Theory aside, practically what does the health care legislation mean for businesses and therefore individual employees of those businesses … already? Read the article above. Now, after it’s too late, does everyone see a little clearer that this legislation is merely paving the way for single payer by raising costs to the point that the average person is forced onto the new system their setting up, which was the design of the whole thing to begin with (i.e., here is Obama on record showing his true intentions for health care; do you honestly think he ever changed his position on this from then until now)? This is very unfortunate. It is also unfortunate that any reasonable economic or business discussions concerning this were essentially thrown to the wind in favor of emotional appeals and alarmist cries against anyone who opposed this of insensitivity toward the poor and disenfranchised, which is completely disingenuous and intellectually dishonest, in my opinion.
Category: Politics Page 3 of 19
Nobel Prize winner of economics in the 20th century, Milton Friedman, explains in this old video why entitlement policies, while well-intentioned, are fundamentally flawed at their root. Really wish we would pay attention to even recent history, let alone distant. We’re a very short-sighted people.
It is a sad day … no, not about health care. It is sad to see so many, I would even venture to say a majority of fellow believers (many possibly assumed believers of the verbally violent conservative bent) controlled more by their affections and longings for a temporal, earthly kingdom that will pass away, yes, even America with all of its greatness, instead of the eternal kingdom ruled by Jesus with His might and power that will never pass away. It is sad to see fellow believers more mournful for the loss they feel of their “rights” or privileges that are gifts of grace to begin with, than upset about the tragedy of sin in their own hearts or the tragedy that a great majority of people around us will go to hell under God’s just punishment (think Jesus looking over Jerusalem and weeping). It is sad to see believers more willing to voice their outrage, anger and fear over legislation that will come and go (all the while ignoring His sovereign authority over that legislation to begin with) than voice their commitment to the Gospel and commitment to solid doctrine.
I am not without fault in these areas. I’ve learned the hard way in the not-so-distant past. This isn’t to say I didn’t struggle with these affections during this recent process even. This does not mean I don’t hold the same convictions I’ve always held. And it doesn’t mean I withhold commentary on points of conviction or withhold my involvement in the political process. If anything, we need more and improved discourse concerning all these issues and more to come. It is unfortunate public discourse has devolved into “tweet” snippets of useless rhetoric that does little to address actual issues.
For those who are not privy to nerdy, futuristic dystopian science fiction movies, Soylent Green is a classic. By today’s standards, it’s an awful movie (maybe even by that day’s standards as well). It’s pretty bad. Regardless, the plot is of particular interest here.
Released in 1973, the movie portrays a time in the future, specifically the year 2022, when the population of New York City (one slice of the world’s total population at the time) has exploded to a massive 40,000,000 people. Resources are scarce (especially food), poverty is rampant, streets are crowded, and all power has been consolidated into the hands of the government to control the masses of people who are out of control. Because of the lack of food, a company used by the government, Soylent Corporation, produces high-energy ration wafers that the people can consume for nutrition. There is Soylent Red, Soylent Yellow and a new product, Soylent Green. Long story short (here’s a spoiler), Soylent Green turns out to be processed dead people. It’s a sort of secret, government-sponsored recycling program. Yeah gross.
Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.
China’s strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world’s poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was “the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility”, said Christian Aid. “Rich countries have bullied developing nations,” fumed Friends of the Earth International.
Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China’s century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower’s freedom of action.
All in all, China doesn’t give one rip what the West thinks or does, especially if what we are proposing threatens their dominance. Not only that, but they were even so bold as to exert the fact that the West has no control over what they do. This is all very concerning in light of the fact that China owns a great deal of our debt and has a large reserve of dollars they might be willing to dump if it goes down too much in value. Very interesting.
“The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn’t move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a ‘command-and-control’ role over the process in way that could hurt business.”
Basically, unless I read that incorrectly, the Administration is telling Congress that if it doesn’t pass the cap and trade bill, the EPA is going to seize “command-and-control” power over the emissions of the country. Talk about the politics of fear being played to exert power over one of the other branches of government. That just smells undemocratic to me. Anyone else?
Well, many of the conspiracy theorists have been right, I hate to say. Except in this instance, these aren’t conspiracies at all. They are just openly talking about their ideas.
Follow me here on the logic train concerning CO2 output and climate change: if global warming due to human interference is a frightening reality, then logically, what is the biggest step that needs to be taken by governments and people around the world to reduce carbon output, if we really want to make an impact at lightening speed? Well, you reduce the number of people. Makes sense right?
That is exactly what is being proposed at the Copenhagen climate change conference in Denmark. China has made a strong case for it, citing their policies as an example. In addition, the Canadian national newspaper is calling for a worldwide one child policy. On a practical level, these are the very things I’ve feared coming as a result of the global warming fear mongering: policies that go way beyond the environment.