Eliminating Medicare as we know it
Get ready to hear a lot of this sort of thing: “Paul Ryan’s plan would ELIMINATE MEDICARE as we know it.”
The words “eliminate Medicare” will be said with great emphasis, and the phrase “as we know it” will be much softer in volume and spoken a lot quicker. The idea is to have the listener focus in fear on the first phrase, with the second as an almost meaningless afterthought.
What will be left out? Oh, just about everything: the fact that Medicare “as we know it” is already unsustainable, the fact that Medicare “as we know it” would also be “eliminated” by Obamacare, and of course the actual facts of Ryan’s actual plan, which go like this:
But Ryan’s new plan, released this year, is more generous in terms of what it would provide for subsidies, and it keeps traditional Medicare as an option for all beneficiaries, both current and future.
Here’s a quick rundown of the latest Ryan plan:
For seniors who are now in Medicare, nothing changes. They can stay with the traditional program as it is.
Beginning in 2023, 65-year-olds would have their choice of insurance plans ”” private and traditional ”” on a new Medicare exchange. A premium-support payment, like a subsidy, would be sent to the plan of their choice.
If the chosen plan costs more than the premium-support, the senior would pay the difference.
The Medicare eligibility age would be slowly raised to 67 by 2034.
All plans on the Medicare exchange would offer a base level of benefits, and they would be regulated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The premium-support payments would be tied to the second-cheapest plan, which can’t grow more than gross domestic product plus 0.5 percentage points. If the cost does grow faster, Congress would be required to step in and take some action to keep costs down.
CBO didn’t conduct an analysis that shows what seniors might have to spend out of pocket under the latest plan. But it said that “beneficiaries might face higher costs,” adding that there was uncertainty in making such predictions. CBO said that both the Ryan plan and current law could lead to the same consequences ”” “reduced access to health care; diminished quality of care; increased efficiency of health care delivery; less investment in new, high-cost technologies; or some combination of those outcomes. In addition, beneficiaries might face higher costs, which could in turn reinforce some of the other effects.” And some of the effects would be greater under the Ryan plan because government spending is lower. But there was no estimate of seniors paying $6,000 more, or any other amount, under the latest GOP plan.
Hey, but if you’re the Obama campaign, why let a few facts get in the way of good propaganda?
More here about Ryan and Medicare.
And here’s a joint interview with Romney and Ryan:
A little over a year ago a prominent Democrat said:
Answer here. Should make for great campaign add fodder for R&R.
add = advertisement. Sorry.
The funny thing is of course that we’ve already been hearing about how Paul Ryan wants to eliminate Medicare as we know it. It has been one of the Democrats’ key talking points since the Spring of 2010.
Didn’t work then, won’t work now.
Based on past experience and what we’ve seen so far, I expect that from here on to Election day, the Democrats will wage a campaign of total disinformation–all sorts of ginned up charges–like the recent “war on women,” and all sorts of distractions, naturally occurring–like the racially polarizing Treyvon Martin incident, or synthetic–anything they can latch on to, inflate into a crisis, or major incident of concern, and publicize and capitalize on, all to take people’s attention away from the Presidents dismal results and even more frightening statements–as when this past week Obama said that, given the “great success” of his rescue and transformation of GM, whose sales have come “roaring back” (based, of course, on gigantic fleet sales to the government, and because of GM making 75% of all its new car sales to buyers with FICAS below 530 who are very likely, many of them, to default on their loans down the road, but likely after the Election), he now wants to extend these same methods “to our entire manufacturing sector.”
All this also coupled with outright lies, mischaracterizations, a la “the private sector is doing just fine,” “the economy is turning the corner,” that Obama has been “a job creator and a tax cutter,” and all sorts of half-truths and distortions–i.e. Ryan wants to ”end Medicare as we know it,” and to, basically, kill seniors.
All of these memes carefully spread 24/7 by the Left and Obama & Co.’s “Ministry of Truth,” the MSM and almost the entire commentariat and punditocracy .
Thus, I expect that for the next almost three months we will have to wade through a river of what is, in essence, shit, and/or struggle to find a small piece of truth in a mountain of stinking and toxic garbage.
Unfortunately, I think that many of our fellow citizens, especially younger citizens, are not that well educated but are highly propagandized, and will fall for this shit, that with approaching 50% of our citizenry not paying and State or Federal taxes, 23 million out of work, stopped looking, or under employed, 99 weeks of unemployment now standard, a staggering number of people just giving up looking for work, retiring or signing up for Social Security Disability payments, and a reported 100 million getting some form of government welfare, that all of these people–in a society in which the work ethic has been seriously diluted–have very concrete motives for voting for ol’ Barry to keep those checks acomin’, and that many older citizens can be easily frightened into believing that Romney and Ryan are going to throw them “off the cliff,” out into the cold, or are going to come to their houses and personally rip their lungs out.
I also anticipate that, as things get more and more desperate for Democrats, Romney’s Mormanism and Ryan’s Catholicism will inevitably come under attack.
So, will enough people vote for our much under attack and weakening traditional set of values, instead of denial, and focusing on the Olympics, American Idol, and the latest celebrity scandal, vote to face our economic and other problems head on, vote for strong, bold actions, and some sacrifice, or will they accept the comforting lie that Obama has us on the right course and that by raising the taxes of “the evil rich” and with just some more stimulus, and more expenditures–i.e. “investments,” that “everything will be all right,” vote to sit back and let the “gubmint” take care of them, and await their government cheese (i.e. on Indian reservations the government frequently has a weekly/monthly distribution of free food, including large blocks of cheese)–cradle to grave.
Its good to point out the facts re the allegation, and to point out that Ryan does not deserve to be demagogued.
Separately, Romney, and his campaign team, do deserve to have their ticket falsely demagogued. After the second Repub. Candidate Debate, Romney’s surrogates went into the spin room and promoted one main spin point: “Rick Perry wants to end Medicare as we know it.”
I suspect independent voters will feel a connection with Paul Ryan, and will be empathetic enought, and wise enough, to recognize the Obama allegations as horse manure. Therefore, I do not think Romney and his campaign will be damaged. However, Romney and his campaign deserve to be damaged. Fully deserve it.
re the Romney campaign’s “end Medicare as we know it” allegation against Rick Perry:
the deceptiveness bugged me. However, what bugged me the most was that Romney was campaigning like a Democrat. I hated that. Hated HATED it, b/c of what it said about Romney.
I have to admit, and it is the naive part of me: I am currently overwhelmed by naive hope that Ryan will have an effect on Romney’s understanding of small government philosophy. In other words, I am hoping that Ryan will be a philosophical voice, in Romney’s ear, which cynical and shallow campaign professionals NEVER are. Romney has been surrounded by campaign professionals, and thus Romney’s philosophic understanding has remained shallow. I am hoping that Ryan can shift that, a bit.
Secondarily: I am hoping that Ryan can be Romney’s ear to the ground re the common voter.
Romney truly is an elitist, but in more than the typical way. Romney’s wealth insulates him, yet, Romney’s personal discipline and personal virtue also insulate him. Most regular Americans do not have Mitt Romney’s personal discipline and personal virtue. Thus, Romney sometimes has a tin ear: Romney is so disciplined, and so virtuous, that Romney sometimes has a difficult time understanding why normal people act in the ways in which normal people act; has a difficult time understanding how normal Americans are going to perceive certain statements and certain actions and certain body languages. And, I don’t want to let Romney off the hook too much: Romney, also, is simply a stiff who has a tin ear. Romney ain’t no instinctive genius, a la Bill Clinton.
Or Paul Ryan. Ryan is an instinctive genius. Ryan does have the common touch, and does understand the common American’s thought process. And Ryan does have the philosophical outlook which is necessary in a leader. Romney’s campaign professionals, by nature, will largely by hard bitten and cynical persons. Paul Ryan can help Romney. Immensely. I naively hope, against hope, and hope some more, that Romney will be wise enough to give an ear to Ryan; that Romney will not allow the campaign professionals to execute a power play which shuts Ryan out, and which moves Ryan’s voice far away from Romney’s ear.
gcotharn:
I didn’t like Romney’s anti-Newt and anti-Perry campaigning when it occurred, but the objective was to win the nomination, a process in which candidates do not take prisoners. I now feel great about Romney because he has the spine to fight, truly fight, the Democratic shit storm, the totalitarian Left. He can do what it takes, and picking Ryan proves it.
Compare Ryan to Biden….
re philosophy and leadership:
Rob Long:
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Paul-Ryan-s-Overton-Window
I have for a long time said that conservatives must understand and use Alinsky methods to fight the Alinskyites to have any chance of defeating them. Kinda like Allied saturation bombing of Germany after the rocket attacks rained random destruction on London.
Gotta do what it takes to win.
DonCarlos,
Romney’s deceptiveness did bother me. But, what bothered me more was that “Perry will end Medicare as we know it” amounted to campaigning like a Democrat.
A Republican ought campaign on the superiority of small government philosophy, on the superiority of the free market, on the superiority of the true meaning of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” inside a constitutional democracy. A conservative has the better of the philosophical argument. A conservative does not have to hide his philosophy; can be open about his philosophy. A conservative persuades voters over to the his side.
A Democrat has to hide the bankruptness of his true philosophy. A Democrat has to hide who he truly is, philosophically. A Democrat has to use scare tactics such as “end Medicare as we know it.”
What I most hated, about the Romney team pushing “Perry wants to end Medicare as we know it”, was what it said about Romney: it said that Romney was philosophically shallow, if not bankrupt. It said that Romney did not understand what it meant to be a conservative. It said that Romney, rather than leading, was going to be managed from the shadows, by the political professionals who only know how to campaign like Democrats.
Don Carlos,
I respectfully disagree about the best way to fight and to win.
I believe that independent voters are ignorant voters. I say that with no condescension, but, rather, just as a fact.
The best way to win independent voters is to persuade informed voters to your side: excited, energized, informed voters will then persuade ignorant independent voters to your side.
A candidate ought not try and take his policy to where independent voters are at: independent voters are ignorant and have no policy preferences: there is no there there: there is no place to which to take your policy: there is, there, nothing. Except policy ignorance, and lack of any opinion.
Also, how many voters can a Republican truly Alinsky-scare? and alienate against a Democratic candidate? Answer: not many.
To gather large numbers of voters, a Republican must lead: must persuade and excite informed voters who, in turn, will bring their politically ignorant friends and coworkers over to the side of the Republican.
I am not an airy fairy advocate of losing. The above is the way to WIN. Conversely, imo, the McCain method of pandering policy to ignorant independent voters … is the way to lose. And, for a Repub: Alinsky-scare is the way to lose.
IMO. In my respectful opinion. I do not disrespect you. I simply disagree.
I believe that by picking Ryan, Romney is demonstrating faith that the American electorate can recognize truth, will respect truth, and will accept hard reality.
I fear that he is too optimistic.
If Romney’s “democrat” style tactics worked when running against Perry, why won’t those same tactics work for Obama?
The answer is, they will if Romney and Ryan doesn’t handle those accusatory distortions facilely.
Concise, articulate and factual rebuttal by Romney, and Ryan will lessen the MSM’s ability to ‘spin’ and place Obama on the defensive.
Compelling ads refuting the left’s lies will help greatly.
But reaching beyond those already convinced, will require that enough independents in the swing states be convinced that Obama’s had his chance and failed to deliver…given a persuasive alternative (that’s where persuasion can be most effective), they’ll reject the distortions and lies, concluding that anything is better than what we currently have and, Romney will win by a substantial margin.
Otherwise, Obama is going to win by a slim margin.
Here’s what I think about Romney’s choice of Ryan in terms of how it will affect the election:
First, I deeply respect Romney’s competence.
Second, he proved his competence in turning around poorly performing companies and supporting good ones.
Third, you don’t do that unless you are very objective, very organized, and a good “numbers” man. You make most of your decisions based on facts and analysis…not hunches.
As a result, I’m confident that Romney did a very careful and objective analysis of the effect of his choosing Ryan as a running mate. I’m sure he used focus groups, polls, etc. to get the best predictions of how that would probably go. He has MUCH more money to spend for info to help him make such decisions than any of us commenters here.
I’m confident he made the best choice…both ideologically and with respect to the effect on his chances to win.
texexec,
The strategy may be sound (and I think it is) but it is in its execution wherein success is determined.
When the democrats scream, “Romney and Ryan want to eliminate Medicare as we know it!”
How they handle that fast ball across the plate will determine how persuaded independents are and thus the outcome of the election.
Romney and Ryan have to hit the ‘ball’ in contention squarely, a ‘foul ball’ won’t do.
A response like; “Actually, for seniors who are now in Medicare, nothing changes. They can stay with the traditional program as it is.”
and,
“Beginning in 2023 people get a choice; the traditional Medicare as we know it or a private insurance program. And the individual decides which works best for them. Our program gradually changes in ways that offer people more choice, not less”
Concise, straightforward, unapologetic statements will hit the ‘ball out of the park’ with independents.
As Rush Limbaugh just put it “this is a hanging curve ball waiting to be knocked out of the park.”
Wolla Dalbo Says: re your comment: “… that, as things get more and more desperate for Democrats, Romney’s Mormanism and Ryan’s Catholicism will inevitably come under attack.” It would be difficult attacking Ryan’s Catholicism, since Biden, too, is Catholic. But, it would not surprise me if, at a point of desperation, Dems begin going after Romney being Mormon.
I also believe that going after Ryan on Medicare will fizzle, in part, because of Obama’s own words, noted above, Senator Wyden (D, OR) co-sponsoring Ryan’s proposal, and, finally, my confidence that Ryan will, per Adlai Stevenson’s “let’s talk sense to the American people”, do just that — and most voters will understand.
The way to win is to hammer BHO with the cold hard facts of his record. Hit Team Obama for the bogus “jobs saved and created”. Hit them with Solyndra, NASA outreach to Islam, Keystone veto, Churchill bust back to the UK, supporting a would be dictator in Honduras, making buddy-buddy with Chavez, Fast & Furious, and so forth. Hit them with 1+ trillion annual deficits. Hit them with 700 billion taken from medicare to fund Obamacare. Hit BHO with the promises of hope and change that never came to be. BHO has had nearly 4 years to fulfill his false promises. Ask the American people if they can survive another 4 years of the same.
The way to win is to tell the American people we have an ideology that will provide certainty to the business community, turn the economy around, and put you to work; while Team Obama has a plan to put you on food stamps, rent assistance, and perpetual unemployment benefits.
I heard on Rush today that Ryan had received more in contributions, (>$400,000), from seniors than any other congressional candidate. Perhaps we old fools aren’t such fools after all.
Medicare does not pay for everything now. People pay as much as half as it is. That is why most people who can afford it have supplemental insurance.
There are so many issues to be dealt with just in Medicare. It is exceedingly difficult to explain with slogans or even a thirty minute speech. Of course the dems use the scary slogans, which amount to favoring doing nothing to deal with it’s insolvency. R/R should demand that Obama provide his plan rather than just criticise theirs.
Healthcare is such a complex field that trying to devise a grand, one size fits all solution from the top down is really crazy. Ryan’s solution is probably not enough to set things completely right, but it will have the effect of creating more choice and adding more responsibility to the individual. Both should bend the cost curve down.
There more for all of us folks if them 1% folks would just start spreading it around.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/08/13/obama_a_new_vision_of_an_america_which_prosperity_is_shared.html
UNBELIEVABLE.
Share the prosperity. What prosperity?
How are we going to even fund half of Medicare when no one has a job. 50% of new graduates don’t find a job. Isn’t there a collective laugh somewhere about this? Obama says his vision is that we all share the prosperity and things will get better if only all that old bias and hate is legislated away. No more Chick Fil A but Sandra Fluke will at least be kept babyless, thank god.
Which by strict logic is to concede the accuracy of the lefty talking point. Medicare is unsustainable. If anyone makes it sustainable, they are “eliminating medicare as we know it.”
Just pointing that out for funsies. Carry on with your celebration.
60 minutes, i.e. THE ENEMY, cut the following out of Paul Ryan’s interview:
Ryan:
This is why it never pays to romance the media. It is the same dynamic as if Truman had tried to romance the Japanese; as if Israel tried to romance Western leftists; as if the Crips tried to romance the Bloods; as if Optimus Prime tried to romance Megatron. David did not romance Goliath. No need to try. Instead: fight.
Great post, Neo.
And way-to-go, Greg. You’ve literally knocked the ball outta the park in these comments….
Fight is correct. This iwll be the dirtiest, most deceptive, most censored by the MSM election this country has known.
Independent and many other voters are ignorant. But there’s more, they’re tired and intellectually lazy. So they vote with their raw and most recent emotions.
“If anyone makes it sustainable, they are “eliminating medicare as we know it.” ”
This is true beyond the next 5-10 years, and this is true of social security. However, the idea that those above a certain age keep these benefits (at a reduced level) and those below be allowed to invest tax free in private accounts is the only way forward. (I know you disagree, but hang with me for a few more sentences.)
We have to work with voter majorities. There is no other way except revolution and imposition of will via the barrel of a gun. A new Constitutional Convention is not possible or even if possible would not turn out well. So it will have to be a gradual process. I know you disagree, but there are no other choices that do not run the risk of turning into October, 1917 or January, 1933.
In time a majority can be educated to understand the meaning of ponzi. If not, everything crumbles. You apparently think crumbling will have a positive outcome, I firmly believe crumbling will be the end of the USA as a relatively free society.
parker, you presume I am a lefty. Giving people more control and responsibility for their
retirementold-age income would be wonderful. The Constitution does not empower, nor would the Framers condone, the Great Society’s comprehensive social insurance scheme.This was one of the things GWB had right. But we learned how deeply the electorate, in both jerseys, clings to their belief in Santa Claus.
Y’all insist on the gradual process. But in Realville (I live a block over from Limbaugh), the process has always moved toward a bigger gov’t with more entitlements. I was still a believer in the gradual process in 2008. Since then, I got better at math. And our mathematical position tipped with Obama and the various collections of Republicans in Congress who permitted various pieces of crap legislation to pass, in the name of gradualism. How many continuing resolutions and debt deals does it take for you to see that gradualism is a one-way process?
Conservatives were praying to the black-robed gods to deliver them from Obamacare. When the chief god spoke, he reminded y’all that the Constitution doesn’t work like that.
Where we disagree is not over the risk of 1917 or 1933, but in our acceptance that we are already living in 1915 or 1931. I do not know that crumbling will have a positive outcome. The odds are against us now, as they were in 1775.
There is no “risk”, as if the collapse were avoidable. All we can do is attempt to shape it better and put the good guys in better position to survive.
I say this continuing denial of the failure of gradualism makes our position worse. I repeat here regularly that the near-term future I see stinks, but you all seems to think that because I am one of the few pointing at the storm clouds, I have been longing for rain.
Think of me more as someone who wants to seed the thunderheads so the rain will be more gentle. The longer the furies have to build the more we suffer.
Gradualism is blowing at the wind hoping to change the weather.
foxmarks,
I do not assume you are “lefty” … indeed just the opposite. We disagree, simple as that. You welcome a tornado and believe you can stand in a category 4 wind; I have a basement stocked with food and water, grandchildren to nurture, and respectfully fear the whirlwind.
Best of health to you and yours is what I wish for nearly everyone, I’ll look out for me and mine. In the final analysis we are all islands in an archipelago.
Obama’s retirement program.
No bad, he explained ain’t no bad.
When you’re nothing, no right no wrong.
You tell your self make a stab
smack dab in the middle of grab.
No man is an island, but some are peninsulas. 🙂
Y’all keep telling me I welcome a tornado. I keep wondering why you can’t hear the sirens.
It would help if someone around here could at least repeat back my point of view in a fair characterization. If we merely disagree, then we should be able to see the merits in each others’ arguments. If we merely disagree, that implies an underlying respect for each others’ intellect and rationality.
It might be a fruitful exercise, as it is acknowledged that I am not alone in forecasting the “doom and gloom” scenario, to try to build a case that supports my perspective. What assumptions have to change? What evidence is available?
I think neo tried that once, or at least threatened to. Since I have been away for months, maybe I missed it.
I think a good test of a person’s soundness of philosophy is to ask what the world would look like if nearly everyone had the same viewpoint. You try it Foxmarks.
Mr. Cluck: There’s a problem in the chicken coop.
Mr. Gobble: What is it?
Mr. Cluck: There’s not enough feed for everyone.
Mr. Gobble: So.
Mr. Cluck: The old chickens won’t stand for it. They say they were promised a certain amount every day. They promise to start a whole lot of pecking and keep all the chickens from laying eggs.
Mr. Gobble: Well, take feed away from the young chickens and tell them they’ll get it back later.
Mr. Cluck: We’ve already done that and we still don’t have enough.
Mr. Gobble: Well, just do it some more.
Mr. Cluck: Then the young will stop laying as many eggs. We won’t be able to buy as much food. And the problem will get even worse.
Mr. Gobble: No it won’t.
Mr. Cluck: Why not.
Mr. Gobble. Cause I said so. By the way, how did we get in this mess?
Mr. Cluck: I guess because we waited too long to take away more feed from the layers.
Mr. Gobble: By God, Mr Cluck, you’re ready for management.
“I keep wondering why you can’t hear the sirens.”
I suspect most who post here do hear the wail of the sirens, I certainly do, but we recognize they are several years away from arrival. Meanwhile, we can encourage the sirens to speed up their arrival or we can attempt to turn them around and eventually turn them off. We in the later category are looking at a glass half full.
Parker, I enjoyed your post. I prepare also. As I suspect many Americans do.
I don’t even look at it as glass half full or empty.
I look at it as what we MUST do.
We must get R&R in. We must change the Senate. We must educate, persuade and help people understand.
Advocating for disaster is not a method of persuading. Advocating for our children with personal responsibility and national security is.
Baklava says, “Advocating for disaster is not a method of persuading. Advocating for our children with personal responsibility and national security is.”
Total agreement. The way of foxmarks must inevitably lead to bloodshed and a prayer ‘god’ is on our side in the end, assuming triumph. Working, arduously, for incremental change is the only way to avoid bloodshed and hand our children and grandchildren a society they can rehabilitate and a society in which they may prosper.
We are standing at a crossroads.
ttp://tinyurl.com/273nahm
The thing about Ryan which Obama will hate above all, because it will be a threat to his status, a wound to his pride, a challenger to the throne of “brilliance,” is exactly that: Ryan’s brilliance. The general acknowledgement of Ryan’s competence, that six minute video of Ryan instructing (yes, instructing) Obama, and Ryan’s youth (oh my, He is quite younger than Obama, isn’t he?) will rankle, seriously rankle Obama’s peace and self indulgence.
It may lead to Obama’s undoing because Obama must undo Ryan. Nothing else will quite matter because for Obama nothing else is as important as Obama. Like Khan chasing Kirk, Obama must and will chase Ryan. The obsession will show itself soon through Obama’s surrogates but I doubt if Obama will be patient enough or secure enough to allow anyone other than He, yes, the Imperial “He,” to destroy Ryan.
The teeth are set for knashing, the fists are clenched and the brain fuddled with one big thought, the thought which Obama has applied to all others and now applies to himself: It’s not fair.
More than Obama are becoming unglued!
Candy Crowley
Andrea Mitchell
Juan Williams
I mean you should’ve seen Juan Williams on O’rielly yesterday. Unglued. Find it.
This is all very instructive to people who normally don’t pay attention.
[Before anyone complains as to size, i waited till this thread was full up with discussion and said nothing…]
Problems are only problems relative to other things.
No?
For instance, this SEEMS very important…
However, in light of information, and certain eventual outcomes (thank Trotsky for the idea of permanent war until total control is reached), would it seem so very important?
Reminds me of a point made in the bible, how can you help your brother remove a splinter from his eye when you have a board in your own?
I.e. You’re no good to anyone unless your all together (drowning men don’t save drowning men)
In order to wonder whether you have this issue or not, OTHER issues have to be handled correctly. Otherwise you’re spitting in the wind ignoring the larger looming picture…
Chinese companies are pulling out of the US stock market… T bills are being sold off, and other things like this that are not making it to main stream news. After all, its an election cycle and Obama selling point is peace on earth good will towards men as ad copy… so the idea that since he has taken up the task, we have been hit and inundated with tons of stuff that no one really wants to look at and lay out on the table along with everything else. That is, they are being selective in what they pay attention to, so that they can avoid the big sword of Damocles. However failure to pay attention to it, is failure, to prepare for what can be seen by everyone but is ignored till the fateful day it happens and then they claim they were “surprised”.
.
Washington Free Beacon
Russian attack submarine sailed in Gulf of Mexico undetected for weeks, U.S. officials say
http://freebeacon.com/silent-running/
A capitalist country can only function if it has a strong military so that stability is maintained, as many of its efficiencies depend on this stability to be there as a given… (At least for normal operation). The US operated during WWII because it was too far away to hurt its stability directly, and so its system changed over in terms of what it produced, not crippled so it couldn’t produce regardless.
This makes such regimes VERY fragile comparatively, and when their people lose their culture and knowledge passed down through the father (not mother), they become even weaker…
After all the whole wrong headed disseminated position is that “the world is safe”, “society security and stability is a given”, and so all those modifications to culture, passing on information, religion and such can now go away, and the progressive matriarchy nanny state can continue without any concern.
.
So why fund the military, the protection thing, etc?
The idea we are 30 seconds away from being primitive and helpless due to such changes, is completely ignored… After all, how can you have such a society if the very foundation that its built on, is not stable other than for periods of time established by the prior Hegelian opposite to the nanny state matriarchy. Otherwise, how can people move “forwards” into this super fragile situation in which even natural disasters cause dysfunctional break down?
Such things would not happen if socialist feminism was not the majority dissemination vehicle. If there was a better way to soft control of a peaceful state, then something else would serve that purpose, but there is not. It’s a direct hook and channel to the homogenized majority demographically larger than all others… (and for whom opposition positions count on their side, not their oppositions!!!)
Before you say, them again, do look up crap, and see who pushes the most stuff in the media? Whose message is monolithic with no real opposition? Who has both sides of the argument in the ear of the largest demographic group and whose leaders are worshiped as secular saints? Who is getting signing statements targeted at them to bribe them for votes (the way some snake in the grass bribed them out of Eden last time)? Who has offices of health, offices of business, affirmative action, law advantage, and loan advantages, and so on and so on and so on, buying them?
[edited for length by n-n]
do note that if you remove the religious groups…
(funny how religous groups and these socialist cvommunist groups get along when the subject is to disarm!)
Pt II
Restrain Wasteful Military Spending in 2012: Letter to Congress
http://fcnl.org/issues/budget/restrain_wasteful_military_spending_in_2012_letter_to_congress/
How many of the below organizations participating in the letter to take money away from military (so that i can go to socialism and their organizations instead), and is leaving us in this situation…
After all, while someone like neo says she doesn’t support them (And I believe her!), where is the organization she supports that opposes them and sends out letters that have huge lists of things that politicians will listen to?
.
Ie. Where is the (meaningful) opposition?
Point out one men’s group that is on the list that isn’t a coalition of priests who are all male.
Hint, you will not find any… nor will you find a list that is similar from any opposition! It’s illegal for men to make organizations for themselves that are the equivalent of the women’s organizations below (unless there is some special reason like Catholicism). This removal of all opposition groups, and by law, and doubly so if by a certain race (but not others), is a one party dictatorship system. There is no opposition group of women… there is definitely no legal male group allowed to even form for reasons of exercise, let along politics!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[edited for length by n-n]
This is in the news today, and yet, the big topic we move to in the nanny state matriarchal view, is pool pee… the critical thing for the next century and future of mankind… right?
Investors Prepare for Euro Collapse
By Martin Hesse
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/investors-preparing-for-collapse-of-the-euro-a-849747.html
Artfldgr: no, the big topic is not pool pee. It’s the very small topic. As I’ve written several times before, I write about what interests me, and sometimes what amuses and entertains me. It’s not all politics all the time, and it’s not all the least bit important.
And what’s with this “nanny state matriarchal” business? I think you know better, but somehow you keep implying that’s the sort of viewpoint I hold.
Artfldgr, you must, simply must, dear, come over for tea. I’ve installed a dye in the pool and we all do anticipate a fun time. Do come, please. You’re such a sourpuss these days and we use to have ever so much fun!
The absolute B’Yotch Slappin’ handed, back-handed & handed again to Ms.Wretched Madcow Sunday morning by Rich Lowry was..well…ECSTASY.
Jeepers, Rachel, ya didn’t know your Boy King is raiding $741-Billion of Medicare to help finance his Healthcare Ponzi? Ya know, Babycakes, nearly a trillion,’Yo?
Obama is going to ELIMINATE ISRAEL as we know it.
holmes…The anti-Israel Obama ought to be outed consistently. And, hugely important, the half-trillion he plans to gut from our armed forces. China and Russia and many world thugs are licking their malignant chops. AND, the SCOTUS appointments likely to happen in the next 4-8 years. Profoundly IMPORTANT.
.
.
.
the fact [is] that Medicare “as we know it” would also be “eliminated” by Obamacare
.
.
The above statement is the real riposte that should occur every time you hear or see that statement.