the Obama Tax Cuts on the "rich" or even confiscating all the "rich"'s wealth make to Obama's projected yearly deficits, much less the federal debt?
It's a spending problem, stupid!
44. Oops. That should have been tc@39.
45. The Republicans are causing the "class" warfare you describe by their insistence against letting the top end TEMPORARY Bush Tax Cuts for those in the top brackets expire.
Dear tc, please explain to us all what has happened to the state of California, Stockton CA, Detroit MI, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain now that they have taxed, taxed and taxed to the end result that there is simply no one from whom to extract more taxes.
You want the US to "tax the rich"! OK we'll we are indeed bigger than the state of California, Stockton CA, Detroit MI, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain and yep, we do have more "rich"... so it will just take the US a bit longer to head down the drain that the state of California, Stockton CA, Detroit MI, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain are circling.
But, I guess that's OK with you. I guess it's OK that your children and grandchildren will have no motive to succeed when any success will be to pay the debt you left them.
We anxiously await your solutions.
Nós nervosamente esperamos suas soluções.
Attendiamo ansiosamente le sue soluzioni.
Αναμένουμε εναγωνίως λύσεις σας
Aguardamos con preocupación sus soluciones
OOPS! Forgot France
Nous attendons avec impatience vos solutions.
And another question. tc... where in your continuum of tax everyone completely and throw it in the needy pot does CHARITY fall? When the government takes everything from everyone, WHO will remain to allow America to be the most charitable country in the world?
You might want to add 'How can you be so damned short-sighted?' to the list of questions I hope you have the courage to answer.
48. That is what the Tea Party is all about. Government responsibilities and lack thereof.
49. Liberalism's Biggest Lie
What is liberalism's current equivalent of "Of course I'll still respect you in the morning!," or, "The [welfare] check is in the mail"?* Without question it is that they only want the "rich" to pay their "fair share." You can waterboard a liberal, but you'll never get a specific definition of what constitutes the "fair" tax rate for "the rich" that isn't always "more than the rate they're paying now."
The big lie is that liberals only want to tax the rich alone, because even a fiscal dunce like Obama knows that complete confiscation of the wealth of the rich won't begin to come close to filling our fiscal hole. "Tax the rich" is always just misdirection for raising taxes on the middle class, where the real money is.
50. OWS and the One Millionth: Right Feelings, Wrong Target
I sympathize with the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. I feel their pain.
They are rightfully angry that a small group of people can control their lives and manipulate their freedom. They are right to object to a system that treats them as subjects. They are fully justified in their rage against those who would force them to do what they don't believe in.
The sad thing is is that the people the OWS people rage against aren't the people who in fact control our lives or deny our freedoms.
The 1% can't raise the taxes of anyone. The 1% can't force you to buy things you don't want. The 1% can't make you violate your religious beliefs. The 1% can't tell you how to live your life.
But the 0.000001%, the one millionth, can. The president plus the members of Congress and the Supreme Court who side with him are the one millionth, and they can do and have done all the things that OWS ascribes to the wealthy.
The wealthy can't just take money from us, but the the one millionth can; they can raise taxes anytime they like.
The wealthy can't force us to buy health insurance, or broccoli, but the the one millionth can.
The wealthy can't force us to violate our religious beliefs, but the the one millionth can.
In reality, the oppressors in America today are the the one millionth, not the 1%. It's the one millionth who make the rules that the rest of us have to follow. And if we don't follow those rules, we will be fined or imprisoned
51. November Is Coming.
Yes, Ragnar @ 50, the .000001 can control our lives and have chosen to do so. The Domocrat energy policy forces America to rely on oil from countries whose governments hate us (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela) rather than drill for our own abundant supply and/or build the pipeline from Canada.
The Food Safety bill passed into law last year grants the federal government the power to destroy your private vegetable garden and shut down small, organic farms, in the interests of food "safety" of course.
And Obongocare, as we know, will drive healthcare through the roof to all but welfare recipients and illegal aliens. The ultra rich will pay cash to private clinics while those who pay for the whole system will wait in lines behind illegals and indolents.
But all this means little given Obongo the Dictator has signed an executive order granting him the power to declare martial law anytime he chooses and take anything he wants from us anyway.
Sure glad you leftists like living in an oppressive oligarchy, because it's coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
Salt, you hit the nail on the head.
The republic is in peril.
And both our candidates for Governor are willing to accept Obamadon'tcare.
I am shocked. McKenna has bent over for the Marxist Democrats in an effort to be elected.
@53 Spare us the drama. Owebama must get deposed on November 6th. In order for that to happen, those who oppose the Healthcare Redistribution Tax must band together and vote for the only other candidate who can win - Romney. McKenna is clearly better than the alternative - he is the only candidate who can defeat Inslee. The choice is clear (even though it isn't the best possible candidate - it's clearly better and we have to live with it which beats the alternative).
He has always believed that the individual mandate is a tax. His lead advisor, Fernhstorm needs to take vacation until November 7th
Here's the thing: you lefty's want to get and 'give' "FREE" stuff - go ahead and keep voting liberal, Democrat and for Obama.
Just be honest enough - especially to yourselves - to admit that the "FREE" stuff is being pick-pocketed out of your own wallet, the wallets of your children, your parents, your grandchildren, your neighbors, your friends.
Just as sure as you believe Robing Hood was hero, he was in fact a THIEF. And that's who you're putting in power with votes.
HA! Robing Hood
A fortuitous and yet irrefutable typo!
If you read my post @33, I state "Revenues need to match expenses and expenses need to match revenues." This isn't saying I agree that more taxation is an answer to our budget crisis. It is saying both sides of the equation need to be addressed and any politician who thinks adjusting just one side (including just raising taxes without looking at expenses), is blowing smoke.
As for your list of countries, you may also want to consider the trouble Ireland is now in and it is a country that has been following Romney's prescription for several years now. So, just as you can point to countries that are failing with tax us to death agenda, one can also point to countries like Ireland that tried the tax cut us to oblivion approach and are also now failing. It gets back to my point. Balance in the approach is the best method. You can't just adjust one side of the equation.
59. Other people's money
Balance in the approach is the best method.
Name ONE entitlement recent liberals are willing to discuss? Hells bells even though Clinton took credit for welfare, he was dragged into it ... then used it for his own political purposes.
Privatize Social Security? "Grandma will starve!"
Reduce welfare? "Children will die!"
Cut Planned Parenthood? "Women won't get mammograms!"
Education funding? "Classes will be too big"
National Endowment of the Arts? "We must treasure the vision of "Christ in Piss""
PUHLEASE. They have an excuse against every proposed cut and a reason for every increase.
It's nice of you to attempt to scoot over the middle the fence, though. I'd bet it's painful.
60. Liberals/Progressives/Commies think that "freedom" is getting free stuff. Simple as that.
I have always been middle of the fence. It is folks here that have cast me as "left" because of who I supported and not to why I supported who I did in the last election (which was the Iraq war and foreign policy goals). While he didn't bring the "bacon" home for his state, I have always admired the late Bill Proxmire, from my state of birth, Wisconsin. I find Brian Sontag and his cross-over support for McKenna admirable in these days of polar isolation of parties. For the record, I do support McKenna for governor in this election and am leaning towards Koster in the first (my new district, after years in Norm Dick's district). If there was a viable third party candidate for President, I might consider, but the America's Voice process didn't produce one. Too bad Buddy Roemer couldn't garner enough support. Other races, I am still looking into. If I had to "pick" a party right now to promote/support, it would be the Modern Whigs, since they most closely fit my philosophy (I have stated this before -- I can't help that others here can't read and only base their opinions on where someone stands by who the do or do not support).
I'm sorry tc but "middle of the fence" to me means STRADDLING it. I'm a yes/no, right/wrong person. I cannot respect they mushy in the middle who bend with the wind. You have to stand for something or you simply stand for nothing and anything.
Pick an issue and take a stand!
Attention: ADULT CONTENT
So, I'm listening to my 23yr old arguing with a liberal online... evidently the liberal is (yawn) Bush bashing... so my son says: "I'd rather have Clinton back than have Obama because blowjobs are better than no jobs"
I about choked on my ice water.