Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 12:26pm PT
|
For you Fox Newsers who missed this:
http://bentcorner.com/andy-harris-government-health-care/
Maryland congressman-elect Andy Harris attended freshman orientation for incoming congressmen on Monday and reportedly threw a mini-tantrum when he learned that his government health care would not kick in until 28 days after taking office. He then asked if he could buy coverage from the government to tide him and his family over until his coverage took effect.
What a novel idea, to buy health care from the government. If I didn’t know any better, I would think congressman-elect Andy Harris was asking for the public option.
I know that is not the case though because Andy Harris campaigned against the public option. In fact, he campaigned against all forms of health care reform. Harris, a physician, campaigned heavily against the government takeover of health care.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 01:28pm PT
|
November 23, 2010 12:00 A.M.
Why Unhappy People Become Liberals
. . . and why liberalism makes them even unhappier.
According to polls — Pew Research Center, the National Science Foundation — and studies such as Arthur Brooks’s Gross National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal Americans.
Liberals respond this way: “If we’re unhappier, it’s because we are more upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than ourselves.”
But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals. And as regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least half a century conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure and American blood (often their own) for other nations’ liberty.
Both of these facts refute the liberals-are-more-concerned-about-others explanation for liberal unhappiness.
So, let’s look at other explanations.
Perhaps we are posing the question backwards when we ask why liberals are less happy than conservatives. The question implies that liberalism causes unhappiness. And while this is true, it may be equally correct to say that unhappy people are more likely to adopt leftist positions.
Take black Americans, for example. It makes perfect sense that a black American who is essentially happy is going to be less attracted to the Left. Anyone who has interacted with black conservatives rarely encounters an angry, unhappy person.
Why?
Because the liberal view on race is that America is a racist society. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, a black American must abandon liberalism in order to be a happy individual. It is very hard, if not impossible, to be a happy person while believing that society is out to hurt you. So, the unhappy black person will gravitate to liberalism and liberalism will in turn make him more unhappy by reinforcing his view that he is a victim.
The unhappy gravitate toward the Left for a second reason. Life is hard for liberals and life is hard for conservatives. But conservatives assume that life will always be hard. Liberals, on the other hand, have utopian dreams. At his brother Robert’s funeral, the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy recalled his brother saying: “Some men see things as they are and say, ‘Why?’ I dream things that never were and say, ‘Why not?’”
Utopians will always be less happy than those who know that suffering is inherent to human existence. The utopian compares America to utopia and finds it terribly wanting. The conservative compares America to every other civilization that has ever existed and walks around wondering how he got so lucky as to be born or naturalized an American.
Third, imagine two Americans living in essentially identical socioeconomic conditions. They earn $45,000 a year, they have the same amount of debt on their homes, and both have the same number of dependents. One seeks governmental assistance wherever possible; the other eschews any governmental help. Which one is likely to be the liberal and which one is likely to be the happier individual?
This is not a question only an oracle can answer. The one who yearns for governmental help is the one who is likely to be both liberal and less happy. Conservatism, which demands self-reliance, makes one happier. The more a man or woman feels like captain of his or her ship (as poor as that ship may be), the happier he or she will be.
A fourth explanation for greater unhappiness among liberals is that the more people allow feelings to govern them, the less happy they will be. And the further left one goes, the more importance one attaches to feelings.
It is liberal educators and liberal parents who have clamored for protecting young people from the pain of losing games. The liberal world came up with the idea of giving trophies to kids who lose; they don’t want their children feeling bad. Conservatives, on the other hand, teach their kids how to lose well. They are less worried about their children feeling bad.
A couple of years ago, I gave a speech on happiness to the students and faculty of a prestigious high school in the Los Angeles area. The subject was the need to act happy even when one isn’t feeling happy — because it is unfair to others to inflict our bad moods on them and because we will never be happy if we allow our feelings to dictate our happiness.
From what I experienced that day and learned later, liberal students and faculty generally loathed my speech; conservative students generally loved it (there were no conservative faculty to speak of). Why? Because conservatives are far more likely to be comfortable with the idea that feelings are not as important as behavior.
Those who know that feelings must not govern us, but that we must govern our feelings, are far more likely to be happy people.
The upshot of all this? There is an amazingly simple way to defeat the Left: Raise children who are grateful to be American, who don’t complain, who can handle losing, and who are guided by values, not feelings. In other words, teach them how to be happy adults.
— Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. He may be contacted through his website, dennisprager.com.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 01:29pm PT
|
We want our country back!
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 01:35pm PT
|
Norton - that your daughter? Giving her lots of face time on the taco.
..meanwhile
Righteous ice in North Korea: an east coast resort area where international
tourists pump hard currency into the communist economy for the privilege
of seeing some spectacular scenery. And tourists get shot dead by NK
army guards for walking on the beach.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C5%ADmgangsan
note the rock carving right of the falls.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 01:39pm PT
|
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 03:23pm PT
|
DMT,
I, too, read that article this morning. I don't think the party can blame just Meg. The California Republican Party as a whole has been so inept since about 1972 that it's a miracle that any Republican has won statewide office in the last 36 years.
Bob,
The single biggest factor in employment has always been corporate profits. When they rise, employment rises. When they fall, employment falls.
If the President, Senate and House (and, of course, the Fed) work together to provide rational, predictable laws affecting business, we'll see a tremendous increase in employment, Obama will be re-elected handily, and the House and Senate will stay about as they are.
Unfortunately, neither political party wants that election result, and both parties seem to think that partisanship is more important than the good of the country. For that reason, I'm not holding my breath. . .
John
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 04:39pm PT
|
The single biggest factor in employment has always been corporate profits. When they rise, employment rises. When they fall, employment falls.
Not always. During the miracle Reagan years when unemployment rose, stocks rose. In this era of record corporate profits, unemployment remains high. Maybe unemployment in China and India is dropping.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 05:35pm PT
|
“If you can stop shilling for your favorite political party long enough to go for a drive, you might really enjoy the Chevy Volt. I’m sure GM would be happy to lend you one for the weekend. Just remember: driving and Oxycontin don’t mix.”
Ouch!
But the bigger question is why do conservatives hate America so much?
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 05:53pm PT
|
If the economy picks up and unemployment drops - Obama is re-elected.
If the defecit is significantly reduced - Obama is re-elected.
If Palin wins the Republican primary - Obama is re-elected.
So basically Republicans/conservatives need the country to suffer so they have a shot at the presidency in 2012. If American wins they lose. If America loses they could win. I wonder what will be more important to them being patriotic or politics?
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Swimming in LEB tears.
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 06:10pm PT
|
Barack "Terrible for Business" Obama just oversaw record profits for corporations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html?hp
The nation’s workers may be struggling, but American companies just had their best quarter ever.
American businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter, according to a Commerce Department report released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago, at least in nominal or noninflation-adjusted terms.
The government does not adjust the numbers for inflation, in part because these corporate profits can be affected by pricing changes from all over the world and because the government does not have a price index for individual companies. The next-highest annual corporate profits level on record was in the third quarter of 2006, when they were $1.655 trillion.
Countdown to rationalization/marginalization of facts to maintain "Obama is murdering our economy" narrative.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 07:45pm PT
|
JE wrote: The single biggest factor in employment has always been corporate profits. When they rise, employment rises. When they fall, employment falls.
Maybe 40 years ago. How do you explain the huge profits, the growth of wealth to the upper two percent and the decline of benefits and wages to the average workers?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 08:04pm PT
|
ONE heartbeat away from being Commander in Chief.
National security, my ass.
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 08:40pm PT
|
Wash Times today:
Barack Obama is only halfway through his term, but it's not too early to ask: What is the biggest whopper he has told as president? So far, the hands-down winner is: "No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what." Obama made that particular pledge in a speech to the American Medical Association in June 2009, but he said the same thing, with slight variations, dozens of times during the health care debate. And now, exactly eight months after he signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law, we're seeing just how empty the president's promise was. The New York Times reports there is a "growing frenzy of mergers" in the health care field in which hospitals and other care providers, pressured by the new law's provisions, are joining forces to save money. "Consumer advocates fear that the health care law could worsen some of the very problems it was meant to solve," the paper reports, "by reducing competition, driving up costs and creating incentives for doctors and hospitals to stint on care, in order to retain their cost-saving bonuses." The Obama administration's answer to the problem will undoubtedly be more regulation. But the wave of mergers is just one of many signs of trouble with the new law. For example, we know that the government's Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has found that the new law will increase health care costs, rather than reduce them, in the coming decade. We know that cuts in Medicare, with the money saved going to pay for expanding coverage to the poor, will jeopardize seniors' access to care. We know the law will make it impossibly expensive for companies that currently offer bare-bones health coverage to low-income employees to keep doing so. We know several corporations are taking giant write-downs because the bill will increase the cost of providing prescription drug coverage to retired employees. And perhaps most important, we know the law offers an enormous incentive for employers who currently provide coverage to workers to stop doing so, sending those workers to buy coverage in government-subsidized health care exchanges. In sum, what the law means for millions of Americans is: No matter what the president said, if you like the coverage you have now, you can't keep it. And a lot of people do like their coverage. A new Gallup Poll found that when Americans are asked to assess the quality of their own health care, the results "are among the most positive Gallup has found over the past decade." A total of 82 percent of respondents rate their health care as excellent or good, while just 16 percent rate it as fair or poor." The key question of health care reform has always been how to make things better for the 16 percent while not messing things up for the 82 percent. Obama decided to blow up the system for everyone. In doing so, he has created not just well-founded anxiety in those who are skeptical of the new law but also unrealistic expectations in those who support it. "We just told millions of people that they can go to the exchanges in 2014 and buy insurance," writes Aaron Carroll, an Indiana University School of Medicine professor who blogs on health care issues at a site called the Incidental Economist. "There won't be any lifetime or annual limits. There won't be denials for pre-existing conditions. There won't be any surcharges for having such conditions. And it's going to be 'reasonably' priced." Carroll talked to lots of insurance executives, and concluded it's just not going to happen. "I feel like many people think they will have choice of doctor, choice of hospital, and the ability to dictate care," he writes. "I'm not seeing how insurance companies will be able to offer such products at prices people can afford." Is any of this a surprise? The fact is, the president knew or should have known that his health care scheme would have these effects. He paid a political price for his actions on Nov. 2. There might be more to pay on Nov. 6, 2012. Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com.
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 08:42pm PT
|
Government run health care - a nice screw up.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 08:45pm PT
|
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 09:45pm PT
|
The new American politics is all about special interest as in minority rule...too bad the masses keep voting against their best interest...
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 09:57pm PT
|
JE..the corporations keep finding ways to increase their profits by hosing the American workers and buying off the politicians...anybody that buys into the trickle down theory increasing due to corporate profits believes in the tooth fairy ....trickle down propaganda goes hand in hand with the let them eat cake proclamation....rj
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!