Rich Liberals Champion the Poor to Maintain their Privileged Lives

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 2nd, 2011

Per-Vote-Subsidy replaces Corporate and Union Money

Canada has a spoils system when it comes to public financing of political campaigns.  The big pile of public money ‘donated’ by the Canadian taxpayer is divided between the parties by vote.  The more votes a party gets, the more tax subsidies that party gets.  The Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, wants to do away with these subsidies (see Harper vows to scrap per-vote subsidies by CTV.ca News Staff posted 4/1/2011 on CTV.ca).

Currently, political parties receive a $2-per-vote subsidy, but Harper has long opposed the system, which was brought in by the Liberals when corporate and union donations were banned.

He said Friday that political parties already enjoy “enormous tax advantages” and taxpayers should not have to support parties they don’t support with their votes. Harper added that the subsidy only helps to ease the way for frequent elections.

Interesting.  Unlike the United States, Canada does not allow corporations or unions donate to political parties.  And when that ban went into place, the liberals brought in the per-vote-subsidy.  It takes money to win political contests.  And when you shut down two big sources (corporations and unions), that money has to come from somewhere else.  So the liberals decided to get that money from the taxpayer.  Fair, right?  I mean, without these subsidies, political power falls to the rich.  And that’s not fair, is it?

The Liberals are the Rich trying to Buy Political Power

When they banned corporate and union donations that left private donations.  From actual people.  So I guess we would have to see how that money flowed to see whether the per-vote-subsidy is fair and serves its purpose.  To keep the rich from wielding political power over the poor (see Analysis: Fears about scrapping per-vote subsidies wildly off target by Patrick Brethour, Vancouver, posted 4/2/2011 on The Globe and Mail).

Data compiled by the website Punditsguide.ca show that funds raised by the parties largely come from small donors, in amounts that would make few Canadian households cringe…

Take the Conservative Party in 2009, which raised… an average [per person] donation of $174.60…

The story is pretty much the same with the other parties: the NDP, with an average donation of $169.11; the Bloc Quebecois, average $102.63; Green Party, $123.21; and the Liberals, with an average of $239.23, the highest of the major federal parties.

Looking at the average per-person donation, it appears the liberal donors are richer than the conservative donors.  Kind of goes against everything the liberals tell us.  That conservatives are nothing but a bunch of rich fat-cats who want to use the poor as footstools.  Either that or conservatives are just cheap bastards.

The same picture emerges when looking at the distribution of donations by size. For the Conservatives, about 10 per cent of the funds raised came from those giving between $1,000 and the maximum of $1,100; conversely, two-thirds came from those giving $400 or less. The NDP were similar, with 7 per cent coming from the highest donated amount, and 70 per cent coming from donations $400 and under. The Liberals – who have fulminated against the perils of the rich controlling the political process – were actually the party most dependent on big donations, with 35 per cent of their cash coming from donors giving between $1,000 and $1,100, while sub-$400 donors accounted for just 38 per cent of the funds the party raised.

In fact, the Liberals outperformed among big donors, raising $3.2-million to the Conservatives’ $1.7-million. The Tories made up that ground, and more, with small donors.

And what do these numbers tell you?  Liberals rely on rich people for their political donations.  Conservatives rely on the little guy, the average working person who can barely afford to donate $200.  And the big corporations and the big unions pour money into liberal political parties.  In ‘soft ways‘ these days.  In Canada.  In the United States.  All around the world.  So much money that it was hard for the little guy to fight against it.  Leaving political power in the hands of the rich.  Much like the liberals say they want to prevent with the per-vote-subsidy.  But, in fact, that’s exactly what they want to do.  Leave political power in their rich hands.

You see, the crony capitalists and the snooty rich don’t like the little guy.  They like the good life that few can enjoy.  And sometimes they need special favors from government to continue that privileged life.  Which is why they donate to liberal parties.  But when they banned ‘hard money’ donations from corporations and unions, liberals had to scramble for other financing.  Because the majority of people don’t support their views.  So they need to ‘force’ donations through these per-vote-subsidies.  For it is the only way they can continue to rule against the will of the people.

The People who Supported Obamacare get Obamacare Waivers

It’s always about the money.  Whenever you’re confused about some political debate, just ask yourself this simple question.  Where’s the money?  Take health care, for example.  The goal of Obamacare was to provide everyone with high-quality yet affordable health care insurance.  Sort of like paying for a Big Mac and getting filet mignon.  Impossible, yes, but that’s what they told us. 

Big Business and the unions were all behind it.  Everyone (employers and unions) wants to dump their health care costs.  That’s why they were anxious for that public option.  Well, they didn’t get the public option.  Not yet.  First Obamacare has to put the private insurers out of business.  Once it does that then the government can step in as the insurer of last resort and, presto, they’ll get their national health care.  But leaves a costly problem for the here and now.

To ‘pass’ CBO, they had to include some onerous requirements.  The new law forced everyone to buy insurance.  The insurers had to cover preexisting conditions.  And they forbade insurance companies to recover their full overhead expenses.  Suddenly affordable insurance was going to become unaffordable.  Or people were simply going to lose their insurance because they couldn’t afford the premiums that were necessary to comply with the requirements of Obamacare.  So many of those who supported this legislation want no part of it.  For themselves, that is.  It’s okay for us.  But not for them.  So they’re asking that the law does not apply to them.  Only us (see List of health reform waivers keeps growing by Jason Millman posted 4/2/2011 on The Hill).

The number of waivers the Obama administration has awarded for a provision of the year-old healthcare reform law grew by 128 in March.

With the new waivers, that means 1,168 businesses, insurers, unions and other organizations have received one-year exemptions from a healthcare reform provision requiring at least $750,000 in annual benefits.

Nancy Pelosi said we needed to pass Obamacare to learn what was in it.  Apparently another 128 insurance plans learned what was in it this past March.  And they want out.  Like the majority of Americans.  Which really begs the question why Obamacare?  It isn’t popular.  They had to pass it quickly before anyone could read the bill.  None of the unions want it.  So why have it?  Because liberals want it.  And why do politicians want anything?  Follow the money.

The Free Market provides High Quality and Low Prices

Hillary Clinton tried to socialize our health care.  Now Obamacare is a short step from doing just that.  Because they said only government could step in and fix our health care system.  That the so-called free market had failed.  Really now?  Because that’s the one thing that has been missing from our health care system.  Market forces.  Doctors providing medical services for a fee that their patients actually pay for.  Not a third party insurance bureaucrat.  But the actual patient.  Until now, that is.  And that free market?  It works.  It’s providing a fully funded quality system that people of average means can afford (see High-end medical option prompts Medicare worries by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press, posted 4/2/2011 on the Sun Journal).

Every year, thousands of people make a deal with their doctor: I’ll pay you a fixed annual fee, whether or not I need your services, and in return you’ll see me the day I call, remember who I am and what ails me, and give me your undivided attention.

But this arrangement potentially poses a big threat to Medicare and to the new world of medical care envisioned under President Barack Obama’s health overhaul.

The spread of “concierge medicine,” where doctors limit their practice to patients who pay a fee of about $1,500 a year, could drive a wedge among the insured. Eventually, people unable to afford the retainer might find themselves stuck on a lower tier, facing less time with doctors and longer waits.

People actually paying to see a doctor?  Imagine that?  Just like in the old days.  Before there was a health care crisis.  The patients are happy.  The doctors are happy.  And making a very nice living.  You can’t get much more of a win-win situation, can you?  Who could find fault with this?

The trend caught the eye of MedPAC, a commission created by Congress that advises lawmakers on Medicare and watches for problems with access. It hired consultants to investigate.

I guess the government could.  Big Brother is everywhere.  And he is looking at this free market solution.  And Big Brother is not amused.  People paying for their own medical care?  That’s a problem for those in government.  A big problem.

Several members said it appears to be fulfilling a central goal of Obama’s overhaul, enhancing the role of primary care and restoring the doctor-patient relationship.

Yet the approach envisioned under the law is different from the one-on-one attention in concierge medicine. It calls for a team strategy where the doctor is helped by nurses and physician assistants, who handle much of the contact with patients.

John Goodman, a conservative health policy expert, predicts the health care law will drive more patients to try concierge medicine. “Seniors who can pay for it will go outside the system,” he said.

MedPAC’s Hackbarth declined to be interviewed. But Berenson, a physician and policy expert, said “the fact that excellent doctors are doing this suggests we’ve got a problem.”

You see, one-on-one concierge medicine is bad because it lets doctors work freely with patients.  The government would prefer something along the current lines.  You treat patients.  And then we’ll think about paying you.  And how much we’ll pay you.  Like in the Medicare program now.  That way you’re our bitch.  But if you work outside the system, you and your patients will be free.  And we don’t like that.  Why?  Follow the money.

Follow the Money for the Money Never Lies

Politics is always about the money.  Always has been.  Always will be.  Because it takes money to gain and maintain political power.  Whether you’re running a political campaign.  Or supporting a campaign with your union dues in exchange for political favors (such as legislation that limits competition so unions can maintain their high wage and benefit packages).

Liberals are a minority of the population.  Wherever you are.  The majority of people don’t belong to a union or work for the government.  This majority has jobs.  They take care of their family.  And want Big Brother to leave them alone.  Union dues from a small percentage of the population can greatly influence elections, though.  They can’t donate directly.  But that money finds its way to liberals.  Liberals in the U.S. desperately need this money.  In fact, union dues have become so important to the ruling liberal elite that they created an entire new class of union-paying people.  The public sector union class.  Who has but one purpose.  To launder tax dollars from taxpayers to the Democrat Party.

The 2010 mid-term elections shook up the political establishment.  Conservative governors are fighting back against this new political class.  And the liberal left is attacking these governors.  Even President Obama sent activists to Madison, Wisconsin, to protest against Governor Walker as they voted to make their public sector workers live more like the rest of the people in Wisconsin.  This is why Obamacare is so important to the left.  Health care is 17% of GDP.  That’s a lot of money.  That’s why the public option is so important.  Why nationalized health care is so important.  Because of this money.  Liberals want this money to pass through Washington.  Where they can easily skim a little off the top for their political needs.  And to live well.  Without actually having to work.  Like that majority that pays all those taxes.

Life’s greatest question can be easiest answered by following the money.  For the money never lies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #19: “Philosophical debates can be effective but character assassination is more expedient, especially when no one agrees with your philosophy.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 22nd, 2010

WARNING.  The following contains some explicit language and sexual content and may be inappropriate to some.

“F*ck you.”  “Ass h*le.”  “You’re mother is a whore.”

We all probably heard these before.  Directed at us.  At the end of an argument.  Which means we’ve argued well.  For when the invectives fly, you’ve won the argument.

 A good sales man would never call your mother a whore.  Instead, if you say ‘no’, they come up with other reasons for you to say ‘yes’.  They believe they can get you to see things their way.  And often do.  Not so when it comes to politics.  Especially if you’re arguing with a liberal.

A lot of liberals are liberals for no good reason.  Calling yourself a liberal is just a way to feel good about yourself, to make you feel more enlightened and smarter than non-liberals.  But most are not as smart or enlightened as they would like to think they are. 

I met an old friend for lunch.  She was once a liberal but has since moved to where the bulk of the country is.  Center-right.  She brought an old friend of hers with her.  From her liberal past.  A single mom.  Who successfully juggled career and motherhood.  Did it well, too.  And, of course, my dear old friend introduced me as a conservative.  And she said it with a smirk.

I have long since stopped discussing politics outside my inner circle.  Political and philosophical debate is the raison d’être there.  It’s what we do for intellectual fun.  While drinking some fine single malt.  A time and a place for everything.  And casual conversation is neither the time nor place for politics. 

So I was polite and behaved.  But they kept poking the bear.  Laughing and enjoying themselves.  So, I thought, fine.  Let’s discuss politics.  The current subject was George W. Bush.  Not my favorite president.  Not all that conservative when it comes to the spending.  But I respect him.  I understand his philosophical basis, much of which I agree with.  But there are things I don’t like about him.  So I asked for some specifics.  To make it a fair debate.  Why was he a bad president?  Because he’s an idiot, she said.  Yeah, I asked, but what specifically has he done that you think was idiotic?  Have you heard him speak, she asked.  I mean, she said, he sounds like an idiot.  And so went the conversation.

I pressed for specifics.  Didn’t get any.  Then the name calling started.  I wasn’t being very tolerant of her views.  I replied, but you haven’t told me your views.  All I know is that you think Bush is an idiot.  Apparently, that should have sufficed.  Luckily, we had already consumed a bottle of wine by then so it was easy to change the subject and forget our little dustup.

And that’s a common experience I have with liberals.  They know everything.  But can’t explain anything.  I’m then called intolerant for not seeing things their way while they refuse to consider my arguments for seeing things my way.  In politics, people believe they base their opinions on a sound philosophical basis.  Most times they don’t.  They just heard something funny on Saturday Night Live or the Daily Show.  And they repeat it.  That’s why, when pressed for specifics, they can’t give any.  And then the name calling ensues.

DO YOU KNOW what ‘tea bagging’ is?  If you’re a gay man, you probably do.  At least, one of the meanings.  It’s a sex act in the gay community.  It’s when a dominate man lowers his genitals into a submissive man’s mouth.  It gets its name from the similarity of lowering a tea bag into a cup of hot water.  It’s a popular sex act, for it has migrated into the heterosexual community.  Without the BDSM aspects, though.  But when people call someone a ‘tea bagger’, it generally refers to the homosexual act.  Because of the degrading/humiliation aspects of the BDSM role playing.

David Gergen was on Anderson Cooper’s 360 on CNN.  They were discussing the new grassroots movement known as the Tea Party movement.  It’s called this in honor of those who stood up against the mercantilist policies of the British Empire who said you can drink whatever tea you’d like as long as it is British East India Company tea.  Good tea, yes, but it was British tea.  The Americans were taking a stand on principle.  And tossed the tea overboard. 

Carrying on with the ‘tea’ theme from the colonial period, Tea Party people used tea bags on signs and sent them in to Congress as a symbol of protest.  Some people used the symbol with a sexual undertone.  But most people didn’t.  Most didn’t know of the sexual act.  Well, these people, using tea bags as a symbol of their protest, were dubbed ‘tea baggers’.  And those familiar with the sexual act used it to attack and ridicule those people in the Tea Party movement.  When David Gergen said the Republicans were trying to find their voice, Anderson Cooper made the crude statement, “It’s hard to talk when you’re tea bagging.”

So much for your objective journalist.

Sure, the Tea Party people were worthy of such contempt for the things they stand for.  By the way, do you know what they stand for?  It’s easy to find out.  I did.  They adopted a 10 item agenda called Contract from America.  Here’s a bulleted list:

1. Identify constitutionality of every new law.
2. Reject emissions trading.
3. Demand a balanced federal budget.
4. Simplify the tax system.
5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality.
6. Limit annual growth in federal spending.
7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010.
8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above’ Energy Policy.
9. Reduce Earmarks.
10. Reduce Taxes.

Yeah, I know.  This is crazy talk.  Do you realize what would happen if these ‘tea baggers’ got their way?  Everyone would probably live happily ever after.

FOR TOLERANT PEOPLE, liberals can be pretty intolerant of anyone who doesn’t think like them.  And they can get pretty nasty, attacking people instead of the issues.  The Conservatives are yearning to debate the issues.  But they get invective instead.  Why?  Because it’s the last refuge for someone who has already lost the argument.  Name calling.  Because it’s all they have.  They can’t beat you with the facts.  So they pummel you with personal attacks.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,