Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) appeared Saturday to secure the 60 votes needed to move an $848 billion health-care reform bill to the Senate floor for debate, as the last two holdouts in his Democratic caucus said they will not join in a Republican filibuster.
After days of indecision, Sens. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (La.) declared that they will vote to advance the bill despite reservations. Reid now expects all 60 members of his caucus to vote yes at 8 p.m. Saturday, clearing the way for amendment deliberations to begin after the Thanksgiving recess.
Reid is aiming for final passage before Christmas. The House has already passed its version of the bill.
Final vote for debate: 60 aye 39 nay.
If only our nation were educated in the principles of distributism and subsidiarity.
And Sen. Landrieu’s vote only cost $100 Million.
“A largely overlooked provision in the Senate bill would send $100 million to Louisiana to help it cover costs for Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor.”
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/landrieu_yes_vote_health/2009/11/21/289462.html
But that’s how politics works. This sort of quid pro quo is not new and all parties do it. Still is is illustrative how we got into this mess and why we will never get out of it.
Message to all the do-gooder-nanny-statists: I wish to be left alone. I do not want you to pick my pockets, stealing from my family the equity I have earned by the sweat of my brow, to give it to someone else that does not have what I have earned because of their own life choices, all so that you can feel better about yourselves and lessen your irrational guilt or so that you can personally gain something for yourselves things that others have [i]earned[/i].
If you feel so strongly about giving health insurance to others, start a 501c3 and start donating. I may even make donations myself. But do not use the coercive power of government to steal that which others have legitimately earned through hard work and sacrifice. Do not further enslave future generations to the Federal Plantation. The bailouts have already enslaved our grandchildren. For pity’s sake, leave some hope that the Federal debt may someday be paid off and that our progeny may live as free men. As the Scriptures say, “…the borrower is a slave to the lender” (Proverbs 22:7).
I’ll say it again: I wish to be left alone.
3. Br. Michael wrote:
[blockquote]And Sen. Landrieu’s vote only cost $100 Million.
“A largely overlooked provision in the Senate bill…”[/blockquote]
It was reported on CNN’s Situation Room a couple of days ago. Maybe the Newsmax writers weren’t paying attention.
And maybe the State of Louisiana, that is still reeling from the double whammy of Katrina and a major recession (neither of which are that state’s fault), actually does need the assistance.
I’m sure most of you have seen the sarcastic headlines calling Landrieu’s vote the new Louisiana Purchase. The first one was a better deal.
5, then they should have gotten it without tying her vote to it. Slice it anyway you want to this the Democrats buying a vote.
Sick and Tired is right. We really should not have to pay for things we do not believe we will benefit from. In a modern world the free market can properly direct the flow of resources to things we need. All Government exists to do is redistribute wealth. Everything government does benefits somebody more than it does somebody else. How is that fair? We need to change the system.
A fair tax system is one where no one has to pay for anything they don’t believe they benefit from. That’s the fair way to do it. If I don’t drive why should I have to pay the same for roads as someone who does? If I don’t fly why should I have to pay for airports and airline safety. If I don’t buy stock, why should I have to pay to regulate the stock market. For that matter why should I pay the same thing for police protection as people who live in high crime neighborhoods.
Taxes could largely be voluntary. With modern computer technology each person should be allowed to direct their tax dollars to services they want to support, and not pay to fund services they don’t want. If that does not produce enough revenue for some services, those who think we need that service will simply have to pay more.
For example, if I personally think we waist massive amounts of money on the military, why should I have to pay as much as the guy who believes we need a million man army. If I am willing to run the risk of living with a smaller military, and I am willing to accept the consequences, I should be allowed to redirect my taxes elsewhere. Perhaps I live in a small town. What are the odds a terrorist will attack my little town. I’m betting they will not, and I am willing to take that chance. So, why must I pay to defend people in NY and Washington from terrorist attack? Let them pay for that. Their risk, their cost. Pay more or move to a safer location.
If I am a fan of public education and public health care. I should be allowed to direct my tax dollars away from the military and roads to education and health care. That way the market will decide the services and quality of services provided. If you think the military does not have enough money and you have already directed all your taxes to the military, you can voluntarily contribute more; and if there are excess contributions to the services I want to support, I should get a refund.
Mitchell’s proposal might work if he were the only person living on a desert island.
Even if Mitchell doesn’t drive he still benefits from the existence of roads. Goods are delivered to the shops (he presumably walks on dirt paths to reach) by trucks that use the roads. His house is protected by police and fire departments that use the roads. The garbage collectors use the roads to remove to carry off his trash. Workmen use the roads to maintain the lines bringing electricity, gas, water and even his Internet connection to his house.
Or, even if he is “no fan of public education” he benefits from an educated workforce and military. Most of the people who make his computer and software and Internet connection received a public education at the primary, secondary and even college and graduate school level. The advanced technology of modern warfare requires educated soldiers (not to mention engineers, scientists and even assembly line workers).
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
As John Donne said, “No man is an island.” We all live in incredibly complex interrelated communities, nations and world.
Ah, but #9 isn’t that what my friend Sick and Tired and I are proposing. That we each need to become an island. That we be left “alone” to live our lives and fend for ourselves as we see fit. That taxation should be deemed a theft of our assets unless we individually agree to the use proposed.
The market will not allow the areas you are concerned about to go unfilled. Private schools will arise if the public does not support the public ones. Most of the people will get educated one way or another. Someone will buy the roads the government cannot afford to support under the new system and set up a toll system for their maintenance. It might cost you more to get to work, but you will be paying less in tax; and the public will learn which private purveyors of road services have safe roads and bridges and those who don’t. Private companies will take off your garbage or you can do it yourself or bury it in your back yard, or burn it.
Mitchell, you and your friend don’t live on an island. You live in the same world I live in; and I assume that you even live in the same country I live in. You share in the the benefits I pay for with my taxes; I share in the benefits you pay for with your taxes.
If you want to live on an island, go live on an actual island. But don’t try to be islands in a community or a nation and to enjoy the benefits of living in that community and nation without paying your way.
But I want to pay my way. I just don’t want to pay anyone else’s way. Everyone needs to stand on their own. That’s the American way. If you can’t you will have to rely on the charity of others, and if there is none that’s not my problem; unless I choose to make it my problem.
Also, I did not say I would not allocate my taxes to roads, military, etc. I might. But I do not want to pay for roads in NY or Alaska I just want to pay for the roads I use. If the government can sell me on the need for a road, I will pay what I believe the road to be worth to me. If that is not enough then let everyone else pay or don’t build the road, or come up with another way to fund the deficit, that is fair. Same with health care, the military, the education system, the police, Airports, garbage collection, etc. That brings the market system to government. The invisible hand will work to efficiently allocate money to projects that benefit those who pay for them and therefore deserve them.
I know it may take some getting use to, but what I propose is the only way to be sure the government doesn’t steal my money and give it to you.
Now this cuts both ways, lets take the Iraq war for example. Would you have agreed to send your money if you knew Halliburton was going to make hundreds of billions of dollars in war profits? I would not; and most people would probably not have allocated a trillion dollars to liberating Iraq. But if I work for Halliburton, I can send extra money to fund the war and I will get something for my money. If George had been required to convince the public to write checks for the war, he might have had a more difficult time than convincing the Republicans in Congress.
Fnd look at the Wall Street bail out. What if Bush had been requred to convince the public to write checks for the bail out rather than convincing congress. He may not have done the bail out at all.
Finally, think how much less work Congress will have to do under this system.
What you want, Mitchell, is to live in a city, state, nation and world without any civic responsibility. It turns out to be all about you–and not about anyone but you.
The simple fact is that you benefit from there being roads in New York, Alaska and elsewhere. But you are not willing to participate in the cost of those roads. You benefit from public health care, the military, the education system, the police, airports and garbage collection whether you utilize them directly or not.
Am sorry, but the “invisible hand” doesn’t work. Or maybe it does, but is demonic rather than angelic. “Free markets” result in exploitation of the poor by the rich, sweat shops, child labor, predatory and usurious lending, monopolies, cartels, vicious economic cycles, etc.
I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. Any dunce should be figure out that powerful corporate interests profit immensely by war. And some of us were quite aware that Halliburton, among others, to exploit that war. Hey, it’s “free enterprise” at work. But it never occurred to me that I should have the option not to pay for it. (Of course it did occur to the administration that they wouldn’t have to pay for it–just leave the unpaid bills for the future. In the meantime the “invisible hand” bilks the treasury and the future for its profit.
If we had to rely on your charity to salvage the consequence of the workings of “the invisible hand”, we would have experienced one of the worst economic catastrophes in history.