APP - Harkin says bribes are just "small stuff"

[Good Luck]

Whose head is in whose rectal vault?

Yours. So firmly implanted you can use the donkey's nostrils as portholes.

Stop spending money on other programs. Rebuilding two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, while US citizens go without adequate food, shelter and medical care is, to any sane individual, an outrage.

Where have I EVER stated I was in favor of the Iraq war aqnd all it entails? Where did I promote "spending money on other programs"? And what programs do you want to cut? Housing? Food stamps? Federal highways? And let's not mention that the upcoming SS crisis was a major campaign topic BEFORE 9/11 and the entire anti-terrorism military fiasco costing us so many billions. (which is a drop in the bucket compared to the expenditures planned and proposed by our illustrious leader and the democratic congress.)

But that is neither here nor there. The FACT is SS is SUPPOSED to be self supporting. That is one of the CENTRAL factors of the supposed "advantage" of socialist based programs. Spending in other areas is not supposed to have any effect, one way or the other, on the SS program. But there is socialist "theory" (and I use the term as loosely as socialist theorists do) and then there is reality. Time has proven that a socialist or socialist type program is not and can never be a self supporting system in the long term. The necessity to increase contributions to create a reserve shows the idea of self supporting is failing as far back as the early 80s - less than 50 years after its creation. Even if we were to put all the money borrowed from the SS reserve fund back, at the rate obligations are growing it will STILL be broke before 2050. Then what? Use taxes? Is that a self supporting system? How much of our tax structure do we dedicate to supporting SS before we end up scrapping it (or modifying it, if you prefer that description) to the point it is functionally another capitalist welfare program instead of a socialist program?

 

[zappasguitar]

So, you are saying that an extramarital affair is something Ensign and Vitter should have been removed from office over? That their personal tribulations are the same as backroom deals in the supposedly open negotiations that Obama insisted would be on CSPAN is the same thing as sleeping around on your wife?

And are you talking about James Terry Sanford? He's not a current Senator and hasn't been for a while it is hard to do that when you are dead. Methinks you mean Governor Sanford who is not a "Conservative Senator" who also had marriage issues.

Has any of those three said that their affairs were "nothing new" and should be ignored? I don't think so. When times come that the people get to see the proverbial sausage being made on the floor of the Senate, we should take advantage of it. Pretending that we should ignore it because it happened in the past is ridiculous. It isn't something we want our leaders to be doing, we should pay attention when something brings the roaches into the light.

If a man is so unethical as to sleep around on the woman he stood in front of God with and SWORE he'd remain faithful to, then YES it is the same, and on many levels it is WORSE.

My apologies, I meant GOVERNOR SANFORD, who last time I checked still called the "family values" party his home. Isn't there a bible quote somewhere about people who live in glass houses?

YES. Remember a time when a Senator or Congressman would be shamed into resignation beause of marital infidelity?

Now? Apparently it's no big ethical concern to the "family values" party.

 

[Good Luck]

If a man is so unethical as to sleep around on the woman he stood in front of God with and SWORE he'd remain faithful to, then YES it is the same, and on many levels it is WORSE.

I must agree. If a person is willing to violate a personal oath, what indication is there they take a public oath any more seriously? An oath is an oath, whether it is to another person privately, or to the general public as an elected official. A casual willingness to break personal obligations - and excuse it as a personal matter - does not bode well for how the person views a public obligation.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

If a man is so unethical as to sleep around on the woman he stood in front of God with and SWORE he'd remain faithful to, then YES it is the same, and on many levels it is WORSE.

My apologies, I meant GOVERNOR SANFORD, who last time I checked still called the "family values" party his home. Isn't there a bible quote somewhere about people who live in glass houses?

YES. Remember a time when a Senator or Congressman would be shamed into resignation beause of marital infidelity?

Now? Apparently it's no big ethical concern to the "family values" party.

Or the Clintons.

 

[zappasguitar]

Or the Clintons.

Is Clinton a scumbag for cheating on his wife?

I've said for years now...YES!

Is Mark Sanford as big a scumbag? Yes.

Are Senators Ensign and Vitter scumbags? Absolutely.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Is Clinton a scumbag for cheating on his wife?

I've said for years now...YES!

Is Mark Sanford as big a scumbag? Yes.

Are Senators Ensign and Vitter scumbags? Absolutely.

You were the one that seemed to be obsessed with your "family values" comment.
Or was that your way of showing that Liberals have no family values??

 

[apple0154]

Even if we were to put all the money borrowed from the SS reserve fund back, at the rate obligations are growing it will STILL be broke before 2050. Then what? Use taxes? Is that a self supporting system? How much of our tax structure do we dedicate to supporting SS before we end up scrapping it (or modifying it, if you prefer that description) to the point it is functionally another capitalist welfare program instead of a socialist program?

We put in as much money as necessary because to do anything else is to say we can not look after our elderly and not only is that unacceptable it's a damn lie.

What is needed is a minimum income but we all know the familiar refrains such as "stealing from the rich" or "entrapping people" or some other excuse not to help. So what happens? We package an assortment of programs.

One for the elderly. One for single parents. One for the unemployed. A tax credit for "this". A tax deferral plan for "that". A grant here and a subsidy there.

With our technology and wealth it is a lie to say we can not look after each other but there are people who don't believe we should look after each other. That's why the health bill is such a convoluted mess. Everything was picked at and negotiated and bargained down to the minimum or simply excluded.

It doesn't have to be that way.


///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Yours. So firmly implanted you can use the donkey's nostrils as portholes.


Where have I EVER stated I was in favor of the Iraq war aqnd all it entails? Where did I promote "spending money on other programs"? And what programs do you want to cut? Housing? Food stamps? Federal highways? And let's not mention that the upcoming SS crisis was a major campaign topic BEFORE 9/11 and the entire anti-terrorism military fiasco costing us so many billions. (which is a drop in the bucket compared to the expenditures planned and proposed by our illustrious leader and the democratic congress.)

But that is neither here nor there. The FACT is SS is SUPPOSED to be self supporting. That is one of the CENTRAL factors of the supposed "advantage" of socialist based programs. Spending in other areas is not supposed to have any effect, one way or the other, on the SS program. But there is socialist "theory" (and I use the term as loosely as socialist theorists do) and then there is reality. Time has proven that a socialist or socialist type program is not and can never be a self supporting system in the long term. The necessity to increase contributions to create a reserve shows the idea of self supporting is failing as far back as the early 80s - less than 50 years after its creation. Even if we were to put all the money borrowed from the SS reserve fund back, at the rate obligations are growing it will STILL be broke before 2050. Then what? Use taxes? Is that a self supporting system? How much of our tax structure do we dedicate to supporting SS before we end up scrapping it (or modifying it, if you prefer that description) to the point it is functionally another capitalist welfare program instead of a socialist program?

 

[Taichiliberal]

We put in as much money as necessary because to do anything else is to say we can not look after our elderly and not only is that unacceptable it's a damn lie.

What is needed is a minimum income but we all know the familiar refrains such as "stealing from the rich" or "entrapping people" or some other excuse not to help. So what happens? We package an assortment of programs.

One for the elderly. One for single parents. One for the unemployed. A tax credit for "this". A tax deferral plan for "that". A grant here and a subsidy there.

With our technology and wealth it is a lie to say we can not look after each other but there are people who don't believe we should look after each other. That's why the health bill is such a convoluted mess. Everything was picked at and negotiated and bargained down to the minimum or simply excluded.

It doesn't have to be that way.


///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

What's fascinating to me is how neocons consistently IGNORE the fact that various President's both Dem and Repub have wrongfully dipped into SS to keep afloat the plans/agendas of their individual administration. SS was never intended as a monetary surplus for the ENTIRE American budget every 4 years.

And, as I said before, until someone can actually prove bribery, the neocon parrots are just blowing smoke in their never ending "Say no to Obama" mantras.

 

[Good Luck]

We put in as much money as necessary because to do anything else is to say we can not look after our elderly and not only is that unacceptable it's a damn lie.

What is needed is a minimum income but we all know the familiar refrains such as "stealing from the rich" or "entrapping people" or some other excuse not to help. So what happens? We package an assortment of programs.

One for the elderly. One for single parents. One for the unemployed. A tax credit for "this". A tax deferral plan for "that". A grant here and a subsidy there.

With our technology and wealth it is a lie to say we can not look after each other but there are people who don't believe we should look after each other. That's why the health bill is such a convoluted mess. Everything was picked at and negotiated and bargained down to the minimum or simply excluded.

It doesn't have to be that way.

No, it does not have to be that way. But such is the way of the modern liberals and their "progressive" agenda.

There was a time when families took care of their elderly. But the socialist progressives convinced society that making people work for a living until they were no longer able was "wrong". They left out that the primary motivation for retiring people who were still able to work was to make way for upcoming workers. The government (and this is a TIRED old story) created a false economy by retiring workers in order to reduce the 20+% unemployment figures of the depression. In recognition of the fact that a significant minority of people would either choose not to prepare for retirement, or could not, SS was started. They built it on a fable of entitlement, that people should be able to spend at least some portion of their lives living off the rest of society.

And then there is the law of unintended consequences. There is, of course the positives of people being able to spend some of their twilight years doing things they could not do as a member of the work force. But to offset that there was a redefinition of the traditional family. The elderly were put on their own for good AND for bad. The expectation has become that the elderly are to be financially self sufficient, taking the burden of the family (where it belongs) and put on government where they can be manipulated and controlled via economic blackmail to further their power base.

The result is a society that neglects its elderly. We cut them a government check, and leave them alone, either in their own home, or stick them in a nursing home to be paid for by a combination of SS and medicare benefits. The lucky ones get occasional visits from various family members. The less lucky don't even get a birthday card. The days when the elderly were brought into the home of one of their (grand) children to become an integral part of that family's daily interactions, being an asset of experience and wisdom to the (great) grandchildren, has become a rarity instead of standard practice. Today the standard practice is to tuck them away in some convenient government subsidized corner and go about our egocentric entitlement driven lives.

Yes, the fact is we CAN take care of our elderly. And the FACT is we damned well SHOULD be taking care of our elderly instead of letting government doing our jobs for us through an unsustainable system. But there are too many of those who do not think we should be taking care of each other. They think it should be the job of big government, instead.

 

[apple0154]

No, it does not have to be that way. But such is the way of the modern liberals and their "progressive" agenda.

There was a time when families took care of their elderly. But the socialist progressives convinced society that making people work for a living until they were no longer able was "wrong". They left out that the primary motivation for retiring people who were still able to work was to make way for upcoming workers. The government (and this is a TIRED old story) created a false economy by retiring workers in order to reduce the 20+% unemployment figures of the depression. In recognition of the fact that a significant minority of people would either choose not to prepare for retirement, or could not, SS was started. They built it on a fable of entitlement, that people should be able to spend at least some portion of their lives living off the rest of society.

Elderly people wear out. They couldn't keep up especially when most jobs back then were physical. They worked themselves into a grave.

What is the point of society progressing and automating labor if everyone does not benefit? Those elderly contributed to society all their lives. We are able to look after them without going without ourselves. That's the point.

And then there is the law of unintended consequences. There is, of course the positives of people being able to spend some of their twilight years doing things they could not do as a member of the work force. But to offset that there was a redefinition of the traditional family. The elderly were put on their own for good AND for bad. The expectation has become that the elderly are to be financially self sufficient, taking the burden of the family (where it belongs) and put on government where they can be manipulated and controlled via economic blackmail to further their power base.

The elderly are to be treated in a decent manner. Families do not and did not look after their elderly. You are confusing cause and effect. SS was started because families didn't look after their elderly. So now families do by way of taxes.

The result is a society that neglects its elderly. We cut them a government check, and leave them alone, either in their own home, or stick them in a nursing home to be paid for by a combination of SS and medicare benefits. The lucky ones get occasional visits from various family members. The less lucky don't even get a birthday card. The days when the elderly were brought into the home of one of their (grand) children to become an integral part of that family's daily interactions, being an asset of experience and wisdom to the (great) grandchildren, has become a rarity instead of standard practice. Today the standard practice is to tuck them away in some convenient government subsidized corner and go about our egocentric entitlement driven lives.

If a person wishes to keep in touch with an elderly family member they will regardless of whether the elderly member receives a government check. Or they will live in the same house and collect the check. Again, the point is the elderly were neglected before SS came along. That's why we have SS.

In a time of war we are obliged to fight for our country. In peace, we are obliged to pay taxes for the common good. It is not a one-way street. The government has an obligation to us, as well.

Yes, the fact is we CAN take care of our elderly. And the FACT is we damned well SHOULD be taking care of our elderly instead of letting government doing our jobs for us through an unsustainable system. But there are too many of those who do not think we should be taking care of each other. They think it should be the job of big government, instead.

Force the family to take in the mother-in-law? All that would do is increase the murder rate!

Programs could be sustainable. The government could tax back the benefits if a person's income passes a certain level but then we come to the same old argument, "stealing from the rich."

There are enough resources to help the elderly. The problem is people who don't require assistance want their share when it's not about "shares", it's about helping those in need. It's more of an insurance policy or, at least, it should be.

I believe the solution is a minimum, guaranteed income. When people make money they send some to the government. When they don't make money the government sends some to them. No one is going to live their life looking forward to retiring at the poverty level. A top-up program can ensure everyone has a minimum standard of living.

Do you object to that idea?

 

[Lao Tse]

What is the point of society progressing and automating labor if everyone does not benefit? Those elderly contributed to society all their lives. We are able to look after them without going without ourselves. That's the point.



The elderly are to be treated in a decent manner. Families do not and did not look after their elderly. You are confusing cause and effect. SS was started because families didn't look after their elderly. So now families do by way of taxes.

But in reality, you guys just promote euthanasia and death panels to deal with the elderly. besides they're just useless breathers; consider the climate impact of allowing these granny farts to collect in the stratosphere.

 

[apple0154]

But in reality, you guys just promote euthanasia and death panels to deal with the elderly. besides they're just useless breathers; consider the climate impact of allowing these granny farts to collect in the stratosphere.

I'm sure the granny farts are no match to your brain farts.

 

[Good Luck]

Elderly people wear out. They couldn't keep up especially when most jobs back then were physical. They worked themselves into a grave.

What is the point of society progressing and automating labor if everyone does not benefit? Those elderly contributed to society all their lives. We are able to look after them without going without ourselves. That's the point.

Like I said - the myth of entitlement. People still believe in it. Somehow working for part of your life entitles you to lifetime income without saving for it yourself. Nice theory, but then reality comes along and fucks up the little idealist dream world.

Automation does not, itself, allow for anything more than supporting a larger population. Automation quadruples our productivity - meanwhile population multiplies by five. Do the math.

The elderly are to be treated in a decent manner. Families do not and did not look after their elderly. You are confusing cause and effect. SS was started because families didn't look after their elderly. So now families do by way of taxes.

If a person wishes to keep in touch with an elderly family member they will regardless of whether the elderly member receives a government check. Or they will live in the same house and collect the check. Again, the point is the elderly were neglected before SS came along. That's why we have SS.

The bolded parts are a big fucking modern liberal lie. The reason for encouraging retirement of middle and lower classed people (upper class already had retirement programs) was to open their jobs up to younger people in an effort to gain control over unemployment. All kind of bullshit excuses and lies were used to cover the real reason: make the elderly get out of the way for the younger generation. Cycle them through. Put them out to pasture.

The TRUTH is it is the liberal SS program that has led to neglect and dismissal of the elderly, because the liberals convinced enough of society to push the "problem" of their parents/grandparents off on the government. Retirement homes were not very popular before SS, after SS they became a significant part of the economy.

In a time of war we are obliged to fight for our country. In peace, we are obliged to pay taxes for the common good. It is not a one-way street. The government has an obligation to us, as well.

And again you take the liberal mantra. What of one individual's responsibility to their neighbor? Why is it you MUST make it government's job? Too "busy" to get your hands dirty doing it yourself? Why is it the Liberal's advocation for helping others is always via government using other people's money? Too selfish to share what's in your wallet without some law to make it mandatory?

Force the family to take in the mother-in-law? All that would do is increase the murder rate!

Force was never an issue before liberals decided it is the government's job to do all these things. People did it because they understood personal responsibility.

Programs could be sustainable. The government could tax back the benefits if a person's income passes a certain level but then we come to the same old argument, "stealing from the rich."

What happens when you run out of rich to steal from? The central point is, according to socialist economic theory, programs like Social Security are SUPPOSED to be self sustaining. They are not and time proves that socialistic theory has more holes than a screen door. What has grown beyond self sustainability will also grow beyond the ability of the tax base to sustain. In short, socialism of any type is a house of cards. Always has been, always will be.

There are enough resources to help the elderly. The problem is people who don't require assistance want their share when it's not about "shares", it's about helping those in need. It's more of an insurance policy or, at least, it should be.

No, the PROBLEM is your philosophy has convinced people it's not their responsibility to care for their own. Convince them to put everything on government and eschew any personal responsibility, and then wonder why people turn selfish.

I believe the solution is a minimum, guaranteed income. When people make money they send some to the government. When they don't make money the government sends some to them. No one is going to live their life looking forward to retiring at the poverty level. A top-up program can ensure everyone has a minimum standard of living.

And where does the wealth come from to assure your idea of minimum standard of living? Gonna start printing thousand dollar bills by the metric ton? What happens when they become so devalued peopl use them for toilet paper? Gonna tax the rich? What happens when you run out of rich to tax?

Or, how about taking it a step farther? Why not just have everyone send in everything they make, then the all-benevolent government can redistribute it according to need. Or better yet, eliminate money entirely. Just build all the houses we need and furnish them with couches and beds and TVs and microwave ovens. Take all the food and distribute it according to need - so much per person per month brought to the door by delivery truck. "From each according to ability, to each according to need." The description of utopia.

Oops, then there is reality. It'll never happen. (nor will your "idea") A system that rewards sloth with a non-poverty minimum standard of living is doomed to failure.

 

[apple0154]

Like I said - the myth of entitlement. People still believe in it. Somehow working for part of your life entitles you to lifetime income without saving for it yourself. Nice theory, but then reality comes along and fucks up the little idealist dream world.

Automation does not, itself, allow for anything more than supporting a larger population. Automation quadruples our productivity - meanwhile population multiplies by five. Do the math.

"The overall fertility rate increased 2 percent between 2005 and 2006, nudging the average number of babies being born to each woman to 2.1, according to the latest federal statistics. That marks the first time since 1971 that the rate has reached a crucial benchmark of population growth: the ability of each generation to replace itself..........

The rate dipped below replacement level in 1972 and hit a low of 1.7 in 1976, but it started rising again in the late 1970s. It climbed steadily through the 1980s, hovering close to but never hitting the replacement rate throughout the '90s. The population rose steadily nevertheless, however, because, in part, of immigration."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/20/AR2007122002725.html

As you can see the population did not soar past our ability to support them.

A plan, properly structured, would only pay out to those in need. People would not take advantage of it because it would mean they would have to retire without major assets and be content to live at a basic level.

The TRUTH is it is the liberal SS program that has led to neglect and dismissal of the elderly, because the liberals convinced enough of society to push the "problem" of their parents/grandparents off on the government. Retirement homes were not very popular before SS, after SS they became a significant part of the economy.

Not everyone looked after the elderly before. Sure, more people did than they do today, however, there were a lot who were left homeless.

The problem was rather that just help the needy the people wanted something for themselves before they would contribute. It is no different than what the medical plan is facing.

I mentioned before I agreed with Damocles regarding leaving the medical system alone and just helping the needy but like SS the greedy interests won't go along unless there's something in it for them.

And again you take the liberal mantra. What of one individual's responsibility to their neighbor? Why is it you MUST make it government's job? Too "busy" to get your hands dirty doing it yourself? Why is it the Liberal's advocation for helping others is always via government using other people's money? Too selfish to share what's in your wallet without some law to make it mandatory?

Times and circumstances have changed. People can live in a high rise and not even know the names of their neighbors who live a hundred feet away. How do we expect them to know who needs help? Also, people move. They are not connected to their community.

For example, when people lived in small communities they knew each other and who required help. They contributed to their community over their lifespan. Today, people don't stay in one place long enough to contribute so they contribute through taxes. Then the government, knowing each individual through tax records, government agencies,etc., knows who requires help.

If you believe one has a responsibility to help their neighbor what do you have against the government looking after that considering they have the details on who requires help? Unless you have lived in your community for years how do you know who needs help? Do you know if the family who lives on the next street requires more help than your immediate neighbor?

Force was never an issue before liberals decided it is the government's job to do all these things. People did it because they understood personal responsibility.

And because they knew who to help. Our mobile society has changed all that.

What happens when you run out of rich to steal from? The central point is, according to socialist economic theory, programs like Social Security are SUPPOSED to be self sustaining. They are not and time proves that socialistic theory has more holes than a screen door. What has grown beyond self sustainability will also grow beyond the ability of the tax base to sustain. In short, socialism of any type is a house of cards. Always has been, always will be.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. You wrote, "What of one individual's responsibility to their neighbor?" and now it appears you're saying we can't sustain helping our neighbors.

No, the PROBLEM is your philosophy has convinced people it's not their responsibility to care for their own. Convince them to put everything on government and eschew any personal responsibility, and then wonder why people turn selfish.

Not at all. My philosophy is rather than have, say, a man get a job offer in a neighboring State and have to uproot his mother or father-in law to move along with the family he can now pay taxes and mom and pop can stay in their community where they have friends and social connections. Or do you suggest someone's 75 year old parent get out there and make new friends in a new community? Talk about isolating the elderly.

And where does the wealth come from to assure your idea of minimum standard of living? Gonna start printing thousand dollar bills by the metric ton? What happens when they become so devalued peopl use them for toilet paper? Gonna tax the rich? What happens when you run out of rich to tax?

It's not just taxing the rich. If a person had to pay for their elderly parent's medical care and room and board they wouldn't have the money for that new boat. So, rather than have some elderly person living with their family where they are bitter about having to pay for grandpa just pay taxes and let the government look after grandpa's needs. Then we have something like medicare where all grandpas are covered.

Suppose there was no medicare.What do you think would happen if a family had to pay for one of the grandparent's medical bills? The sweet gal you married just happens to have a mother that requires a good slice of your paycheck for medication. How would that sit with you?

Or, how about taking it a step farther? Why not just have everyone send in everything they make, then the all-benevolent government can redistribute it according to need. Or better yet, eliminate money entirely. Just build all the houses we need and furnish them with couches and beds and TVs and microwave ovens. Take all the food and distribute it according to need - so much per person per month brought to the door by delivery truck. "From each according to ability, to each according to need." The description of utopia.

Oops, then there is reality. It'll never happen. (nor will your "idea") A system that rewards sloth with a non-poverty minimum standard of living is doomed to failure.

Again, one does not work all their life looking forward to a poverty level retirement. Healthy, happy people are not sloths. That's the point some people can't grasp.

It's human nature to want to better oneself. Sure, there are exceptions but on the whole healthy, happy people take pride in accomplishing things. Those who end up getting government assistance in their old age did not plan it that way. That was not their goal.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Isn't there a bible quote somewhere about people who live in glass houses?

lol, no.....that comes from Ben Franklin actually....

 

[zappasguitar]

lol, no.....that comes from Ben Franklin actually....

Well smack my ass and call me Sally!

I've been mixing my metaphors again!

Got to stay away from this place when I'm indulging my love of barley pops....

 

[Damocles]

lol, no.....that comes from Ben Franklin actually....

So does the one about gods helping those who help themselves...

 

[apple0154]

So does the one about gods helping those who help themselves...

God helps those who help themselves, however, God help those caught helping themselves!

 

[Good Luck]

A plan, properly structured, would only pay out to those in need. People would not take advantage of it because it would mean they would have to retire without major assets and be content to live at a basic level.

Yet when we propose a cover-only-the-needy type health care plan, you claim it cannot work. Again, you bite your own tail.

Which is it to be? Government plans that only cover the needy, or all encompassing socialist plans? Make up your mind.


As for the rest, I strongly suggest you study some social history. The current state of mobile population came about because people were no longer tied to family due to government programs which (deliberately?) weakened or eliminated those ties. Of course business is going to take full advantage of the new attitudes that diminish interpersonal relationships, but had the attitudes of society not turned to government to accept what was once considered personal responsibility, there is no way the current trend of moving employees around like chess pieces would never have come about.

And the rest of your post, asking about resentment for this, resentment for that, is the diatribe of the selfishness and egocentrism of modern liberalism. Why SHOULD people resent taking care of family? Do you consider it a normal attitude to resent caring for an unusually sick child? The why should such attitudes apply to the elder members of the family, who put THEIR lives on hold to raise the generation now resenting them for being a burden? It's the bullshit of pure egocentrism fed to the current generations under the lie of a progressive society "caring" for others. (How is handing it of to an amorphous entity under government "caring"? Caring means PERSONAL involvement. Handing the job to some impersonal agency is NOT caring, it is the act of assuaging guilt feelings that result from self indulgent egocentrism.

And to directly answer your question, I quite like my mother-in-law. She's one hell of a lady, not to mention the best cook in the lower 48. If something were to happen so she became a dependent, I would feel honored if she chose my household. If she were to have any type of financial troubles, I have no problem with providing any assistance she needs. And my wife had no problems with the situation when it was my father who needed our support.

When the care of the elderly was expected to be a personal responsibility, there was no resentment of it except by an unusually selfish minority; just as today there is no resentment of children by parents - except by an unusually selfish minority. It was progressivism that has promoted the idea that families - and neighbors - should push their obligations off on the government. The result is a society which focuses on the self - career, hobbies, self-indulgence. Anything that gets in the way of that takes a second seat. Don't get to know the neighbors, you may not want to move when your next promotion comes through. Wife or husband gets in the way of pursuit of happiness - dump them under no-fault divorce laws. Parents - they have their SS check. Send them greeting cards as various occasions call for. If they get sick, stick them in a nursing home. Children - dump them in day care, after school care, etc. - that is, those who are not killed out of hand before birth because they are not wanted.

The entire philosophy that has been erroneously labeled liberalism is based on and focused on individual self indulgence. It wants government to accept responsibility for the elderly because caring for ones own family members might be too much a bother. Progressivism promotes government to be the primary provider for the poor, because people who promote it are too egocentric to bother with it themselves. Pay taxes, (BUT MAKE SURE SOMEONE ELSE PAYS MORE TAXES) and send an occasional check to a favored charity is the outside limit people expect of themselves. Liberalism has attacked marriage, family, community, and society all under the "Don't I deserve to be happy?" mantra. Yet, hypocritically, they point to conservatives as the selfish ones for resenting the support of untold numbers of government officials and bureaucrats with unacceptably high tax rates advertised as helping the needy.

 

[Lao Tse]

So apple believes the cost of healthcare should be all one's worldly assets?

That's price fixing. never effective.