First, we have Howard "Yeeeeeaaaaaaaw" Dean saying it plainly:
Next, Baucus sounds off.
From this source:
As Democrats tout the moral underpinnings of the federal health care system overhaul -- ensuring health care coverage for nearly all Americans -- one senator appeared to go off message when he said the legislation would address the "mal-distribution of income in America."
After the Senate passed a "fix-it" bill Thursday to make changes to the new health care law, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the influential Finance Committee, said the overhaul was an "income shift" to help the poor.
"Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind," he said. "Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."
How about that, comrades?
18 comments:
Though I disagree that the Health Care bill will do much to address the problem of the excessive concentration of wealth that has occured since Reagan, that is a serious issue.
Many Bush apologists like to point out that the economy grew for x consecutive months during his administration and tout that as a record. The problem with their comment is that essentially all that economic growth went to those who were already rich. The Middle Class suffered a new loss if real income over that period and the poor got hammered. The Bush tax did very little to spur economic activity, they exploded the deficit and they allowed the already wealthy to accumulate even a greater share of our national wealth.
And excessive concentration of wealth is a serious problem that is inherently corrosive to the society as a whole.
Well, let's see. There's a major reason for wealthy people. One is that they got themselves an education and applied themselves through hard work.
No need to even bring the race factor in this discussion. Statistics do that for themselves.
So this insane jealousy where the Liberals blame the "wealthy getting richer" isn't the fault of Bush.
Instead we should be targeting lazy no good hippies who feel that it's the government's fault that "the man" always gets richer while "they" become poorer.
Welcome to the world of capitalism, where self-made persons owe themselves all the cash they can make.
I would hate a system where everyone made the same amount - or, where the poor get to milk off of the rich.
That's just not fair at all.
Further, if there's any "blame" to be laid on our current economy, I'd blast the past twenty or more past presidents we've had who pressed on with this "statist" method that's been used.
Oh, good grief. Spoken like a true socialist.
Has a poor person ever given you a job?
If there is no reward for working harder than the next guy, why bother to do so?
BTW, you can stop blaming Bush. Obama is at the helm now.
Steve: I'd throw the blame on Wilson and FDR.
good garsh Brooke..right before out eyes..arggggggggg!
O.T. - THIS IS A VID OF THE GUY WHO THREATENED ERIC CANTOR - SPREAD IT AROUND! His vids are disappearing from youtube - he claims to be shia...
Yes, Wilson & FDR were the real blunderers...indeed.
I remember visiting the former home of Wilson in nearby Staunton (it's 5 miles from where I live). You could've heard a pin drop during the tour when I denegrated Wilson for his poor performance as president.
nanc - the guy in the video is probably recording that in his whitey tighties and is just another sad example of the morons who will claim to be militia. To top all of it off, he's most likely a truther to boot...it all boils down to a moron with less than a HS diploma, and also a single guy who doesn't know how to decorate his kitchen beyond the year 1974.
and the only thing that is closely related to "Shia" with him is the skidmarks in his drawers or what's left on his bed sheets.
I put together a post for tomorrow for this. It is a steady march towards socialism.
Let me suggest that anyone who takes from the rich and gives to the poor is a no-good thieving bastard. Now if there is such a thing as “excessive concentrations of wealth,” it must be that at the center of this concentration we will find individuals who took a risk and invested large sums of money so that they can profit from such investments. This is how one defines capitalism: using money to make money. What isn’t there to understand about this very simple concept?
To the extent that other people lend their skills helping an investor to achieve their long and short-term goals, and paid as employees, we have the beginning of a capitalist business enterprise. And we assume that compensation takes into account their education and skill sets; people who sweep the floor are probably not as highly paid as those who design network solutions.
What idiocy then would suggest that we must redistribute this wealth so that we pay the floor sweeper equal to the investor or the network manager? What risks did the floor sweeper take to deserve such a windfall? More to the point, what is the constitutional basis for such claims? People who ignore the fact that the risk taker and network manager worked long and hard to prepare themselves for their role are at least intellectually dishonest, and when they suggest that the floor sweeper deserves a large chunk of what the risk taker and network manager earn, they demonstrate shear buffoonery.
Economies rise and fall and we can see this happening over several times in the course of our history. We might therefore conclude that such events are recurring every twenty or so years, and the wise individual should plan for them. When middle and lower class families spend more than they can possibly earn over a period of several years, they set them selves up for unhappy circumstances. And when the federal government participates in such foolishness, it is the government (not rich people) that actually pushes people over the edge of financial collapse. Didn’t the federal government require banks to extend home mortgages to people who could not afford expensive homes?
What I find striking here is Uncle Walt’s lack of honesty. This economic collapse/home loan fiasco began with Clinton. Bush made it worse by doing nothing to arrest it —his ‘kinder/gentler’ approach. All members of congress who had anything to do with lending received ‘favors’ from mortgage bankers. So then, how is this a Bush-created economic collapse? And please don’t lecture me about deficit spending; Barack Obama has surpassed to the tune of trillions any debt that Bush left behind him.
Yes … the poor got hammered. Who bears responsibility for that? If Walt is honest, he will admit that too much government is at fault and this is what happens when people place their destiny into the hands of corrupt politicians. If he is an idiot, he will claim this is a fundamental flaw with capitalism and fairness depends on taking away from the rich and giving to the down-trodden poor.
And now of course the government has seized the student loan industry; I can't wait to see how that turns out.
Oh, I forgot to sign my name to the above tome.
Mustang.
Thank you Steve, Chuck, Angel and Mustang for your erudite comments!
I called this POS "wealthshare" instead of "healthcare" a long time ago. It's always been about redistribution (everything the Zombiecrats do is redistribution). And now that it's passed, they can finally say it out loud, thinking, for some strange reason it won't hurt them in November. But it will. Because we're coming, not with pitchforks and torches, but mass numbers ... to throw the bums out.
@nanc The guy in that video is a loon ... boring as hell ... and possibly stoned. I'll bet when he threatened Cantor, his pulse didn't raise about 12.
Brooke, you hear anything about this at the hospital by the employees there?
I don't really hear much at the hospital. Surprisingly, what conversation I have heard in the break room between the officers and a few nurses has been that they don't see how the bill will possibly work.
I don't think the people there are willing to speak too openly about it, because it is an inner city hospital and most of the administration is very, very leftist.
Post a Comment