Two of the many domestic terrorists who are ruining this country.
The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let's give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that "it's important to be clear about what the reform amounts to."
Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."
Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.
This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, "Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted."
No wonder many Americans are upset. They know they are being lied to about ObamaCare, and they know they are going to be stuck with the bill.
Wall Street Journal
In the beginning of the article, Cassidy also said.
ReplyDelete"I regard an expansion of the government safety net as ethically essential, economically justified, and long overdue. It is indefensible for a country as rich as the United States to fail to provide adequate health care for many of its citizens."
He is trying to look at both sides of the issue. Are you?
Hey moron, it's a Wall Street Journal article. An entire article. I'm sure this guy said a lot of things we normal Americans don't agree with, he's a libb. Like you..
ReplyDeleteNow, learn your constitution buddy, the general welfare clause doesn't mean to provide every American with health care plans douche.
And if America's so rich and wealthy, why are we in debt trillions of dollars. The Chinese OWN us.Are you nuts? We are not in the top 5 richest countries you kool-aid drinking sheep. It's not just because of Bush's war you know, its from years of liberal spending you idiot.
Now you want to expand that and make health care even WORSE. Wow, I always knew liberals were stupid, but this dumb? Wow..
Simple economics and responsibility. We shouldn't have to pay for your health care when you have a motorcycle, a drinking problem and a cell phone, a big screen TV, digital cable, internet, IPODs, HBO-SHO-Cinemax and smoking cigarettes, getting tattoos and playing the lottery. I bet you do at LEAST half of those things and you want me to pay your health care? PISS OFF, go get your own damn health care.
Expanding government is a disaster. A country as rich as America should then pay for my house and buy me a damn cadillac escalade with fukin 22's on them and a I-Phone bitch..
Also, the point wasn't that there's two sides of the issue, the point was that liberals, known for their constant dishonesty, there was ONE who finally admitted the down side instead of lying and misleading the public thru the media like they have ALWAYS done, loser...
Are you picking up on this? Are you slow?
'Beehhh beehhhh' Damn sheep..
Well all right then, can I take that as a no?
ReplyDelete