Republicans Are About To Show Their True Colors

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2010 7:12 PM GMT
    Voters delivered an understandable rebuke to Democrats -- 30 million people looking for work, wages declining, millions of homes under water. The economy is a mess; it hasn't be fixed. Democrats paid the price.

    Republicans ran as wolves in sheep's clothing. Sobered by Tea Party challenges in their primaries, Republican candidates suddenly became populist tribunes. They indicted Democrats for running up deficits to bail out the banks without doing anything about jobs, even as incoming House Speaker John Boehner gathered the bank lobbyists together to offer Republicans as their protectors.

    Now voters will see the sheep garb discarded and the wolf come out. Remember the talk about deficits? Forget about it -- the first Republican priority is to extend all the Bush tax cuts, adding a trillion to the deficit over 10 years to pay for the extra tax cuts provided those making over $250,000 a year. The second is to gut the estate tax that applies only to the wealthiest families in America. This is solemnly described as defending small businesses and small farms from tax increases in a recession. But we're talking corporate lawyers and affluent doctors here, not mom-and-pop stores.

    Remember the posturing about the bank bailout? Forget about that, too. The bank bailout was a Republican program passed under George Bush and extended under Obama. The Obama administration at least pushed -- against unified Republican obstruction -- for curbs on Wall Street, including creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that would provide some protections to consumers from abuse by banks, insurance companies, payday lenders and the like. Now Alabama Rep. Spencer Bachus, odds-on favorite to be the new chair of the House Financial Services Committee, has issued a letter challenging regulation of derivatives, the very things Warren Buffett called "financial weapons of mass destruction." Republicans are looking to weaken or repeal the consumer bureau.

    And spending cuts? The most concrete Republican promise was a one-year moratorium on earmarks, symbolic at best, and insignificant in comparison to federal spending and deficits. Yet, even the symbol did not make it into the Republican "Pledge," the platform they released late in the campaign. It remains to be seen if it survives the Republican appropriators.

    What Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, the incoming majority leader does seem to promise is an assault on the most vulnerable in society. Where does he aim his hatchet? Not at subsidies for Big Oil. Not at the idiotic ban preventing Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices. Not at the giveaways to agribusiness. No, he lists a series of potential cuts, including repealing the Advanced Earned Income Tax Credit for low-wage workers and cutting a staggering $25 billion from support for poor mothers and children. Extension of unemployment insurance also faces opposition, and the press reports that spending on Head Start and education and public health will be targeted for deep cuts.

    The wolf is out. The poor, the unemployed, the children cannot accept these priorities in silence. At the time of his death, Dr. King was working on building a Poor People's Campaign. He thought it vital to bring the poor, across lines of region, religion and race, to Washington, along with people of conscience, to demand basic rights: the right to work, the right to a livable wage, the right to a decent education and the right to health care.

    By: Rev. Jesse Jackson

    This is what a hissy-fit will do when combined with immature actions. (And this is just the "intro music." Wait until the play begins!)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 12:14 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidblockquote>
    Health care is not a right.


    Interesting.

    Of course I disagree.

    If someone stumbles into my village hurt, we MUST render aid - and worry about payment after.

    It would be inhuman to refuse. No ifs ands or buts. A healer when faced with an injured person MUST heal.

    To do otherwise sets the precedent that should one of our own travellers be injured on a journey they would not be helped - and our village needs him - and whatever goods or knowledge he will bring back.

    It is a human obligation that goes back to our earliest civilizations.




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 12:17 AM GMT
    Do you conservatives really have to be completely dead inside and devoid of conscience?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 12:28 AM GMT
    UpperCanadian said Do you conservatives really have to be completely dead inside and devoid of conscience?


    "I want to help you. I really do. But you know, I just can't"
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Nov 15, 2010 12:38 AM GMT
    I believe any citizen (and even non-citizens) can work

    CAN and have access to are two very different things
    When you are in a republican policy recession such as this one
    access to jobs becomes severely limited

    Livable wage? Isn't that what the minimum wage is supposed to be? Or should we have the central planning bureau in Washington DC set all private sector wages?

    When was the last increase in the minimum wage?
    and why do you make the leap of setting a minimum wage and setting all wage scales? That doesn't make sense
    As far as equating the minimum wage and calling it a "livable" wage you're joking right?
    At least I hope you are
    We have in this country now what are called the working poor
    People who ARE actually working ........ and some of these minimum wage jobs aren't easy .... but who cannot feed themselves and their families
    Morgan Spurlock did an episode where him and his wife tried to work minimum wage jobs for a month on his 30 Days series
    it was almost impossible for him to do it
    http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi2683372313/

    We've had public schools in this country for quite a while now.

    Yeah and they've been defunded and under funded for some time too
    Priorites .... Priorities

    Health care is not a right.
    Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
    Back then there was no health care to speak of
    the founding fathers had no idea that we'd come so far in the field of healthcare
    Do you think they'd leave it up to the capitalist system?
    It's getting close to the Christmas season
    where some character once said .... Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? From what you said at first I was afraid that something had happened to stop them in their useful course. I'm very glad to hear they are still in operation
    When you have the ability to save someone's life
    Where do you draw the line and say ............ show me your ability to pay and I'll save it
    Do you want ambulance drivers to carry a mobile card check?
    Hospitals to turn people away ?

    Where does this capitalist mentality end and sanity begin?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 1:06 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidHealthcare is not a basic human right because, among other things, somebody has to provide the service.

    If I am a doctor, and if healthcare is a basic human right, then I am compelled to provide medical service to anyone who demands that I do.

    That's not the way it is.....


    look up "Hippocratic Oath"



    If you are a doctor your Hippocratic Oath says you ARE compelled to. It was the oath you must take to join the fraternity of "healers"

    That IS the way it is and has been for as long as there have been "healers" among human civilization (even before Hippocrates codified the Oath)

    A tribal leader was expected to defer to the healer in ALL such matters - just as the leader had to defer to priests in matters spiritual. to do otherwise endangered the tribe( the healer might go somewhere else where his or her authority is respected.

    If you cannot grasp that essential survival concept you are indeed totally devoid of conscience as well as incredibly short-sighted, or just plain stupid.

    A leader with your attitude would find himself leading a tribe without a healer and they would all die off in short order as they lose members to injury or illness until they cannot longer sustain themselves.

    Remember your own tribe's survival depends on your own hunters and fgoragers making it back safely. If they get hurt out there you needto be sure they WILL be helped. the only way to do that is to make that guarantee to others in your territory.
    Those principles are survival strategies that go back thousands of years.

    That is why the poorer the people, the more readily they offer all aid they can - because they DEPEND upon reciprocation and that kind of mutual aid.

    Now have I explained that clearly enough for you to understand why health care MUST be a right and always was until countries got rich enough that selfishness did not endanger their own survival.?

    No. Probably not.

    you lack the sense to realise it is in your OWN self interest to treat it as a right.

    Oh but I forgot -- Conservatives believe bad things only happen to people who deserve it - god is on their side, so nothing bad will ever happen to them. :roll


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 2:09 AM GMT
    jprichva said"Democracy is a system in which people get exactly what they ask for, good and hard." -- H.L. Mencken


    How about two from Frederic Bastiat?

    "The state is the great fiction by which everybody seeks to live at the expense of everybody else." (My favourite)

    "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."

    Many people interpret these to be commentary on when the poor "steal" from the rich. However, if you read "the law" you will recognize that it is also about when the rich make laws that benefit them (restrictions on competition, promotion of one company / industry at the expense of another, and the expense of the poor.) These work both ways...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 2:30 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidIf you want to make it so that doctors / nurses / hospitals / clinics are compelled to treat anyone who walks in the door, then amend the Constitution to make healthcare a "right."

    Actually there are already Good Samaritan laws that require qualified health care givers to provide aid at accident scenes, which they cannot decline.

    As for ER's, it's a matter of the funding to the facility, not that individual doctors & nurses must provide care out of their own pockets, as well you know. As usual you totally distort the issue.

    Someone quoted Dickens above, and they were correct to do so. You are truly the unmitigated Scrooge.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 3:02 PM GMT
    It's hard to believe that people still think the minimum wage is a good thing. I guess its the whole psychological aspect of it rather than the reality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 3:18 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidHealthcare is not a basic human right because, among other things, somebody has to provide the service.

    If I am a doctor, and if healthcare is a basic human right, then I am compelled to provide medical service to anyone who demands that I do.

    That's not the way it is.....


    The Hippocratic Oath
    I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

    I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

    I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

    I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

    I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

    I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

    I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

    I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

    I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

    If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 3:34 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    southbeach1500 saidHealthcare is not a basic human right because, among other things, somebody has to provide the service.

    If I am a doctor, and if healthcare is a basic human right, then I am compelled to provide medical service to anyone who demands that I do.

    That's not the way it is.....


    The Hippocratic Oath
    I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

    I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

    I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

    I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

    I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

    I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

    I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

    I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

    I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

    If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.


    Maybe you're confusing a voluntary oath with a policy matter.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 3:38 PM GMT
    Nope. We have doctors on both sides of our family.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 3:39 PM GMT
    meninlove said Nope. We have doctors on both sides of our family.



    What does that have to do with anything though?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 3:42 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    meninlove said Nope. We have doctors on both sides of our family.



    What does that have to do with anything though?


    Everything. They've heard stuff similar to what SB said, and disagreed. You guys are entitled to your opinions about doctors, but I'll stick with doctors' opinions about doctors, thanks.

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 4:02 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    mocktwinkie said
    meninlove said Nope. We have doctors on both sides of our family.



    What does that have to do with anything though?


    Everything. They've heard stuff similar to what SB said, and disagreed. You guys are entitled to your opinions about doctors, but I'll stick with doctors' opinions about doctors, thanks.

    -Doug


    But I agree that doctors should strive to treat everyone, out of their own free will.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 4:07 PM GMT
    ...and they do Mock, but are often ham-strung by the system they have to work in. When equipment, facilities, drugs and tests aren't free to the doctor or paid for the doctor's hands are effectively tied.

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 4:11 PM GMT
    meninlove said ...and they do Mock, but are often ham-strung by the system they have to work in. When equipment, facilities, drugs and tests aren't free to the doctor or paid for the doctor's hands are effectively tied.

    -Doug


    Well that's where realism ends up arriving and often times overriding the best of intentions which we all have. Everything costs money, unfortunately. At the end of the day the doctors have to feed their own families and make a particular living for themselves. If they choose NOT to volunteer their time for patients who are not profitable, then that's their choice. We can all have opinions though.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Nov 15, 2010 4:23 PM GMT
    for two years the GOP/teabaggers have been "the party of NO".

    lessee if they become "the party of HOW".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 4:44 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    meninlove said ...and they do Mock, but are often ham-strung by the system they have to work in. When equipment, facilities, drugs and tests aren't free to the doctor or paid for the doctor's hands are effectively tied.

    -Doug


    Well that's where realism ends up arriving and often times overriding the best of intentions which we all have. Everything costs money, unfortunately. At the end of the day the doctors have to feed their own families and make a particular living for themselves. If they choose NOT to volunteer their time for patients who are not profitable, then that's their choice. We can all have opinions though.


    And when his peers from the College of Physicians & Surgeons sanction him for violating his Oath his family will suffer because he is no longer allowed to practise, and others doctors will no longer refer patients to him.

    They are a self-governing body

    (which is why SB's "Constitution" argument is irrelevant. It is not the government that determines whether a doctor is alllowed to practise - it is the College of Physicians & Surgeons who decide that.




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 5:10 PM GMT
    UpperCanadian said Do you conservatives really have to be completely dead inside and devoid of conscience?


    Apparently, yes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 5:13 PM GMT
    Lostboy said
    UpperCanadian said Do you conservatives really have to be completely dead inside and devoid of conscience?


    Apparently, yes.


    Perhaps the ones with really big hearts and well developed empathy are just not posting?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 5:49 PM GMT
    Lostboy said
    UpperCanadian said Do you conservatives really have to be completely dead inside and devoid of conscience?


    Apparently, yes.


    Is it generous and compassionate when you're spending someone else's money? Conservatives donate in charitable contributions far more than their liberal counter parts. Americans overall are far more generous privately than other countries in the world.

    Painting economic conservatives as unfeeling evil gremlins may help some liberals sleep better at night, doesn't make it true, nor does creating new systems of dependency with other people's money make one generous or enlightened.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 5:59 PM GMT
    UpperCanadian said
    mocktwinkie said
    meninlove said ...and they do Mock, but are often ham-strung by the system they have to work in. When equipment, facilities, drugs and tests aren't free to the doctor or paid for the doctor's hands are effectively tied.

    -Doug


    Well that's where realism ends up arriving and often times overriding the best of intentions which we all have. Everything costs money, unfortunately. At the end of the day the doctors have to feed their own families and make a particular living for themselves. If they choose NOT to volunteer their time for patients who are not profitable, then that's their choice. We can all have opinions though.


    And when his peers from the College of Physicians & Surgeons sanction him for violating his Oath his family will suffer because he is no longer allowed to practise, and others doctors will no longer refer patients to him.

    They are a self-governing body

    (which is why SB's "Constitution" argument is irrelevant. It is not the government that determines whether a doctor is alllowed to practise - it is the College of Physicians & Surgeons who decide that.






    What does this have to do with forcing some people to pay for the health challenges of others?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 6:08 PM GMT
    Interesting, Mock, infrastructure is paid by taxes, yet human life, so much more important, is less important.

    as for riddler's assertion, "Conservatives donate in charitable contributions far more than their liberal counter parts."

    Last time we donated to anything, which is often and also recent there was no census taker asking what political party we voted for. icon_rolleyes.gif

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 6:20 PM GMT
    meninlove said Interesting, Mock, infrastructure is paid by taxes, yet human life, so much more important, is less important.

    as for riddler's assertion, "Conservatives donate in charitable contributions far more than their liberal counter parts."

    Last time we donated to anything, which is often and also recent there was no census taker asking what political party we voted for. icon_rolleyes.gif

    -Doug


    Unfortunately for you, anecdote is not fact. The data: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

    There have been multiple studies over the years though between political affiliation and charitable contributions. You can also look at this between countries - the supposedly most generous countries often (but not always) have the least amount of private giving by its citizens.