It must be tunnel-vision which produces the idea that it is more unjust to make women pay more for services only they will use, than to make men pay for insurance they will NEVER use. The results of fostering the belief that there can be insurance which cannot be cancelled, and covers every conceivable contingency, is insurance which will NOT be “affordable”. The people who provide insurance coverage are NOT altruistic or charitable, and do business to make a PROFIT. There is no partisan monopoly on common sense, and anyone with common sense will recognize the reality that no for-profit business will ever provide the idealistic “affordable” coverage advocated by the PPACA/Obamacare. Either the premium costs will NOT be affordable to any but the wealthy, deductibles will be prohibitive to any but the wealthy, the government will be required to spend billions to subsidize the health insurance companies or premium payers, or the government will become a “single-payer” which will determine what will be covered, when, and for whom. The poorest component of the American public will ultimately lose coverage or affordability.
Congress and the president have created agencies which invoke “administrative rules”, having the weight of law with ZERO accountability to voters. It has been a convenient method of granting the federal government new powers with “plausible deniability” for Congress and the president. Reference TSA, IRS, NSA, DEQ, DOL, FED, ad infinitum. Nobody is minding the store any more because there is a FOURTH branch of government which is accountable to NOBODY, and even the president doesn’t know what they’re doing or why (allegedly)!
Administrators of these agencies are appointed, not elected. They hire people who hire people based upon cronyism rather than competence or credentials. People with little more than high school educations make decisions regarding the disposition of parental custody, land use, environmental rules, taxes regulations, education, housing, permits, and virtually every element of our daily affairs, and who are they accountable to? Only their supervisors who hired them because they met the supervisors’ litmus test for gender, age, “class”, “culture”, or any other criterion of their discretion. If you don’t like what they do, can you vote them out or recall them? No. Can you take them to court? Yes, if you have DEEPER pockets than the government which will use tax money to defend whatever they do. Most people are absolutely powerless to contest or protest anything they do.
State and Federal agencies make rules which have the weight of law, but NO accountability to voters. Recently the Oregon Department of Education’s 6 member Board of Governors made a “ruling” (administrative rule) that schools could not have mascots with names relevant to indigenous natives. This rule would’ve cost school districts millions of dollars but the Board of Governors have NO accountability to voters. If voters or school districts do not like their decisions there is NOTHING they can do about it. http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=183
Americans have no option but to meekly conform to the rulings of the FOURTH branch of government! How do you love being bullied by the UNCONSTITUTIONAL branch government your elected representatives created for you; not to serve the public by finding things they could do FOR you, but to be served by the public while they find new things they can do TO you!
It would be nice if people finally realized this is NOT an equal opportunity nation where ANYONE who wants to get ahead can do so! There are government regulations which preclude a young girl getting ahead or paying for a medical procedure by selling mistletoe! There are higher education costs requiring loans which make the recipients indentured servants for YEARS after getting their education and STILL do not guarantee employment! There are arrogant and superior people who uproot neighborhoods of poor who cannot afford decent housing and must be compelled to live in slums, owned by ‘slumlords’ who will sell out to developers (in a heartbeat) when other affluent folk get tired of seeing the results of the poverty they create.
Not EVERYONE is born, or becomes, a member of some special ‘class’ which is granted the special privileges of ‘Affirmative Action’! Not EVERYONE has had the blessing of employment permitting them to compile huge fiscal reserves in IRA or retirement accounts. Not EVERYONE can survive on the pittance Social Security provides after government has plundered their life savings for corporate welfare. There are those affluent enough to accumulate substantial pools of wealth and pompously express their disdain for Social Security; branding it as a ‘Ponzi Scheme’ or an “entitlement” which should be reduced of eliminated. Nevertheless, those with enormous reserves of wealth seldom, if ever, decline receiving their Social Security checks! If not for Social Security, MILLIONS would be destitute, with virtually NO means of support!
I am disgusted with the growth of government and it’s intrusion into virtually EVERY element of my life! I find it deplorable that there are those who have more wealth than they need, yet would steal from a blind beggar’s cup or evict seniors to live on the street! This is the type of imperiousness which forces people into poverty and then ensures they remain there! Not only that, but once these MILLIONS of less-fortunates are enslaved by poverty, they would condemn government humanitarian intervention while demonstrating that 80% (the vast majority) of charity comes from people whose income is in the lowest percentiles of income: Those with the GREATEST fiscal blessings donate the LEAST to charity!
I would just like to know what kind of CHRISTIAN care and compassion is demonstrated by these predispositions, attitudes, and policies? Perhaps the diametrically opposing character of people claiming to be CHRISTIANS, yet behaving in such an UN-Christian fashion, is what fosters the prevalence of secularism in the USA today!
1. Cultivate close associations with anyone and everyone who may be useful.
2. Use racism for self-promotion and achievement of political objectives.
3. Say whatever is necessary to recruit followers and support.
4. Foster and encourage supporters to believe it is ‘us against them’.
5. Use deceptive alliances and collaboration with political institutions to gain power.
6. Work in a profession and location most suited to advancement of goals.
7. Achieve election to Federal office.
8. Encourage divisiveness and polarization of adversaries.
9. Get elected leader of the most powerful nation in the world.
10. Undermine the family and US Judeo-Christian ‘Core Values’.
11. Shift antipathy for Muslim terrorism to Christians, Veterans, and Patriots.
12. Establish a coalition between a major party, wealthy (#Aristazzi), racists, Marxists, and Muslims who share a common goal of global supremacy.
13. Demonize the major organized opposition.
14. Remove all who may comprise political or military opposition. 15. Ensure all government power is in the hands of loyal followers.
16. Undermine the cohesiveness and effectiveness of US Congress.
17. Nullify the US Constitution.
18. Consolidate power and alliances with Muslim nations which control an indispensable global resource.
19. Dispense with any unnecessary political or diplomatic allies.
20. Take control of the world by establishing the global Muslim Caliphate.
Those who comprise membership in the “unnecessary political and diplomatic allies” will be in for a rude awakening when they discover they were simply ‘tools’ of the #Obama agenda. Tools which he has used like women to promote his “war on women” or Congress and Democrats; used to promote his PPACA and antipathy for Republicans, Judeo-Christians, Patriots, Veterans, and “TEA” party organization.
When I say “Where is the equity” I am questioning the ever increasing number of those in poverty, the “poor”, while the obscenely wealthy just keep getting more obscenely wealthy. Sometimes it totally eludes me that people seem to be so terrified of “socialism” they cannot see the gap between rich and poor is not increasing because there are people producing more opportunities for production and employment, but because their wealth is being manufactured by printing worthless money, increasing the national debt, while making the low income pay for it, and bringing more illegal immigrants into the country to compete for already scarce jobs. The United States is producing substantially more unskilled part-time jobs than full-time skilled jobs.
There is compelling psychological research which scientifically measures the changes in behavior subsequent to wealth disparities. The more wealth people have, the more more likely they are to embrace more pernicious behaviors. They are more likely to cheat, accept something for nothing, take from others, disregard the feelings of others, feel superior and ‘entitled’ to their blessings while viewing the less fortunate as inferior and deserving of their misfortunes. Of course there are the affluent who discredit the sources of this research with absolutely no evidence to falsify the material presented in these studies. http://www.econedlink.org/interactives/index.php?iid=282
Most honest people acknowledge there are people with genuine needs for charitable assistance. However, they seem to disregard these genuine needs when they stereotype anyone and everyone who receives any type of charitable assistance. The facts are that 80% of charitable contributions come from the lowest 20% of income. Difficult as it may be for some to believe, most of the charitable contributions come from people who qualify for charitable contributions themselves. Perhaps they are more acutely aware of the profound difficulties associated with poverty; or perhaps those who are more affluent and can afford to be more generous may be more like the scientific studies have determined. Regardless of the merit of government assistance and methodology in computing poverty, the United States has established a long-standing pattern of electing representatives who love to spend other people’s money in their altruistic efforts to assist the most vulnerable element of society. If there are so many people who resent the government providing these funds (while corporate welfare and tax privilege is ignored) then they should elect people who will gradually shift this type of funding from the government to private resources rather than arbitrarily voting to terminate these services without providing alternatives. Cutting off funding for people who depend upon those funds is no different (other than humanitarian factors) than terminating workers without notice or to feed and care for a pet, and then leave them locked in a house with no food, expecting the pet to find some alternative means of caring and feeding itself.
It is also an unfortunate fact which anyone who has ever worked with homelessness and poverty can attest to, that government charity is established in such a fashion as to keep people receiving government assistance. Instead of maximizing the dedication of resources to determining how to avoid poverty or elevate those in poverty into self reliance, bureaucrats establish COC (Continuum of Care) criteria which will keep people in poverty. If bureaucrats won the war on poverty they would be out of work. The fundamental priority of government workers seems to be more focused upon job security than solving the problems they are hired to solve. Once again, job security trumps altruism.
1. Elect people who will ween government dependency to private charitable resources.
2. Quit using tax-payer funds (other people’s money) to subsidize ‘good intentions’.
3. Stop passing laws which grant special privileges to legislators.
4. Stop using tax-payer funds to interfere in the free market by granting those with the greatest wealth the greatest privilege and political leverage.
5. Let the free market forces of supply and demand determine which business enterprises will fail or prosper.
6. Enforce the laws which have already been passed and were NOT discretionary.
7. Quit deferring government and corporate costs for incompetence and imprudence to the taxpayer.
8. Restore traditional ‘core values’ of our Constitutional Republic.
I have formulated and presented a hypothesis on this personal blog and several groups in the social media. The hypothesis presented is concerning the definition, behavior, and characteristics of an elite class of people I have called the “Aristazzi”. The Aristazzi are “the obscenely wealthy elite who employ their wealth, in the United States and elsewhere, to manipulate and control government to their own self-gratification and hedonism.” As with all scientific hypotheses, it must be capable of being falsified (proven or disproven); to retain the element of ‘falsifiability’. I welcome evidence to disprove the premises of my hypothesis, but sometimes the arguments of a hypothesis are not contradicted or denied, but the person presenting the arguments. I have referred to such attacks as ‘putting personalities before principles’. The following is a summation of the misguided, misleading, unethical, and unscholarly approach to debate and deliberation known as “argumentum ad hominem”:
Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person’s character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
- Ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
- Ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person’s circumstances.
- Ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.
- You may argue that God doesn’t exist, but you are just a fat idiot. (ad hominem abusive)
- We should discount what Steve Forbes says about cutting taxes because he stands to benefit from a lower tax rate. (ad hominem circumstantial)
- We should disregard Fred’s argument because he is just angry about the fact that defendant once cheated him out of $100. (ad hominem circumstantial)
- You say I should give up alcohol, but you haven’t been sober for more than a year yourself. (ad hominem tu quoque)
- You claim that Mr. Jones is innocent, but why should anyone listen to you? You are a Mormon after all. (ad hominem circumstantial)
Identify the attack and show that the character or circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended.
Barker: 166, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155, Copi and Cohen: 97, Davis: 80
It is essential to begin by affirmation of the fact that wealth (capital or material) like most everything else, in moderation is not inherently evil. Only when an attribute or material item is abused does it become an evil. The unique quality of wealth is that the greater the acquisition of wealth, the greater the capacity to produce harm by abuse. The Jekyll Island summit in 1910, with the JP Morgan/Rockefeller class formulated the architecture of the Federal Reserve Act (passed by Democrats). The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 established all United States monetary and debt control in the hands of the wealthy. This led to the Stock Market crash of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression. The manipulations of the Federal Reserve Board, creating money/wealth out of thin air, without the gold to give it stability and value, provided the opportunity for the Marxists during the Roosevelt administration to firmly entrench themselves in the Democratic Party while the Republicans became the party advocating the carte blanche endorsement of the #Aristazzi usurpation of government control with wealth and business interests. A major backlash to the fiscal opportunism fostered by the Federal Reserve Act, was the enactment of the Glass-Steagall Act which mandated banks must be either investment or commercial.
Between then and the repeal of Glass-Steagall (by another democratic administration) in 1999, the US went off the gold standard and allowed the Federal Reserve total discretion in interest rates, printing of money, reserves required by banks, etc.. After passage of Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act investment and commercial banks were again allowed to merge, becoming the #TBTF financial behemoths we know today, and laying the foundation for the cavalier and careless CDO’s, derivatives, CDS’s, and Hedge Funds whose improvident risk-taking produced the Great Recession.
The common denominator throughout all the catastrophic fiscal machinations has been the greed and self-interest characterized by the obscenely wealthy (#Aristazzi) working through both major parties to achieve their short-sighted gains. The unfortunate component of government intervention in the distribution of wealth (capital or otherwise) has been that those with the least wealth and political leverage suffer most while the obscenely wealthy laugh all the way to the banks they own.
Then, the minions of the #Aristazzi produce their lame opinions to justify the erosion of the middle class and unchecked decrease in the mean income. Not to mention the pompous arrogance of the #Aristazzi who apparently believe they retain a divine right to their economic superiority. These charlatans, demagogues, and mental degenerates cannot provide factual rebuttals to the historical evidence, so they rely u
pon the play book of “Rules for Radicals”; RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure
point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They wa
nt to create anger and fear.)