‘Haters’ of All That Is ‘Good’ Unite!

Johnny Wingnut

penguincoffee.jpgIt’s good to be a politician…especially if you’re one who thinks being in public office is an excuse to spend recklessly. On the other hand, if you scrutinize the spending on a popular bill, you must have something against those who benefit from the legislation in question…to which I say, “duh”; but not for the reason you think.

hill.gifI read an article today entitled, GOP slams Bush pledge to veto child health care; The Courier-Journal, September 21, 2007, A- section. (Yeah, I know it’s dated, so what?) The article in question clearly shows that neither Congress nor the president gives a damn about fiscal responsibility-an obvious fact to anyone not drinking the Kool-Aid. Eight years of Bush and the neoconservative movement have really given us all something to crow about. But hey, let’s not forget they had a lot of help from the Democratic Party.

First, Congress, in the writing of this bill, made sure that families who are privileged got coverage. How privileged? I’m glad you asked; apparently, “children in families with incomes of as much as $83,000 a year” qualify for benefits under the plan.

According to the article, this was Bush’s primary objection to the legislation…and I agree with him. In fact, I’ll go one further than that. The government has no business subsidizing health care to/for anyone. That’s right. Unless you’re a veteran, it’s NOT the federal government’s responsibility to finance your health care. And you thought I was going to give you that Bush compassionate conservative B.S. No, actually, I just “hate” children (and old people). Think I’m joking? Just ask any Kool-Aid drinker. According to The Washington Post:

If the president refuses to sign the bill, if he says, with a veto, ‘I forbid 10 million children in America to have health care,’ this legislation will haunt him again and again and again,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Or how about Maryland’s Chris Van Hollen :

Anyone who votes in lock step with the president and against children’s health, they are going to hear about it back home, Van Hollen said.

For that matter, just ask any bleeding heart liberal or kowtowing neocon you can find. The response will be remarkable consistent: “You must have something against children!” Only the very dumb, the very presumptuous, or the very intellectually myopic would make such a statement. But those descriptors generally define the players in the political realm, don’t they. Or maybe, they’re just being shrewd.

(God, I hate politicians. May they “slide under the nearest gas truck and taste their own blood!”)

Here’s a common sense question: How the hell are we going to pay for this? Here’s a cold hard truth. The politicians running this scam don’t give a flip about children’s health care. They sure as hell don’t care about you. The do care about getting reelected and it certainly doesn’t hurt their chances if they pass legislation which is both popular among voters and has broad bipartisan support. Besides, with the “if you’re against this, you’re against children mentality” ruling the roost, only those who aren’t up for reelection or who have a political death wish will come out against this legislation. The irony in this situation is that in the long run it’s you and I who are quite literally paying to reelect these bozos. How much will we be paying? Try $60 billion over the next five years. That’s how much this legislation is costing us. But that’s a government projection, so you can bet your sweet ass that there will be overruns. In the end, it won’t be the children who benefit from all this, nor will it be those who have been relieved of personal responsibility, it will be those bastards the enablers put in office so they could get their pet social projects financed by the federal government.

*This Diatribe is cross-posted over at Johnny’s other new home (Johnnywingnut.wordpress.com)*

Go say hello, and welcome him, but don’t pay attention to the mess, his Illegal Immigrant Maid was Deported.

Advertisements

~ by johnnywingnut on November 1, 2007.

12 Responses to “‘Haters’ of All That Is ‘Good’ Unite!”

  1. Johnny,

    This is a really good post because it goes to heart of the matter with what’s wrong with our great Republic. While I disagree with your position on government health care because our government is always been predisposed to handouts — as a homeowner of modest means, I get a form of welfare in being able to write down my mortgage interest and property tax — I think that your point about the misappropriation of tax money is dead on. After all, we have a military budget that consumes more than half of this nation’s yearly expenditures. Imagine taking a fraction of that and putting into better roads, schools, and, dare I say it, health care? What better way to secure the safety and freedom of our populace than to make sure they’re educated, they can conduct commerce and stay fit while doing it. Our priorities are fucked up, and, as you state, our elected leaders on both sides of the aisle just couldn’t give a shit.

  2. http://www.thejenatimes.net/Chronological_Order_of-Events.pdf

    Fairlane, you should work with facts, or at least credible accounts of complex situations, rather than your personal bias.

  3. No slappz,

    This will be the one and only time I respond to you or post any of your comments.

    Despite your pomposity, your actions betray you. To paraphrase an old saying, You can put a dress on a pig, but it’s still a fucking pig.

    You have clearly demonstrated you have no respect for other people with your harassment of Fran, and several others. You were asked to stop commenting, to leave, and you refused.

    Your behavior is indicative of someone who has issues with boundaries, which probably means someone/s in your life had the same problem. You can’t even fake it in an Ethereal world where people are nothing but avatars and pseudonyms. Maybe you were knocked around, verbally abused, your wife/husband cheated on you, whatever. I’m sorry, but your problems are not mine, and this isn’t the “Healing Place.” I retired from Counseling, and unless you’re willing to pay me $120 an hour, I plan on staying retired.

    Do not come back. Get your own damn blog, and pick up a book on respecting other people’s boundaries. And while you’re at it, learn some social skills.

    Fair warning to anyone who wants to engage No Slappz. By all means do as you please, but he/she will follow you back to your blog, and he/she will become a “nuisance cabbage.” He left 3 comments in about a 5 minute span this morning despite the fact that he/she knows I have no interest in having a discussion with him/her.

  4. Thanks Spart. Fairlane gets it as well and while we disagree (fairlane and I) on the role of big government, we both agree that the cost of health care is a problem, as is the ever ballooning cost of this war. We just haven’t reached consensus on what is the best way to solve this problem (health care). From where I sit, aside from big government stepping outside its proper domain, the current school of thought on “solving” this crisis, ironically, is precisely the same way the medical community (in general) has dealt with sickness: They deal with the symptom as opposed to the root cause.

  5. Johnny-

    Cunning Runt over at Little Bang Theory wrote a great post yesterday called A Matter of Priorities

    I cross linked it here because I think it speaks to same government waste and the herd-like mentality of our legislators.

    That said, I believe you’re absolutely right in saying that “They deal with the symptom as opposed to the root cause.” I suspect, however, the political battle will always be a quibble about root cause and not a search for solutions.

  6. Hey Johnny, here’s an idea: if we get out of Iraq, which is costing us about $10 billion a month, we can cover these kids for 5 years in just six month’s time and have about $10 billion a month thereafter to play with. How’s that?

  7. PINYC: I already told you, I hate kids. So I’m against Uncle Sam boondoggling a health care system to cover them. True wingnut that I am, (in all my “Wingnuttiness” as Spartacus says) I can extend that hate to the human race, because I’m against a national health care system as well. But even with my wingnut hate factor in play, I still oppose this legislation on principle. What is the principle? In a nutshell, I don’t think your kids are my responsibility. Neither do I think my kids are your responsibility. Furthermore, I’ve got enough shit to complain about concerning the federal government and this bill has got federal clusterfuck written all over it. That’s all I need–one more thing to bitch about. As far as the war is concerned, you’re right, it’s a hole and we’re just throwing our money into it. But even with the monetary cost, social spending is still the top dog by roughly $100 billion annually. This “little” federal insurance package is just icing on the cake. Fairlane and I had a pretty good discussion about this over at my blog, if you’re interested. Bottom line, even if we weren’t in a war, I’d still oppose this bill. Sorry if my answer isn’t breaking any molds today. But we’re having fun, right? Okay, I gotta go; I’m missing “Dancing With The Stars” and my beer is getting warm. Peace

  8. JWN: You don’t have to break molds every time, man. This is exactly the kind of intelligent, well-reasoned Wingnut opinion I like because it makes me think through my own beliefs and see if they make sense.

    I was strongly against Mrs. Clinton’s health-care plan on two grounds: 1) It was a massive give away to Big Pharma and Big Insurance and would still be a financial burden on the working-poor, let alone the lumpenproletariat and 2) It allowed a full-scare entree to Federal Law Enforcement into the practice of medicine.

    I have no doubts that her updated version as well as those of every other candidate except Kucinich’s will be the same. That doesn’t mean, however, that I don’t believe in national health care. You write the absolute truth that it will be a VERY big ticket item, right up there with Defense, DHS, NSA, CIA, FBI, Medicare and Medicaid. Social Security is exempt because given all of the loans from the SocSec trust fund to cover budgetary expenditures far afield from its mission, SocSec ought to be by rights solvent through the 22nd century. Nevertheless, I do have the same argument PIN does. I’ll go further, the USA also has room for low taxes and in fact no de facto expropriation of wealth at all.

    But you guys have to give on SOMETHING. Just get off the bully thing, freeze production of nukes while keeping the research open, end the wars and cut the DoD budget back to a level at which is “The Defense Dept” not “The Department of War”. Get rid of the bullshit National Security apparatus. Get rid of some of the “incentivizing” write-offs in the code (home mortgage — though surely not TODAY — church, mosque, temple, etc.). Streamline the IRS. Get rid of AMT and world-wide income tax. Do that with a reasonable VAT and you can get rid of the inheritance tax altogether, and even continue cutting taxes across the board. You can also cut the Medicare, Medicaid and VA budgets down to nothing because the Single-Payer system would cover their tasks, too. Start demilitarzing the police and feds once again. How about de-militarizing the military when not deployed en masse in a war zone?

    Bingo. You’ve got economic policy perfectly Wingnut-friendly and perfectly Liberal-friendly with plenty of room for Single-Payer National Health. Just bagging the Department Of Homeland Security would do it.

    But Wingnuts would rather die young saying “USA, USA, USA” than live longer with National Health.

    Or do none of it. I really don’t give a crap either way. I love children but I hate the goyim (I include Lieberman in that category) more than I can properly express. And I have national health where I live, as well as 10% top marginal income tax and 2% cap gains. So, I can only assume that you shaygitzim LOVE the system the way it is. If that’s your bag, I’m not going to tell you how to live. If you can’t afford private insurance or your carrier won’t reimburse you as you begin to age, I’ll feel bad because you’re a good guy, but I won’t feel bad for your neighbors. I’ll feel that (the collective) you’ve begun to reap some karmic payback for all the shit you’ve dumped on my people.

  9. All I can say to that is, “Yo quiero taco bell.”

    The “goyim” not withstanding strong comments, there, Father. I feel completely absolved, now, of my righty tighty guilt complex and I thank you.

    Take this as a compliment: From the bulk of your comments, I’d say you have a bright future in politics, (ever consider it?) but for one thing: You’re too damned honest.

    “Those who are about to die, salute you” and so do I.

    Buenos Suerte, amigo

  10. Pue’, tio, que es eso de la “Yo quiero Taco Bell”? Eres tu hijo de La chingada echada de la verguita o a lo mejor “el gusano del bosillo” de Lou Dobbs? WE DON’T EAT TACOS IN PANAMA EXCEPT AT THE MEXICAN OR TEX-MEX RESTAURANT! LAST NIGHT, I PLAYED THE 100-100 NL OMAHA AND WE ORDERED FROM THE LEBANESE PLACE.

    The “goyim” thing is hardly an exact science. Lenny Bruce had a good routine about this, which in the retelling will certainly date me (I’m 46). He said Mose Allison [was] a Jew but Roy Cohn was a goy. That’s what I meant.

    No, I’ve never considered running for office. One average EVENING for me would disqualify me on about 6 different measures. Been spending evenings in this style since I was 13. I have a heavily redacted file with your Uncle Sam even though I haven’t gotten so much as a speeding ticket in the States.

    I’m the ultra-liberal conservatives love because I’m such a stone-cold capitalist and am well versed in finance and economics and I’m not PC or doctrinaire in the slightest. When I make a political point about the need for affirmative action or providing food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and the chance for meaningful work for all citizens, it’s not only because I believe it but because I love busting up on wingnuts after I’ve shown my capitalist cred.

    Buena suerte de mi parte

    Caesar Julius, si o no?

  11. Oh the irony. Johnny W. is a staunch critic of illegal immigration, and yet here he is helping turn Jonestown into Little Havana with his fancy Spanish talking.

  12. Fairlane: Et tu Brute’?

    Padre Kelso: uh…si, es verdad. Yo soy solomente una a hijo de la chingada madre. But I’m not interested in carrying Lou Dobbs’ purse. Sorry, man. My Spanish is a little rusty. Okay…it’s a lot rusty.

    I’m out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: