Who Cares? Not This Guy!

I’m just going to put this out there …

Related to the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that our caring Congress is declining to fund in their (wealthy-favored) tax plan, Sen. Orrin Hatch, Republican from Utah, said this:

I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves, won’t lift a finger and expect the federal government to do everything.

In reality, most of those who benefit from this program work two jobs to make ends meet, attend night classes to improve their skills, and do whatever else they can to keep their families fed and healthy.

In one state alone, discontinuing this program means about 60,000 children will be losing their insurance early next year because their families do not qualify for Medicaid and are unable to afford private coverage.

But hey … Orrin and his buddies’ pockets will be full and that’s all that really matters, right?

Advertisements

58 thoughts on “Who Cares? Not This Guy!

  1. Don’t forget that his belly is full, and…he has health care for life. FREE. He doesn’t have a hard time with that I’d bet.

    Let them eat cake attitudes from our gov’t. Seems that didn’t work out so well the first time if I recall correctly.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. So this is what a pro-life stance is? Move heaven and earth to protect a zigot but deny even basic healthcare to a living child? I just do not understand the idea of giving the fetus personhood in their new tax scam, oh sorry , reform, yet then deny them a chance at a good life. o lunch programs, no child care programs, no healthcare, no education funds…because wealthy donors demand their huge paybacks. Hugs

    Liked by 4 people

  3. What he said in context:

    “Nobody believes in the CHIP program more than I. I invented it. I was the one who wrote it. Kennedy came over and became the one who helped put it through.”

    “Of course I do. I don’t think I do everything on my own here. I’ve got to have good Democrat friends to do it. I don’t think you do either. But let me tell you something. We’re going to do CHIP, there’s no question about it in my mind. It has to be done the right way. But we — the reason CHIP is having trouble is because we don’t have money anymore. We just add more and more spending and more and more spending, and you can look at the rest of the bill for the more and more spending. I happen to think CHIP has done a terrific job for for people who really needed the help. I have taken the position around here my whole Senate service. I believe in helping those who cannot help themselves but would if they could. I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves, won’t lift a finger and expect the federal government to do everything.”

    “Unfortunately, the liberal philosophy has created million of people that way who believe everything they are or ever hope to be depends upon the federal government rather than the opportunities that this great country grants them. I’ve got to say I think it’s pretty hard to argue against these comments, because if you look it over, for decades now, we have been spending more than we have been spending more than we having, building more and more federal programs. Some of which are lousy, some of which are well intended, and of which are actually good like the CHIP program. We’re going to get CHIP through. There is no question about that. I’m going to see that it gets through.”

    Like

    • Thanks, Ron. It all sounds so sweet and nice and shows what a supportive guy he is. Gosh. I really misjudged him … and all the other Repugs that want to cut out “entitlement” programs (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, etc.) so they can “balance” the budget in their favor.

      I’m just so uninformed. *hanging my head in shame*

      Liked by 3 people

      • Entitlements are not part of the Constitution, Nan. While I disagree with for even having introduced the program, quoting him out of context is still wrong.

        Like

        • Ron , neither is heavy defence spending and tax cuts / huge breaks for the wealthiest and the corporations already floating high on some of the highest stocked money of all times. Yet the republicans push this so they can cut programs that help the poor and help people advance to a better life. It is simple really, as senator Grassley said, he thinks the poor spend all their money on booze, women, and movies. It does show the majority of republicans in congress have disdain and contempt for the lessor incomes, working poor , and those not making donations to them. Hugs

          Liked by 3 people

          • Scottie, I’m neither a Republican, nor a Democrat. I’m mostly apolitical; but if pressed to decribe myself I would identify as a classical liberal — a stance that now labels me as an ‘alt-right’ supporter amongst most progressives. Either way, neither party’s representatives adhere to the Constitution they’ve sworn to uphold, so a pox on both their houses.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Ron I was not aligning you with a party, just responding to your statement about entitlements. I add the rest to show what I see as a great contempt now on the part of wealthy congress people who have made theirs on the backs of the taxpayers and are set financially, made rules that shelter themselves from legal liabilities they force the people of the country to face, and take more taxpayer monies to pay their victims off when they get caught. It was not a statement about you personally.
              However I do not see the parties as equal. I dislike that when I hear it greatly. The progressives have sold out some of the road, but not all of it yet. The republicans have sold all of the road and turned it into a privately owned toll road, a fee the poor pay only. One needs only look at the difference between the parties on their members accused of sexual misdeeds of all kinds. The democrats are belatedly trying to clear the deck of the feces, while the republicans are trying to haul more in and preventing the cleaning out of others. How is Rep. Blake Farenthold still in congress? Why did the money have to come from taxpayers for his settlement, he is worth millions?

              Rep. Blake Farenthold used taxpayer money to settle a sexual harassment claim brought by his former spokesman

              https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/01/blake-farenthold-taxpayer-funds-sexual-harassment-274458
              This is again a contempt and arrogance I can not stomach any more. Enough . I know people who will die if cuts to medicare are enacted, same with medicaid. People paid into social security and it doesn’t provide enough to live above the poverty line where I live in southern florida and republicans in congress want to cut it further. I know people now who make a choice between needed medications and food. My neighbor died because she and her husband couldn’t afford the health care she needed on their social security and medicare, and the doctors wouldn’t treat her without more money. SO yes Ron, there is a difference in parties and I will fight to make the democrats progressive again or I will fight to supplant them. But I have no respect for the republican party. Have a great weekend. Hugs

              Liked by 2 people

            • Scotty,

              In his inaugaural address, Jeffferson rightly noted, “Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.”

              He advocated for “a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”

              Your example illustrates why I support a small government, as the founders originally intended. It grants political opportunists fewer means to seize control of the financial levers.

              As to the meat of your argument (i.e., the federal budget), the federal government is on a collision course with a hard economic wall in which entitlement payments exceed federal revenues sometime around 2032, which is 20 years earlier than the year 2052 originally anticipated in 2010.

              This is bad news for all the millions of baby boomers heading off into retirement, because the money they were expecting to receive simply won’t be available, and younger generations won’t be able to carry the financial load.

              You can blame previous adminstirations for not having had the forsight to invest the monies needed for the eventual payout, but the bottom line is this: at some point in time, hard choices will have to be mad, and .if government spending isn’t brought under control now, that date will arrive even sooner.

              Like

            • Again we totally disagree Ron. The problem is not that the government spends its money on the people, it is the legislators in both federal and state level giving tax funds in cuts and breaks to those who do not need them. Every measure of public good was well funded with enough money when the corporations paid a much higher tax. Countries overseas that tax higher than we do to provide for the good of the people in the country, to provide safety nets and things like health care and have much higher standards of living. Those like our country that rob the treasury to give to those who do not need it and business with record profits have lower standards of living.
              I am not concerned if the founders wrote that people should eat cheese while standing on one leg. The fact is the document called the constitution was written by educated men of elite class who were versed in their times. They were not blessed with clairvoyance nor should their works be thought of as in stone. They knew they could be wrong that is why they built in a way to change what they wrote, to keep it current with the changing needs of the country. Why not quote current scholars, there are some on both sides of the issue, but they are more relevant than the founding fathers writings and thoughts. My favorite on the economy and how to handle taxes is Robert Reich. He clearly shows how to grow the economic base and to increase the economic growth of the country by giving money to those who need to spend it to buy things, like the poor and working poor. As Mark Cuban said on a TED talk he could only buy so many jeans and tee shirts, he doesn’t need a tax cut or to be given more money from the government, but if he was selling things he would want a lot of people to get the ability to buy them.
              One last example on spending.
              I live in florida. I was here when lawton Chiles was governor. He left the state a huge surplus. We could have had it all, education, programs , healthcare for poor. But in came Jeb Bush right after him. Ole Jeb’s first act was to give huge tax cuts and breaks, gave all the money to business. OH shit, now the state is having budget problems so they privatised things like unemployment making it impossible to get help for a job. Services for the poor and working poor were slashed. The employment offices went from a full staff with desk and resources to one employee in our area. That employee was the security guard watching the computers as now the office was one large room, with computer terminals on one wall, you came in , went to one, signed on and looked for a job. Most people needing work couldn’t even handle the computers and there was no one to help them. But it got worse. After many state and local cuts, two years ago another round locally of tax cuts were pushed through by the republicans. During the campaign to “lower your taxes” they bragged that they could do it, jobs would soar and the money would flow in. No cuts to any services, keep all the police and patrols, keep the fire stations…no cuts to services. Well guess what. Right after it passed it was discovered did not work that way and now they had a budget hole. SO they slashed police patrols, got rid of fire stations. Insurances on homes and property skyrocketed. Government is needed to take care of the people and regulate business and corporations. There is nothing wrong with a large government that works for ALL the people. It is better than an small government working for the very wealthy. One of the very biggest entitlements is the military industrial complex. It needs to be slashed. Again then there would be more money for the programs need by the people. Military spending is sacred to republicans , so cut what keeps people alive first. The biggest problem with that is the military people do not get the increases in moneys, that goes to big corporations selling to the military. Wierd way to serve the people who elected you.
              Industry, business and corporations have to make money. They have no conscious. Boards and executives in charge by law must do all they can to maximise profit. So they won’t reign in their worst natures. That requires a strong government to do. Be well. Hugs

              Liked by 1 person

            • Excellent, Scottie! The real-life examples you shared sum things up extremely well.

              To me, this is part of the problem. It’s easy to be an idealistic defender of one side or the other (or something in-between), but until a person gets down in the trenches and sees/learns what’s really happening, it’s just so many words.

              Liked by 2 people

            • Scotty, the reason the Constitution –i.e. the supreme law of the land — contains no provision for public welfare spending is because the founders knew there are no bounds to government spending once such programs are instituted. Name one government agency that fulfilled its mandate by solving the problem it was commissioned to solve and then shut down.

              In that very same inaugaration speech, Jefferson said, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” His successors ignored that advice and created a huge military complex that sucks billions of dollars out of the economy and creates unrest around the globe.

              So the problems you complain of are the direct result of “we the people” abandoning the principles set forth within the founding documents.

              Like

            • Again we disagree and it seems to me you are stuck in the past to justify something. Jefferson is not here now in this time. We have good smart caring people who can affect change for the better and a system we can move forward with. Government must care for and protect the people or there is simply no need for it. Care for where such care is not possible effectively with out a wide based federal government. Shared cost over a wide base makes it easier over a larger problem.

              The constitution was written by men of their times. This is not their times. It is our times. We can and do need to use ideas for our times. The constitution is not a magic thing, it is a written document hammered out in compromise. The history of the second amendment is proof of that and how it can get screwed up. The 2nd amendment as it is strangely written was a compromise hammered out between the wants mostly of the state of Virginia at the time, versus the wants of others for a stronger armed presences. Standing armies being feared and yet the idea of a state being able to defend its wants and needs. That somehow becomes everyone can have whatever weapon we wish?

              Ron your department shut down issue is a strawman argument and you know it. IF a problem is ongoing so must the help for the people. Most agencies are not created to stop the thing they are created to regulate, such as the department of education is not there to stop people from being educated…except under this current administration. You know that as well as I.

              Let’s look at the department of defence? When war was over and yet it remained? Why? Because the need for defence was still there. How about the National Institute for Health. Did they cure all diseases and end sickness? No , so they are still needed. I could go on but the point is made.

              The military industrial complex is not the fault of the industry. It is the fault of a weak government with lack of controls over the industry that supplies all the needs, tools , and programs of a needed subset of government. Over the years as business did what they normally do which is to try to make more business and do it in the most profitable way, more regulations were discarded that kept the beast contained. Generals courted big business so that when they retired in turn big business hired them for big money. Same with lobbyist and congress, the revolving door. It became to the buyer’s personal gain to give the seller what he wanted as someone else was paying. Yes we agree it is bloated and sucking more and more of the life out of the country, but that is supported by the republican party and the current administration. Who by the way is trying to funnel another huge burst of funding to the military budget. They convince people it is needed to “save” us but in truth it is just a way for businesses and the shareholders to gain more wealth.

              It all comes down to who the government should work for and how much they should be allowed to do so. History has show, in fact other countries currently show, that the standards of living and disposable incomes go up for the majority of people under strong government regulations on business and utilities.

              Again I disagree with your last paragraph. The problems of today are because we let greedy people siphon off all the funds away from help for the people and we also let corporations run amuck. Look at the new round of attempts to cut healthcare for retired and poor, while giving the 1% top incomes a huge break from paying a fair share. Too many people have bought the paid for republican mantra that regulations are bad, that controls on business excess are bad. We have given congress the ability to take all the resources of the country and give it to a few who do not need it and who when they get it don’t help the general public. Damn just look at the current tax ( reform ?? ) bill. It takes away a small deduction for teachers and grad students to give tax cuts for private plane owners and owners of golf courses. Do you think that is a great idea? Do you think “we the people…” support that. We don’t, but we have been out bid in this process by the wealthy with no strong federal government to stand up for us. Hugs

              Liked by 2 people

            • Scottie,

              It’s small wonder you disagree. I support individualism, while you support collectivism. I strive for equality of opportunity, while you strive for equality of outcome. I advocate for negative rights, while you advocate for positive rights. I disapprove of coercion, while you approve of coercion. In short, we hold to fundamental philosophical differences.

              To govern means to rule. Republicans and Democrats represent different flavors of rulership. However, I wish neither to rule, nor to be ruled by others. This is why I cannot be drawn into partisan debates.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Ron I do not call it coercion to ask the government to help its citizens. You may not like the equality of outcomes but there are a lot of people who can not have equality of opportunity. This life is not a bar room brawl where everyone has a chance to be the last one standing. People simply do not have the same opportunities nor the same abilities to use them. We have to look out for the common good. We need to make the path of life as wide as possible. That is what got us from the trees to skyscrapers. Looking out for each other and helping each other. You are correct we have different philosophies. We see life very differently. I guess that is because we come from different backgrounds and also different education levels and abilities. Different inputs equals different outputs.

              Ron I don’t see why you think to govern is to rule? Rules are not bad things anyway, we need them. However it is not ruling as by monarchy or such. We create the society we want to live in via the government we support. We do have choices in our government. I think many had forgotten that, well there is a sleeping giant waking up.

              You think policies that help the least among us are partisan. That is one of the sorriest things I can think of, even if it seems true. To think one party or one group of people would deliberately reject helping the ones most needing it to give to those who don’t, who already have, that is sad and discouraging.

              Yes I advocate for rights because I have had to fight for mine all my life. I have had to have groups fight for my rights. From being an abused child to an adult gay man. I have had others deny my rights and to harm me personally because they had no regulations to stop them or laws to prevent them. I was denied promotion in a nuclear plant even after saving their asses from the NRC and scoring the highest ever on the written test because ” no man is going to take instruction or orders from a fag queer”, was what was told to me. There was no workers discrimination laws protecting a homosexual in that state then. There Is now. Too late for me, but some other young guy with his future open ahead of him won’t have the doors slammed shut on him because of his sexual orientation.

              You are correct Ron, we see life very differently. Be well. Hugs

              Liked by 1 person

            • Scottie,

              I wrote to govern means to rule because that’s the literal definition of the word.

              And by “equality of opportunity” I meant equal treatment before the law.

              Few people will have opportunity to become NBA All-Stars, or a Heisman Trophy winners, or Olympic gold medalists, or to sing like Pavarotti. Such is fate. Should we therefore demand that NBA scouts seek out short people to equal the playing field? Or that trophies and gold medals be awarded to non-athletes? Or that opera companieses hire on mutes and tone-deaf vocalists? Or that we handicap those who excel at some particular endeavor or activity? Because that’s what enforcing equality of outcome would entail. You end up with the dystopian equality envisioned in Kurt Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron.

              Negative rights (i.e., the right to life, liberty and security of property) impose no obligations on anyone other than an agreement to refrain from negating the rights of others; whereas postive rights — such as the right to education, healthcare, welfare payments, a guaranteed minimum income, retirement benefits, etc. — place an obligation upon others to provide those rights. The former grants individuals the freedom of choice to live as they wish so long as they leave others alone. The latter forces individuals to do the bidding of others — which I view as immoral.

              Like

            • Good Morning Ron. As I have my first mug of coffee and start the TYT network’s hour one from the last night’s broadcast I missed, I want to thank you for all the straw you sent in that last comment as it will keep the family animals well stocked.

              Now to start I am not going to get into a semantics war with you . We all know the connotations of govern and to rule are vastly different. They bring to mind different ideas and methods. I could list rulers like some of the more famous dictators and tyrants and compare them to the democratic governments that exist, some doing a much better job than others. I will not because it is not important to the main idea we were discussing. The idea was not which form of government is best, but what should government be doing. And on that we differ greatly.

              Few people will have opportunity to become NBA All-Stars, or a Heisman Trophy winners, or Olympic gold medalists, or to sing like Pavarotti. Such is fate. Should we therefore demand that NBA scouts seek out short people to equal the playing field? Or that trophies and gold medals be awarded to non-athletes? Or that opera companieses hire on mutes and tone-deaf vocalists? Or that we handicap those who excel at some particular endeavor or activity? Because that’s what enforcing equality of outcome would entail. You end up with the dystopian equality envisioned in Kurt Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron.

              Great amounts of strawman building and far beneath you I would think. May surprise you I read the story. Found it silly. The fact is we do not have equal opportunity in this country. Start with kids in homes, poor people live in homes with more problems, like lead in the water and paint. Yes look at flint, those people, including the children are being poisoned by lead in the water. That has a huge effect on the brains. Next food inequalities. Kids growing up in wealthier homes, better neighbourhoods, have more nutritious food to grow with. Let’s move on to school. Good gravy the inequality between mostly white schools and the rest , especially those in poor areas is huge. When teachers have to give of their own salary to keep the kids in supplies as paper and pencils that is horrible. But as Ron has teachers in the family we know it is happening and true. How is it OK one school has not enough books for the kids and the other school has a personal computer for each? What is the difference in opportunities? Then going on to after high school education. Well it has become so that lower income have no chance at a higher education. I know a nurse who went on to get her masters degree, it cost her 70 grand, and she will pay that back over her entire life. For a job that is to help society she is punished?

              Not everyone is going to get the highest score, the best job, the most awards. That is acceptable and normal. It is uplifting to see those who use the intelligence they have and the physical skills they trained to use them to make a better life for themselves and a lot of times to help others. Great. But why should those with no chance of ever getting very far have to live in poverty with nothing? Minimum wage is 15,080 before taxes. Oh yes they pay taxes. That is if you can get a 40 hour a week job with a steady shift. Some employers decided that people don’t deserve that because the business can make more money with giving shorter hours and basically keeping people on call for a few hours at a time, a shift here or there. So working poor people try to work two or three jobs , juggling schedules and not getting sleep or rest and hardly being able to live. Yet we are giving a huge tax cut to people with private planes and another for golf courses while cutting medicaid. Let’s take health care from the poorest people and give a tax cut to the ones who have little worries about food, shelter , or incomes.

              I think you get my point on opportunities. Let me add one thing as I do want to try to shorten this some. it is not fair to Nan to go off on a essay here. When I came home from my second tour in the military, I was able to get a job, buy a new home, buy a new truck, and have a few luxuries like cable TV and a full oil tank in the winter. On my one income. My son has had to stay with us because he couldn’t even rent a decent place on his own salary and he works a good job for several years making more than minimum wage. He bought his first car this year and he got the least , smallest he could because the payments were so high. He is trying to get friends together to rent a place at a discount but it will take three people minimum to share the rent. This is how unequal life has become for those at the lower tiers , the working poor. He will have little chance to move into middle class or to gain the same comforts I had at his age because of the shifting of the wealthy of the country into the hands of a lot fewer at the top. The middle class I lived in is gone. The opportunities it afforded are gone.

              Ron this country is a collective even if you wish it was not. Long gone are the days you could ride out to unclaimed lands and build a house , farm, shoot your own food, and live as much on your own as you want. I do not think you can do that in the Northwest territories anymore and they are seriously empty. We all use the roads, the electric grids, the water systems, the stores, operate under the governmental systems. We all use the same police protections , with greatly differing results. Even the wealthy live as a collective, they just have more freedom, more access, more of everything that helps than the rest of us. I use to live in W.P.B. and tRump used the public airport for his private plane. He did not build the runways and the access, they were built by taxpayers , a lot of who were making minimum wages, yet he used it. Part of the collective. So let’s understand that increasing the ability for education , even adult education, increasing healthcare , making true livable wages are things that help everyone. We all throw into the collective pot of money. They old idea was the pot was then spread around to the most needed projects. Now it is different. Too many don’t want to add to the pot so it has to come from those least able to take the loss. But the outflow from the pot now goes to the ones who don’t want to add their share, it flows up to their personal pocket, rather than down to the needed projects. And because of this we suffer. All of us suffer. The standard of living in this country has decreased. We rank lower and lower each year when compared to rest of the world in education, poverty , child care, food standards, healthcare… the dang list goes on. We rate 5th on the highest child mortality rate. World wide for children under 5 years old we have only four others that have more kids die. Dang that is unacceptable. Why? We have the funds to put to these things as other countries do. If you want to talk moral and immoral, their is your imorality.

              Well off to get my second mug of coffee and calm my heart rate. My apologies to Nan I couldn’t figure a way to say all this shorter. Best wishes to all. Hugs

              Liked by 1 person

            • Couldn’t have said it better myself, Scottie. Sometimes you amaze me with the depth of your understanding! Quite frankly, you have a much better grasp of the world as it is than I do. I mean, I see it all around me, but to put it into words as you have done? I seriously doubt I could do it.

              No need to apologize. I think most all of us need to be reminded at times that our personal circumstances are far better than many of our fellow humans.

              Liked by 1 person

            • My thoughts? What was presented is so true. And it’s depressing.

              I was particularly moved by this: Alston was disturbed to find that some of the politicians with whom he met referred to poor people as “wasters, losers and scammers”, and says he wonders if these politicians have ever actually even visited areas of poverty.

              I don’t know about anyone else, but I have a very difficult time coping with things over which I have little to no control. The current political environment most definitely falls into that category. It’s one of the worst things I’ve had to deal with for a long time. I know we can “write, call, and email,” but quite frankly, I question the impact of our efforts. It seems the Repukes are going to do what they want to do … and anyone who doesn’t like it be damned.

              Thanks for the link. I totally agree with the blog writer’s final comments: Donald Trump and his minions are putting this nation on a collision course, on a path to the destruction of the very things in which we have taken pride for 230 years now

              Liked by 2 people

            • Not desire Ron, needs yes. Simple to justify as it is for the good of society as a whole, cause good without causing societal harm. How do you justify doing the opposite Ron? It is the same for everything from our first grouping together as a species, to collective education, to healthcare for all. It advances us as a people, as a society, and maybe , just maybe by caring more for each other we may get to have a future as a species known as humans. We know it works as countries that put more effort into providing for their populations needs have higher standards of living with less negatives such as crime. But this is simple sociology stuff , right? Hugs

              Liked by 1 person

            • See Ron I think I am beginning to understand your view. You see yourself as one person separate from all other humans. That is a made up advertising dream for today. No one is a single person with no connection to the rest. No one can just take care of themselves. No one is able to separate themselves from the rest of us, no matter how much we may want to. The idea of the out in the wilderness prospector and the wild mountain man still were not alone, they required the services of the stores they bought supplies, the manufacturers of their guns and tools. it is a fiction of the one man alone against the world. We are all grouped together for the good of each of us as a whole. That means we have to take care of the weakest ones, the sickest ones, the ones with less abilities. Hugs

              Liked by 1 person

            • Yes. But the crucial difference is that the prospectors, stores and manufacturers all exchanged things of value for the things they needed. No one demanded they be handed over without fair compensation.

              Like

            • What I see in this response — and your various comments — is totally opposite of what Scottie is putting forth.

              There’s an old saying (I’m sure you’ve heard it) … no man is an island (and I’m not being gender-specific). What I discern in your comments alters this a bit to “each man is an island of his own making.” IOW, each person is responsible for him/herself. If the person has problems in life … they should handle it. Do whatever is necessary to “make it work.”

              Whereas Scottie (and myself and many others) feels we need to help those who are struggling .. who are unable to “handle it” on their own. Of course there are limits. We can’t “babysit” everyone, but surely we can offer assistance … much like we do when tragedy strikes.

              Liked by 2 people

            • Ron studies have shown that charitable giving, and the abilities of charities have not increased as the government has cut back help. IN fact the amount of need for food pantries in the US has increased dramatically, yet there was no increase in the food contributions. Simply put people can not replace government action. To solve a large problem needs a large source such as only the government can provide. That is why we have federal disaster relief. Hugs

              Liked by 1 person

            • According to this website, inflation-adjusted charitable giving on a per capita basis has soared by 3½ times. And if you scroll down, it notes that “Though it comes as a surprise to some observers, it is not Americans in the high-income, urban, liberal states like Massachusetts or California who are our most generous citizens. Rather it is residents of middle-American, conservative, moderate-income, religiously active regions who step up the most.”

              Like

            • I read the page you linked to. I noticed this

              Of course, one reason total giving went up is because the U.S. population almost doubled. But if we recalculate inflation-adjusted charitable giving on a per capita basis, we see that has also soared: by 3½ times. Charitable causes are very lucky to have a remarkably expansive American economy behind them, and a standard of living that refuses to stagnate.

              What if we calculate charitable giving as a proportion of all national production (GDP)? The math reveals that over the last 60 years, donations as a proportion of our total annual output increased—but only very slightly. For most of the last lifetime, giving has hovered right around 2 percent of our total national treasure.

              The hard part is the bias of the page. I find it hard to sort facts from flower when they use language like ” Charitable causes are very lucky to have a remarkably expansive American economy behind them, and a standard of living that refuses to stagnate.”, when we know our standard of living has fallen behind other countries. Steve at the Classwarfare blog has a great post on this I read yesterday. https://stephenpruis.wordpress.com/2017/12/17/oh-boy-oh-boy-were-number-one/

              I took sometime to google all sorts of charity keywords. I found widely different numbers. From 7.3 to as little as 1.4 % increases.

              I have read several websites that say the majority of individual charitable giving is done in the three months of the end of the year holiday season.

              But here is the real meat of the situation. Just in food pantry needs alone. Hunger in America: 1 in 7 rely on food banks https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/17/hunger-study-food/14195585/

              “The people who come here are hard workers. They are employed. They are the school bus drivers, the lab techs in doctors offices, receptionists, the janitors who clean the floor of your children’s school,” Patterson says. “They just can’t make ends meet because some kind of crisis has hit them.”

              The Hunger in America study found that of people who use food banks:

              • 26% are black, 20% are Hispanic, 43% are white and 11% are other.

              • 33% of households have at least one family member with diabetes.

              • 65% of households have a child under 18 or someone 60 or older.

              “Children are going to school, not looking forward to learning but looking forward to eating,” says Shamia Holloway, spokeswoman for the Capital Area Food Bank.

              I also looked over http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/ and what these all have in common is the need is greater than the charity’s can provide. I know we hear it all the time on our local news, the food pantries are almost bare, so please give if you can.

              You can not expect and I don’t expect any single charity to take on the entire problem of this magnitude. It is great that they help. But 46 million hungry are going to be hard to provide for out of a storefront food pantry. And that is just food.

              The fact is we have a government that has decided to give the funds it takes in from the people, including the poor and working poor, and the middle class, to give those funds to the wealthiest top 5 percent instead of putting the money into programs to help the ones in need.
              You know as well as I that the top 5 percent do not need a helping hand out, a tax cut, a tax rebate. You know as well as I that out of those same top 5 % few are giving enough in charity to equal the huge tax cuts they just got in this tax bill alone, much less all the transfer of wealth to the top over the last 40 years.

              This is basically a question of what we want government to do and who it is to serve. You have your idea which I do not see as workable nor sustainable for the long term growth and betterment of our society. You know my view of what government should be doing and who it is to serve.

              Ron we have been over this so many times we have worn out Nan’s page. we are repeating ourselves. I do not have a need to change your mind, I have shown everyone reading my side, and you have shown your view. I have no desire to repeat myself over and over because you seem to have a need to convince me to see it your way. I won’t because I think you are wrong in all accounts on this. I think the view you advocate would produce a terrible harm on the people of this country and reduce it to something like the worst of the corrupt third world nations.
              So What more is there to be said? I believe government should serve the people, not the wealthy and the corporations. I have shown that everyone in this country is using the collective resources including roads, electricity, water, local hospitals among other things. No one is living a self sufficient life off the grid using nothing others have paid for or provided. So your stance of the single individual making it or dying by their own hand is faulty and doesn’t exist.

              We have covered it all as far as I can tell. Good morning and have a grand day. Hugs

              Like

            • Moderated for number of links.

              No more discussion on this subject, please. As you yourself said, Scottie, you each have your viewpoints. It may be educational to elaborate, but there is a limit. Thanks. 🙂

              Liked by 1 person

            • I understand. Have a great day. We are getting ready for lunch. Ron made a couple pork tenderloins with baked potatoes and gravy and green beans as a veggy. Hugs

              Like

            • You consider a philantropic website too biased because of ‘flowery’ language, then immediately link to a blog named “Class Warfare” (which cites unsourced stats and uses flowery language like “sniveling, GOP dollar sucking economists”).

              And if you want to use GDP as a criteria, then you’ll be pleased to know that U.S. military spending has dropped from 8.7% to 3.2% over the same time period. So no more complaining about increased military budgets, because as a percentage of GDP . . . they’re shrinking.

              • 33% of households have at least one family member with diabetes.

              Most cases of type 2 diabetes are a direct consequence of poor diet and lack of physical activity (i.e. due to lifestyle choices, as the photo of the obese woman on the “Feeding America” page vividly illustrates) — risk factors that can be reduced or eliminated entirely with a little bit of personal time and effort.

              My argument is not against helping those in need. IT is against forcing people to fund government programs against their will; government programs which feed bureacracies and never come close to solving the problem they were intended to solve. Remember Obama’s $800 billion “shovel-ready jobs” program? How well did that work out? If you want to see where the Marxist “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” credo leads, you need look no further than the former USSR… or Venezuela.

              Like

            • Ron, as I said to Scottie, I think this discussion between the two of you has reached its limits. You each have your viewpoints and while it may be educational to elaborate, there is a limit. Thanks!

              Like

            • Ron the health and welfare of our communities, our society, our very species is a thing of value. It needs to be taken care of by all of us. You know I can’t help you understand if you think helping ensure others have the ability to have food, shelter, health care and the rest of the basics, is some horrible task out to get you personally. Get over yourself dude as the saying goes. It is not personal. It is the same reason wolf packs care for their sick and elderly, it is why fish bunch in schools. IF you think the opposite of what I have been trying to explain then you are saying you think it is better for some to starve while others feast, that the sick and poor should just die in the street, and that a permanent slave / ruling castes should exist.

              Sorry Ron but it has become very clear to me you are picking the minutia of the argument so to miss the point. It is to the betterment of us all to care for each other and to ensure that everyone gets a chance at the opportunities.

              Stephen Hawking has repeatedly said without England’s universal health care he would have died. Think of the loss. Will the next Einstein die of malnutrition or get brain damage from lead in the water? Will the one who comes up with a cure for cancer instead be denied an education.

              It is far too short sighted for me to understand your position. Sometimes you have to do what is right without worrying about immediate reward. The betterment of us all is the reward for the one, Ron. Hugs

              Like

            • No Scottie, the crux of the argument is your advocacy that one person has the right to demand something that belong to another without fair compensation. We have a name for that: theft.

              Like

            • Ron you seem to mistake empathy for demand, care for another as theft. You couldn’t be more wrong and I can show you why. At some point each of us may be the other in need. One wrong turn, one unlucky fire, one nasty hurricane, one illness from total devastation needing the help of all the others around us. You also. I have known strapping healthy people injured in a car accident that needed care for the rest of their lives. Should we just leave them to die? We help the other because we know it could be us. We will all be old if we are lucky. I have been without food. I know the pain of wondering if I would have a home tomorrow and the anxiety of not knowing what I would do next. Don’t say well if the hurricane took your nice home you have insurance. Nope, can not get insurance now because of where the home is and its age. Use to be able before deregulations, but ah, the no holds barred free market made dang sure they wouldn’t spend a dime I paid to help out. I had a great job, my own side company, and everything going from me when one day I couldn’t move my right leg. My health crashed. I lost almost everything. Without Ron my husband I wouldn’t have had shelter or food, but in the year it took back in 1996 /1997 to get my disability we lost almost everything. We had to start over. It happened again in 2014. I was working a job I loved in the hospital in the surgical ICU. My bones again had been dying. My health crashed. I couldn’t work. We got set way back. We are working forward again. However without the safety net available to me I wouldn’t have had health care, I wouldn’t have been able to get the medical treatments and medications I needed to survive. First I needed Obama care ( the ACA as I lost insurance when I couldn’t work. Without the fights to gain same sex marriage and gay people’s civil rights I couldn’t have been under my husband’s insurance when we needed me to be. Again I fight for others rights because I needed people to fight for mine. I now am in remission, I am getting healthy again and I am planning to go to school and get my M.A. license and return to work. However the key was the programs available, the social programs to benefit those who had no way to help themselves at that point that made it possible for me to be here and argue their benefit with you. You see Ron I understand their importance because I have needed them, I have lived through them. I have sadly seen people who did not, who were denied help, who simply fell through the cracks of our society and they died. Do you want that ? Did you want me to die also? Because that is the view you are arguing for.

              The value is not only in my life but in my contributions to the same society that helped me. I have given back, I have done two tours in the US military, I have worked in the medical field when healthy. However there is never a 1 to 1 correlation between the cost and the fair exchange value of life. Either you think life has a value or you do not. Either you realize you need to help others because you could be the next one needing help or you don’t. But even if you don’t think so, you could be the next one needing help. Nice to know that despite the attempts to take it all away, some of it will be there for you if you do need it.

              Ron I am out of words and examples. IF you can’t understand by now there is no need to keep going with this. Try someone else, maybe they can reach you.
              Hugs

              Like

            • Scottie:

              1) Is it wrong to force someone to do something against their will?

              2) Is it wrong to take something from someone against their will?

              Yes or no?

              Like

            • Ron stop beating the dog and building strawmen. People are forced all the time to do things they don’t want to. Have a car, get car insurance. Drive a car, wear a seat belt.

              Is it wrong to have the 5th highest child mortality in the world?

              Is it wrong for people to die in E.R.’s because they have nowhere to else to get care. And who do you think pays for that E.R. care.

              Again your second question is a strawman, you want to live in the country you live under its laws. Things are taken from people legally all the time. It is part of being a member of society.

              Every country has some form of taxation to provide funds for the government. The real argument is what government does with the funds.

              Is it wrong for the government to spend tax payer monies on subsidies for the oil & gas industry while cutting SNAP?

              You are back to what i replied to already. You see empathy as a demand and providing social safety nets as theft. Can’t help you there.

              It is like you have not read a word I have written in all these many long comments. IF you disagree fine, but I am not going to keep repeating myself.

              Hugs

              Liked by 1 person

            • Scottie, you’re deflecting.

              Is it wrong to force someone to do something against their will?

              Is it wrong to take something from someone against their will?

              Yes or no?

              Like

            • I don’t see your answers to my specific questions.

              Is it wrong to force someone to do something against their will?

              Is it wrong to take something from someone against their will?

              Yes or no?

              Like

            • That comment contains no ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers to my specific questions. So once again:

              Is it wrong to force someone to do something against their will?

              Is it wrong to take something from someone against their will?

              Yes or no?

              Like

            • Ron, enough. I have answered your pick here and nit there questions. You are not stupid, so you can read as well as I. You know well what I have said and can tell what my replies mean. I am done playing your game. State your position again if you like, I read it the first time you did it. I have stated mine. I have spent three days trying to show you what I and everyone else here seem to see clearly. I am done trying to repeat myself. You keep acting like every reply I have made over the last few days made no sense or was not understandable. The fact is it differs from what you want to hear, but sorry I stand by what I wrote. So Ron I am totally done with the conversation. IF you want more answers, reread what I wrote already. Have a great day. Hugs

              Like

            • I will take your reluctance to answer as a resounding NO to both questions. You think it entirely permissible to force others to do something against their will and entirely permissible to take something from someone against their will.

              Like

            • Ron stop beating the dog and building strawmen. People are forced all the time to do things they don’t want to. Have a car, get car insurance. Drive a car, wear a seat belt.

              Again your second question is a strawman, you want to live in the country you live under its laws. Things are taken from people legally all the time. It is part of being a member of society.

              Hugs

              Like

        • Perhaps … but I’m not the only one because I copied this from an article in our local newspaper. And I daresay there are untold numbers of news sources that do the same … all the time. Sure, full context is best, but in the world of news reporting, you’ll often have to search long and hard for the full, unadulterated story.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Nan,

            Would you accept that response from a theist who posted the following ‘quote’ as proof that even Darwin was skeptical of evolution and believed in a creator?

            “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

            Or would you chastise that person for having failed to investigate further?

            And now that you’re aware of it, wouldn’t it be prudent to ammend your opening post by providing links to the full speach so that future readers can evaluate the statement in its proper context for themselves?

            Like

            • Quite frankly, Ron, I choose to run my blog as I see fit so no, I won’t be amending the post. Besides, you shared the full text in your comment.

              Further, while the encapsulated remark may have been taken out of context, it has been shown time and time again over the years that the Repug party is much more interested in subsidizing the rich than they are in helping the less fortunate. So while the quote may be out of context, it still serves as a good example of what the party as a whole stands for.

              Like

  4. In the past I have always tried to consider the Republican and Democratic parties as two opposing views but both based on some rationale. I now believe the Republicans are simply beyond any hope. They have no regard for the average citizens or working people. They are so wedded to the wealthy and the super rich, their actions are a disgrace to the rest of us.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Yes, there used to be Republicans with principles. That species seems to have gone extinct.

      What was once “the party of Lincoln” has become the party of racism and white supremacy. What once called themselves “the moral majority” have become the immoral minority.

      What was once a party of fiscal responsibility is now a party that is hell bent on pulling off a two trillion dollar heist, stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

      Liked by 2 people

Take Some Time To Share Your Thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.