Republicans don't give a CHIP about children's health care

[GIGObuster]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

I can’t for begbert2, but in the society I’d prefer to live in, that would be what my taxes are for. Some of us believe that it’s our collective responsibility as a civilized society to provide for the general welfare – and ensure life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness – of all our citizens, most especially the most vulnerable among them.

I guess Bricker also missed that several Republicans in Congress are not heartless bastards.

[Bricker]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

I can’t for begbert2, but in the society I’d prefer to live in, that would be what my taxes are for. Some of us believe that it’s our collective responsibility as a civilized society to provide for the general welfare – and ensure life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness – of all our citizens, most especially the most vulnerable among them.

What is it with liberals and “some of us?”

Are you all infested with intestinal parasites that share your opinions? Or do you believe your opinion gains respectability because a whole gaggle of you are solemnly assuring each other of your virtue?

Some of ME believes that we have many needs in society and insufficient resources to fund them all, so it’s appropriate to prioritize them. Some of me also believes that programs that simply give crap to people, even the (sob) “most vulnerable among us” are not as valuable as creating a prosperous society in which all are uplifted by the economic gains, as opposed to perpetuating a permanent dependent class of people who will remain vulnerable (and, hey, funny side effect, remain in thrall to the party that keeps giving them stuff, which I’m sure is a TOTAL COINCIDENCE).

Now, I admit I have not polled my resident enterobacteriaceae for their opinion of the matter, so perhaps I’m more divided on the issue.

[eulalia]

The proposed Republican tax plan will raise my taxes. If my taxes have to be raised, I’d rather it go to children’s health than lowering the taxes of people who don’t need it, really. The idea that lowering the top bracket rate will be good for our economy is highly debatable; I believe it’s been proven that “trickle-down” doesn’t work.

[Chisquirrel]

@Bricker

What is it with liberals and “some of us?”

Are you all infested with intestinal parasites that share your opinions? Or do you believe your opinion gains respectability because a whole gaggle of you are solemnly assuring each other of your virtue?

Some of ME believes that we have many needs in society and insufficient resources to fund them all, so it’s appropriate to prioritize them. Some of me also believes that programs that simply give crap to people, even the (sob) “most vulnerable among us” are not as valuable as creating a prosperous society in which all are uplifted by the economic gains, as opposed to perpetuating a permanent dependent class of people who will remain vulnerable (and, hey, funny side effect, remain in thrall to the party that keeps giving them stuff, which I’m sure is a TOTAL COINCIDENCE).

Now, I admit I have not polled my resident enterobacteriaceae for their opinion of the matter, so perhaps I’m more divided on the issue.

Accuses liberals of virtue signalling and groupthink, but gets pissy when Republicans are called for ending a program that supports poor children so he can get a tax break.

Bricker, everyone, the SDMB’s resident snowflake lawyer.

[running_coach]

@eulalia

The proposed Republican tax plan will raise my taxes. If my taxes have to be raised, I’d rather it go to children’s health than lowering the taxes of people who don’t need it, really. The idea that lowering the top bracket rate will be good for our economy is highly debatable; I believe it’s been proven that “trickle-down” doesn’t work.

Trickle-down does work. Piss has to go somewhere.

[Bricker]

@eulalia

The proposed Republican tax plan will raise my taxes. If my taxes have to be raised, I’d rather it go to children’s health than lowering the taxes of people who don’t need it, really. The idea that lowering the top bracket rate will be good for our economy is highly debatable; I believe it’s been proven that “trickle-down” doesn’t work.

Ok, I respect that view.

But…are all other views that don’t align with yours “evil?”

Could it be possible that someone can reach other conclusions without being evil?

ETA: what was that proof, again? I missed the memo.

[Guinastasia]

@John_Mace

Bricker’s response was a no bueno knee-jerk reaction, but your counter-argument is to ***advocate for a theocracy? ***Besides, the Bible Passages are easily interpreted as personal responsibility, not a call for government action.

Anyway, I agree with the OP, but to be more general: The GOP simply does not know how to govern, at least at the federal level. They have shown this over and over an over again.

Bricker has repeatedly professed to be a devout Catholic and pro-life. His statement here is the exact opposite of that. I can’t imagine the nuns who taught me supporting something like that.

Basically he’s saying, it’s too much to pay 8 million for little kids to have healthcare, but 1.5 trillion in tax cuts for the rich is just hunky-dory. That’s seriously fucked up.

[running_coach]

@Guinastasia

Bricker has repeatedly professed to be a devout Catholic and pro-life. His statement here is the exact opposite of that. I can’t imagine the nuns who taught me supporting something like that.

Basically he’s saying, it’s too much to pay 8 million for little kids to have healthcare, but 1.5 trillion in tax cuts for the rich is just hunky-dory. That’s seriously fucked up.

From here.

In one simple quote, Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B. sums up the hypocrisy of many in the ‘pro-life’ movement:

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

Ok, I respect that view.

But…are all other views that don’t align with yours “evil?”

Could it be possible that someone can reach other conclusions without being evil?

ETA: what was that proof, again? I missed the memo.

You should wonder about the sources you have. They miss a lot indeed.

https://www.fastcompany.com/3047482/the-international-monetary-fund-says-trickle-down-economics-dont-work

Economists have long argued about the economic effects of inequality. One school says big income differences spur poorer people to work harder. Another says inequality is bad for economies because it reduces economic spending from people of lower and middle incomes.

Now the International Monetary Fund is saying where it stands on the issue. A new report from its economists finds a definite relationship between inequality and reduced performance, and, what’s more, it gives numbers for the strength of that link.

“If the income share of the top 20% (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20% (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth,” the report says.

The paper looks at 159 advanced and developing economies between 1980 and 2012, investigating how income is distributed in each society and its level of national growth. It finds that when the income share of the top 20% increases 1%, economic growth is then down 0.08% in the following five years. At the same time, a 1% increase for the bottom 20% leads to increased GDP of 0.38% in the following years.

[Fugazi]

And there you have it. I think that is pretty much plain as day. But folks like Bricker and the those calling for this tax cut already know this. They don’t care. They just want more money for themselves and screw everyone else.

[Fugazi]

@Bricker

Tell me: do YOU want children to die? Because I bet you’re not contributing your disposable income to St Jude Hospital or the Ronald McDonald House or the NIH Children’s Inn. I guess you’re also a heartless bastard?

If instead of paying taxes I were to go down a list of worthy charities and give $100 to each on payday, I’d run out of money long before I’d run out of worthy charities. Or I could give each charity 50 cents, then I could get much further down the list. Unfortunately I’d be spending so much time trying to pay all the charities I wouldn’t have a job anymore.

But I’ll admit it. I’m way too lazy for that.

If only there were some mechanism where we could all send a portion of our income to some body (perhaps elected) and they could then try to ensure it gets distributed.

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

Some of ME believes that we have many needs in society and insufficient resources to fund them all, so it’s appropriate to prioritize them.

So 1/200 of an enormous tax cut for those who, as a class, already have more money than they can spend on themselves or invest usefully, should be prioritized over health care for poor kids.

Some of me also believes that programs that simply give crap to people, even the (sob) “most vulnerable among us” are not as valuable as creating a prosperous society in which all are uplifted by the economic gains, as opposed to perpetuating a permanent dependent class of people who will remain vulnerable (and, hey, funny side effect, remain in thrall to the party that keeps giving them stuff, which I’m sure is a TOTAL COINCIDENCE).

Yeah, because getting health care keeps children dependent. If they didn’t get health care, they’d be sick, but they’d be out there taking care of themselves, they wouldn’t be, um, dependents anymore.

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

creating a prosperous society in which all are uplifted by the economic gains

We’ve had a multi-generation experiment to determine whether giving huge tax cuts to the rich “creat[es] a prosperous society in which all are uplifted by the economic gains” and the answer is, no, they haven’t. The rich got richer, the top 20% have made out OK, but everyone else is no better off than they were back in the 1970s.

as opposed to perpetuating a permanent dependent class of people who will remain vulnerable (and, hey, funny side effect, remain in thrall to the party that keeps giving them stuff, which I’m sure is a TOTAL COINCIDENCE).

Dude, welfare reform happened over 20 years ago. But if you want to repeat the usual Fox News/wingnut politician fact-free blather (hey, you missed ‘plantation’ - how am I gonna fill up my wingnut buzzword bingo card with omissions like that?) and pretend that it’s part of a rational argument, I can’t stop you. Just don’t expect to be taken seriously.

[septimus]

I hope I don’t give offense to RTFirefly, but I ask him to rename his thread. A more appropriate title would be
Bricker Pits himself: “I am an incontinent hater who thinks he’s better than Jesus”

@Bricker

The business of government involves allocating dollars for a kajillion worthy causes.

The figure “kajillion” is inflated. Instead the Trump-Ryan agenda focuses on just seven worthy causes, any of which, in the opinion of Pence, Bricker, Shkreli and their ilk has far more value than treating the diseases of undeserving children:
[ol]
[li] Further reductions in the tax on corporate profits, despite that those profits have never been a larger share of the pie, and GOP lies to the contrary, already less than European taxes.[/li][li] Reducing income tax on the super-rich.[/li][li] Further sticking it to prosperous blue states, who already face a double burden" compassion for their state residents and transfers to mitigate hateful anti-social policies in red states like Alabama.[/li][li] Abandoning the estate tax, despite that prior GOP sabotage means it already only really affects the top 0.1% of Americans, and despite that many capital gains still go completely untaxed without an estate tax.[/li][li] Removing ceilings on business deductions for salaries, junkets, etc.[/li][li] Nepotism and graft to political supporters. Whitefish Energy, indeed. :eek:[/li][li] Using the tiny remaining budgets of government science offices like NOAA, EPA, DoE to promote anti-science agenda.[/li][/ol]

@RTFirefly

There is a school of Christianity that says it’s wrong for the Big Bad Government to help people, because the whole point is to motivate good Christians to be generous to the needy, that the important thing isn’t that the needy have their needs met, but that Christians have an opportunity to do the right thing in response to need.

Bricker has voiced his concurrence with this notion on this board.

The reductio ad absurdem, in our perverse theocracy, is that government should actively work to increase poverty and disease. This will increase the opportunity for Christians to demonstrate virtue. Wasn’t this Joel Osteen’s defense? That increasing Houston’s tragedy gave Prosperianity a chance to demonstrate its wonders? (Some will say I’ve applied too much vaseline here and am sliding down the slobbering slope. Not so in today’s America! I could invoke every fallacy from Ad Antiquitatem to Zeno’s Division and still not be in the same league as every single FoxNews commentator or GOP Congressman.)

@RTFirefly

… Jesus didn’t spend much time condemning adultery or sexual licentiousness, but he repeatedly condemned hardness of heart. And that’s practically the defining characteristic of conservative ‘Christianity.’

Do you really think modern American Christianity has anything at all to do with the teachings of Jesus? Reverend Brickhead certainly doesn’t think so.

[RTFirefly]

@septimus

I hope I don’t give offense to RTFirefly, but I ask him to rename his thread.

No offense taken! But he certainly fails impressively to be a counterexample to the existing title.

[Bricker]

@Guinastasia

Bricker has repeatedly professed to be a devout Catholic and pro-life. His statement here is the exact opposite of that. I can’t imagine the nuns who taught me supporting something like that.

Basically he’s saying, it’s too much to pay 8 million for little kids to have healthcare, but 1.5 trillion in tax cuts for the rich is just hunky-dory. That’s seriously fucked up.

Shockingly to all who expect your posts to contain solid analysis and incisive commentary, if any such people exist, this summary is wrong. I’m “basically” saying that there are no solutions, only tradeoffs. And I’m quoting Thomas Sowell when I say that.

Now, as to my Catholic faith: surely you’re not saying my decisions about secular public policy should be governed by my faith, are you? Is that what you’re arguing for – a theocracy? Are you conceding that whatever it was the nuns taught you should guide the formation of our public policy, Guin? Is that your message?

@running_coach

From here.

Same question. Are you saying this nun’s views should guide our public policy?

[Bricker]

@Fugazi

And there you have it. I think that is pretty much plain as day. But folks like Bricker and the those calling for this tax cut already know this. They don’t care. They just want more money for themselves and screw everyone else.

Is that what you think, Fugazi?

Did you examine any other studies, and select your support of this one based on flaws you found in the others? What other studies did you examine and reject before reposing your faith in this one?

Since you find this one plain as day, that is.

[running_coach]

@Bricker

Shockingly to all who expect your posts to contain solid analysis and incisive commentary, if any such people exist, this summary is wrong. I’m “basically” saying that there are no solutions, only tradeoffs. And I’m quoting Thomas Sowell when I say that.

Now, as to my Catholic faith: surely you’re not saying my decisions about secular public policy should be governed by my faith, are you? Is that what you’re arguing for – a theocracy? Are you conceding that whatever it was the nuns taught you should guide the formation of our public policy, Guin? Is that your message?
Same question. Are you saying this nun’s views should guide our public policy?

Way to miss the point, asswipe. Not theocracy as law but the mercy at the center of the religion you pretend to follow. If you want a child born into a difficult situation, then you should want to help lift that child out of that situation.

[AI_Proofreader]

@Clothahump

And it has never occurred to you that CHIP should not exist in the first place? There is no constitutional authorization for government welfare or insurance.

Programs like this belong at the state level if they belong anywhere at all.

@The U.S. Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare…

*cough

[Bricker]

@running_coach

Way to miss the point, asswipe. Not theocracy as law but the mercy at the center of the religion you pretend to follow. If you want a child born into a difficult situation, then you should want to help lift that child out of that situation.

And mercy should be expressed … through the law?

It sounds to me as though you’d like to sift through the Catholic faith, extract individual elements of which you approve, and insist my support for social policy be governed by them . . . but also that if I should have the temerity to add any elements of which you disapprove, you’re ready to scream, “Theocracy!” and “Separation of church and state!”

Is that the playbook?

Would it surprise you to learn that I regard the teachings of the Church as holistic as well as holy? That I believe they can’t be implemented piecemeal, and especially not in the self-serving manner you’re trying?