“Zero Sum Game” Distorts Thinking on Tax Cut, Foreign Affairs

email Email
As Congress debates immediate, substantial cuts in federal tax rates, liberal opponents invoke the discredited concept of a “zero sum game”—the idea that if one citizen gains, then another must lose, because they believe that one individual’s good fortune must always mean someone else’s misfortune.

This thinking ignores the way economic growth can benefit everyone; creation of wealth means more opportunities, not fewer, for everyone in the vicinity of the wealth creator.

Unfortunately, some conservative nationalists make similar mistakes regarding foreign affairs: believing that one nation’s progress, brings suffering for others. Instead, today’s global economy makes prosperity contagious.

The United States has everything to gain from the economic advancement around the world: that means more markets for our producers, and more products for our consumers.

We should favor, not fear, the advancement of our neighbors down the block, as well as prosperity for peaceful nations on the other side of the world.

email Email

Comments (140)

Leave a comment
  1. Jim Bird  •  Sep 28, 2017 at 1:56 am

    "Zero Sum Game" is such an idiotic childish concept that Forest Gump would reject in an instant but not Republican leadership. No, it's far too difficult to explain to millennials, so the GOP gives up explaining why the Dem thugs constantly use the term as one of there foundation stones. Everyone on Earth knows Repubs will screw Trump again on the tax legislation. THE BILL WILL LITERALLY SAVE MILLIONS OF LIVES GLOBALLY BUT NOTHING WILL
    HAPPEN EXCEPT CIVIL WAR. Everyone suffers except DC and the Democrats who, now that all of us know they're thugs, quadruple down on their lies and Marxist tactics. Go ahead GOP wring your hands again and raise taxes you sick arrogant jerks. Oh and make sure you go home early for recess this time, after all you deserve 2-month break for all the overtime you've been putting in doing the people's business because we are far too stupid to be corrupt jackasses like you folks.

    • Ty  •  Sep 28, 2017 at 3:49 am

      I am listening to the original Frank Pourcel version of a song that was popular from sister act and religious music, I will follow him. Replace him with Trump, such a loyal base.

      Listen to this theme

      and chill out. Or don't, keep that rage, and follow him right off a cliff! Maybe the calming melody will prevent conservatives from seeing the edge.

      To Michael, you are missing the plot. When someone earns a lot of money, I do not think that takes away from me or anyone else. I am happy to see others thrive. I still want progressive taxation, so that higher earners pay a higher rate overall. Not because I think they are taking from others, because I believe that some redistribution makes society work better for people who are less gifted.

      I have tried to explain this before to conservatives, but they are incredibly slow on the uptake. I do not want all of society based on pure meritocracy, that is unjust so long as a portion our our outcomes are based on things outside our control, like our natural talents and aptitudes. Redistribution blunts the worst consequences for people born with very little, it has the potential to raise the floor. I want progressive taxation NOT because I think wealthy people have harmed the nation, or do not deserve the money they have earned, because they are more able to take the financial hit to their income.

      If we had a flat tax with zero cutoffs, where a person making 10 thousand dollars a year paid 2k in taxes while a person making a million dollars a year paid 200k in taxes, they both paid the same rate, but is that just? What do you think would make a bigger difference to a persons life? Having more of the 2k in his pocket or the wealthier man having more of the 200k back in his pocket?

      Conservatives look at flat taxes and think THAT is the only fair tax system, or one of the more fair models, and progressive taxation is unfair and unjust. So is the uneven distribution of natural talent and ability, and yet conservatives pretend that is meaningless, or don't care about the consequences of people born with less there. I do. I am not indifferent to such things. I, am not a conservative. For these reasons and so many others, progressive taxation is the more just model. Redistribution is the most humane model for society, and not to be left up to private charity, where free riders get to abandon those who they are indifferent towards. We are a nation, not a bunch of little tribes. I WANT us to help out people in Houston and Florida and Puerto Rico though taxes and military aide that we ALL pay for. Not me and mine, I want some baseline for the entire nation. After that, feel free to shower more attention on your own little corner. But I will not let that be ALL you do, I will fight you all until the end of time on that.

      • Jim bird  •  Sep 28, 2017 at 12:37 pm

        I understand now what you're trying to articulate: You're an illegal alien from Pluto and your axioms and idioms simply don't translate. I get it now! Please work on that.

      • Fungah!  •  Sep 29, 2017 at 4:25 pm

        Why should one person's citizenship cost more than another's? If I earn $1000 a week and you earn $10000 a week, should a cheeseburger cost me $1 and you $10.

        The only fair tax system is a consumption tax or a head tax. A person's relative wealth should have no bearing on their cost of citizenship, which is what federal income taxes ultimately are, a fee for citizenship.

        Every tax should be directed at a specific line item in the budget in the form of a meaningful fee assigned to a product or service.

  2. Rizzo  •  Sep 30, 2017 at 11:29 am

    Oh boy, Ty, The Village Idiot has reared his head again.
    Every time he opens his mouth, it's like the kid in class who can't keep up.
    The class is working on multiplication and Ty is asking about the sum of 2+2… insisting that it's 5.

    First of all, you have repeatedly stated, you don't care about debt and deficits. Those concepts are meaningless to you, and to ALL leftists I might add. So why do you care about at what rate people are taxed? There is ZERO connection between the amount of money that government STEALS and the amount it SPENDS. You leftists will spend regardless.

    Secondly, "I believe that some redistribution makes society work better for people who are less gifted"…. really? That's it? You think you are righteous in having government steal people's hard-earned money, their labor, and give it to someone else because you think it makes society work better? Ok, well I think society works better when government spays and neuters those "less gifted" people. You know, so they can't create 10 clones of themselves, all raised in the shadow of government dependency. Of course I'm being facetious, but hopefully, even your simple mind can grasp the point. Once you destroy individual freedom, Government can FORCE many immoral things upon its citizens "to make society work better". You sicken me.

    Lastly, who does money belong to? Does it belong to the people who earn it? Or, does it belong to government? At what percent of confiscation, will we reach Utopia? Government, with all combined taxes, takes roughly 50% of what I make. Not enough? 60%… 70%… 100?
    Obviously, in your world Ty, government knows BEST how to run society for the greater good… why shouldn't these enlightened bureaucrats have all our money? I'm being serious… you have undying faith in government, why not let government provide EVERYTHING? They, and ONLY they are PURE, and NOBLE and RIGHTEOUS… let them assign us our jobs, let them provide to us FAIRLY (erasing the advantages of the gifted and the disadvantages of the less gifted). Based on your logic, why would you not support this? This is the logical conclusion of your argument.

    The fact is, you're a moron… you are not a student of history. You are not a person who believes in facts, logic, and reason. You are a dangerous leftist, dressed-up as a do-gooder.
    The fact is, America, American way of life, including American free-market principles, have created more wealth, and a greater standard of living, for more people that any other society in world history. Even today, that is true, as you leftists tighten the noose around the neck of the Golden Goose.

  3. Nani Tavares  •  Sep 30, 2017 at 7:39 pm

    I wonder if Liberals understand what they are admitting to when they try to justify stealing the money we earn? In their "noble" reasoning, they are saying that people are NOT equal, that these LESSER BEINGS have no ability to succeed without the help of society. So everyone who were conquered and made slaves were superior in ability and intellect than those conquered; isn't that racist? And everyone needing welfare, food stamps, and charity are lesser than successful people, isn't that elitist?

    So when they talk about forcing us to accept their belief in the inequality of human beings "until the end of time", they aren't being very nice are they?

    • Rizzo  •  Sep 30, 2017 at 9:22 pm

      They don't care… Leftists just want to destroy wealth and punish success, and they will say and/or do anything to rationalize it. Because, as Obama taught us all… YOU didn't build that.
      You gotta love the "logic" of a leftist.
      When YOU achieve, it's not fair, OR it wasn't really just YOU who achieved.
      And… If you are a TOTAL LOSER, it's ONLY because of circumstances beyond control.
      No Credit and NO BLAME.

      • Nani Tavares  •  Oct 1, 2017 at 8:36 pm

        Oh but they like to take the moral high ground. They want to steal our money for the poor and unfortunate and if you don't agree, why you're just selfish and mean. But as you revealed in a previous post, they start with the premise that the poor and unfortunate are inferior; that makes THEM not very nice.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 2, 2017 at 7:45 am

        They advocate for government to do, what you and I would be put in jail for.
        "Here Mr. Government, go steal Nani's money, and give it to some inferior people".
        I wonder if Ty would be ok with me stealing money from someone, at gunpoint, but giving that money to his favorite charity, The LBGQTABC Sisters of the Poor? I would essentially be helping government do its job…. A self-appointed government mobster.

      • Nani Tavares  •  Oct 2, 2017 at 3:14 pm

        Rizzo, exactly and we need to keep pointing out that they are stealing and that they do not have the moral ground as they ARE judging the poor as inferior.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 2, 2017 at 5:53 pm

        Have you ever noticed that facts, logic and reason are to a leftist, like Ty, just like "Off" is to a mosquito?
        Ty comes buzzing around, like a pesky mosquito, then you spray him with a heavy dose of facts, logic and reason, and he goes away. He regroups with his other pesky, leftist, insect friends to formulate a comeback…. none of it based in reality, all of it lacking facts and logic. But, he'll come buzzing around again, with some Al Gore/Michael Moore-style leftist attack, and then I'll have to spray his sorry ass again. It's fun. But, it gets old and annoying too.

      • Nani Tavares  •  Oct 6, 2017 at 3:10 pm

        Rizzo, I have no idea why Ty keeps coming here. All he does is reveal the depravity of the liberal agenda. I realize he makes YOU and Jim and others look good because he makes you and others clarify your conservative points, but he does great damage to the liberal agenda.

  4. Ty  •  Sep 30, 2017 at 10:02 pm

    Taxation = theft = libertarian NUT.

    You all keep calling taxation theft, that is not what taxation is. It's part of the costs of civilization. I know you tribalist anarchists don't like civilization, that is why you tend to congregate in the most rural locales as far away from civilization as is feasible, but that is no reason to abandon the costs of society because a bunch of radical nuts don't want to pay taxes, or think they are being stolen from. If you really think that, why stay? I hear Somalia is quite nice this time of year. No taxes, no government. Oh? You'd rather have some of that? Then shut your damn mouth and stop acting like a whiny little brat when tasked to pay taxes to maintain government. If you don't believe in government, then stop acting like little weasels and just come out and say that, let that conservative rhetoric match the actions. Most of you are too two faced to reconcile what you tell yourselves internally and what you ACTUALLY believe. If we polled conservatives, most of them are fine with SOME taxation, and do not consider it theft. They have different tolerable levels of taxation than I do, but they are not full on crazy, even if they like to pretend with reckless right wing rhetoric about government and taxes.

    • Rizzo  •  Sep 30, 2017 at 10:48 pm

      Yeah Ty, we get it…. Taxes, it's part of society. How much A-Hole? How much will satisfy you leftist nuts. I have NEVER GONE UN-TAXED. I'm not asking for ZERO taxes, you self-serving fool. I'm asking for a freeze, or perhaps ONCE a slight decrease in taxes, you stupid A-Hole.
      Does government EVER do with less? NO… Then why do they expect us to do with less?
      Now answer the question instead of fighting with a make-believe libertarian.

      • Ty  •  Oct 2, 2017 at 11:02 pm

        For me, no more than 50% at the highest end, including state taxes.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 3, 2017 at 7:26 am

        Ok Ty, well I'm there… I'm at 50%, if not more. I'm a half-slave. Are you happy?
        I have paid more to government, than I have paid for any one thing in my life.
        Nothing has been more expensive in my lifetime. And it NEVER ends. At least, a house eventually gets paid. And, is there ever a THANK YOU, from the leeches? NO.
        It's just lectures and complaints, from losers like Ty, that say we don't pay enough

    • Nani Tavares  •  Oct 1, 2017 at 1:38 am

      It is bad enough that Liberals insist on charging us an admission fee to be a part of civilization, but to want to steal our money because they believe that some segments of our society are born inferior and unable to succeed without government help is highly offensive! I refuse to be a part of this dark mentality that reeks of supremacism.

      • Ty  •  Oct 2, 2017 at 11:06 pm

        Spare me, you already participate in that system, as most of us do by supporting a market based economy. That model is not a damn charity, people with more skills and drive and talent and knowledge will tend to be rewarded at a higher rate. And some people have less of some or all of those variables that drive higher earnings. So until we can make people smarter and more competitive, you better believe people like me want robust redistribution to raise the floor for people that can't cut it. You LACK of my dark mentality = mentally ill homeless people on the streets. It means people right above them having a much harder time, where one step for you might be the equivalent of TEN steps for them to get ahead because of what nature or GOD gave them.

        That is not fair, that is not just, and while GOD or nature might not give a damn where the dice lie, "I" do.

      • Nani Tavares  •  Oct 3, 2017 at 12:22 am

        The moment it was revealed that they see whole segments of our society as inferior, they lost the moral high ground. Imagine being told that you are so ugly that if we don't set you up with a partner you will never have a family, you will always be pathetically alone. That is precisely what Liberals say to poor; that they were born so inferior they cannot possibly care for themselves and provide for their families without the help of their betters. They claim that they are being kind and fair and a whole bunch of "nice" things but what they are really being is mean and hateful for they give no value to those they view as inferior. They have no faith in the human spirit and the ability of people to over come obstacles. They do not get that redistribution is charity without dignity.

      • Ty  •  Oct 3, 2017 at 3:51 am

        The market treats people that produce less as "inferior" (your word) when it comes to how it rewards people. Because the point you keep missing is that just because some people have less talent, does not mean they worth less as human beings. That is what a pure market system would produce. The sum total of your worth = what you produce. That is the completed vision of the pure market based society of the right. I want lower bounds because I think human beings are worth more than nothing and destitution – EVEN IF they produce less than others.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 3, 2017 at 7:20 am

        Of course those people, who are born "inferior", your word, not mine are worth "less" in terms of monetary value…. And unless you are willing to have government-enforced "equality", they will remain so.
        It's like forcing you to pay as much for Kia as you would a Ferrari. Are you ready to do that Ty? If not, shut the F up and quit preaching your false religion.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 3, 2017 at 9:49 am

        Hey retard…. If you want a "Robust redistribution" leftist, scheme, guess what?
        You better have a ROBUST ECONOMY.
        You leftists, with your TRILLION DOLLAR DEBTS, are killing the golden goose.
        It is absolutely astounding what basic education these leftists lack!

      • Ty  •  Oct 3, 2017 at 12:19 pm

        raising the floor with redistribution =/= government mandated equality.

        That is the reading comprehension of someone that just got their head knocked into a wall and still in a daze. There is no ceiling with redistribution, a higher floor means the consequences of being at a lower status level is less severe. That's all. It does not mean everyone is equally wealthy or has the same income or can afford the same car or same home. You just lied about what I said, or as I suggested earlier, have comprehension so poor you need to stop embarrassing yourself online. The peanut gallery might eat your slop up, but people with the most basic capacity to understand the arguments that are actually made will see your mischaracterizations as the shoddy analysis it is.

      • Ty  •  Oct 3, 2017 at 12:34 pm

        Talk of debt is interesting. Obama inherited a massive economic failure, the debt rose during the recession, and then budget deficit steadily declined. Enough to start paying down the debt? No. But getting us closer to the place. Now, would democrats have wanted to spend more if they had a democratic congress? Sure, but unlike republicans, we at least make an ATTEMPT to pay for our programs via taxes.

        But republicans?

        They intend to WIDEN the deficit, don't worry about trying to minimize the deficit, or start paying down the debt, THE most important thing is tax cuts for wealthier americans, who have ALREADY done extremely well due to capital having higher returns than labor in the modern economy. But republicans want to give those people more of a break. Ok. TRILLION dollar estimates for budget shortfalls are there in Trumps plan. Zero concern about deficits. But therein lies the key.

        Budget deficits and debt are OK when it's tolerated to service REPUBLICAN priorities, like tax cuts for wealthy people, but social programs? THOSE are illegitimate, and even if we can't convince CONSERVATIVES themselves to cut social security and medicare to help pay for the tax cuts, we'll do it anyway. Because the PRIME purpose of the conservative republican party is tax cuts, not budget deficits, not debt, tax cuts. EVERYTHING else can be sacrificed on the alter to achieve that goal.

        And the big LIE republicans tell? The growth will rise and take care of the ensuing deficits. The growth? Where? from investment dollars of the wealthy? The earnings that are already taxed at a lower rate than peoples own LABOR? When wealthier people keep more money, they pocket it and put it in banks and the stock market. Earth to Rizzo, THAT SEGMENT OF THE ECONOMY HAS NOT BEEN STRUGGLING !!!!!!!!!!!! Having that boosted a bit more is not going to kickstart 3-4% growth.

        Did that work in Kansas? Where Brownback after taking advice from the Larry Kudlows of the world and the Stephen Moores blew holes in their state budgets until Brownback bailed in disgrace (another RAT trying to jump on the Trump Train). No, but you think those policies are going to work in the US?

        Your own people don't even want that. Prove me wrong, let's see the republican congress match the cuts to medicare and social security you need to actually balance budgets, that or show us that 3-4% growth.

      • Nani Tavares  •  Oct 3, 2017 at 1:34 pm

        I find it almost sad that Liberals are clinging to their blame/victim card to try to hide the fact that they BEGIN the narrative that some people are born NEEDING help. If the poor and disabled were equal to the successful there would be no need for socialism. So they start with the premise that there are classes of people. The have and have nots. They blame God or nature for this inequality and want to correct God's (or nature) mistake by taking from the better to give to the inferior. It must be hard for them to realize that they are really showing supreme arrogance and horrific judgement of the possibility the poor and the disabled to succeed. They are NOT the kind, loving, tolerant, believer of humanity. They have nothing to feel good about.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 3, 2017 at 2:28 pm

        Yes Ty… there-there, you poor little leftist, mind-numbed robot.
        Obama inherited everything bad, and gets credit for anything good.
        Debt and deficits were NEVER even was part of the equation or discussion, during the Obama years, until we threw-out the leftist bums in Congress, you historical illiterate! Can you think back to 2010 and 2014? Did Vox fail to mention that FACT?
        And NEVER MIND THE FACT that On January 20, 2009, when Obama was sworn in, the debt was $10.626 trillion. On January 20, 2017, it was $19.947 trillion. That's why most people say Obama added $9 trillion to the debt, more than any other president.

        Hopefully even a leftist flunky can understand that one!

      • Ty  •  Oct 3, 2017 at 4:07 pm

        Nani, I explained this to you in another post. MOST liberals completely reject my assumptions of differential ability between different people, and especially groups. Most liberals actually believe if we just get the negative external influences in society just right, diminish discrimination and the differential effects of wealth gaps we can get almost everyone on an even footing and outcomes will be more equal naturally.

        That is what most liberals believe. And conservatives? I don't know the numbers, I suspect FEWER conservatives think it's ALL a function of personal behavior, I think MORE conservatives tend to have a mixture of that belief and some individual and group differences.

        The difference between those conservatives and myself, I don't look at those differences that act as the wind at peoples back or in peoples FACES as they are trying to push ahead and say to myself, not my problem. The world is not fair, so I have no responsibility as a decent and moral human being to try to structure society to be more fair. Conservatives and libertarian types are MUCH more willing to let the chips fall where they may, especially outside children. And why? Because there is a greater sense that almost the ENTIRE reason the chips fell where they fell in the first place is because of peoples own choices and behaviors. And there is a lot of truth to that narrative, the problem is that it is an INCOMPLETE picture of the world, and conservatives are lead into truly barbaric policy prescriptions because of their pockmarked conception of reality.

        See some adult with mental issues having problems? Too bad, you are ON YOUR OWN. Don't you dare take any of my tax dollars for their sake. What about someone who is not mentally unstable, but has lower aptitude than others? A hundred years ago they could go into a manual labor job and do decently enough. Today? Those jobs seem to be shrinking, and paying less than they used to. Is the fact that such a person does less well in school PURELY a function of them being more lazy and not trying as hard as others?

        Nani, stop lying to yourself. You KNOW not everyone is equally good at all tasks. You KNOW that some people struggle in certain areas more than others. Well guess what, some of that is built into them, not the fault of society, or their behavior, it's in large part due to nature or GOD, as I said before. THAT portion that acts as a drag on the outcomes of some, is an unjust drag. IF it was all a function of what someone put into something, a pure meritocracy would be more reasonable. But that is NOT the world we live in. We live in a world where Charlie could put in 5 hours a night for a month straight to pass some calculus exam, while Max put in 5 hours across an ENTIRE month, and Max could still get a higher score because of what MAX was born with.

        And beyond that, some people are completely capable of getting ahead but are just not omniscient. 20 years ago, when mining seemed a bit more solvent, did the workers going into those mines and that industry know there would be a fracking boom that made natural gas more abundant and cheaper and eventually cause a massive job loss? Was what happened to those people a PERSONAL failure? No. Of course not.

        In this kind of world that we ACTUALLY Live in, do you want some conservative libertarian free for all? Or would it be better to have a robust safety net so people who fall down because of their own abilities or forces outside their control do not fall down too far so it can be easier for them to get back up?

        If you argument against such a framework is that we are terrible at doing what I laid out, I AGREE !!!!!!!!! We ARE terrible!

        Conservative solution : Because we have flawed redistribution with mixed results, best to move towards less and less redistribution.

        Liberal solution : Because we have flawed redistribution with mixed results, best to keep testing out more ideas to see if something works better. This includes BOTH pulling government back in some areas, and more redistribution in others and different ways. Keep experimenting, keep testing, keep acknowledging that we are MORTALS, not omniscient GODS who ALREADY have all the answers like arrogant conservatives who get to sit back and presume that if we JUST follow path X we will certainly get to Y destination. Assertions are not enough on the liberal side, evidence, proof, we need more of that, more testing, more experiments!

        I know which side I'm on.

      • Nani Tavares  •  Oct 3, 2017 at 10:04 pm

        it is truly astounding that liberals do not listen to themselves.

        They do not see the arrogance in insisting that they must save the poor and the unfortunate. They don't believe that these people are capable of succeeding. They have literally given up on them.

        They claim that they are trying to help remove obstacles and once done these people can lift themselves out of their poverty…only they were born with all these issues of less talent and intelligence and all the things that make them incapable of succeeding and that lacking isn't going to change because we throw money and privileges at them.

        In the end liberalism is a fake and temporary "feel good". For it gives not from their own but what it can steal from others.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 3, 2017 at 10:58 pm

        Nani… You have knocked it out the park again.
        Perhaps these poor unfortunate souls should take an IQ test.
        We know, as a matter of fact, in America, poor become rich, and rich become poor everyday. When do these people become wards of the state? If I'm rich, and lose all my money in the stock market, do I suddenly become one of those poor, unfortunate, inferior people that requires government help? And, if someone, who is poor, without government help becomes rich…. is government help really necessary?
        At what point does a person become just too damn inferior, and thus unable to function without high-levels of government help?
        Is it your IQ?
        Is it the color of your skin?
        Is it if your family makes less than $10,000 per person?
        Is it if you were born with ADHD?
        What is it?
        What is the condition, in America, that prevents you from being successful?

    • Ty  •  Oct 3, 2017 at 4:12 pm

      Rizzo, keep up. If McCain was president in 2009, we still would have had an increasing deficit and increased debt. If the shining star of freedom caucus was president in 2009, Ted Cruz (throws up inside), we would still have had an increasing deficit and increased debt level.

      Why? Our economy was IN the fall from the highs from the housing crisis, the entire economy was contracting, people were losing jobs left and right, less payroll, less tax money coming into federal budget. NO republican president would have stopped that.

      If you want to argue with a McCain or Romney or Cruz, we would have pulled out faster, and fallen less far down, fine, but since you have no evidence of that you are just pulling that out of your @ss.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 3, 2017 at 4:31 pm

        Right Ty…. nothing can stop this deficit and debt death-spiral.
        We just act like it's nothing and even if it was, we are powerless to do anything.
        Just continue with the BROKEN SYSTEM that rewards FAILURE and PUNISHES SUCCESS.
        I mean seriously… what could possibly go wrong.
        You fruitcakes have no problem with believing in the mythology of global warming and how it will end humanity. But, somehow, you are able to overlook history and the COLD, HARD, FACTS that great societies are brought down by financial instability.

  5. Rizzo  •  Oct 3, 2017 at 4:25 pm

    "human beings are worth more than nothing and destitution"
    Point me to anywhere in America, where American's are "Nothing" and live in "destitution".

    Misperceptions about the extent and severity of U.S. poverty are, in part, driven by the Census Bureau’s consistently flawed poverty report. Census defines a family as poor if its income falls below certain thresholds. But in counting income, Census ignores almost all of the trillion dollars per year that government spends on means-tested welfare aid. Census pretends that programs such as food stamps, the refundable EITC, and housing vouchers do not exist. No surprise, then, that other government reports show that poor people spend $2.30 for every $1.00 of income Census claims they have. The actual living standards of the poor differ greatly from conventional perceptions. The government’s own data show that the typical poor family in the U.S. has air-conditioning, a car, and cable or satellite TV. Half of the poor have computers, 43 percent have Internet, and 40 percent have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that only 4 percent of poor children were hungry for even a single day in the prior year because of a lack of funds for food. Only 7 percent of poor households are over-crowded. The average poor American has more living space than the average, non-poor individual living in Sweden, France, Germany, or the United Kingdom. By his own report, the average poor person had sufficient funds to meet all essential needs and was able to obtain medical care for his family throughout the year whenever needed. It is, of course, a good thing that left-wing claims of widespread deprivation in the U.S. are inaccurate. But government welfare policy should be about more than shoveling out a trillion dollars per year in “free” benefits. When President Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty, he sought to decrease welfare dependence and increase self-sufficiency: the ability of family to support itself above poverty without the need for government handouts. By that score, the War on Poverty has been a $24 trillion flop. While self-sufficiency improved dramatically in the decades before the War on Poverty started, for the last 45 years, it has been at a standstill. A decent welfare system would return to Johnson’s original goal of reducing poverty by increasing self-sufficiency. It would require able-bodied recipients to work or prepare for work if they are to receive benefits. It would reward, not penalize, marriage. In other words, it would be the exact opposite of the welfare behemoth we currently have.

    Read more at:

  6. Rizzo  •  Oct 4, 2017 at 6:04 am

    "In this kind of world that we ACTUALLY Live in, do you want some conservative libertarian free for all? Or would it be better to have a robust safety net so people who fall down because of their own abilities or forces outside their control do not fall down too far so it can be easier for them to get back up?"

    – Never in our lifetime have we had a "conservative libertarian free for all"… and never shall there be. Never in our lifetime has any serious political candidate advocated for such a society.
    I wish the opposite were true…. Bernie, you damn socialist-pig, I'm looking at you.
    We DO have a "robust safety net". And YES, government is "TERRIBLE" at handing out freebies.
    Mostly because, in America, it's a non-legitimate function of government… General welfare, YES, legitimate…. Trillions of dollars of wealth transfers, essentially just throwing money at problems… TOTALLY ILLEGITIMATE. And conservatives are always up for "Testing" new ways, it just doesn't always involve greater wealth-transfers. Why aren't liberals open to TESTING NEW WAYS? Such as, creating a system that fosters a culture of personal accountability rather than emboldening the status of perpetual victomhood? A welfare safety net that encourages and helps poor people escape welfare, not imprison generations to government handouts?
    And that's what leftists have done… Whether by design, or unintended consequences, leftists have given plenty of handouts, but in return, they have robbed millions of their desires to be anything more than wards of the state. Imprisoning them to a life of subsistence, rather than a life of freedom and personal accomplishments.

    • Ty  •  Oct 4, 2017 at 3:36 pm

      "Never in our lifetime have we had a "conservative libertarian free for all"… and never shall there be. Never in our lifetime has any serious political candidate advocated for such a society."

      Yes and no.

      Have we had that in our lifetimes? No, but have you LISTENED to talk radio?

      There is a MASSIVE discrepancy between what most republicans ACTUALLY want, and the rhetoric that gets spit out on talk radio. Many callers and hosts actually DO want us to be pushed back towards a more libertarian free for all model. If you can't recognize that, you are a useless human being.

      And your solutions are a useful tell of the flaws of your ideology, the ideology that has enslaved your feeble mind. Solutions that foster more personal responsibility?

      We have plenty of that already, go to any big city and look at the homeless population. Those are some pretty severe consequences for not having your sh*t together, and yet their numbers continue to grow not shrink. What is your model of boosting personal responsibility for those people? Many people in that population have some previous felony that makes them less desirable as employees, along with a host of other personal issues. But there are some that do try to climb higher, only to have some previous felony conviction, often for some drug related offense stamped on their foreheads like a scarlet letter branding them as an undesirable to be passed over. That ladder of opportunity seems to actively pull away from such "untouchables"

      But unless you want to throw those people into a pit, they need more help than they are getting. Some straight up need to be institutionalized, others are so low skilled and hard to teach all of life in a meritocratic capitalistic economy is a massive struggle. Your solution? Since redistribution is off the table, how will you get that low skilled person to not have his past felony black list him for eternity or the rest of his life? Or have them able to get a job when they have issues on the lower end?

      Redistribution is the cleanest solution, just not the way we've been doing it. This is why I want us to test and trial basic income projects to see how that works. Pure redistribution, no strings, just cash. No penalties for working, but a higher floor and base from which to rise from. I have no illusions that this will allow everyone to become gainfully employed, but it will probably help most people that are struggling on the low end, and allow the people that are so far gone they can't even hold a job to at least survive off the streets.

      But that solution involves redistribution, off limits in the conservative toolkit. Or at least most talk radio chatter. The only tolerable solutions involve the personal behavior of individuals, and while that will always be part of the mix for most people, it can NEVER scale to all situations because that is NOT what is constraining every negative situation in life and society.

      • Nani Tavares  •  Oct 4, 2017 at 5:25 pm

        A person commits a felony, makes bad decisions, and your solution is to have them have no consequences? A person doesn't get the education or invest in some training to provide for himself / herself and their family and your answer is to just hand over cash? Who's cash and why should anyone provide that cash if it's only going to be taken away AND if he can get someone else's money just to make some liberal feel good.

        Despite the fact that redistribution isn't fair at all for those who is earning the money and is charity without dignity to the poor and the disadvantage, you are still fundamentally STEALING.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 4, 2017 at 7:51 pm

        Please Ty… Show me exactly where, when and what radio talk-show host advocated for a libertarian America, with NO SAFETY NETS?

        But here is a REAL DOSE OF REALITY…. WE ALMOST HAD A SOCIALIST NOMINATED FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN 2016, and if Hillary and the Democratic machine hadn't cheated and intervened, that's exactly what we would have had.
        That's where the modern, Democrat party is…. LEFTIST, SOCIALISTS.
        Now try to deny it, you fraud!

      • Ty  •  Oct 4, 2017 at 9:15 pm

        Who said there should be "No" consequences? How long should there be consequences for a drug related felony? Eternity? A life long branding of their past failures that tends to kick them down as they are trying to climb back up? I'm asking. If you want them to just wallow in the gutter, that's fine, just come out and say so explicitly. As if you long for a pit to toss the undesirables into.

        Do you mind some of the tax dollars of people without children going to pay for the k-12 education of the children of others? Just to take one variable out of the equation, imagine they had private education growing up and no public money was spent on their k-12 education. Now they are an adult, and have no children of their own. We as a society have decided to TAX some of their earnings and in some cases property taxes to fund education for the common good.

        Is that "STEALING" Nani?

        This is the problem with your fundamentalist conception of the common good, all policies of the general welfare are treated as theft if you follow the logic of the critiques elsewhere.

        basic income might be a terrible policy, but not because it redistributes, it will be terrible if it caused a nation of lazy moribund human beings that just wanted handouts for existence. My nihilism about humanity and human beings is not as deep as most conservatives, so I do not assume by default such a thing would happen. But here I am different from so many of you, I aknowledge the POSSIBILITY of it being a reality. Can you do the same for that same policy being beneficial to society?

        Conservative Dogma Slave – Government redistribution? Check. INHERENTLY destructive by default.

        Ty: Based on actual data from the policy and how people behaved?

        Conservative Dogma Slave – Not NEEDED, all the information that is EVER needed was provided. Was government involved? Yes? Then it's bad.

      • Ty  •  Oct 4, 2017 at 9:26 pm

        Most conservatives don't make the grade school link from their rhetoric to the consequences of that rhetoric on talk radio. But I remember people like Larry Elder talking endlessly about the evils of redistribution. When someone calls and asks about people that cannot cover costs for things like healthcare or some other calamity, the go to response is charity.

        Look at the recent attack in Vegas, ignore guns for a moment. A Go Fund ME page was set up to help pay for the victims medical expenses. Not only were over 500 people injured, with over 50 murdered, many of the survivors will have astronomical medical expenses. Health savings accounts = the cost is on the individual and not shared. What about someone attending that venue that got shot without much savings because they do not have a high paying job? It's not that they are not working, they just don't earn a lot. Or what if they have insurance, but with the co pays allowing multiple thousands of dollars in costs for some expensive surgery that might be needed. The idea that someone who was already shot in cold blood, is saved by the skin of their teeth, would then have to deal with large medical bills is obscene to me.

        And relying on charity to pick up the slack in lieu of more robust socialization of the costs of such things is a CONSTANT trend of the right. I don't actually believe most people on the right WANT a free for all, but the rhetoric is a constant beat of get government out of x, y, z, we are spending too much on medicare, shift that to medical savings accounts. And what happens to the people that don't have the earnings to fill that up? No answer, silence, or worse, not my problem, those people are on their own, work harder.

        They rail against government regulations, ignoring that it is a REGULATION that requires hospitals to treat people for acute care at the emergency room, even IF they cannot pay. FORCE, restrictions on the FREEDOM of companies to treat who they wish, or deny coverage. THEY are mostly ok with that, but they can't bring it upon themselves to moderate their own rhetoric on what they sound like they want with the rhetoric, of a free for all.

      • Nani Tavares  •  Oct 5, 2017 at 12:09 am

        As for Vegas, that is really ugly Ty. You are walking on the graves of the dead, those who lost loved ones and those who were hurt. All to try and make a political point! How sick. You have seen the courage and the generosity of those who helped and continues to help from their own hearts and you do not see the greatness of the American people. When did you stop caring about those who get up every morning and go to work, who try to abide by laws that keep our society civil, who provide jobs and expand opportunities? When did this part of society become nothing more to you than someone to write a check?

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 5, 2017 at 6:04 am

        You keep throwing out terms like conservative dogma, as it pertains to leftist redistribution schemes. Explain to us, how is it "dogma", when someone looks at the results of current redistribution schemes and concludes it a FAILURE. FACTS bare that out. You have so much admitted to it.
        I'm starting to wonder if you even know what the term "Dogma" means.
        Where the leftist dogma takes over are your solutions to this failure.
        It's always, more handouts, less accountability, greater tax-burdens for those willing to work.
        It's hard to imagine any circumstance where that strategy will equal success.

      • AL in CA  •  Oct 5, 2017 at 10:45 am

        I just saw a picture of a 19 year-old male with DEVAST8 tattooed across the bottom part of his face. He was complaining that nobody would hire him. Shall we redistribute YOUR money to this numbskull because he doesn't have the 'talent' (or common sense) that others have?

      • Ty  •  Oct 5, 2017 at 4:57 pm

        @Nani – David Pakman made a great point about conservatives bringing up the talking point of not bring up mass shootings to make any political points.

        It's the rights version of a shut down argument. It's their version of "That's racist" so just shut your damn mouth.

        No. I will not, the right sure as hell refuses to do so with their endless stream of complaints and victimhood at the feet of liberal policies, so why should I?

        People can be very generous, and for all I know all the people that had medical expenses they could not cover will get the help they need via charity, that happens more often when there is a national and worldwide spotlight on a tragedy. But how does that SCALE? What about a thousand other tragedies on a smaller level that do not reach your eyes? Part of the liberal critique of using the charity fairy as a stand in for more broad based policy solutions is that it is too fickle and unable to scale to the need. Government can.

        And writing checks is by no means all I or any other liberal is about, there is a lot more to life and thriving in it, but because conservatives are so block headed over the most basic of slivers of a functioning society, we keep crossing paths there and fighting.

      • Ty  •  Oct 5, 2017 at 5:13 pm


        Some redistribution works well, other forms do not. It's not an all or nothing, unless you are an ideologue/demagogue conservative who worships Ted Cruz and the freedom caucus.

        Go poll a thousand conservatives and see how many think social security should be abolished, or medicare. People pay into those programs but there is a massive redistributive element to those programs as well. Same with education expenses.

        There was a fight between a tea party radical in Brownback and the REPUBLICAN legislature that OVERRULED his Veto to not raise taxes to fill deficits and shore up the funding for their schools.

        The tea party wing there wanted the tax cuts so much, they would RATHER let school funding wither to dust, and most REPUBLICANS when faced with that actual reality decided they would RATHER increase their taxes again than cut GOVERNMENT that far down to the bone. Funding for k-12 education is socialized, it's NOT a god damn free for all, but the ONE place in society that CRAVES a free for all, or somethng closer to it, the tea party wing is attached to YOUR party, YOUR movement.

        Am I not supposed to notice these contradictions in actual beliefs and stated values of your radicals? Your most dogmatic fools? Well I do, that's what happens when an actual liberal steps into the flames of conservative talk radio to listen to the what you SAY you believe. I'm just pointing out that your worldview and rhetoric is an inconsistent mess. Do better, or stay stuck on stupid.

        I will switch into more of a conservative mode when more of peoples basic needs are met. You don't see me complaining now that some people do better than others, and are more successful. I do not resent people for their success, I think it's a great and beautiful thing. I think for most people, most of that success is based on their own actions, I just don't than into some John Galt uber mensche fantasy of the supermen creating the world all on their own and no one ever needing a hand up via redistribution. Not everyone is going to thrive, and most liberals are OK, just like MOST conservatives (though they are stubborn creatures and refuse to admit it) with some redistribution to smooth the free for all so we do NOT live in some state of nature.

        But I am not done pushing for more redistribution when we have needless hardship that we have the power and wealth to fix. After we tackle that in a way that is effective, then I'll focus more on peoples on behaviors. I'm just not deluded enough to think that is the ONLY drag on large chunks of the population, which is one of the MANY reasons I am not on the right. There are limits to my own delusions.

      • Ty  •  Oct 5, 2017 at 5:23 pm


        Yes. If that idiot with the face tatoos gets sick or shot, and can't afford medical treatment, I want us to pay for their care via society and tax dollars. Does him being an idiot imply I want us as a society to let them rot and die when we have the power expertise and wealth to save them? No. But again, I am not a conservative. I am not THAT callous and indifferent.

        And if you are bothered a drop of your tax dollars might go to that idiot, know that he has already dealt with plenty of negative consequences. You are right that plenty of businesses will not want to hire him because of his visual tatoos. I blame him for that, and all the lack of job opportunities as a consequence of that I lay at that persons feet for that decision. That is one of those areas where they screwed themselves up. His punishment is living at a lower level of prosperity that he could be living with via gainful employment.

        Now imagine they realize their folly, and want to have the tattoo removed. I would be totally fine with some local government paying for the tattoo removal, with my tax dollars. People make mistakes in life, and instead of some eternal branding and castigation of such people, if they want to do better, I am happy to have society make that path easier by paying to help fix some of their mistakes. It's a strange thing that the more religious conservatives seemed to have forgotten that men are not angels. They are not omniscient beings that are mistake free. Everyone makes good and bad decisions in life, some people who made more bad decisions are still better off because they had more support around them to get them back on the right track, others might make fewer and end up in a worse spot because of a lack of that same support. Others still might just be bad seeds that no matter how generous you are with either help or touch love turn out rotten. Human beings are a mixed bag, but I will allow my society to dwell on the latter type of person that seems to overtake the fantasies of the right as an argument to not help the decent.

      • Nani Tavares  •  Oct 5, 2017 at 5:34 pm

        Ty, honestly, can you hear yourself? You are STILL trying to make political points, talking about freedom of speech and I am talking about decency. You see the darkness and ignore the truly good of the American people. Regarding the sick and unfortunate that doesn't make the news; have you never seen the many people who give of their time and personal income to the homeless, the medical staff that provides services with little or no compensation? Why do you dismiss these people who give from their hearts and not because the government forces them to?

        t must be horrible to have such an ugly view of humanity that you fail to see how people have come together and helped; instead you try to find a way to use the pain of these people to push your agenda. Honestly Ty, can you not see that something is really twisted and wrong in that?

  7. Rizzo  •  Oct 4, 2017 at 12:12 pm

    Just face it… any and every way you look at it, YOU LOSE.
    But, take solace my leftist friend, and remember… EVERY TIME YOU LOSE, AMERICA WINS!!!

  8. Rizzo  •  Oct 4, 2017 at 7:56 pm

    Ty…. How is redistribution "off-limits"?
    How do you explain the TRILLION$ of dollars of wealth transfer payments?
    You are CLUELESS!

  9. Nani Tavares  •  Oct 4, 2017 at 10:33 pm

    Wait a minute, so if a person who commits a crime or makes a bad decision, and can't get a job BECAUSE of his actions, he should be cared for by society? That's a huge guilt obligation that you are trying to dump on law abiding citizens and I am sorry but it still is unfair to that part of society. You'd make a better case for the moral high ground if you didn't keep forgetting the rest of us.

    You talk about "we, as a society", that's the problem isn't it? You have to convince the rest of us to support YOUR version of fair, tolerant, good. You're not having much luck in that are you?

    And if you really have to ask if your taking the money via government enforcement that I earn to pay for YOUR liberal utopia is stealing, then you are incapable of comprehending that I am not just speaking of stealing from me, I am talking about stealing from YOUR kids. If just one of them says "no," it IS thief. It is like a person who sleeps around saying "no", no one has a right to force that person to engage in sex. Make whatever excuses you want, no is no. You can ask, you can persuade, but you do not have the right to take without my agreement.

  10. AL in CA  •  Oct 5, 2017 at 11:49 am

    Your quote:
    "And the big LIE republicans tell? The growth will rise and take care of the ensuing deficits. The growth? Where? from investment dollars of the wealthy? … When wealthier people keep more money, they pocket it and put it in banks and the stock market. …Having that boosted a bit more is not going to kickstart 3-4% growth…that or show us that 3-4% growth."

    When "rich people" have more money, they do two things: spend it or invest it. Either way is a stimulus to the economy. The one thing they DON'T do is stuff it in a mattress.

    My quote from CNBC:
    "U.S. economic output grew 3.1 percent in the second quarter. The growth rate was expected to remain at 3 percent according to a survey of economists from The Wall Street Journal. The economy at its core remains stable, as steady job growth and a booming stock market encourage households to spend. Sep 28, 2017"

    There's you growth rate you asked for.

    • Ty  •  Oct 5, 2017 at 9:07 pm

      Good. What republican tax cuts have spurred that? Oh right, there have not been any. We are still coasting under the same basic economy of the very slow upward glide of growth. But it would be faster if people that had less money got more of it.

      Tax cuts for wealthier people has a lower economic multiplier than the same money in the pockets of people who make less, because more of it goes towards consumption, and that has a bigger boost to growth than investments.

      I'm a bit shocked we already got to 3%, it's one of the longest periods of economic growth for the US. Of course, even without republican tax policy in effect, the fact that Trump is president and took over is all that you need to claim credit for the rise I'm sure.

      economy goes into free fall under bush with the housing collapse
      obama gets in office, job losses and increased debt = obamas fault and democratic policies

      Trump inherits long period of modest growth, and during his first year in office finally ticks above 3%, and I bet the steven moores will be dancing in the streets that this was a direct consequence of tax cuts, or… talking about tax cuts. Nothing to do with larger trends in the economy. I'll be interested to see what the economy does after they go into effect… if they go into effect.

  11. Rizzo  •  Oct 6, 2017 at 10:11 am

    It's from the anticipation of Tax-Cuts, you moron.
    Just like when Obama promised, and followed-through with his disastrous economic policies, the market both proactively and reactively responded.
    You lib-tards really are retarded, aren't you.
    Perfect example, Obama extended unemployment benefits, and guess what? Surprise, surprise, people remained unemployed. When those benefits went bye-bye… people started getting serious about finding a job and unemployment went down, well except for those who are so damned helpless that they just continued with their generational poverty.

  12. Rizzo  •  Oct 6, 2017 at 12:27 pm

    "Funding for k-12 education is socialized, it's NOT a god damn free for all"

    Correct… but it is an abject FAILURE! Hmmm…. maybe its a good time to "test" something better.
    Oh wait, I forgot… your leftist Dogma won't allow for that.

    • Nani Tavares  •  Oct 6, 2017 at 12:57 pm

      Rizzo, I'm not sure Ty himself is worth our time. Did you see how he used the Vegas tragedy to push his political agenda? There is something so fundamentally wrong with his ability to be decent. That's like seeing a car accident and insisting on discussing insurance. His dismissal of how strangers came together to help, to see the goodness of Americans; of humanity could be why he doesn't get that he is still advocating stealing from and being unfair to whole segments of society. I find it astounding that he accuses us of being cold, when he himself s the epitome of one lacking empathy.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 6, 2017 at 1:03 pm

        Leftists live by the Axiom: By any means necessary.
        And Never let a crisis, or tragedy, go to waste.
        They are heartless, soulless, dogmatic drones, incapable of individual thought.

      • Ty  •  Oct 6, 2017 at 11:30 pm

        You still don't know what theft is. Taxes =/= theft. Most conservatives do not agree with that framework, but correcting you here would validate a tiny sliver of what that twisted and evil LIBERAL is saying, so we can't have that. And so, taxes = theft is left unchallenged.

        Tribal failure, better to ideologically run off a cliff than chuck a bad framework or way of thinking about something.

      • Ty  •  Oct 6, 2017 at 11:39 pm

        Lacking empathy? Please. If I had my way, not JUST the victims of the Vegas shootings would get a financial boost and help with medical expenses, but pretty much the entire nation. I want us to share the cost burden of medical costs through taxes, so access to quality medical care is not based on ability to pay, so that the shocks of life do not devastate people that are already on a more fragile economic footing. We can't make every aspect of society equal, but we can get a lot closer when it comes to healthcare access and out of pocket costs. We can do that, conservatives just don't want to. They would rather everyone take care of their own healthcare expenses, and if someone can't cover the costs, sucks for them. Or hope the charity fairy sees them through their straw wide vision of an entire nation.

        But I am lacking empathy. You conservatives still don't get it. How many times do we have to see examples of conservatives not giving a DAMN about an issue until it LITERALLY happens to them personally? THEN they can see the problem, THEN they care. How about you step outside yourself ahead of time and ask how we can construct a system that is better able to handle peoples issues like getting healthcare without massive debts.

        This general trait of the conservative mind though, of not caring as much until one of them sees an issue up close, is just so typically tribal. Not until one of the good ones, until one of THEM has a problem is it worthy of attention. This is not a good way to react to the world. Expand the circle, conservatives, it's not just about you. You don't need to make everyone equal to do good. Just support taxes on people that can afford to pay them to help those who have less. Some because of bad luck, some because of their own bad choices, some because of their own abilities. In all cases, they are still human beings. Prove you are actually pro life and not JUST pro fetus.

      • Nani Tavares  •  Oct 7, 2017 at 12:44 am

        Ty, wait a minute, isn't government health care Obamacare? So aren't the victims of Vegas and everyone else going to be cared for?

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 7, 2017 at 1:00 am

        Nice try… But, it's never enough in the leftist's world.
        We haven't reached "equality", i.e. UTOPIA.
        You must surrender as much of your earned wealth, your property, your labor, as government requires, or you will be accused of being free-for-all Libertarian.
        Even if you ask Big Government to keep just one penny more of what you EARNED, TY WILL LOSE HIS SHIT. Because to him, this IS A ZERO SUM GAME, and NOTHING is more important than what he deems as The Greater Good.

      • Nani Tavares  •  Oct 7, 2017 at 3:28 am

        I know that and you know that. Ty even knows that. But he doesn't get is that every post he writes makes our case. Good you've called him out on it.

      • Nani Tavares  •  Oct 7, 2017 at 3:05 pm

        But it IS a good question, don't you think? If Obamacare is so great, why is Ty bringing up the medical expenses of the Vegas victims? Answer Ty.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 7, 2017 at 4:09 pm

        It's an excellent question, to a normal, rational thinking person, who isn't guided and controlled by liberal dogma.
        Ty's answer, because Obamacare didn't go far enough. It didn't redistribute enough wealth. It was a calculated step by the theftists to get closer to single-payer… the Utopian Dream.

      • Ty  •  Oct 9, 2017 at 3:18 pm

        Nani, obamacare is a mix of medicaid (government paid care) and an expansion of the current PRIVATE insurance market with subsidies for low earners and penalties for those who choose to not get care.

        This is a preservation of a private insurance market, not a diminution of it. I with they pushed through a public option, then the insurance companies that pulled out of rural areas because there are too few people and too few hospitals to make those regions solvent (much like rural broadband) would have the public option there to pick up the slack.

        But conservatives could not allow that, even conservative democrats. That would be too "threatening" to those paragons of free markets the health insurance companies. But why? I though private enterprise was ALWAYS inherently superior to government run services, if they ran side by side, according to conservative dogma people would FLOCK to the superior private market companies would they not?

        What are you so afraid of? I think I know, you don't want a test case to prove your shoddy worldview wrong, yet again. Cowards.

      • Ty  •  Oct 9, 2017 at 3:28 pm

        Obamacare is a half measure. The penalties are lower than the cost of private insurance for many people, so it makes sense that many people would choose to keep that cash rather than get insurance if they are struggling economically and need every dime they can get. The subsidies top out around 30k for a single person, but 30k is not a lot of money at all to live on, it may be above the poverty line, but having to pay 200-300 dollars a month with a 30k income is a much higher personal burden than the same premium cost for people making 50k+ per year.

        Obamacare is the CONSERVATIVE healthcare reform the heritage foundation came up with, Romney implemented, and democrats passed into law.

        It's not surprise it's a deeply imperfect solution. We have better solutions, but conservative brickheads are too hostile to the notion of "government" involvement to implement more robust solutions. You better hope you stay in power, because we liberals realize now that half measures are not going to cut it. There is an internecine war between the status quo types among liberal ranks that just want to tweak obamacare to make it better, and those who want to transition us towards a more single payer universal healthcare model. And the latter side has more sway and energy now.

        We are at around 90% coverage (with high deductibles that many would have issues paying even within that 90%), that leaves one in 10 people with no economic safety net if they came across healthcare issues, or long term financing for drugs and coverage.

        1 in 10. If that stat holds, around 50-60 victims that were shot and survived are going to have a very nasty financial burden to deal with, on top of the physical issues. Because of the national spotlight, many of those will be helped financially, but like I have said before, charity of that sort DOES, NOT, SCALE. If you don't CARE that it does not scale, that's fine, but don't pretend that it does when it does'n't. Most people that are hit with medical bills they cannot pay do not get put in any spotlight.

        I might be indifferent to such people like you are, but I'm not a conservative.

      • Nani Tavares  •  Oct 9, 2017 at 4:42 pm

        Ty, oh so you're against Obamacare, wonderful! Let's get rid of it shall we?

        As for giving government run health care a try…sigh…we've already DONE that via Medicare and Care for Vets. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about do you? A person can PAY 50 years into the Medicare fund only to have to PAY when they finally get to use Medicare and the coverage is so terrible that many have to get secondary insurance. Vets are waiting months, sometimes years for services. THIS is the kind of care you want to put on the rest of us? It is YOU and your kind that have no compassion for humanity. You've spun a grand tale of kindness but the truth is being revealed and it is ugly. I am so glad I was never a liberal. I would hang my head in shame.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 9, 2017 at 7:09 pm

        You can't question Ty on his undying belief in government. You can't show him REAL-WORLD examples of BIG GOVERNMENT FAILURES… LIKE THE VA?
        This guy is a LUNATIC. He thinks Obamacare is a CONSERVATIVE SOLUTION to healthcare.
        It may be a Republican solution, BUT NO WAY A CONSERVATIVE, FREE-MARKET, FREEDOM SOLUTION.
        He is kneeling, as we speak, to a statue of Michael Moore… You know, the guy who thinks Cuba has a better healthcare system. I think the Moron actually made a movie about… and freaks like Ty, believe that trash.
        It's absolutely embarrassing!

      • Ty  •  Oct 10, 2017 at 10:29 pm

        Stop telling ME about the horrors of medicare and VA care Rizzo, you need to tell all those vets that are actually on the receiving end of that care why their opinion of their care is so wrong.

        I know you like cherry picking horror stories that crop up from time to time that paint the entire enterprise and structure as a failure. What system has no such failures to highlight? Does that exist on this earth? We are talking about better vs worse systems, not utopias. I think we can use government to get us to move towards better outcomes for more people, you want more of a free for all.

        But stop Pretending you care about outcomes.

        If we enacted government involved healthcare and people lived longer and had fewer health and economic issues, you'd still be against it because government was involved. This is ideological for you, like a good little supplicant and slave, you bend your knee to the will of being hostile to government in most forms. You are not ALLOWED to tolerate government involvement in healthcare, so so WHAT if it happened to work. See stats that showed that, you would be forced to deny or ignore those stats, and if you could not do that, you'd have to pretend an alternative more pure market based system would be EVEN Better. Because you had proof? No, because your Dogma demanded it.

        Good little slave servant. You are great at doing as you are told and staying in the lines of that piss stained ideological cage.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 11, 2017 at 4:24 pm

        "Cherry picking horror stories"… Hmm, quite a thing to say coming from an avowed leftist, looking to "Transform America".
        According to the United States Census Bureau, in 2012 ONLY 15.4% of the under-65 population, in the US were without health insurance.
        But no…. Ty and his band of leftists merry-men had to destroy the system. Why?
        Who knows? Costs have not been lowered, supposedly there has been a 5% decrease in the number of uninsured. But why? Have we reached Utopia, like Barrack said?
        No… we just have idiots like Ty, trying to rewrite recent history, that somehow Obamacare is THE CONSERVATIVE SOLUTION TO HEALTHCARE.
        WHAT A MORON!?!

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 11, 2017 at 5:00 pm

        Nani.. Can you believe it? Ty finally figured us out. We are all racists, that hate the poor and want old people to die. Oh, oh.. and don't forget, we want to destroy the Earth with our carbon footprint. Because, as every leftist knows, we "RICH" CONSERVATIVES have a special escape plan to Mars, where we have an endless supply of food, water and clean, sustainable energy. *** Spoiler alert *** that was sarcasm Ty.

        Wow… will you just look at what a leftist has to believe to justify their lunacy…. It's beyond pathetic!

      • Nani Tavares  •  Oct 11, 2017 at 10:56 pm

        Rizzo, the Left is revealing themselves to be the uncaring, intolerant, racist, sexist, you-name-it one that they accuse us of being. And they are scared because the cards they used to drop no longer work.

        I find it odd that women making six figures keeps talking about gender inequality like it's an acceptable fact. And when the majority of multimillionaires are of one race talk about racism, you have to ask why are they not insisting that their sports team reflect America rather than the best athletes. Freedom of speech only applies to the Left and the minority. And in case you're wondering, I'm neither Black nor a male. Yet even I can see the untruth in all the Liberal dogma. All people have to do is THINK for themselves.

        By the way, regarding that poll that Ty listed. You have to ask why the majority of Americans would be satisfied with a health care plan that provides no vision, dental, long term care and has huge deductions that practically requires a secondary health plan just to be accepted by most health care providers. Who ARE these people who were happy with their Vet health care when charities are popping up all over the place to provide services not covered? It's like Obamacare, I know tons of people who have been hurt by its horrific premiums and absolutely nobody who loves the national health care. So I really wonder if any of these pollsters speak to real people here in middle America.

  13. Rizzo  •  Oct 6, 2017 at 1:35 pm

    "Your comment is awaiting moderation."
    Why are my comments being tagged with this: "Your comment is awaiting moderation."?
    What does that mean?

  14. Rizzo  •  Oct 7, 2017 at 12:05 am

    I'm glad that the leftist FINALLY admitted his true intentions… "We can't make every aspect of society EQUAL, but we can get a lot closer when it comes to healthcare access and out of pocket costs."
    You want to tax me to make roads I use, great. You want to tax me to fund schools, fine.
    You want to tax me to fund our military, which secures American freedom… sign me up.

  15. Rizzo  •  Oct 7, 2017 at 7:35 am

    Ty = Leftist = Theftist
    Ty = Theftist

  16. Rizzo  •  Oct 7, 2017 at 8:11 am

    "charity fairy" = Big Government THEFT.

  17. Rizzo  •  Oct 7, 2017 at 8:20 am

    "Just support taxes on people that can afford to pay them"
    – And who EXACTLY is that?
    – And who gets to decide which citizen is less worthy of freedom?
    – If you are "poor" you can keep everything you earn. If you are "rich", you MUST give half your money to the government "charity fairy". Equality?
    – Who is "poor" in America, making them worthy of being recipients of stolen money by the government "charity fairy"?
    – Who is "rich" in America, making them obligated to pay up to 50% of their labor, to the big government "charity fairy"?

  18. Rizzo  •  Oct 7, 2017 at 8:24 am

    Ty… Can you afford to pay 50% to the big government "charity fairy"?
    Do you get a tax-return? I assume you take that money and give it back to the big government "charity fairy"…. You can afford it. You don't need that tax-return money. If not, you must be a selfish, free-for-all Libertarian.

  19. Rizzo  •  Oct 10, 2017 at 7:11 am

    "Obamacare is the CONSERVATIVE healthcare reform"
    -Exactly how may CONSERVATIVE/REPUBLICANS voted for Obamacare?

    • Rizzo  •  Oct 10, 2017 at 7:51 am

      Ty…. Own the failure…. OWN IT!

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 10, 2017 at 5:33 pm

        Ty… is the light on, and nobody's home?

    • Ty  •  Oct 11, 2017 at 8:14 pm

      None. Because president blackenstein was behind it, and liberals, and even disgruntled people on the LEFT who wanted to get something rather than nothing after the public option fell through!!!!!!!.

      Oh, there I went again, implying some racial animus with the term blackenstein. #notall, just the alt right faction that voted for Donald, and the faction that wants to forcibly deport non violent/non criminal illegals and NOT have any sort of immigration compromise, aside from those people, the rest of the party is squeaky clean there… aside from the civil war revisionist the republicans inherited from the south after they fled the democrat party like rats fleeing a ship that was CLEANING ITSELF UP. They needed a new home. The GOP. Oh and aside from the birther movement, championed by president birther to appeal to his birther followers. Those people voted republican. Am I implying republicans are racists? No, just that your party seems to attract a lot of the dregs of the nation, and there is a reason for that. A reason the republican is such a white party and the democratic party is a mixed race party and more cosmopolitan. High brow conservatives like Michael and Arthur Brooks don't want that to be the case, but it is.

      back on topic:

      Romney basically implemented obamacare before Obama and democrats did. And I am not pulling the heritage healthcare policy plan out of my ass.

      the individual mandate was a right wing idea, liberals adopted it because they were trying to PRESERVE the private insurance markets and NOT radically remake the healthcare payment landscape. I think that was a mistake. I think a public option should have been in there as a minimum. Enjoy the free for all for now though Rizzo. It won't last. We will drag conservatives and the rest of the reactionaries towards modernity given enough time, over hot coals and glass and metal spikes. You won't like it, even if you are better off, and the society at large is better off. I realize that, but this is not about you. This is about moving the nation to higher ground, and not letting the conservative affinity for the status quo let us wallow at a local hilltop and pretend that is the best view we'll ever be able to attain.

  20. Rizzo  •  Oct 11, 2017 at 10:42 pm

    Romney… just like ALL you leftist "Cosmopolitan" types are TOTALLY FREE to do whatever you want at the state level…. Moron. Do it! PLEASE do it! Implement Single-Payer in MexiFornia and see what happens.

    • Ty  •  Oct 12, 2017 at 4:01 pm

      This may be an area of agreement. I see little prospect of a left leaning takeover of the nation any time soon, there is too much affirmative action and quotas built into the political structure of the nation that enshrines conservative political power. Where they do not need to convince more people, they are given participation trophys and welfare for being more spread out.

      Aww, poor wittle conservatives, can't get more people to agree with your views? That's ok, you can still get the victors trophy since we privilege people who can't convince more people they are right.

      Since we have no hopes of dislodging the quotas you all rely upon, and you all SAY you are for more federalism, why not expand upon that?

      I'll make a deal with you and a conservative congress. Authorize broader lattitude for what happens with medicare funds and funds for the current healthcare laws governing medicaid and medicare. So if a group of liberal states want to form an interstate compact, they can route THEIR federal money that already goes to those national healthcare services to help fund a single payer system with a common set of rules for the states that sign on. If only the liberal states want to have a system governed by those rules, and the conservative states want health savings accounts and other market based reforms to be the standard? So be it. Let us construct our ideal systems.

      The liberal states will of course need to construct their own limits and residency requirements to be covered under the paid healthcare. Because conservatives don't want to pay for the care of those that cannot afford it, more poor and indigent people in conservative states that the charity fairy does not see, and does not shine a spotlight on will likely flee to more liberal states hoping to get access to care and not DIE or go bankrupt. There will be an inevitable humanitarian crisis with people trying to flood into liberal states. I think a 3-5 year residency requirement + some gainful employment will be needed before people can just link into the system in those states. Aside from that, to keep attracting elites from around the world and other imploding conservative states where nothing is going, we'd want to have people get access to the system if they pay into it like more traditional insurance. We could made it more seamless by tying the costs to education expenses for students, or part of the payroll taxes from companies that bring people in from overseas. There would be a lot of details to work out, but I think some increased federalism might be the best we liberals can get.

      We'd also have more latitude on "free college" by which we mean college paid for via taxes. All college? Of course not. Just the public schools. I live in California and we have a great UC system and cal state system and a vast network of community colleges. Having those be tuition free for most residents would be a great draw for elites of more modest means from around the nation. Private colleges can still charge of course, but I think having institutions like Berkeley and UCLA have zero tuition costs while stanford is multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of 4 years might put some downward pressure on the tuition costs there.

      Also, because our tuition costs will be free (paid for via taxes), I expect something similar to what happened in Germany with their fight between liberal and conservative models of free college in liberal states and private paid colleges in conservative areas.

      Most of the smart people that create most of the jobs and the wealth migrated to the liberal states and colleges and there was a MASSIVE brain drain from conservative regions. Many of those graduates took jobs and started companies in the LIBERAL states, not the conservative "pay your own way" states, and over time, the conservative states adopted the LIBERAL policies that WORKED to stop the bleeding.

      I would love some federalism, if our model works, we will thrive and take the best people from conservative states, and if it does not, the reverse might occur. Either way, I have more faith American liberals will be willing to ADAPT to whatever the world brings than conservatives, looking to tradition and past examples, and if they do not find them stay still and wither and DIE.

      I WANT to see the liberal model put right beside the conservative ones to showcase just how much of a loser those ideas really are. Think I'm wrong? Insane? Prove it! Prove me wrong, allow more federalism, let the liberals have their single payer and free college, and let that all seeing and knowing market prove it's so much better in ALL SPHERES without government influence.

      I don't think conservative would actually do that, because they are afraid, fearful little losers that don't WANT an actual test and crucible to test the mettle of their own ideas. What are you all so afraid of? That the liberal model might work?

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 12, 2017 at 9:30 pm

        Any day Ty… Any day.
        I will take my conservative world of hard work, competition, freedom and personal responsibility, over your liberal dream world, "Utopia" any day of the week and twice on Sunday

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 13, 2017 at 10:31 am

        So do it Ty… You apparently live in The People's Republic of MexiFornia.
        Implement your single-payer, Utopian dream. What's stopping you?
        Certainly it's NOT your groupthink mentality. And, while your at it, how about seceding from the Union, like your racist, southern brethren of old.
        It's funny how you losers keep trying to repeat history. You can repackage yourselves however you like, but you ain't foolin' anybody. Just like an old woman, who colors her hair… your roots eventually surface for ALL TO SEE!

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 13, 2017 at 11:19 am

        You leftists are ALL FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND QUOTAS…. so, STFU.

    • Rizzo  •  Oct 13, 2017 at 11:18 am

      Why do you insist on displaying you ignorance in such a public way? "there is too much affirmative action and quotas built into the political structure of the nation that enshrines conservative political power. Where they do not need to convince more people, they are given participation trophys and welfare for being more spread out."
      PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE…. Familiarize yourself with The Electoral College. I know, when you're in your groupthink meetings, with like-minded leftists, this type of nonsensical drivel might fly. But, here, you are surrounded by educated people, and we will call you out on your inaccurate, false statements.
      And, for the sake of argument, let's assume the system was TRULY built on "affirmative action and quotas"

  21. Rizzo  •  Oct 12, 2017 at 10:14 am

    Definition of theft

    1 a :the act of stealing; specifically :the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

    • Ty  •  Oct 12, 2017 at 4:13 pm

      Is income tax theft?

      Are taxes in general theft?

      What determines whether such things are theft? And if the answer is, it aligns with Rizzos personal views and attitudes, that is not a stable foundation for any society or civilization or law.

  22. Rizzo  •  Oct 12, 2017 at 9:02 pm

    Theft is theft…. The definition of Theft does not change and become moral because the money you steal is given to your favorite social program.

    • Ty  •  Oct 13, 2017 at 12:43 am

      anarchism it is then – you have fun with that model, that's the only model where your tax money only goes to what you want, because it won't be taxed at all. There is no society, it's just some dystopian libertarian fantasy world that no sane person wants to live in. I hope you get there and are forced to live by those rules.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 13, 2017 at 2:21 pm

        You gotta love this moron. He thinks, you either surrender all your money to government, or you are an anarchist.

      • Ty  •  Oct 13, 2017 at 11:03 pm

        No one said anyone needed to surrender ALL their money. You just lied and misrepresented my positions.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 14, 2017 at 7:10 am

        Ty… Well you just lied and misrepresented my position.
        MY POSITION, FOR THE 100th. TIME: Taxes should be paid to fund ONLY Constitutional, Legitimate Government functions.

      • Ty  •  Oct 15, 2017 at 1:30 pm

        Most of the nation, and legal scholars, disagree with your standards of what is and is not constitutional on taxes and funding. But there is that conservative talk radio listener arrogance on display, one of the worst of your kind. Your conception, is the ONLY one with any worth. Go live in some libertarian dictatorship.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 15, 2017 at 1:57 pm

        So Constitutional Scholars believe that tax dollars should be used for non-legitimate, UNCONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES?
        Wow… That makes TOTAL SENSE?!?!
        Somebody has gone COMPLETELY CooCoo for Cocoa Puffs.

  23. Nani Tavares  •  Oct 13, 2017 at 3:03 am

    The huge problem that liberals have is that we have plenty of examples of socialism not working. Even "wonderful" Europe is having problems because as PM Thatcher once said, "eventuality you run out of other people's money". The "redistribution of wealth" goes against human nature as communist countries has shown; people do not strive for betterment if the rewards are divided. Taxes are stealing if it is taken without majority consent and with force. The problem arose when people forget that it is OUR money, not the collective whole. But perhaps the greatest "sin" of socialism is when liberals realize that they cannot guilt the people any longer, then the bullying begins and from that the erosion of human rights and freedom.

    • Rizzo  •  Oct 13, 2017 at 8:03 am

      Exactly Nani…. It's not that all taxes are inherently evil and that some aren't necessary, it's just liberals have TOTALLY LOST RESPECT, AND UNDERSTANDING for the FACT that money belongs to those who EARNED IT.
      We are NOT workers who ENDLESSLY supply money for liberal, UTOPIAN DREAMS.

    • Rizzo  •  Oct 13, 2017 at 9:11 am

      At least we have established, and it is INDISPUTABLE, what theft is.
      Theft does not become some moral act, because it was done for what Ty deems as "good".
      If I rob a bank, and give it to The LGBQTABC Transitioning fund, and a bunch of little boys can now afford to become little girls, I do NOT get a pass.
      I will stil be charged and prosecuted for theft…. regardless if it goes to Ty's favorite pet project.

      • Ty  •  Oct 13, 2017 at 11:11 pm

        The main problem with this canned response to Rizzo, is that unlike the video, there are hundreds of such responses that deserve the same reaction seen here.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 15, 2017 at 12:48 pm

        Yeah Ty, that's great… I have worn-out that quote on you ONLY about 10 times previous to your link.
        You are a real ORGINAL!

    • Ty  •  Oct 13, 2017 at 11:07 pm

      What is socialism? Can you give me a definition? What do you consider socialism. I've given mine repeatedly, and shown we do not have that, but what do you think it is? Spending tax dollars on the general welfare? Where some citizens benefit more than others? Is medicare considered socialism? Medicaid? Social Security? The Alaska payout fund where the STATE collects rents from private companies and pays out a dividend to its citizens? What is it exactly that makes a society socialist?

      You all toss out that word with so little self reflection, I think most conservatives would be in favor of an awful lot of programs people like you and Rizzo would deem socialist. But you don't say you are, so now you are free to clear the air. Explain yourself.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 14, 2017 at 7:19 am

        I will answer that… But first, who does money belong to?
        And… What is theft, if not the definition I offered?
        If your leftist, Utopian dreams were REALLY that great, why does government FORCE free people to buy-in? Wouldn't we line-up and volunteer?
        And that is the beauty of the FREE-MARKET… it is the VOLUNTARY exchange and redistribution of wealth and goods.
        It's like Obamacare. We were told by the messiah, that Obamacre was going to be the GREATEST, MOST COST-EFFECTIVE, healthcare solution EVER… with the caveat, if you don't buy it, you will pay a penalty. If Obamacare were REALLY what they said it was going to be, people would be lining-up to get it. No penalty would be necessary. Centralized, all-powerful government would not need to FORCE US TO BUY IT.

  24. Rizzo  •  Oct 14, 2017 at 8:02 am

    Most liveable: America’s 50 best cities to live in

    The Big City, "Cosmopolitan" locations are most conspicuous by their absence.
    Now gather in your Huddled, Tribal masses to Groupthink on how you may steal more liberty from free-thinking people.

    • Ty  •  Oct 15, 2017 at 1:39 pm

      I was in an uber pool last night from someone visiting from South Carolina, we got to talking and she was originally from Amsterdam. She said she found South Carolina a lovely place, and preferred it to Los Angeles based on what she's seen. She has a nice house for well under 200k, with lots of space. Public schools were mostly a delight. She but she told me that some of the attitudes were terrible. The confederate traitors flag came up, something I thought mostly went away after it came down on the capital. Apparently after that the flag went up all over the place on peoples homes and trucks to show solidarity for their adoration for the confederacy, and the traitors cause. She recounted an experience with students in one of her classes cheering when Trump was elected (expected there) and a lone black kid in the class who felt ostracized (like you would give a damn). While she liked the public schools, the attitudes of the people around her, and her children grated. Apparently the private schools there are terrible, with many of the students unable to pass basic standards, likely because much of the private schools there are focused on religious dogma vs actual secular education first and foremost.

      It was an interesting window into another state in the deep bible belt south. I should take more uber pools, sometimes you talk to interesting people with very different experiences. This bolster your link and point, there are many places that people would prefer to live in, and I think two of the biggest reasons are cost of living, which is naturally higher in more densely populated areas like liberal cities where the economy carries the nation, and congestion. But there are often darker undertones to those same areas.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 15, 2017 at 1:54 pm

        Uber Pool, and talking with people of very different experiences…. Hmmm, interesting.
        It sounds like this person was NOT somebody of any difference or diversity of view in relation to you. He/She sounds like just another groupthink person in your sheltered echo-chamber.
        Also, interesting that you characterize the South as "traitors", as your beloved California looks to mimick their path to secession.
        But hey, thanks for sharing your "cherry-picked" story of one person's experience in South Carolina. It was so marvelous and interesting. Could you please share more details of your fascinating life?

      • Ty  •  Oct 15, 2017 at 6:49 pm

        #CalExit is not going anywhere. And I did mention her preference for the lifestyle of life in South Carolina, especially the cost and weather. But it makes sense that a liberally minded person that was not a traitor would be antagonistic to rampant flying and celebration of the confederate flag, and by extension, its cause. This attitude is a minority of the right, but like I've said before, it's a nasty inheritance of the descendents of white southern racists that used to vote democrat.

        And group think? She is living among the crowds that disagree with many of her viewpoints, the groupthink is who she is surrounded by.

        And my groupthink? I spend a good amount of time interacting with conservatives online. Not in person though, that's true. Easier to dehumanize that way. Thus was discussed on a recent bloggingheads with Andrew Sullivan.

        I do not interact with conservative people at all, that I know of, in my daily life. I'm sure the opposite is true of most conservatives in cities. And the reverse dynamic exists in more rural areas and less dense areas.

  25. Nani Tavares  •  Oct 15, 2017 at 3:54 am

    Rizzo, I think we are wasting our time with Ty. The guy has problems with the definition of stealing and now he's admitted having problems understanding the very ideology he pushes.

    • Rizzo  •  Oct 15, 2017 at 8:51 am

      Oh, I know, Nani… But, I do it for the benefit of other would-be leftists, that might be allured to the simple-minded, leftist "solutions".
      Ty, has shown his complete inability to be educated. But, perhaps others, who may stumble upon this, will understand/embrace individual freedom, personal accountability, and our Constituional Republic.
      Plus, I find it quite enjoyable, embarrassing Ty daily, weekly and monthly.
      Most people, when they find themselves in a hole, they quit digging… not Ty, he keeps digging away!

    • Ty  •  Oct 15, 2017 at 1:47 pm

      You don't know what communism or socialism is. You think because we have some socialized programs and progressive taxation, that that implies we are not a capitalistic and market based economy. We are both, and most of it is a market based economy. You use the fact that you don't LIKE many of the transfer programs we do have, like social security and medicare and food stamps, to misunderstand that the existence of such things does NOT make this a socialist nation, and still would not if we had single payer.

      This is a failure on YOUR part. Not the wayward liberal here. I do not expect this point to be yielded. You all are conservatives, accepting such a point, even if you thought it might be true or have some merit, would involve going against your TRUE master, conservative dogma. Can't break those chains.

      Part of the reason I come into these forms is not to persuade, it's to vent at conservatives and berate. But part is also to show there is another way to be. That you do not have to drop down to your knees in some eternal fealty to dogma and obedience and conservative group think. Of course that project is doomed to failure most of the time. But it's like an old story I've heard Michael recount on air. He'd be walking along the road with his family, he'd see a piece of trash and feel impelled to pick it up. To the embarrassment of both his wife and children, just leave it there, let someone else deal with it. But Michael could not.

      Conservative ideas are often to me, like that trash on the road. I could walk by and leave it to someone else, but if bothers me that trash ideas are left littering the road with no one even making the attempt to clean them up.

      And with some people, they are literal ever flowing landfills, the project of removing the filth is impossible, but I still feel impelled to try. I'm like Sisyphus.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 15, 2017 at 2:05 pm

        Moron… To be a conservative, to honor the Constitutional foundation of society is to reject dropping to your knees to liberal-dogma and their slavish worship of federal, consolidate government control and interference of ALMOST EVERY ASPECT OF LIFE.
        The desire to be FREE is the TOTAL rejection of ANY Dogma. TO BE FREE is the desire of all humans throughout the history of humanity. It is as natural as breathing.
        You are so ASS BACKWARDS it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to understand.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 15, 2017 at 2:11 pm

        Sisyphus? You and your ilk are more like Syphilis.
        You try to make your simple-minded beliefs sound so enticing.
        And, it feels so damn good.
        But, in the end, you lose your mind and the STD kills you.
        Liberalism is a deadly STD: a Stupidity Transmitted Disease.

      • Nani Tavares  •  Oct 15, 2017 at 5:41 pm

        Rizzo, Ty would be amusing if he wasn't so sad. He is STILL arguing the meaning of socialism; he does not realize that in doing so he is revealing the Liberal's inability to connect the dots, to think for themselves. Conservatives aren't maintaining that because we have some social programs, we are a socialist country. We are saying we are HEADING there if we don't push back against the lies that Liberals with the Media, Hollywood and Academia insist are true. As Ben Shapiro says, "Facts don't have feelings". The frustration that people like Ty feel is that the facts don't line up with the con. We have so many examples of socialism, communism not working and single payer health care hurting patients and their families that it is impossible for Liberals to make their case.

        And there are some of us, who are NOT Libertarians or Leftist, who has read their history books and seen what a pure capitalist society looks like (see Charles Dickens England) and accept the concept that a Christian nation should help. But there is a huge difference between "help" and "enable". We have raised a generation of people that we are enabling. And the "progressives" has taken the "Christian" out of society so the people are left wondering on what basis do we help the poor and disadvantaged?

        Ty's liberalism has caused the "harden" conservatism. Liberals pushed and pushed and people got tired of the entitlement attitude and the blame America for everything. They took and took and now wonder why we have closed the coin purse and said "no more".

        Then they did one more thing that made us stop listening period. They "took a knee" to America's values and heroes. Many who were in the middle got off the fence and stepped right.

      • Ty  •  Oct 15, 2017 at 7:12 pm

        Sweden, Norway, the UK, Canada, and many other nations with more robust safety nets and redistribution schemes, are still market based economies, they are still capitalistic societies. More social programs than you would like? Yes. Socialist? No more private ownership? Venezuelan style hell holes?

        No, not even close. Every time such a thing is suggested on the right, it highlights a deep confusion about systems and civics by the right, at best, at worst, it showcases an astonishing capacity to lie in public, before the eyes of god no less. If I were Christian doing such a thing I would feel deep shame at any lies and misrepresentations, and embarrassment at the confusions.

        But one of the perks of conservative bubbles is it's incredibly rare to suffer being corrected by a fellow member of the right leaning tribe.

        And so false statements like a place like Sweden being a socialist country stand, or confusions about the US moving closer to that type of model would put us some inevitable path to Stalin's Russia abound.

        So much misplaced fear, the essence of modern conservatism. It's almost funny, so many people point to the excesses of the left, and there is plenty to point to. But it creates this fantasy world where people ignore oceans of problems with the right. They just don't know any better. It's one of the reasons I think more liberals should listen directly to all the lies and slanders told about themselves and their world views.

  26. Rizzo  •  Oct 15, 2017 at 10:58 pm

    None of their "safety nets" would even be remotely possible if not for the ULTIMATE SAFETY NET, which is provided by the US MILITARY.

    Those fucking country's are a joke, compared to the GREATEST COUNTRY TO HAVE EVER EXISTED.

    You go be like Sweden, Norway and Canada…. and leave we, Americans, the fuck alone.
    We don't need you…. You're an anchor on this society.

    And as far as being ashamed, you know nothing of shame, you Godless Baby Killer!

    • Ty  •  Oct 16, 2017 at 2:06 am

      I'm American too, and you will not be rid of me, or people like me. If I have to suffer fools like you pushing clowns like Trump on the nation, out of pure spite I'd want to stick around to return the favor. If I had the power to snap my fingers and put Jimmy Carter back as president for a few months, just to drive you all insane, I'd do it in a heartbeat. And I'm not even the greatest Jimmy Carter fan.

      You have seen the stats on who the "anchor" is, and that would be all those Trump counties where most of the conservatives dominate and vote. Laggard wastelands of prosperity, not like the wealthier Liberal locations like where the elite conservative talk show hosts choose to live, in deep blue liberal states, near deep blue liberal cities.

      You are welcome, you are welcome for basking in the prosperity that liberal governance and liberal people provide.

      And baby killer? You mean fetuses. Fetuses are human life, not human beings. Abortions and killing fetuses is tragic, but does not rise to the scale of murder, because a cluster of cells does not have the same scale of capacities as an adult human or a child human, it does not have the same scale of self awareness.

      If I was a mindless conservative, in full fealty mode to what God (i.e. religious leaders of the past) thought, I'd think human life was the sacred thing to protect.

      But human life is NOT what is sacred, human BEINGS are. And it is the being, not even the human part that is special. I've made this argument before, but if ET crashed onto the earth, and was not out to harm anyone, it would be JUST as wrong to kill ET as it would any other human BEING, because the being is what is special. Not a fetus, not Terri Sciavo the vegatable, that social conservatives were crawling all over the nation trying to save as if that state of existence of a human shell with the spark of sentience GONE was special and worthy of preservation. But that is the problem with religious ethics and morality. It provides training wheels for small minded people who keep falling on their face each time they try to make the smallest turn. You are not ALLOWED to make your own determinations and be in good standing with the faithful, and so you do not think through what ought to be considered special and sacred, you just go read and interpret scripture. And you call yourselves free peoples? Please. Supplicants. And ironically, you are not even good at that. How many version of christianity are there? How many variants of judaism? orthodox judaism? Conservative judaism? reform judaism? At the end of the day, most of you pick and choose what you prefer anyway, just like liberal christians, and toss out what is inconvenient to you. It's the atheists like myself that are far more honest. I'm quite open that I am the final arbiter about my own determinations of right and wrong. Maybe one day, you believers can hope to be as honest as I am.

  27. Rizzo  •  Oct 16, 2017 at 7:32 am

    "a cluster of cells does not have the same scale of capacities as an adult human or a child human, it does not have the same scale of self aware"
    Most liberals fall under this definition…. So by your sick and twisted mind, it should be legal to end your "human life".
    I suppose you support killing animals and new born babies too, because of course, they lack human capacity as well.
    My God, I can't believe YOU, a leftist, actually admitted to the world, your justification of baby-killing! Sick, sick, sick!!!

  28. Rizzo  •  Oct 16, 2017 at 7:38 am

    You are so right. This Godless monster, is beyond hope.
    He has admitted to his TOTAL LACK OF MORALS, and this is a bridge too far.
    I always knew the sick, and twisted mind of a leftist, but this is the first time I have actually read an admission as sick as Ty's last post.

    • Nani Tavares  •  Oct 16, 2017 at 3:52 pm

      I am sorry Rizzo. It's rather disheartening isn't it that people can be so brainwashed and/or morally corrupt that they can admit to the humanity of a preborn child and still advocate their death? Don't you just "love" the verbal gymnastics these liberals use to justify their ugly soul? The truly tragic part is that they either have something inside that knows that when we talk about abortion we ARE talking about the murder of a baby or they have don't have that core of decency. Either way, they lose.

  29. Rizzo  •  Oct 16, 2017 at 7:46 am

    And these are the sick and twisted monsters, who want to control healthcare, making life and death decisions for us all… Now, it's not hard to understand how/why they so easily denied Charlie Gard a chance at life.
    In the end, he wasn't worth it…. for in their mind, he lacked the capacity of a human and therefore was worthy of death.


  30. Rizzo  •  Oct 16, 2017 at 9:23 am

    The quote for ALL TIMES, "human life is NOT what is sacred".
    If any of you people, sitting on the fence, are reading this…. This is ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW!
    These people are RADICAL! These people are not racists, bigoted, homophobes… They hate you all equally. Your "Human Life" is as worthless as the next guy.

  31. Ty  •  Oct 16, 2017 at 5:18 pm

    Correct. Quote me, but don't leave out the other part you deliberately chose to leave off. Because you are like so many deceit filled conservatives who engage in the worst kinds of lies. The lies of omission.

    Human BEINGS are sacred. Beings, that encompasses more than a few cells that are human life, as if that is what one ought to consider special.

    Since you are such a weak and sloppy mind, I will attempt to explain this with a scenario to illustrate why the Being is more special than merely being human and alive.

    Two patients in a hospital are exposed to a deadly bacterial infection. Mortality rate after 24 hours is 100% and there is only 1 dose of a cure that will be available within that time frame. Each patient WILL die if they do not get the injection, but there is only 1. Normally this would be an agonizing decision. Let's assume both are 42 years old. Both married. Still hard for most people, perhaps impossible to decide ethically.

    Now the obvious wrinkle any non Rizzo class mind could see coming from miles away. One of the patients is Terry Schiavo, who doctors have pronounced to be in a vegetative state. The other? Aside from the infection that will kill her, completely mentally there and self aware and sentient. Either life can be saved with the injection of the cure, either could live to the age of 80. But you have one injection for the cure, and you have to choose who gets it.

    This, is NOT hard. Not hard to any sane person. Now for you religious people, who want to maintain that ALL HUMAN LIFE IS SACRED, that there is ZERO DIFFERENCE AT ALL between any forms of human life, this choice should STILL be impossibly hard for you.

    It's not for me, because I'm not a mentally crippled moron. The obvious choice is to inject the cure in the person that is mentally there, because the other is already gone. All human life is NOT equal. And that is an example of why. Merely being human and alive does not some special protection make.

    For the record, I think abortion is a harder and worse case than the above. Terri Schiavo is not expected to mentally return, but in the case of a fetus, it's human life that will eventually become a human being, and abortion essentially cuts short the path of that being coming into the world. Tragic, sad, and still NOT the same as snuffing out the life of an actual being that has already attained a certain level of self awareness.

  32. Rizzo  •  Oct 16, 2017 at 5:58 pm

    You GD fraud, we are not talking about choosing one life over another… like your absolutely ABSURD example.
    We are talking about you KILLING BABIES! Not to save a mother's life, but out of convenience… because a baby is NOT A HUMAN LIFE… because a baby does not have the capacity of an adult.
    You are a sick and dangerous monster.

    • Ty  •  Oct 16, 2017 at 7:31 pm

      Were you dropped on your head as a child? The Terry Schiavo example was to DRILL DOWN and have you FOCUS LIKE A LASER BEAM on the assertion that all human life is sacred, that no one human life was worth more than another, it's ONLY human life that is important.

      That is the foundational idea underpinning YOUR rationale (well, aside from that impossibly subservient rationale of – because god told me so – so YES master, I obey!). I attacked it, with a precise example in another area. The idea is that once that idea is undercut and shown to not TRULY be what you believe, maybe you can imagine different classes of human light might apply in other areas as well… mission failed with Rizzo. No capacity to abstract concepts.

      Sidebar. If we ever get artificial wombs, where a fetus can be safely removed from the mother and implanted in one of those wombs and brought to term healthy, I would be ok with making that the preferred path instead of abortions. The mother would forfeit all rights and responsibilities by doing so.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 16, 2017 at 7:35 pm

        Moron…. we don't have to argue in the abstract. Terry Schiavo, and Charlie Gard were REAL PEOPLE, WITH REAL CHANCES TO LIVE. And you sick, Godless fucks, sentenced them to DEATH. Not to choose between one life or another, but to kill, because you fucks are sick.

  33. Rizzo  •  Oct 16, 2017 at 6:27 pm

    Did you have to kill Terry Schiavo, to save somebody? Was that the ethical decision we were faced with, You LYING FRAUD?
    Was somebody going to die because Charlie Gard was given the opportunity to live?
    You are such a lying, pathetic moron!
    You leftists are Godless. You are self-appointed Gods, with no morals whatsoever.

    And once again, to anyone reading this…. PLEASE PAY ATTENTION, THESE PEOPLE ARE RADICAL!
    You do NOT want them in charge of healthcare!
    Your life is worthless. The lives of your loved ones are worthless to them.

    • Nani Tavares  •  Oct 16, 2017 at 8:50 pm

      Rizzo, take a deep breath. Ty’s attempt to justify murder revealed the falsehood of his moral code. Do you think you are the only person repelled by his life and death judgement of humans whose only “crime” is that one was disabled and the other sick? Ty has spent post after post trying to convince us of his moral superiority; instead he has shown his view that people are born unequal based on race and now that people are less human and doesn’t deserve to live based on their imperfections. I’m not sure Rizzo, if you do it deliberately but your confrontation with Ty has brought out his true character and it is so terribly, tragically ugly.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 16, 2017 at 10:56 pm

        Nani… You are so right!
        And yes, it is by design, that I try to get the left to admit their TRUE intentions and their worldview. But, NEVER before, have I gotten such an ugly admission.
        I am TOTALLY repulsed, and I lost my cool.
        However, I am thankful… if anyone reads this, I am sure Ty has opened the eyes of a lot of fence-sitters out there.
        Ty represents the left… ALL OF THEM. And it's ugly, and dangerous, and it must be DEFEATED!
        They try to come off as rational thinkers, but they are the most RADICAL among us!

      • Ty  •  Oct 17, 2017 at 1:15 am

        Thank you for clearing that up. Every doctor and mother that performed and had an abortion, is a murderer. If you get that extra supreme court pick, and make abortion illegal, no need to stop there in conservative states. Take what you just said to its logical conclusion. Bring up anyone who has had an abortion, or performed an abortion up on charges for murder or multiple murders. Murder is murder, is it not? killing a 5 year old, or killing a fetus that is 1.5 months from conception, ZERO difference. Each action is identical.

        OK. You have fun with that standard. And let the courts and death penalty for MURDER run red with your righteous vengeance.

      • Ty  •  Oct 17, 2017 at 1:42 am

        I represent myself, just one person on the left, who agrees and disagrees on different issues. I just disagree with the right more. ALL of the left are not like me, some are more to the left, others are more conservative and don't want things like single payer. We are not ALL the same, but in that blanket demonization and rage you see us all the same. Wrong tribe, wrong opinions. Natural extension of the rhetoric of Prager. You are the culmination of the worst of the right I've been describing, a perfect exemplar of the talk radio drone.

        There are people on the left that are against abortion, because they think there mere potential of a fetus to develop into a human being is enough to not want to allow abortions. Many others have that as a personal view, but do not want to make it illegal for others.

        Again, nothing about that is we are ALL the same. One ear and out the other, you only hear what you want to hear and is convenient to you beliefs and world view and narrative and demonization arc.

        If I thought terminating a 2 month old fetus was the equivalent of terminating a 2 year old, I'd be against abortion too. Choice would be a meaningless argument, you don't get to CHOOSE whether your 2 year old lives or dies. Unlike 90% of the pro choice crowd, I gave you a more stable and sensible rationale for why someone like myself would tolerate early term abortions, and the explanation is completely beyond you.

        You are really so stuck in the all life is sacred model. If you had a 2 year old, and your wife was 2 months pregnant, and each came down with an infection, and you could either have the doctor give a cure to the 2 year old, or the fetus, ANY one of you that would flip a coin on whether the two year old or the two month old fetus got the cure is the confused monster.

        Or a more basic and traditional example. If the life of a mother is threatened, and you can either terminate the pregnancy to save the mother, or allow the baby to be delivered with a high chance at killing the mother, ANY pro life person that chooses to save the mother and terminate the fetus implicitly thinks there is GREATER value to the mother over the fetus. That, is the right answer.

  34. Rizzo  •  Oct 17, 2017 at 7:35 am

    Your scenarios are so preposterous, they are absolutely laughable.
    Example: we have 2 guys dying, and only one cure. One guy has 20/20 vision, while the other guy has to wear glasses and a hearing-aid. Which one should we kill?

    Ty… you can backpedal and create all the fanciful scenarios your heart desires.
    But, the fact is, your stated position on the "choice" of life is, if you don't possess "the same scale of capacities as an adult human or a child human" or if you don't have the "same scale of self awareness", then killing, letting die, and not giving life-saving medical treatment are all perfectly acceptable options for you and the left.

    99.9% of all abortions are NOT to save the mother's life, they are abortions of convenience!
    And you are PERFECTLY HAPPY WITH THAT. Because as a Godless leftist, it's a CHOICE, NOT A LIFE.

    And you can live in your fantasy-world, that pro-life leftists exist, but it's not TRUE.
    Name 3 prominent, elected, pro-life democrats.


    • Ty  •  Oct 17, 2017 at 3:57 pm

      It's a choice to people that tolerate abortion and want it to remain legal because we don't see early term fetuses as the equivalent of post birth human life/beings. That's the reality. If you do see them as the same, then you should be against abortions.

      I've explained why I think it's silly to see them as the same with multiple examples that put that conception to the test under stress (which is the point of extreme hypotheticals to allow us to close in on what we REALLY think and believe and the extent to how far those beliefs expand out to).

      I have the harder time arguing against someone who does see a fetus as different than a born human being, but still wants to preserve the life of the fetus because ending it will cut off a potential and future being. That view, is entirely consistent with my conception of the nature of the relative value of an early term fetus and a born human being, but where someone is shifted to a more preservationist bent. I have no argument against them, they feel what they feel about the situation, and the same goes with me.

      As to never letting us in charge of healthcare, this is one of the biggest dichotomies in the universe. It's the more stringent pro life side that wants to protect human life all the way back to zygote stage and conception, but the MOMENT that life exits the womb, the kid is on their own. The kids are typically covered by social assistance of course, and some charity, but as that kid ages and crosses 18, if they happen not to be able to afford some drug for a medical treatment, it's those SAME pro life conservatives that do not want to structure our system of medical care so that it's not based on ability to pay.

      This is why I say large chunks of social conservatives are not really pro life so much as pro fetus. You don't give a damn about human life after it exits the womb if a way to save those lives is via taxes and health services funded by them, that's on the parents, that's on the individual, not merely for material goods, but access to medicine in certain income bands where they might not be able to afford it. If they can't, and the choice is between socializing the cost to CONSISTENTLY (unlike the mercurial charity fairy) handle peoples care, and letting them either go bankrupt, or have their medicine supply run out for lack of cash, LET-THEM-DIE. You would rather that happen than a sliver of taxes go to socialize some of those costs.

      Pro life my ass. At least I am focused on the human beings that are already Here and self aware and have more capacity to care about whether they live or die and have family and other attachments! But you? Most of that concern shifts to the unborn. And the adults that can't pay to live? It's their own damn fault, and you did not kill them, you just watched them bleed out or wither away for lack of access to proper medicine so you could avoid taxes. You want to talk about vicious, there it is.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 17, 2017 at 5:53 pm

        Keep backpedalling your radical views Ty… Keep it up.

        You have clearly stated that people are not worthy of life if they don't possess "the same scale of capacities as an adult human or a child human" or if they don't have the "same scale of self awareness". This declaration encompasses A LOT! For example: Fetuses (late-term and otherwise), newborns, mentally-handicapped, elderly, most liberals, etc. But, I digress.

        It is absurd to suggest that we conservatives don't value life because we have expectations of humans that are greater than that of the typical leftist. We expect humans, especially adult humans, to have the capacity of self-determination. To be pro-life, is to protect life for those who can not protect themselves, for example: Fetuses (late-term and otherwise), newborns, mentally-handicapped, elderly, etc. But, once you become a "self aware", "adult human", you need to spread your wings and leave the nest. We don't believe in a cradle to grave, nanny state. We want to ensure you get a chance at the cradle, and a chance at living a long and productive life of your choosing.

        For those that are incapable, we spend BILLIONS OF DOLLARS… some of it legitimate, much of it, waste, abuse and fraud.
        Medicaid = $500 billion PLUS
        Medicare = $600 billion PLUS
        SNAP = $70 billion PLUS
        I could go on, but what's the point… Ty is impervious to FACTS.

        But for those of you, who follow FACTS, you will understand how ABSURD it is, when Ty says, "You don't give a damn about human life after it exits the womb."
        I have over a TRILLION DOLLARS that says otherwise, you MORON!

        Now tell us again about your righteousness in promoting BABY KILLING, and how morally correct you are as a self-appointed God.

      • Ty  •  Oct 17, 2017 at 7:08 pm

        Killing a baby is considered murder by everyone. If you get your way on the supreme court, and abortion is made illegal once again in conservative states, I expect you to follow through on your own conception you just made here, killing a fetus ought to be murder just like a newborn baby, because if you are being consistent based on your rhetoric here, killing EITHER is no different.

        Get back to me when you conservatives start charging mothers and doctors with mass murder. Until then, spare me, because what I said is more right than you dishonest little liars will admit. You do not see them the same. And if you do, you BETTER hold to those convictions and now cower away and string mother up for murder, and if in Texas, execute them. Murder is murder is murder.

        YOUR standard. Live buy it. Or gtfo and spare me that false righteousness.

        And conservatives value life, just not more than right wing dogma about accountability. There are billions of human beings on this earth, we expect accountability in all sorts of spheres, but even when people are doing things right, they can become unlucky in job losses, or because they are NOT gods, not omniscient, not infallible, make bad choices that put them in a bad place financially.

        SOME of those people might still make too much to be covered by medicaid, and are too young to be covered by medicare, and too unnoticeable to be covered by the charity fairy. But hey, they get cancer and can be saved with a drug and can't afford it? Not Conservatives fault. NO ONE SAID IT WAS you JACKAL. We just want you to have more than some bestial indifference to the needs of your fellow citizens and tolerate some way to help them out.

        You point to programs LIBERALS advocated for, that you want to rip away, and ignore the holes that do not cover anyone, and you don't care about filling those gaps. Your responsibility, not societies, except for k-12 education, and basic security with police, but nothing more, NEVER anything more, just stay stuck in some steady state conservative HELLHOLE where nothing advances, where NO baseline capacity rises for things like healthcare coverage. Not if a fraction of a conservatives earnings need to be taxed to save lives and get people in need drugs to save their life.

        Conservative: If they just did x, y, z

        Ty : but they did not, and now they are at the emergency room, and they need medicine x to live for the next three months they cannot afford.

        Conservative: Not – My – Problem. I am OK with them dying because of a lovely conservative trick of shouting personal responsibility. All sins are wiped away, and now, it does not MATTER that we had the power to save someone, and chose not to. Because they had agency, any lack of action on our part is justified. No exceptions, not even when it comes to life and death and switching to a universal system that would cost most people less. DOGMA and ideology over the lives of human BEINGS that are here right now.

        Absolute savages. Worst of all, savages that think they are holy and noble.

  35. Rizzo  •  Oct 17, 2017 at 7:42 pm

    Where Ty? Where are these mythical people falling through the holes and dying in the streets?
    Where…. You people are Gawd Damn fantasy land idiots!
    Maybe the problem is too much government intervention.
    Have you ever read about "The War on Poverty"? The only thing that it accomplished was INCREASED POVERTY! But, that's ok…. Liberal failures just keep perpetuating themselves!
    Just like a Gawd Damn liberal to reward failure and punish success.

    Now go kill some babies like a good Godless leftist!

  36. Rizzo  •  Oct 17, 2017 at 7:46 pm

    Stuck in a hellhole? The greatest advances in human history came from America, and The American Free-Market!
    So shut the F Up, you Gawd Damn historical ILLITERATE!!!

  37. Rizzo  •  Oct 17, 2017 at 7:54 pm

    Over a TRILLION DOLLAR$…. And not enough!
    Debts and deficits unlike any seen before in US History… And not enough!

    At what point do we reach Utopia? How much more?
    No politician has ever delivered on their promises of paradise, yet the leftist lemmings keep following!

  38. Nani Tavares  •  Oct 18, 2017 at 12:15 am

    The problem is that despite what propaganda tries to sell, people really KNOW what the mother carries when she is pregnant. Do you really think a 13 year old doesn't know? Or a woman who has been raped? Their entire body changed during the period when they carried that baby and they KNOW it wasn't for nothing.

    As medicine evolves, there WILL come a time when abortion (as the Germans who allowed and/or supported the genocide of Jews and Dixie Democrats who taught and insisted that Blacks were 3/4s a person) will either deny knowing or be angry that they were "pushed" into the genocide of their own children. Ty, conservatives don't have to punish mothers who killed their babies. I know of so many women who do a yearly mea culpa on the anniversary of what would have been the birthday of their child. Believe me, they KNOW. And it eats at the soul of the most pro-abortionist. Unless, of course they have already allowed their soul to die. This is part of the reason why I am so pro-life. The shame and cruelty of the abortionist con is especially hard on the teenager who has to live their entire life with the knowledge of what they've done. Don't believe me? Ask anyone who has miscarried. YEARS later, you can see the pain in their eyes.

    You talk about the 2 month fetus verses the 2 year old but you don't say why one deserves to live and not the other. I once saw a t.v. special where a couple was suing the hospital for keeping their child alive at the time of her birth. She was 11 years old now and looked perfectly healthy…except she was a vegetable and needed care they felt unable to give any longer. I wondered if someone like you would be for having this child killed. After all, she was completely dependent on her parents. I once got into a discussion with a co-worker who thought that a child who had been raped by her father should be allowed to have an abortion. The child was ready to give birth any day. I asked her if the abortion was scheduled for Monday morning and the child was born on Sunday night, should we kill the baby. She was appalled; "of course not!" I wanted the know why. It was the same baby. My boss once told our group during lunch that she had a late pregnancy and she would have had an abortion if the amniocentesis had shown a disabled baby. I asked her if her now 5 year old fell off his bike and was now mentally or physically impaired, she would want him put to death. Another, "of course not!:

    See Ty, you can list any justification for abortion and I will ask you if such an imperfect situation faced by those already born would justify their caregiver killing that person.

    Even though I realize that you have been so indoctrinated that you can no longer connect the dots, I take the time to tell you this because even though you are Godless, the advancement of medicine is so rapid that the genocide of our babies will have to be faced. And I am mean in that I do not want you to have the out of saying you did not know. For YOU are the very people that perpetuate the abortion con leaving millions of women the shame and guilt they will take to their grave.

    • Ty  •  Oct 18, 2017 at 5:36 pm

      If someone is ashamed of having an abortion, they should not have one. If someone had one before their mind was changed on the topic, and they later come to regret it, that is life. But it will not be people like me tossing on shame and guilt for past actions. I will not be the one showing that woman pictures of developed fetuses and shaming them into a sense that they murdered a human being. I'll leave that to sections of the right.

      As for whether I would have terminated a fetus that was known to have developmental issues if I was facing that situation (I'm not, and won't, not only am I not a woman, I'm gay on top – so this will not be a decision I ever expect to make), I'd probably choose to end the pregnancy.

      Once the infant is born, I see that as a clear, if arbitrary, demarcation line of additional rights and protections. Now, if the kid was so far gone that they were a total vegetable and the only way they could survive was to be strapped to breathing tubes because their brains were not functional enough to control basic survival, I'd be ok pulling life support.

      And why is the same reason I gave with the Terri Schiavo case. Being human, and alive, is not the foundation of what makes me want think human beings are special and worthy of extra protection. Being a vegetable is literally like being a mindless automaton to me, a living golem. If I were religious, and actually believed in some esoteric notion of an immortal soul, I'd still probably lean towards allowing the human life to move on if in vegetable state, why leave that "soul" trapped in a prison and not allow it to move onto the afterlife you say you believe in sooner?

      If I was born in a vegetative state, I would not have wanted to be kept around, more to the point, there would be no "I" to care one way or the other. Golems don't have value to me, sentient/self aware beings do. And after birth, I'm pretty tolerant and liberal on how far my protections and concerns extend. Mentally retarded after birth? No problem, I want government funds to kick in and help the parents that want to keep and raise the child, or take over if they think the burden is too great. As long as the human is not in some far gone vegetative state, I'm fine with valuing their basic worth as human beings just like any other. Before birth? I'd have a bigger bias, because I consider all such stages of human life to be of lower status.

      But there are many more conditions with my own standards and ethics. It's a lot easier for your type.

      Immortal soul at conception? All human life sacred? And… we are done. And if a baby has a brain issue where for all we know living a few more years would be living torture, keep the baby alive as long as possible. To me that is abuse, and more for the parents than the child, but that's your ethical framework. Simple, easy, and not something I subscribe to.

      But I think this is useful to point out, you need to understand why many of the arguments you give against abortion will NEVER be enough for many people. Some basic suppositions about the nature and value of different kinds and stages of life are not agreed on, and until they are, no progress can be made.

      This is something I sometimes bring up with people on the left making a pro choice argument. I know, because I am self aware enough to have SOME understanding of where the logic and sentiment for pro life is coming from, that a choice argument is NEVER going to work with you. You do not get to choose whether your 2 year old lives or dies, so if you see ZERO difference in the status of a 2 year or a 2 month old fetus, why would choice have any more argumentative and persuasive weight there?

      This is precisely why I do not make choice arguments, because they miss the point of the more basic and fundamental disagreements. Disagreements of the basic nature and value of life itself.

      • Nani Tavares  •  Oct 18, 2017 at 8:16 pm

        Sigh, Ty, how do you explain to someone who assigns different VALUES at different stages of human life? Your inability to see the value of human life is precisely why Liberals cannot be in charge of single payer health care. You are the very person who will push for the little black pill for someone in their eighties and call it mercy. The "right" to die will become the "duty" to die.

        You claim to want the destruction of a baby for the convenience of the mother because you care, but completely and coldly dismisses a woman's maternal instinct to know that she is carrying her child. She clings to your justification but a part of her dies each anniversary of what would have been the child's birthdate. A woman doesn't have to be particularly religious to know that she carried a child–and had that child killed. Why do people like you who claim not to believe in God and people who live in a secular society try to convince the populace that to do this or that is humane and good? It is because most people have a natural desire to do what is right. Women who kill their children KNOW and no matter how much they cling to the propaganda, when the lights are off and the night is silent, they weep. The part that is human cries for what they've done in a moment of selfishness.

        As for no one will ever have the choice to kill a 2 year old. This actually made me smile because one of the things many of the pro-abortion t.v. shows don't seem to know what to do when someone pushes the SAME justification of killing the pre-born baby for the parent who killed their born child. WHY wouldn't a parent have the choice? If it is humane to kill a disable baby before birth, why not after? It made me smile because Ty, you are making my case for me. What you don't seem to understand is that you really are on the wrong side. If I am wrong and there is no God, then you will go to your death and face nothing. But if I am right–and that part of all of us humans that want to make things fair and do the right thing makes it more likely that I am–then YOU will have to face a God who is not just a God of forgiveness and love, but one of justice.

  39. Rizzo  •  Oct 19, 2017 at 9:21 am


    Thank you for sharing your heartfelt sentiments. I agree totally. The problem is, you are trying to appeal to the soul of a soulless individual. It is little wonder why the left, as it has always done throughout history, has to KILL GOD. The concept of God, TOTALLY undermines their totalitarian agenda… they MUST answer to no one. With God, none of this senseless killing of babies would EVER be possible. Lastly, once the have killed God, there are no more moral impediments to them achieving UTOPIA… Heaven on Earth.

    People are free to believe or not to believe in whatever they want. But, Ty is a clear example of what a Godless person looks like. He is now free from the shackles of morality and concepts of right and wrong. It is what has lead him to believe that killing babies is fine… and not just for vegetative babies, not just disabled babies… but ALL BABIES FOR ANY REASON AT ANY TIME.
    He represents the RADICAL LEFT. He represents the future of National, Single-Payer Healthcare… soulless, immoral, Godless Government, imposing soulless, immoral, Godless decisions on our society.

    Nani… thanks again for sharing. Your female perspective has contributed mightily to this topic!

  40. knock off cartier ring wedding  •  Dec 14, 2017 at 2:17 am

    Made this as a side dish this evening. It was absolutely delicious. I can’t wait to have the leftovers for lunch tomorrow!!!
    knock off cartier ring wedding

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.


Listen Commercial FREE  |  On-Demand
Login Join
Advertise with us Advertisement

Follow Michael

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Listen to the show on your amazon echo devices
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn