This author has already written a post, with a myriad of reasons, why New Jersey Governor Chris Christie will never be President!
Christie has, this week, shown further why he is self destructing his potential candidacy.
After going on David Letterman and joking with Letterman about his weight, Christie blew up when the former White House physician for President Bill Clinton had the “nerve and gall” to question whether Christie was healthy enough to serve in the Presidency, and wondered if he might die from a heart attack or stroke, due to his poor physical condition.
Yes, Christie is the “poster boy” for heavy set people, with a good percentage of people in America being in that category. But these people are NOT thinking about running for President, which means his health matters more to us than anyone else who is heavy, unless such a person is a close relative or friend. But even if one fits into that category, such a person’s death, were it to occur, would have less impact than a President dying in office!
And then, Christie went ahead and called the former White House physician and yelled at her in a volume louder than his press conference, where he told her to “shut up!”
Forget his weight and health for a minute! It is Chris Christie’s explosive nature which is more worrisome, his inability to act properly in public moments, too willing to insult and yell at people who say things he does not like. This man reacts in a stressful manner to too many situations where Barack Obama, for instance, is a cool, calm presence.
Being temperamental, being uncouth, being belligerent, is not just bad in dealing with constituents, the media, members of the New Jersey legislature, and White House physicians. It is absolutely horrible and dangerous in dealing with foreign leaders! One cannot conduct negotiations with foreign leaders, whether friendly or enemy nations, in such a manner, as it could lead to unnecessary conflict and war!
So Chris Christie, you might be able to be reelected Governor of New Jersey, but you have proved further than even before that you are not fit, physically or emotionally, to be President of the United States!
So after another term as Governor, find another line of work! You will NOT be missed!
The medical term is morbid obesity.
He also had a terribly explosive nature which indicates some significant emotional control issues. What if a foreign leader angers him? Is he going to bomb them? What if someone questions him as POTUS especially about his weight and health? Is he going to go nuts and explode? I don’t want anyone with the emotional intelligence Christi possesses any where near the oval office.
I don’t believe for one minute he will be able to take off significant weight without gastric surgery. That should not be a condition for running for POTUS and the risks would have to outweigh the benefits….. a decision only he and his doctors should make. In the meantime he has not demonstrated an ability to control his temper which can influence or be influenced by his health.
Well, well. Christie is by no means my favorite Republican, he is a moderate in the end. But having said that, if I were obese and a doctor started talking about me, I’d say “shut up its none of your business.” I’m personally sick and tired of all this political correctness crap. Like Dr. Benjamin Carson said this week during his National Prayer Breakfast speech, PC is destructive. Unfortunately the media and left wing will soon go after him and start insulting him. I wonder how long it will take to call him an “uncle Tom”, like the left always does to African-Americans who don’t agree with them. And of course the left can always insult without being criticized or accused of having an “explosive” character. Carson’s speech deconstructing every single premise of the progressive worldview in front of Obama. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4353213
Juan, why is it that you seem to, constantly, go off on a tangent, which has nothing to do with the topic you are, supposedly, responding to? On the mail delivery, you went on a tirade against ObamaCare, instead of commenting on the subject of the post. Now you are doing this again, when the subject is Chris Christie.
If Christie cannot handle criticism about his weight now, imagine him dealing with foreign governments, and the thousands of lives of our young men and women who will be sacrificed because of his temper, his explosiveness, his reckless statements. This IS a real issue!
As far as Benjamin Carson is concerned, he certainly has the right to disagree with ObamaCare, but realize he is part of the top one or two percent of America economically, so he will ALWAYS have great healthcare! He is like other wealthy people of minority heritage, many sadly forgetting their roots if they were born underprivileged, or if fortunate enough to be born to wealth, not giving a damn about anyone but their own class!
Also realize this is a renowned surgeon who has done much good, but is also a person who does not believe in evolution, and instead applies religion to science, which is certainly very suspect. I give him lots of credit for his wonderful work as a pediatric neurosurgeon, and his saving of children’s lives, which is a great contribution!
I think Dr. Cardozo quite contrary to what you state has not forgotten his poverty origins. Why is it that is people work themselves out of poverty they no longer are suppose to have a say on this issue?
Oh and by the way, there you go again, repeating the liberal mantra, “they don’t give a dam about anyone but their own class”. Do you have any idea about the charitable work and help Dr. Carson gives to children so they can stand up on their two feet , learn and be independent? Why the insult?
I am NOT insulting him, just pointing out that he has forgotten his origins, and now is a conservative, making sure he pays the fewest taxes, and giving charity is great, but also is a great method to cut taxes, and leave it to the “little people”, as the Romney type love to do!
And you have not answered why you went off on a tangent, once again, instead of sticking to the subject of the post, Chris Christie, his temperament for office!
Juan enjoys one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy, the search for moral justification for his hatred and selfishness….and constant yearning to one up people.
You really are becoming exceedingly tedious Juan.. And you seem to think you should make the determination as to what topic we should discuss. Is it Juan’s Blog? Did I come to the wrong page?
You can go get your own blog ya know.…hahah I would love to see that! Or go spend your time on the thousands of whackado conservative blogs all over the net where you can commiserate with your kind?
You know your ONLY goal here is to attempt to make all progressives look bad…but try as you might you are not reaching your goal.
Your technique is simple…you set us up with a rant about socialism, President Obama, the big government take over of healthcare, wealth distribution, the deficits …that you conservatives of course had nothing to do with…etc, etc, ad nauseam.
How about this question Juan…Name five things conservatives have accomplished over the past 100 years that have had a lasting positive benefit on a majority of Americans.
For every one thing you can name….Dr. Feinman and I will name 3 things Liberals or Progressives have done of lasting value….or we can make it 5to 1 if you are up for the challenge….
Just because he does not agree with “victimization” and believes in hard work, studying and not justifying yourself on the excuse of the world’s unfairness, does not mean he forgot his origins, but quite the contrary. Otherwise only those who have a progressive worldview are those who do not forget about the poverty origins. But I guess that is your logical conclusion since only busy-bodies progressive statist care about the poor, the rest of us are just a bunch of cretins.
I also do not think off on a tangent. They criticize Christie because he is not usually politically correct , or has an “explosive character”. Dr. Carson speech this week , starts off specifically with that issue of political correctness, a typical progressive dogma.
The premise of your question is flawed if the when you ask to what Conservatives have accomplished you assume the underlying premise that government entitlement programs should always be created to provide a lasting benefit to the people. That is not necessarily always the case. The basic premise behind Conservative thought is that government, while necessary, is overhead, and should be limited and only help people get on their feet and become self-reliant.
My wife’s aunt once told me that Ronald Reagan in the 1980s helped her husband’s family get off of welfare and out of public housing for good. Her husband was from a steel town outside of Pittsburgh. He went to work for the steel mill when he was 16. When the industry went under, Ronald Reagan set up retraining programs for all of the workers. He able to get his GED and went on to be trained as a machinist. They then were able to move out of public housing and go on to buy his first house in early 1990. They haven’t been on welfare since. That retraining program improved a lot of people’s lives. And I know a person who first hand benefited from it. The truth is, the entitlement programs don’t change any body’s lives for the better, but affording people the opportunity to improve themselves is what makes the REAL difference. But lets look at history. FDR proposed social security promising that it would never be the primary source of retirement funds for the elderly, rather that it would always be merely a supplement. He also promised that it would never become a general welfare/wealth transfer program. Additionally, he promised that it would always be self-funding at the rates established at the beginning, and that benefits would never be taxed. Conservatives/classic liberals opposed the program saying that none of these promises would ever be kept. They turned out to be right.
But let’s go even further back in history, the Conservative/classical liberal view of freedom and limited government was essential in combating slavery. It was the power of the state, in this case state government, that protected slavery. Slavery would not be possible without the assistance of government. As well as discrimination would not have been possible without state laws, the Jim Crows laws.
As for conservatives’ latest accomplishments, the most striking was Reagan’s destruction of inflation, which hurts the poor most of all. He was willing to accept the massive public disapproval of the steps necessary to get this beast under control. It was Reagan’s destruction of inflation that created the environment that allowed Clinton’s economic successes. This takes nothing away from Clinton, who was good, practical and deserves praise for what he did. But he could not have done it without Reagan creating the environment.
The next most striking was Reagan and George H.W. Bush’s destruction of the largest threat ever to world peace and even human survival – the Soviet Union. Hundreds of million of people were liberated. Liberals had it wrong all along. The USSR was indeed the “evil empire.” Its damage to the environment in the USSR and Eastern Europe was simply horrible. Simple human rights were abolished. The centrally-planned economy never worked.
The bottom line is that the benefits of freedom and personal liberties are not always that apparent, nor tangible. People only realize that when freedom is lost. The immediate “benefit” of a government program are more apparent while its counterproductive unintended consequences are not. Specially when those unintended consequences occur in the future. The healthcare law is one recent example.
Let me ask you a question: What have Liberals done to control the expansion of the government, expand personal liberties, or to promote the values of self-reliance?
Completely agree Maggie. Juan is failing in his mission to convert progressives. 😉
If you for a second think I have a mission to convert anyone, you are dead wrong. I just like the exchange and battle of ideas. Furthermore experience has taught me that only reality has any chance of changing statist progressive’s mind.
LOL!
Juan, I also like the exchange and battle of ideas, and knew you did, as it is quite obvious.
Liberals brought about the end of slavery, woman suffrage, expansion of voting rights in the 1960s and 1970s, labor reforms, promotion of a safety net, political reforms, and have worked to end our involvement in wars. They do not see federal government as the enemy as you do, but rather the protector against unbridled monopoly capitalism. They know that historically state governments in general have done a terrible job in handling the needs of their population, so they have recognized that it is up to the federal government since the New Deal to do what state governments have failed to do. Self reliance is a great concept, but only works for the haves, not the have nots, until and when they have the educational opportunity, and lack of discrimination, which allows for them to become haves and become, therefore, self reliant. To tell a single mother with children to be self reliant is hypocritical to the extreme, and no one would want to walk in her shoes, and if so, would understand the tough life she faces, trying to bring up children who are obedient and ethical, and needing the support of the federal government, because most state governments would abandon her in her plight!
Exactly right Professor!
The single mother explosion can traced to ” The Great Society Program” another progressive train wreck.
Ron,
You really feel his weight is an issue?
Yes, Hoopster, in the sense that it is a health issue. This is not just anyone with a weight problem, and I have a feeling he is heavier than William Howard Taft, who weighed about 325-350 pounds and took long naps in the White House! On the other hand, Taft died at age 73 in 1930, so really a long life for back then, and lived 17 years after the Presidency, and served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. So you could argue that weight is not an issue, I suppose, but I still feel it is a worrisome issue.
But also, his explosiveness and lack of tact and diplomacy make Christie a bad choice to be President, in my opinion!
Obama still smokes, a smoker is also at risk just as an overweight person. Yet no one in the media at least ever gave it a second thought that Obama could have a heart attack or get lung cancer. I don’t like Christie because he is a moderate establishment Republican, but some seem to want him dead or disqualified to run for the Presidency desperately! Good grief!
Your claim that Obama still smokes is news to me, as that is not my impression from what I have read and heard.
As a non smoker, however, I agree with you that it is NOT good that he even smoked at all, as it is a very unhealthful habit.
However, Obama is in tip top shape physically, and to compare his physical health with Christie is preposterous.
And I certainly do not wish Christie harm, but I think his temper and lack of diplomacy and tact, while refreshing to some on the state level, is not appropriate for the Commander in Chief!
Now I am not saying that every President has had an ideal temperament, but we do not need to add any more imperfections in personality if we are aware of it, and Christie is very obviously not appropriate in his responses and attitude toward anyone who dares to question him on anything, or challenge him on any manner!
The issue of his temperament is an issue that really does not bother me. As I said before I am kind of tired of all this political correctness. Now with Obama smoking, lets say he quit now, which I believe I heard him say once that he is trying. In any event lets say he quit. But when he was running he was a smoker. He smoked for decades. So even though you see him physically fit that does not mean he is not at risk for any lung disease. I hope he never get its, but just because he appears fit does not guarantee anything. But then again, the media never pointed this out, and now they are crazy about Christie. One because he of course is a Republican and they think he might make a run, so any possible opponent to a Democrat must be dealt with. And second they only take into account appearances.
Juan, i do not think it is because Christie is a Republican. If a Democrat was as heavy as Christie, and was seen as a potential Presidential candidate, it still would be brought up.
And yes, just because someone looks “healthy” does not mean he is, in reality.
There is the famous story of a doctor warning his patients about their health, and then, despite being in great shape himself, drops dead suddenly. No one can ever be sure of the future, but still, weight is an issue NOT to be ignored, whether Democrat or Republican!
I agree, except on this, if there had been a history of unbiased media in the mainstream,in the so called objective media like CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, New York Times, lets say in over 90% of the media, then I would have no back up to sustain that they treat Republicans (conservatives specially) and Democrats alike. But that is not the case. I wouldn’t expect unbiased reporting from MSNBC, or even Fox (to make you happy) but when the rest claim to be impartial and are not, then I have an issue. Because they are deceiving the public in this sense. They say they are impartial, and sell their editorial positions as objective when it is clearly not. At least Chris Mathews, O’Donnell and Maddow , even I don’t agree with them, in their editorials they say clearly they are progressives, even O’Donnell admitted he was a socialist. And on Fox Hannity says he is a conservative and his editorial views are conservative.
I have to agree with you, Juan, that at least we know where MSNBC and Fox News Channel stand, while the others often do veil their leanings. It is awfully hard, however, I think, for any journalist to be TRULY neutral or impartial, as the nature of journalism is to see what is happening, and to have a natural inclination to feel a certain way, which will often, even subconsciously, affect how one writes about it.
That is why I feel “liberated” that in this blog, I can say what I feel openly, and you have the right to say what you feel, and we can have fun debating it!
By the way, what do you make of this? http://www.latimes.com/health/la-me-doctors-20130210,0,1509396.story
Just one more of the unintended consequences of government intervention??There is already a serious shortage of General Practitioners in rural areas and Obamacare is going to make that situation a crisis. With cuts in Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals, as well as reduced payments in many states under Medicaid, treating the millions of new patients who come on board when Obamacare goes into effect will be impossible. There are going to be many doctors and hospitals that refuse to treat new Medicare or Medicaid patients and those individuals are going to have to have great difficulty in finding anyone who will give them health care.This is not just another bug in the system. The shortage of doctors is going to kill people. And I wonder who is to blame???
This problem can be solved by using nurse practitioners, pharmacists, optometrists, and physician assistants, and I have had students who became pharmacists and are well trained to deal with most medical issues, and at my doctor’s practice, he has a nurse practitioner, who for all practical purposes, is a doctor, and I have complete confidence in her. Not only doctors can deal with medical issues, and the need to “worship” doctors is overdrawn in the modern world, where many other medical professionals can fill the need.
And after that? When it isn’t enough, what will you do with people who actually want to see a doctor? Or will that choice also be limited? Who will decide? As a more general question may I ask what is the final blueprint for the country that progressive have? What kind of socioeconomic system and when will we know that we have reached what you people want?
We for example have as a blueprint the US Constitution and amendments, respect of individual rights, no discrimination, freedom, property rights and the natural economic system that arises, free market capitalism. Not a crony over regulated mixed economic system nor a discriminatory system that has “protected classes”. In other words we are clear with the blueprint. But what is yours and how and when do you reach it? I guess what I am trying to find out when have we reached your goals?
We have reached our goals when you stop complaining and accept that we were correct from the beginning ! HAHAHA LOL Just kidding!
But really, Juan, you sound as if the end of the world is coming, when a much greater socialistic type system works well enough in other western nations. And you forget that Newt Gingrich and the American Enterprise Institute endorsed what has become ObamaCare twenty years ago, and even as late as 2008 with RomneyCare, UNTIL Obama became President, and all of a sudden, hell broke loose, that the “black” guy adopted our plan, so now we must go on the attack! What hypocrisy, and everyone knows it, and the GOP and conservative answer is to hell with 30-50 million people and their right to health care!
Ronald, I am not talking about Healthcare specifically, I am talking about the country. If I understand correctly you want a socialist country, or am I wrong? I really want to know what in your mind as a progressive believe, ok we have reached our goals. What are the goals? And how do you reach them?
Juan, I am NOT a Socialist, not that being so is a crime. After all, Socialists in the past came up with Social Security, Medicare, Labor Laws, etc that were adopted by both Democrats and Republicans over time. And Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont, is, in my mind, a wonderful Senator, one of my favorites, a man who really cares about the average American, and is sick and tired of the exploitation by the wealthy and privileged, who have been allowed to rip off the country in the name of capitalism under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
I am a progressive and a liberal, and my ABOUT page explains why I am such, so you should look at it right now. I am proud to speak up for the working class, the less fortunate, those denied justice and equality in a nation that has seen so much good done by progressives and liberals of both political parties. I admire, with the understanding that everyone has faults, of people such as Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln, TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Clinton, Obama and members of Congress past and present such as La Follette, Norris, La Follette, Jr, Wagner, Javits, Case, Douglas, Humphrey, Percy, Hatfield, Mathias, Weicker, Church, McGovern, Kennedy, Wellstone, Feingold, Sanders, Biden, and numerous others of both parties. I also admire Republican Governors of the past such as Rockefeller, Scranton, and George Romney. I have no problem with Republicans as long as they have a record of support for average Americans.
So look at my page and you will understand where I am coming from!
Ronald, you have not answered my basic question. As simply as possible as a progressive what is your goal for the country, how do you obtain that goal, and when do you realize you are there? I think my question is pretty simple. You say you are not a socialist yet you speak the same language, exploitation of the poor, by the rich, you divide society in unmovable classes and you consider that the only ones who care about the “little guy” are the progressives. You also have no problem with Republicans as long as they are progressive. But I ask again. When have you reached your goals, when would you as a progressive be satisfied?
Juan, you sound like a prosecutor questioning the defendant! LOL
I would say that the battle for equal opportunity and social justice and political democracy never ends because the right wing is out to take away any progress on any of these areas, and they have been able over time to reverse progress, as in the Coolidge 1920s, the Reagan and Bush II 1980s and 2000s. The “little guy” is fed a diet of racism, anti immigrant, anti gay, anti woman, a concept of always going to war, and a promotion of fear of whatever is seen as interfering with the concentration of wealth, and yet the elite are exploiting these “little guys”, and is taking advantage of them without realization of that fact by people who do not understand what is happening to them, the loss of middle class status and enrichment of the top few percent! So I will never be satisfied because, just as the right wing, the battle goes on, and it is a mortal battle that has no end, because of human greed and selfishness!
So there is no greed or selfishness in government? You talk about the loss of the middle class since Reagan but that doesn’t correspond with reality. According to the Pew Research Center, which is anything but conservative, I quote “”Households in all age groups have made gains compared with their predecessors over the course of many decades, but the incomes of the oldest households have risen four times as sharply as those of the youngest ones. As a result, incomes of the oldest households, which have been lower than those of younger households, are catching up. In households headed by adults younger than 35, the median adjusted annual income in 1967 was $38,555, compared with $49,145 in 2010, an increase of 27% (all figures are expressed in 2010 dollars and standardized to a household size of three). By contrast, in households headed by adults ages 65 and older, the median adjusted annual income in 1967 was $20,804, compared with $43,401 in 2010, an increase of 109%.” See: http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart-graph/change-median-adjusted-household-income-age-householder-1967-2010 .
YES, the elderly are better off BECAUSE of Social Security and Medicare, which, if it was up to Paul Ryan et al, would be destroyed! Younger people are victims because of the GOP Congress since 1994 to 2006, and the inequities of wealth promoted under Bush II! And now the GOP House is doing its best to do more damage, and refused to cooperate with Obama!
Good grief!
Yes, Juan, the truth hurts, I know that! 🙂
Only way to cooperate with obama, say yes to what he wants and forget your Constitutional oath of office. Some still believe their oath is more than a few inconvenient words.
Dave, you have a right to your opinion, but Obama is in the tradition of Lincoln, TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ. He is not any different than them, and as far as executive power is concerned, he follows not only in the tradition of the above, but also of Ike, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II!
Ronald, it is not that the truth hurts, it is just that you are a perfect representation of the left’s total disregard for facts. You talk about the loss of the middle class , yet when I show you that median income rose for everyone, you then come back and say the young are victims of the GOP!?? How so? You say the elderly are better because of SS, yet who is paying for these elderly’s SS? The young and working. As I pointed out above FDR proposed social security promising that it would never be the primary source of retirement funds for the elderly, rather that it would always be merely a SUPPLEMENT. He also promised that it would never become a general welfare/wealth transfer program.Additionally, he promised that it would always be self-funding at the rates established at the beginning, and that benefits would never be taxed. In other words, like we say in plain English, he lied through his teeth. So essentially we have a wealth transfer program from young working adult to millions of elderly people who not only have more income, because of a lifetime advantage of working but also have more assets that the young. It is in essence a Ponzi scheme as economist Paul A. Samuelson said on the November 13, 1967 issue of Newsweek. Samuelson defended Social Security by pointing out that it was linked to population growth and that “A growing nation is the greatest Ponzi scheme ever devised. And that is a fact, not a paradox.†Does that seem fair to you? That retirees living at The Breakers should receive SS! FICA taxes on workers are transferred to the 62+ population for their retirement and medical care (Employee 5.3% for retirement and 1.45% for Medicare; Employee and Employer 10.6% for retirement and 2.9% for Medicare). The average annual transfers from young to old for persons age 18-35 of $2600 per worker and $2100 on a per young person basis. Furthermore since employers could pay the employer contribution to the worker if they were not required to pay it to the IRS, the real annual transfers are about $4800 per worker and $3900 per person. And to top it all off the Federal government through its bureaucracy keeps a large chunk of the change. Finally you cannot help expressing your elitist view that people do not know what is happening to them and your hateful class warfare view of the rich exploiting the poor. You would rather have the poor poorer as long as the gap is smaller. The other day I demonstrated with facts taken from the Census that the so called “poor” in the US are a thousand times better off than the middle class in any egalitarian – poorer society in the world. That in the US the poor are only poor in comparison to the middle class in such a wealth producing society as the US was. I can’t say “is” because today is not the case. Yet you blindly insist on negating the facts. I ask; compared to what or when are the poor worse off? Compared to what era? The 30’s, 40’s, 50’s , 60’s ??? To when? You could say,”but before they had a bigger slice of the pie!” To which I would say , but the pie was 3 times smaller!! Who grew the pie!? I and any reasonable person would rather have 10% of 100, than 20% of 30! You my friend do not have a battle with the “right wing” you have a battle with reality, with human nature, that you wish to perfect, so as to reach a utopian state of things. But you will never be satisfied, not because of the ‘right wing” but because you can have millions of government programs to eradicate mankind’s imperfection and they will never work. You have the example right here in the US. Since President Lyndon Johnson declared the War on Poverty in 1964, the government has spent $15.9 trillion on means-tested welfare aid and the Obama Administration has worked rapidly to expand the welfare state further. President Obama’s FY 2011 budget increased spending on programs for the poor to 42% above levels in FY 2008, President George W. Bush’s last full year in office. Total welfare spending rose to $953 billion by 2011, and over the next 10 years, it will exceed $10 trillion. In the last two decades, growth in means-tested welfare spending has outpaced that of Social Security, Medicare, education, and defense. And even before all this, the establishment big government GOP-approved poverty benefits swelled 39 percent between 2001 and 2005 alone. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families is the only major program trimmed, from $18.6 billion to $17.4 billion. Otherwise, housing spending went up 26 percent. Healthcare aid grew 40%. Nutrition relief rose 49%. Keystones of LBJ’s Great Society have prospered, such as food stamps: went up 71%. Meanwhile, child tax credits exploded 1,389%. Overall, poverty expenses represented 16.1 percent of the federal budget — a record back then! And today it is even higher. So this fallacy of the left that the establishment GOP has a war on the poor, the needy, the young, the old, women and everyone practically is irrational and utterly false.
It is interesting that you say the LEFT has no regard for facts, when it is the Right which has no regard for facts, and had no problem in creating the biggest transfer of wealth ever in American history through tax cuts favoring the wealthy in the 1980s and the 2000s. Taxes were much higher under Eisenhower and Nixon, with no harm to the wealthy, and then the attack on the middle class began, with Reagan having lower rates, which increased poverty and homelessness in the 80s, and then massive tax cuts for the wealthy under Bush II, while prosecuting two wars on the credit card, rather than RAISING taxes as in every other war period in American history. You can throw figures left and right at me, but be happy you are not in the lower middle class or in poverty in America, as while those classes are better off by comparison to other societies, what matters is trying to survive and bring up children who are denied an equal chance in America due to their family situation, while children of the wealthy often do not know what a hard day’s work is, and live off their family wealth! And the rhetoric of the GOP is certainly anti women, anti immigrant, anti poor, anti worker, and pro corporation and special interest groups which fund their campaigns, thanks to the Citizens United Case of the Supreme Court!
I know I can throw figures left and right to you and that they will be totally ignored. How is it that if people keep more of their money, it somehow creates more poverty? Again median income for all has risen in the last 3 to 4 decades. For poor, middle class and rich. Yet that is totally ignored. All you do is compare with those who less with those who have more. As if that is the reason there are poor. So your simple analysis is that there are poor in the world because there are rich. Also what transfer of wealth are you talking about? If I earn 250k, who did I take that wealth from? All you do is spew infantile and incoherent typical Marxist. You sound like Chavez, Peron, Castro and the rest of the populist. Dare I say Obama too? LOL! You put people into immutable categories and classes without considering their individual choices.Thus your justification for redistribution is that some income and wealth is due to brute luck, “unfairness” or shall I say theft from the poor. But you ignore that the U.S. has great mobility of income and wealth which is not due to brute luck, “unfairness” or theft but to personal choices. Many of the most needy belong to two problem groups as a result largely of choices they have made: a) poor single parent and b) only having a High school education or less. Thus if most inequalities result from choices, coercive transfers will involve injustice because it unfairly takes income from those who have earned it.
Juan, you have, until now, avoided name calling and labeling my views as extremist, but now you are starting to do just that. I am NOT a Marxist, a Peronist, a Chavez or Castro supporter, and resent being called that, and to compare Obama to that, shows just how extremist and nutty your right wing philosophy is. He will go down in history as a MODERATE liberal in the long run, except to the hate mongers! I will not allow any more of this to continue to take up endless space on the blog.
We have a greater stratification of wealth than even Great Britain, and that in itself, demonstrates how our tax structure has undermined the ability of many to achieve the concept of the “American Dream”. Yes, lack of education and being a single parent are detriments to progress, no question about that. But you are willing to sit there and say that as a result, to hell with people in those circumstances, while others pay lower tax rates than has been traditional under FDR, Ike, Nixon, and even Reagan? I say that such an action as Bush II took, lowering tax rates for the wealthy, while spending money on wars, now threatens the whole safety net for everyone, when Social Security has nothing to do with the national debt, and you wish to destroy the right to healthcare for all but those who are wealthy enough to afford it.
We have spent enough time on this topic, way off the topic of Chris Christie, the original entry, so I will NOT entertain any further discussion on this here, and if you persist, I will simply eliminate it as a comment and ignore it. If you are so motivated to work hard, all to the good, spend more time doing so, and less time arguing ad infinitum with your own agenda! I have been more than patient with your rants, but enough is enough, Juan!
Ronald, why get upset? I did not say you admire Chavez, Castro or Peron, I said you sound like and reminded me of them. Remember I suffered personally from their inspired ideas. Do you want me to translate their speeches and editorials? It is not my fault that you repeat their world view. As for Marxist-Socialism, I meant to say the same, you repeat the typical inspired mindset and world view. If you repeat what left leaning Marxist-socialist repeat, it is not my fault. You may not be a Marxist-socialist and I am absolutely positive that you don’t consider yourself one, you say you are a progressive. Very well, but you cannot deny that progressivism, socialism, Marxism and other isms which I shall not repeat so as not to offend, all have a common “collectivist” root. Does collectivism also offend you? In any event, I believe you said that there is nothing wrong with being a socialist, so if I ever did call you a socialist, which I didn’t, why would you be offended if there is nothing wrong with socialism. I would imagine that you would be much more offended if someone called you a conservative. I mean we conservatives are the cretins of the world. In any event I try not to label people but I do characterize their ideas. Sorry if that offended you, it was not my intention. I hope you accept my apology. But bear in mind that I never accused you personally, or what you believe in, as racist, and provoking cancer, deaths and murders of the children, the elderly, the handicapped and those less fortunate, as the media, Hollywood, various University professors, the Obama campaign, the Democrat party and the President himself has done with conservatives like me. While at the same time , they seem horrified and offended if they ever see a sign, rightly or wrongly, calling Obama a socialist…
OK, Juan, I accept your apology, and you have defended yourself well in your statements, although you are more than a bit dramatic! LOL I have enjoyed our repartee, but just think we have gone way off the topic under which this is being discussed, Chris Christie. I have no problem with you having a different view, but I wish you would not demonize the progressive view as you have done, as I may be critical of the Right, but I do not think I demonize them, do not call them Fascists or Nazis, but simply show their wrong ideas as I see them. Let’s stick to the particular entry in mind, rather than go off on tangents. But here, a handshake, we can still be debating rivals, and just avoid name calling and angry accusations! And realize I am not responsible for those on the Left who are loose with their statements, just as some on the Right are that way as well!
Agreed
Even though the current white house Marxist has run out of other peoples money to advance his agenda, tonight he displays no realization that socialism is once again failing, it only works in the gilded enclaves of learning that the free market built for them.
Dave, you lose all credibility when you call Obama a Marxist. You talk as if capitalism has been so successful in advancing the lives of average people, when it has caused constant economic downturns for the last few centuries, what we call first Panics, then the Great Depression, and then constant recessions every decade to 15 years. And who are the winners? The economic elite, the top few percent, ALWAYS come out ahead! Meanwhile, everyone else is left in the dust, but I guess that is just fine!
obama a man with no real world experience continues to espouse his socialist values that were fostered in the progressive temples built by the money generated by capitalism, ironic.