Will Obama pay a political price for his lies?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

There are a lot of people out there, doing incredible charitable work, but I'm assuming there's not enough voluntary charity to help everyone who needs it. I'm no expert on these things, but I wouldn't mind paying some tax dollars to help relieve the financial burden of our neighbors who weren't born as lucky as I was to be healthy.

My view on a strict libertarian is someone who believes everyone should be left to their own devices. I always found that to be self-centered.

should probably start with a pretty good definition...like most things there is a spectrum...there is in fact "libertarian socialism"..I assume a true libertarian socialist would agree that he may and is free to "reject capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating their common or cooperative ownership and management" but not force that ideaology on others through government force..

I think you confuse "left to their own devices" with a desire to be "free" from the "initiation of force" from government....I think a libertarian would tell you that charities would benefit far more in terms of charitable works and contributions if the individual, "left to their own devices", was working more for their own benefit and those that they associate with and less an effort to support the machinations of a behemoth central government, the government that you would like to have dole out only what charity is necessary and to only those who need it has sufficiently proven itself unable to do so in any responsible or sustainable way....this concept that without government there to provide, many would be left to wallow is something that I've heard many times from our President

"President Obama today delivered an impassioned attack on what he called Republicans’ “cramped narrow conception” of liberty, during a fiery speech at a campaign fundraiser in Vermont.

Liberty is the value of individuals to have agency (control over their own actions). Different conceptions of liberty articulate the relationship of individuals to society in different ways— these conceptions relate to life under a social contract, existence in an imagined state of nature, and related to the active exercise of freedom and rights as essential to liberty. Understanding liberty involves how we imagine the individual's roles and responsibilities in society in relation to concepts of free will and determinism, which involves the larger domain of metaphysics.

Classical liberal conceptions of liberty typically consist of the freedom of individuals from outside compulsion or coercion, also known as negative liberty. This conception of liberty, which coincides with the libertarian point-of-view, suggests that people should, must, and ought to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions, while in contrast, Social liberal conceptions of (positive liberty) liberty place an emphasis upon social structure and agency and is therefore directed toward ensuring egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism (from French égal, meaning "equal")—or, rarely, equalitarianism[1][2]—is a trend of thought that favors equality for all people. Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.[3] The Cultural theory of risk holds egalitarianism as defined by (1) a negative attitude towards rules and principles, and (2) a positive attitude towards group decision-making, with fatalism termed as its opposite.[4] According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the term has two distinct definitions in modern English.[5] It is defined either as a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights[6] or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people or the decentralisation of power . Some sources define egalitarianism as the point of view that equality reflects the natural state of humanity.

so you see the.... "positive conception of liberty"(conveniently created) is not liberty at all but socialism which is the polar opposite of "negative conception of liberty"(mis-named by the creators of the positive conception of liberty) and the two are not compatible which explains the ultimate problem that we have currently in our society....the most successful dictators on the planet historically have built their causes on the "positive conceptions of various "liberties", it's a ruse ...and it works"



Before an electrified crowd of 4500 – his largest of the campaign to date – Obama framed the 2012 campaign as a stark choice between two diametrically opposed political and economic philosophies.

“Their philosophy is simple: you’re on your own,” Obama said of the GOP.

“You’re on your own if you’re out of work, can’t find a job. Tough luck you’re on your own. You don’t have health care: That’s your problem. You’re on your own. If you’re born into poverty, lift yourself up with your own bootstraps, even if you don’t have boots. You’re on your own. They believe that’s how America is advanced,” he said.

“That’s the cramped narrow conception they have of liberty, and they are wrong,” he said. “They are wrong.”


under Obama's "warped concept of liberty"....we give government the excuse to take and dole out and grow beyond it's necessity and means as it pleases all on the assumption that individuals are incapable of taking care of themselves and those around them when it is fact proven time and again that it is government that is ill equipped to preform this task(I think you have pointed this out repeatedly)...pretty sure the Founding Fathers pointed this out too...a long time ago when the concept of libertarianism was hatched

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free")[1] is a set of related political philosophies that uphold freedom as the highest political end.[2][3] This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty,[4][5] political freedom, and voluntary association. It is the antonym to authoritarianism.[6] Different schools of libertarianism disagree over whether the state should exist and, if so, to what extent.[7] While minarchists propose a state limited in scope to preventing aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud, anarchists advocate its complete elimination as a political system.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] While certain libertarian currents are supportive of laissez-faire capitalism and private property rights, such as in land and natural resources, others reject capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating their common or cooperative ownership and management[14][15][16][17] (see libertarian socialism).

In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, libertarianism is defined as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.[18] Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[19] The U.S. Libertarian Party promotes individual sovereignty and seeks an end to coercion, advocating a government that is limited to protecting individuals from the initiation of force.[20


btw...if you "wouldn't mind paying some tax dollars to help relieve the financial burden of our neighbors who weren't born as lucky as I was to be healthy"...that should be something that you are free to do as often as you wish(libertarian concept) but should not result in your neighbors being forced to do so(other half of the libertarian concept) and wouldn't it make more sense to give those dollars directly to a hospital or charity(libertarian concept) that doesn't have a multi, multi bazillion dollar website that doesn't work?????(evidence for the basis of libertarian concept)

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

btw...if you "wouldn't mind paying some tax dollars to help relieve the financial burden of our neighbors who weren't born as lucky as I was to be healthy"...that should be something that you are free to do as often as you wish(libertarian concept) but should not result in your neighbors being forced to do so(other half of the libertarian concept) and wouldn't it make more sense to give those dollars directly to a hospital or charity(libertarian concept) that doesn't have a multi, multi bazillion dollar website that doesn't work?????(evidence for the basis of libertarian concept)

What I'm saying is that if EFFECTIVE EFFICIENT government programs can fill the inevitable gaps that charities could not fix, I'm OK with that. I am not saying that Obamacare fits that description.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What I'm saying is that if EFFECTIVE EFFICIENT government programs can fill the inevitable gaps that charities could not fix, I'm OK with that. I am not saying that Obamacare fits that description.

name one and what exactly are these "inevitable gaps"?

"CNN has been pondering what they call “a particularly tough few days at the White House.” “Four out of five Americans have little or no trust in their government to do anything right,” says chief political analyst Gloria Borger. “And now Obama probably feels the same way.” Our hearts go out to him, poor wee disillusioned thing. We are assured by the headline writers that the president was “unaware” of Obamacare’s website defects, and the NSA spying, and the IRS targeting of his political enemies, and the Justice Department bugging the Associated Press, and pretty much anything else you ask him about. But, as he put it, “nobody’s madder than me” at this shadowy rogue entity called the “Government of the United States” that’s running around pulling all this stuff. And, once he finds out who’s running this Government of the United States rogue entity, he’s gonna come down as hard on him as he did on that videomaker in California; he’s gonna send round the National Park Service SWAT team to teach that punk a lesson he won’t forget."

"But the fact remains that nowhere in the Western world has the governmentalization of health care been so incompetently introduced and required protection by such a phalanx of lies. Obamacare is not a left–right issue; it’s a fraud issue."

brilliant.. http://www.nationalreview.com/node/362922/print

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

name one and what exactly are these "inevitable gaps"?


brilliant.. http://www.nationalreview.com/node/362922/print

I personally know people who have had to sell their homes and rent crappy apartments because of medical bills. It should never, ever happen.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I personally know people who have had to sell their homes and rent crappy apartments because of medical bills. It should never, ever happen.

I know people who have had to sell their homes and rent apartments because of many reasons, should we create an "EFFECTIVE EFFICIENT government program" for each of those as well because "it should never, ever happen"??

you just provided the rationale for every massive bureaucratic transfer system that we have, please name one that is EFFECTIVE and EFFICIENT.......one that did not start from sentiment like the one you expressed only to grow exponentially beyond it's promised purpose and cost....one that is not unsustainable and headed for disaster as you've pointed out countless times....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

I know people who have had to sell their homes and rent apartments because of many reasons, should we create an "EFFECTIVE EFFICIENT government program" for each of those as well because "it should never, ever happen"??

you just provided the rationale for every massive bureaucratic transfer system that we have, please name one that is EFFECTIVE and EFFICIENT.......one that did not start from sentiment like the one you expressed only to grow exponentially beyond it's promised purpose and cost....one that is not unsustainable and headed for disaster as you've pointed out countless times....

In my opinion, which you disagree with...I'd rather have some kind of public program that levels the playing field to lessen the financial impacts of catastrophic health costs which (1) those afflicted have zero control over, and which (2) could happen to any of us at any time. I'd rather have it at the local level than in DC.

"I know people who have had to sell their homes and rent apartments because of many reasons"

Me too. I'm not talking about allowing people to avoid responsibility for bad decisions. I'm talking about helping those who did absolutely nothing to contribute to their predicament. If someone could devise a well run program to achieve that goal, I'd support it. Maybe you wouldn't.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

In my opinion, which you disagree with...I'd rather have some kind of public program that levels the playing field to lessen the financial impacts of catastrophic health costs which (1) those afflicted have zero control over, and which (2) could happen to any of us at any time. I'd rather have it at the local level than in DC.

We already have a system wherein it can and must be had at the local level--the governmental structure prescribed by the U.S. Constitution. Having it at a centralized national level destroys the constitutional structure. It's not a question of "rather" having it at the local level. It either "must" be there or it entirely changes the political structure and the relationship of the individual to the government.

"I know people who have had to sell their homes and rent apartments because of many reasons"

Me too. I'm not talking about allowing people to avoid responsibility for bad decisions. I'm talking about helping those who did absolutely nothing to contribute to their predicament. If someone could devise a well run program to achieve that goal, I'd support it. Maybe you wouldn't.

Many of those reasons Scott was talking about also involve situations where the individual has, as you put it, "zero control over". Two that I mentioned above, growing old and in need of 24/7 care and the loss of job and income. Their is no such thing as a well run "government" program to solve them without changing the nature of our society. If you think a "safe" government manipulated society is better than one of individual choice fraught with messy problems, than we differ in more than minor preferences.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

I know people who have had to sell their homes and rent apartments because of many reasons, should we create an "EFFECTIVE EFFICIENT government program" for each of those as well because "it should never, ever happen"??

you just provided the rationale for every massive bureaucratic transfer system that we have, please name one that is EFFECTIVE and EFFICIENT.......one that did not start from sentiment like the one you expressed only to grow exponentially beyond it's promised purpose and cost....one that is not unsustainable and headed for disaster as you've pointed out countless times....

It seems that government programs are most effective in creating a greater need for their service than existed before the programs started. That appears to be the nature of providing "help". The appearance is that they are "working" because more seek the help. So the "help" expands and the cost gets larger not only because of larger numbers to be "helped" but because the large pool of govt. money also raises the cost of the "help".

In reality, people become less "efficient" in solving their own problems because it is easier to let government do it.

It is such an obvious circle of events. But the allure of easier living is too great to resist. That it is heading toward a collapse of a system of individual responsibility to one of government dependence appears not to be a problem. It can all be replaced with an effectively efficient system of total government control. That such systems have not worked due to that mysterious desire in human nature to be free of them is not a problem. Our way will be better.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I personally know people who have had to sell their homes and rent crappy apartments because of medical bills. It should never, ever happen.

Would it have been possible for those people (how many?--I don't know any--is this a rampant problem?)--would it have been possible for them to refinance their home for a loan to pay off their medical bills? And if, after paying the medical bills they couldn't afford to rent "nice" rather than "crappy" apartments, were they already in financial difficulty? If not, couldn't the money they paid for an apartment been used to pay notes on the refinanced house? Lots of questions to be answered here before government mandates that everyone else should pay for their medical bills.

Should old folks be able to keep or pass on all of their assets to family (homes, cars, bank accounts, etc.) and still have the "government" pay for their expensive care in nursing homes?

Should people who lose a job have the "government" subsidize their house notes so they can stay their rather than move to crappy apartments.

There are so many situations which affect millions of people from which they have to extricate themselves that could easily be "fixed" by the "government" paying for the fix.

Sorry Scott--posted this while you were posting yours.

[Fly Rod]

All one has to do to see how poorly government runs it health program we just have to look at how the VA treats its wounded soldiers....it is socialist medicine

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Would it have been possible for those people (how many?--I don't know any--is this a rampant problem?)--would it have been possible for them to refinance their home for a loan to pay off their medical bills? And if, after paying the medical bills they couldn't afford to rent "nice" rather than "crappy" apartments, were they already in financial difficulty? If not, couldn't the money they paid for an apartment been used to pay notes on the refinanced house? Lots of questions to be answered here before government mandates that everyone else should pay for their medical bills.

Should old folks be able to keep or pass on all of their assets to family (homes, cars, bank accounts, etc.) and still have the "government" pay for their expensive care in nursing homes?

Should people who lose a job have the "government" subsidize their house notes so they can stay their rather than move to crappy apartments.

There are so many situations which affect millions of people from which they have to extricate themselves that could easily be "fixed" by the "government" paying for the fix.

Sorry Scott--posted this while you were posting yours.

"And if, after paying the medical bills they couldn't afford to rent "nice" rather than "crappy" apartments, were they already in financial difficulty?"

No. The family I know, had medical bills that ran in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not mane people can write a check for that amount and not see a big downward shift in their standard of living, and it doesn't necessarily mean that they were in "financial difficulty" to begin with. They weren't uber-rich, but they were not in financial difficulty by my standards.

I'm not naïve enough to believe that the feds could pull it off without waste and abuse. Nor am I so cynical and callous that I'm willing to say "tough cookies" to people who are so afflicted.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"And if, after paying the medical bills they couldn't afford to rent "nice" rather than "crappy" apartments, were they already in financial difficulty?"

No. The family I know, had medical bills that ran in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not mane people can write a check for that amount and not see a big downward shift in their standard of living, and it doesn't necessarily mean that they were in "financial difficulty" to begin with. They weren't uber-rich, but they were not in financial difficulty by my standards.

I'm not naïve enough to believe that the feds could pull it off without waste and abuse. Nor am I so cynical and callous that I'm willing to say "tough cookies" to people who are so afflicted.

Now you're really losing me. We need a government program to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars? If there were such a program, don't you think there would be a lot more cases of such need as exist now? And if the government was willing to pay for them all, wouldn't that even raise the cost of the medicine even more? It sounds like the prescription for more of the same escalating costs we are experiencing now--on steroids.

Wouldn't it be more effective, and more economically reasonable for the rest of society, if the individual negotiated those prices rather than the government either just paying them or instead controlled them.

If your friends could not afford to pay, the medical providers could not collect. Either negotiation or default would occur. Third party has distorted this into a spiral of higher costs, government intervention, and unsustainable debts.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm not naïve enough to believe that the feds could pull it off without waste and abuse.

that's a relief

Nor am I so cynical and callous that I'm willing to say "tough cookies" to people who are so afflicted.

that statement presumes that the only option for "those so afflicted" is assistance from some benevolent government entity or death in the streets, which I think would fit quite nicely into an Obama campaign speech