The Liberal Compassion Mirage

[jimnyc]

Two recent news items remind us of the disconnect between the Democrats' claimed monopoly on compassion and the effects of their policies.

First, consider the emotionally charged public debate over President Bush's veto of a proposed expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Programs.

Standing by congressional Democrats in their push to override the veto, singer Paul Simon said with earnest indignation, "The president's veto of the reauthorization of SCHIP appears to be a heartless act. I'm here today to ask those of you who supported the veto to reexamine your conscience, to find compassion in your heart for our most vulnerable and sweetest citizens, our children."

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, the compassionate Simon is obviously unaware that the matter is not as simple as merely throwing money at the problem. To quote House Minority Leader John Boehner, "There are 500,000 kids in America who are eligible for this program who have not been signed up, yet there are some 700,000 adults who are already on the program."

Simon, unlike the Democrats pulling his puppet strings, must not realize that President Bush supports a $5 billion expansion, not reduction, of the program, or that the Democrats' plan goes far beyond providing a safety net to the needy. It would allow states to make coverage available to families with incomes greater than $60,000 a year, which would entice people who can well afford private health insurance to opt for state coverage.

Is it good for the children for Democrats to exploit them as props in their quest to force socialized medicine on this nation, one incremental step at a time? Will the inevitably long waiting lines and substantially reduced quality of care be good for the children?

Why can't congressional Democrats just admit they have a soft spot for socialism: that they believe capitalism results in too much economic disparity and that government -– the Constitution be damned –- should redistribute wealth to suit their ideas of fairness? Never mind that a command-control economy results in a smaller economic pie. What matters is they care, and by gosh, they're willing to forcibly transfer other people's money to prove it.

As another example, consider the Democrats' obstruction of President Bush's efforts to reform Social Security. Who can forget the Democrats' (Bill Clinton's, Al Gore's) insistence that the future solvency of this entitlement was in such jeopardy that it must be placed off limits in a lock box?

Yet when President Bush attempted to reform this "third rail of politics," Democrats didn't just oppose the eminently sensible "partial privatization" aspect of his plan. They went further, completely reversing themselves and denying the system was in trouble at all. Our old friend Sen. Harry Reid said, "Social Security is not in crisis. It's a crisis the president's created, period. … The president has never seen a crisis he hasn't created. … [Bush is] exaggerating the solvency."

This time they went to the other end of the chronological spectrum and used seniors as props. Here again, they pretended to be intervening for the very group of people their demagogic opposition was sure to harm: future Social Security recipients.

Demonstrating once more their contempt for the private sector and free markets, they tried to scare seniors into believing President Bush was imperiling Social Security with his very modest proposal to allow participants to invest a small portion of their own funds.

Bush's valiant effort was dead on arrival, and we kicked the ball down the road. This week, we were reminded of the consequences of this reckless procrastination when the first baby boomer of a projected 80 million, Kathleen Casey-Kirschling, applied for her benefits. Despite the Democrats' denials in the name of protecting seniors –- most of whom are not yet seniors –- Social Security outlays are projected to exceed its receipts by 2041.

In the meantime, Democrat presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, in the spirit of compassion, is advancing new plans every other week to dole out yet more government money to various groups of voters, er, beneficiaries. These newly promised funds obviously will not be available to pay off maturing Social Security IOUs. But without the slightest self-consciousness, Hillary rails against President Bush for irresponsibly increasing the deficit -- though the deficit is, in fact, decreasing.

But don't you ever forget how much she cares about the children whose financial future she's mortgaging. Just believe her and her colleagues that it is evil Republicans who are bankrupting our children with tax cuts that have grown the economy and shrunk the deficit.

Conservatives must be prepared in this campaign season to return to their own free-market principles and expose the liberals' compassion for the ruse it is.

http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2007/10/new_column_the_25.html#more

[April15]

Flawed logic. The man needs to understand what is going on before he writes. Ann does the same thing. I guess profit with destruction of the earth and common sense is good.

[jimnyc]

Flawed logic. The man needs to understand what is going on before he writes. Ann does the same thing. I guess profit with destruction of the earth and common sense is good.

So try telling us what is wrong with what he writes.

[April15]

So try telling us what is wrong with what he writes.the short version; ALL of it.

[darin]

the short version; ALL of it.

You're showing us you are not a free-thinker; but a sheep.

[jimnyc]

the short version; ALL of it.

Bravo, nice dodge! :clap:

Meanwhile, the liberals will continue to lie about their compassion and claim Bush doesn't care about children while he supports a 5 Billion dollar expansion of the program.

[April15]

Bravo, nice dodge! :clap:

Meanwhile, the liberals will continue to lie about their compassion and claim Bush doesn't care about children while he supports a 5 Billion dollar expansion of the program.
You are entitled to see it that way. Myopic as it is.

[jimnyc]

You are entitled to see it that way. Myopic as it is.

And you're free to continue to judge from afar and chicken out when asked to speak specifically to what he was wrong about.

[avatar4321]

Flawed logic. The man needs to understand what is going on before he writes. Ann does the same thing. I guess profit with destruction of the earth and common sense is good.

So thinking Democrats should be honest about what they are doing is somehow flawed logic? Explain

[avatar4321]

You are entitled to see it that way. Myopic as it is.

Do you have anything substantive to comment on the article? Simply saying "Nah uh" is not very convincing. Do you even know why you are really opposing what he is saying, or are you opposing him just because he isnt a liberal democrat?

Compassion cannot be found through dishonesty.

[April15]

I am responding for Avatar not jimnyc


Two recent news items remind us of the disconnect between the Democrats' claimed monopoly on compassion and the effects of their policies.

First, consider the emotionally charged public debate over President Bush's veto of a proposed expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Programs.

Standing by congressional Democrats in their push to override the veto, singer Paul Simon said with earnest indignation, "The president's veto of the reauthorization of SCHIP appears to be a heartless act. I'm here today to ask those of you who supported the veto to reexamine your conscience, to find compassion in your heart for our most vulnerable and sweetest citizens, our children."

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, the compassionate Simon is obviously unaware that the matter is not as simple as merely throwing money at the problem. To quote House Minority Leader John Boehner, "There are 500,000 kids in America who are eligible for this program who have not been signed up, yet there are some 700,000 adults who are already on the program."

Simon, unlike the Democrats pulling his puppet strings, must not realize that President Bush supports a $5 billion expansion, The increase of coverage is based on need not some appeasment chump change increase not reduction, of the program, or that the Democrats' plan goes far beyond providing a safety net to the needy. It would allow states to make coverage available to families with incomes greater than $60,000 a year, which would entice people who can well afford private health insurance to opt for state coverage. Do you live in California? I would bet not. 60 grand would just make your mortgage.

Is it good for the children for Democrats to exploit them as props in their quest to force socialized medicine on this nation, one incremental step at a time? Will the inevitably long waiting lines and substantially reduced quality of care be good for the children? It is no worse than using soldiers to prop up a failed piece of nation building.

Why can't congressional Democrats just admit they have a soft spot for socialism: that they believe capitalism results in too much economic disparity and that government -– the Constitution be damned –- should redistribute wealth to suit their ideas of fairness? Never mind that a command-control economy results in a smaller economic pie. What matters is they care, and by gosh, they're willing to forcibly transfer other people's money to prove it. We have a quote from good ol boy George Bush regarding the constitution,DEC 2005
“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

As another example, consider the Democrats' obstruction of President Bush's efforts to reform Social Security. Who can forget the Democrats' (Bill Clinton's, Al Gore's) insistence that the future solvency of this entitlement was in such jeopardy that it must be placed off limits in a lock box? Yes because the republicans, specifically RR used the trust fund to balance his budget and give weathy a tax break.

Yet when President Bush attempted to reform this "third rail of politics," Democrats didn't just oppose the eminently sensible "partial privatization" aspect of his plan. They went further, completely reversing themselves and denying the system was in trouble at all. Our old friend Sen. Harry Reid said, "Social Security is not in crisis. It's a crisis the president's created, period. … The president has never seen a crisis he hasn't created. … [Bush is] exaggerating the solvency." And the system as they describe is pre Raygoon.

This time they went to the other end of the chronological spectrum and used seniors as props. Here again, they pretended to be intervening for the very group of people their demagogic opposition was sure to harm: future Social Security recipients.

Demonstrating once more their contempt for the private sector and free markets, they tried to scare seniors into believing President Bush was imperiling Social Security with his very modest proposal to allow participants to invest a small portion of their own funds. To imply investment with no money is a grand idea. I don't make enough to have insurance for health and you want me to invest what I don't have .

Bush's valiant effort was dead on arrival, and we kicked the ball down the road. This week, we were reminded of the consequences of this reckless procrastination when the first baby boomer of a projected 80 million, Kathleen Casey-Kirschling, applied for her benefits. Despite the Democrats' denials in the name of protecting seniors –- most of whom are not yet seniors –- Social Security outlays are projected to exceed its receipts by 2041. So it behooves the next president to work for a solution that is practical and feaseble.

In the meantime, Democrat presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, in the spirit of compassion, is advancing new plans every other week to dole out yet more government money to various groups of voters, er, beneficiaries. These newly promised funds obviously will not be available to pay off maturing Social Security IOUs. But without the slightest self-consciousness, Hillary rails against President Bush for irresponsibly increasing the deficit -- though the deficit is, in fact, decreasing. Yes the money will be from the war budget. No war for oil excess money.

But don't you ever forget how much she cares about the children whose financial future she's mortgaging. Just believe her and her colleagues that it is evil Republicans who are bankrupting our children with tax cuts that have grown the economy and shrunk the deficit. Voodoo numbers. Why do as many as half of all americans feel the economy stinks? Because they are not seeing any improvement in their life or income. Quite the contrary lower income after a long time of being out of work due to any number of reasons.

Conservatives must be prepared in this campaign season to return to their own free-market principles and expose the liberals' compassion for the ruse it is.

http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2007/10/new_column_the_25.html#more
The free market principles are being exposed and is why so many are leaving republican party and going elsewhere.

[darin]

april15 - you made NO convincing counter-arguments. All that was you saying 'Nuh-UH!! That's not right!!'

[typomaniac]

You guys are suggesting that just because the Dems aren't compassionate enough means that the Repubs don't need to bother with compassion at all.

That's what's wrong with your "argument."

[darin]

You guys are suggesting that just because the Dems aren't compassionate enough means that the Repubs don't need to bother with compassion at all.

That's what's wrong with your "argument."

that's very UN-insightful of you. Not sure how you reached that conclusion.

We're saying "Libs pander to the poor by making up lies about Conservatives being 'cold, and lacking compassion for the poor'. However, in the face of Facts, the ideas supported by the Left for their mad struggle for power, are Crappy. Conservatives seek to TRULY help the poor by helping them help themselves. :)

[typomaniac]

that's very UN-insightful of you. Not sure how you reached that conclusion.

We're saying "Libs pander to the poor by making up lies about Conservatives being 'cold, and lacking compassion for the poor'. However, in the face of Facts, the ideas supported by the Left for their mad struggle for power, are Crappy. Conservatives seek to TRULY help the poor by helping them help themselves. :)

Point to ONE successful Republican program to help the poor to help themselves.

I'll wait. http://th106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/RiverIsMyGoddess/icons/th_smiley_whistle.gif

[darin]

Point to ONE successful Republican program to help the poor to help themselves.

I'll wait. http://th106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/RiverIsMyGoddess/icons/th_smiley_whistle.gif

Limits on Welfare.

:)

[typomaniac]

Limits on Welfare.

:)

I said "successful." :p

(By the way, Welfare has always had limits. If it didn't, I could ask for and get a $5 million check every month just because I'd like one.)

[April15]

april15 - you made NO convincing counter-arguments. All that was you saying 'Nuh-UH!! That's not right!!'To me all the author was doing was strawman argument. No facts were discussed just opinion. OK lets take a 60 grand cutoff for health care help. For some family in a labor free or right to work state 60 grand is a fortune. In a good state like California where the innovation is a house is about 1 million to buy. Not everywhere but more or less. If you get a jumbo loan that is $100,000 or so a year in payments. Creative financing maybe 45K. That sure doesn't leave much for food or anything else and health insurance here is not cheap. A family of 4 is looking at the neighborhood of 1200 a month in premiums for a so so policy with huge co-pays.
So from where I sit the 60,000 threshold is not exorbident but a minimum.

[avatar4321]

Point to ONE successful Republican program to help the poor to help themselves.

I'll wait. http://th106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/RiverIsMyGoddess/icons/th_smiley_whistle.gif

The free market

[PostmodernProphet]

Do you live in California? I would bet not. 60 grand would just make your mortgage.


you need to move out of John Edwards' house.....he will be home right after the primaries.....

[April15]

you need to move out of John Edwards' house.....he will be home right after the primaries.....
He lives in the southeast not in California.

[typomaniac]

The free market

The free market is a philosophy, not a government program. Next, please.

[avatar4321]

The free market is a philosophy, not a government program. Next, please.

thats my entire point. We dont try to fix things with government programs because government programs make things worse.

We are the ones who take the restrictions off people and let them make their own choices. we call that freedom.

[actsnoblemartin]

The liberals want to cover every illegal and their mother.


Two recent news items remind us of the disconnect between the Democrats' claimed monopoly on compassion and the effects of their policies.

First, consider the emotionally charged public debate over President Bush's veto of a proposed expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Programs.

Standing by congressional Democrats in their push to override the veto, singer Paul Simon said with earnest indignation, "The president's veto of the reauthorization of SCHIP appears to be a heartless act. I'm here today to ask those of you who supported the veto to reexamine your conscience, to find compassion in your heart for our most vulnerable and sweetest citizens, our children."

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, the compassionate Simon is obviously unaware that the matter is not as simple as merely throwing money at the problem. To quote House Minority Leader John Boehner, "There are 500,000 kids in America who are eligible for this program who have not been signed up, yet there are some 700,000 adults who are already on the program."

Simon, unlike the Democrats pulling his puppet strings, must not realize that President Bush supports a $5 billion expansion, not reduction, of the program, or that the Democrats' plan goes far beyond providing a safety net to the needy. It would allow states to make coverage available to families with incomes greater than $60,000 a year, which would entice people who can well afford private health insurance to opt for state coverage.

Is it good for the children for Democrats to exploit them as props in their quest to force socialized medicine on this nation, one incremental step at a time? Will the inevitably long waiting lines and substantially reduced quality of care be good for the children?

Why can't congressional Democrats just admit they have a soft spot for socialism: that they believe capitalism results in too much economic disparity and that government -– the Constitution be damned –- should redistribute wealth to suit their ideas of fairness? Never mind that a command-control economy results in a smaller economic pie. What matters is they care, and by gosh, they're willing to forcibly transfer other people's money to prove it.

As another example, consider the Democrats' obstruction of President Bush's efforts to reform Social Security. Who can forget the Democrats' (Bill Clinton's, Al Gore's) insistence that the future solvency of this entitlement was in such jeopardy that it must be placed off limits in a lock box?

Yet when President Bush attempted to reform this "third rail of politics," Democrats didn't just oppose the eminently sensible "partial privatization" aspect of his plan. They went further, completely reversing themselves and denying the system was in trouble at all. Our old friend Sen. Harry Reid said, "Social Security is not in crisis. It's a crisis the president's created, period. … The president has never seen a crisis he hasn't created. … [Bush is] exaggerating the solvency."

This time they went to the other end of the chronological spectrum and used seniors as props. Here again, they pretended to be intervening for the very group of people their demagogic opposition was sure to harm: future Social Security recipients.

Demonstrating once more their contempt for the private sector and free markets, they tried to scare seniors into believing President Bush was imperiling Social Security with his very modest proposal to allow participants to invest a small portion of their own funds.

Bush's valiant effort was dead on arrival, and we kicked the ball down the road. This week, we were reminded of the consequences of this reckless procrastination when the first baby boomer of a projected 80 million, Kathleen Casey-Kirschling, applied for her benefits. Despite the Democrats' denials in the name of protecting seniors –- most of whom are not yet seniors –- Social Security outlays are projected to exceed its receipts by 2041.

In the meantime, Democrat presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, in the spirit of compassion, is advancing new plans every other week to dole out yet more government money to various groups of voters, er, beneficiaries. These newly promised funds obviously will not be available to pay off maturing Social Security IOUs. But without the slightest self-consciousness, Hillary rails against President Bush for irresponsibly increasing the deficit -- though the deficit is, in fact, decreasing.

But don't you ever forget how much she cares about the children whose financial future she's mortgaging. Just believe her and her colleagues that it is evil Republicans who are bankrupting our children with tax cuts that have grown the economy and shrunk the deficit.

Conservatives must be prepared in this campaign season to return to their own free-market principles and expose the liberals' compassion for the ruse it is.

http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2007/10/new_column_the_25.html#more

[typomaniac]

thats my entire point. We dont try to fix things with government programs because government programs make things worse.

We are the ones who take the restrictions off people and let them make their own choices. we call that freedom.

Then you and Darin have completely opposite philosophies of what the GOP is and should be doing. Letting people "make their own choices" is not enough to "help them help themselves." In fact, it usually hurts more people than it helps.