Tip of the Hat to Gretawire (Fox Insider) and The Daily Planet
Leave it to Spoker of the House Nancy Pelosi to come up with the quote of the day.
“What we’re trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget….we’re trying to save life on this planet as we know it today.”
http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2011/07/28/leader-pelosi-is-trying-to-save-world-from-republican-budget/
This sounds like a job for Batty Woman and "Handsome Henry".
"Nay!"
"Neigh."
11 comments:
Another candid admission of the vision of the anointed.
Their role is to preempt the decisions of others ... for their own good. They know better and therefore they should make the rules and regulations that everyone else should follow. If it takes a little exaggeration or creation of previously unknown crisis, well, it is all for a good cause. Of course it takes a bloated bureaucracy to enforce it all, so much the better ... more people on the public dole and more votes for the anoited.
Quite a bit different than the liberty for all envisioned in the Constitution ... but what did they know?
.
Why does this come to mind?
I hold no brief for the Republican budget, but I'm still waiting for Nancy to provide the details of her own -- and at this point, she needs to show how it will be balanced within 2-3 years, and generating a surplus to pay down the debt thereafter.
Well, that's the thing, isn't it? The Democrats, starting with Obama, through Pelosi, and downward haven't submitted a budget except for the one the President submitted a couple of months ago that didn't get a single positive vote from either side.
There has been a lot of talk about "compromise" and "draconian cuts" and "ending medicare as we know it" (those six words are now permanently linked in the English language) but nothing on how to deal with this crushing debt or how do we be sure it doesn't increase beyond what we can pay in the future.
.
That's because anyone who remembers how to add, subtract, multiply, divide, and figure percentages knows that in order to pay off a 14 trillion debt, you have to raise revenue, but there are a bunch of people sitting in congress who flew in from Hogwarts School of Accounting who think you can reduce revenue (cut taxes), pay off the debt, and find "deep cuts" in government expenditure WITHOUT denying swing voters anything they really want to keep receiving.
The problem with the Democrats is they don't have the spine to get up on their little hind legs and say so. Then, while honestly admitting, "folks, we have to raise taxes, because we had a long free ride on the deficits Cheyney said Reagan proved don't matter, but they do, and we have to pay the bill," they have to ALSO make an honest proposal of what we CAN cut.
My proposal: once a patient is in an end of life condition where they are permanently or chronically incapable of giving informed consent, no Medicaid or Medicare funds will be spent on any invasive surgery, heart-lung machines, or expensive intravenous course of medication. No euthenasia, any palliative treatment to make them comfortable, aspirin, standard antibiotics, but not much more.
Medical care is the biggest budget buster, and a huge fraction of that is in the last month or so of our lives. I can do without that. So can you, especially if its on the taxpayers' tab.
But Sarah Palin calls that "death panels."
Siarlys,
Why is it that you libes keep bringing up Sarah Palin? Geez!
BTW-Who got us in this 14 trillion debt anyway? Was it us the people? Was it the tea party? No-it was the govt. Dem/Rep. take your pick. The only way to stop it is to turn off the spigot. Give them their debt ceiling raise and more taxes and guess what-there will be no spending cuts-just more spending on pork and deals to get votes until that's gone.
If you lower taxes and regulation, people will spend more and stir the economy. Businesses can hire more workers. But no-we have to have this gigantic beast we call govt to regulate us to death and tax us to death.
Gary, you are correct about where responsibility lies. But unfortunately, when OUR elected representatives, the ones WE keep re-electing while moaning and groaning about them, make commitments on behalf of the United States of America, its all of us who are on the line to pay. All the Democrats and all the Republicans in office don't have enough assets to repay 1% of $14 trillion.
Do we need to turn off the spigot? Yes. Running an annual deficit equal to 10% of our GDP is not sustainable, no matter who doesn't want their favorite budget priority to be cut.
I mention Sarah Palin because she is a prime opportunist on this subject, and many of the obstructionists in Congress are of the same school. They cheerfully lampoon a health care bill as "death panels" and "cutting Medicare," with some electoral success, while demanding "deep cuts" in spending. Do they want to cut spending, or not? Which spending? How much of what? They are Republicans remember, one of the parties responsible for this mess.
There is NO evidence for the babel about how if we lower taxes and regulation the economy will expand so rapidly that the government draws in more revenue. There is a good reason that claim is called "the Laughter curve." Reagan found out it didn't work. That's why he ended up raising taxes.
Siarlys, some of your comments are so outrageous that they can't go without rebuttal. Your "There is NO evidence for the babel about how if we lower taxes and regulation the economy will expand so rapidly that the government draws in more revenue." is so ignorant. Just because you don't know evidence exist doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Try reading an economics book, say Appplied Economics, by Sowell to start.
It also turns out that Reagan's tax increase were supposed to be traded for cuts in spending. The Democrats cheated later and the tax increases went through but not the cuts in spending. Reagan said it was his biggest mistake.
.
Siarlys,
If you have any respect for the Constitution, you should read the book Ratification. Part of the argument then about whether or not to ratify the Constitution was, "How do we know they (the distant government) won't tell us what we can and can't do." In other words, "How do we keep the government from interfering in our lives." Aside from the proper things the government should do (provide for the common defense, etc.) they primarily wanted LIBERTY and FREEDOM. The notion that someday some citizen would want the government to decide when they should die would have amazed them and it amazes me today. It is only those who think the government is so enlightened that it should make all the decisions regarding the lives of their SUBJECTS who would be willing to give up their rights.
It is just because the left wing thinks that the government should interject itself and try to fix everything, from poverty to healthcare, is the reason that we have such a bloated expensive government that we can no longer afford. You have to allow the Democracy work and make sure the system is fair not the outcomes.
.
No "Death Panels?"
How about this? 15 Member commission???
http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pro/1107REMCAPVD/LREMM739/PR
.
Miggie, you need to learn the difference between a polemic and an economics text book.
I admit that it is questionable whether ANY book qualifies as an "economics text book," because the field is more art than science, and is difficult to subject to laboratory conditions. Generally, economists have to observe a huge number of variables in an uncontrolled field condition, and try to outline some sort of cause and effect.
But Sowell is an ivory tower point-headed intellectual with an ideological ax to grind, who has never run even a small economy in his life. He simply repackages platitudes that fit his ideology.
Then you need to learn the difference between documented facts and comfortable hearsay. For example, what is the document on which the Democrats promised spending cuts, and where is it archived?
I have in my personal library a number of books on the Constitutional Convention. I also read Supreme Court opinions, old and new, when I am working on how the document is expounded.
I did not say that the government should decide when someone should die. I said the government should set limits on what taxpayer's money will be expended for.
Analogy, purely for explanatory purposes: When a family receives public relief, the welfare department may require that the family home be available for inspection to make sure the children are benefiting from the money allocated for that purpose. If the family refuses, relief payments may be cut off.
Some social workers got the idea that this meant any investigative visit from a social worker to any family is exempt from the Fourth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, acting on a case presented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, slapped this down. A family on relief, much less one not on relief, may slam the door on the social worker, and suffer no legal consequences. The social worker may not bring a policeman unless they obtain a proper warrant.
But, the family on relief may lose their funding. Similarly, if you rely on a public funded source for your health care, the public may set a limit to what the public will fund.
Now, THAT may inspire the argument that government should not be funding health care AT ALL. In that case, a lot more people will die a lot sooner, but at least we will all die free.
I'd rather have a basic medical insurance policy available to all, knowing there are limits to what it will cover.
More relevant to the fiscal debate, it is, as I said hypocrisy to demand "deep cuts" and "no tax increase" while advocating policies that require massively increased spending. We can have heroic measures whatever the cost for all, if we are prepared to pay for it. Are we?
Post a Comment