Hillary Clinton Contradicts Herself in Debates, Lacks Vision
So much for “let your yes be yes, and your no be no.” If this is what’s in store for the future of this country we’re in serious trouble.
Politico.com | Roger Simon | Oct. 31, 2007
PHILADELPHIA — We now know something that we did not know before: When Hillary Clinton has a bad night, she really has a bad night. In a debate against six Democratic opponents at Drexel University here Tuesday, Clinton gave the worst performance of her entire campaign. (….)
John Edwards immediately went for the jugular. “Unless I missed something,” he said, “Sen. Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes. America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them.”
Barack Obama added: “I was confused [by] Sen. Clinton’s answer. I can’t tell whether she was for it or against it. One of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face.”
Earlier, when Clinton was asked whether she had made one statement on Social Security publicly and a conflicting answer privately, she ducked the question, saying she believed in “fiscal responsibility.”
And when Russert asked her if she would make public certain communications between herself and President Clinton when she was first lady, she responded weakly: “Well, that’s not my decision to make.”
Perhaps just as bad was her general tone and demeanor. All of her opponents seemed passionate about one issue or another. But Clinton seemed largely emotionless and detached, often just mouthing rehearsed answers from her briefing book.
. . . more
Wednesday 31 Oct 2007 | Blog-Editor | Politics |
It’s a shame that a person trying to provide a thoughtful nuanced answer exploring the pros and cons of a complex issue, instead providing an emotionally-charged and superficial response, is accused of contradicting herself.
Paul Waldman, in The American Prospect, describes what is so demeaning about the Tim Russert style of journalism:
Tim Russert: Stop the Inanity , Russert passes for a “tough” interviewer by adopting a confrontational pose rather than asking genuinely challenging questions. Which is why he’s a terrible moderator for our presidential debates.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=tim_russert_stop_the_inanity
“Nuanced answer”? You mean like her husband nuanced what the definition of “is” is?
So you mean to imply that John Edwards is persecuting Hillary for her “nuanced ways” when he plainly stated:
Also, Obama was unjustified in “accusing” Hillary of talking out of both sides of her mouth:
Where in Scriptures does it say that your “yes” can be a “maybe”, or your “no” can be a “somewhat.”
ChrisB - We have a choice next November.
We can elect a president who spends all of his or her time pushing our emotional buttons and playing on our fears and resentments, but doing nothing to solve our actual problems.
Or we can elect someone with the patience to do the hard, unexciting work of governance and policy making, which among other things requires weighing the pros and cons of various courses of action and making sometimes difficult compromises to achieve the best possible net outcomes.
Illegal immigration is one of those emotional hot button issues. Imagine a struggling self-employed, small businessman who can’t get health insurance for his family. I have a relative in this predicament right now. Then he reads that people in this country illegally are able to waltz into the emergency room and get free medical care. Of course there is going to be anger and resentment, which was my relative’s exact reaction.
Immigrant bashing and wild horror stories about Canadian health care may be emotionally satisfying for my relative, in the short-term. However, what he needs in the long-term is a system of affordable, universal health insurance for all Americans, and a guest worker program that would require mandatory enrollment into some sort of temporary paid health insurance program.
Mandatory, mandatory, mandatory. How ’bout I just give all my money to the government and let them take care of me anyway they please.
OR…We can yet again cite Dean the provacatuer, who drops bombs like these:
We can elect a president who spends all of his or her time pushing our emotional buttons and playing on our fears and resentments, but doing nothing to solve our actual problems. Or we can elect someone with the patience to do the hard, unexciting work of governance and policy making
Is this site a dumping ground for his soundbite talking points??
Mr. Scourtes,
With all due respect, you are the king of drama. With all your apocalyptic visions of the environment (if Hillary doesn’t get elected), problems that ail America (due solely to GWB), etc you take the prize (although its highly entertaining).
I understand and respect your position. You appear to be a partisan hack, which is your right; but to accuse Tim Russert of being a hack (for who?) and to lecture ChrisB about how we need someone who weighs pros and cons (for who?) before making decisions then implying that only Hillary is qualified is silly. Besides, the other guys waded through it.
Regarding your relative, he is equally qualified to show up at a hospital for services. It is against federal law to turn away someone in need of medical assistance. That is what indigent care is. Chances are your relative wouldn’t do it unless he needed it.
Cepik writes: “Regarding your relative, he is equally qualified to show up at a hospital for services. It is against federal law to turn away someone in need of medical assistance. That is what indigent care is.”
Sure, Dean’s relative could get medical care. I can tell you how it would work, based on my 21 years of hospital employment.
If his relative developed a serious medical condition — cancer, for example — he wouldn’t automatically be treated for that. You can’t just show up at the door and demand treatment. Since he doesn’t have insurance and presumably is not wealthy, he wouldn’t be admitted as a patient. Also, without insurance a private physician practice probably wouldn’t take him as a patient.
But there is a back door. He would have to go to the emergency room of a public hospital. In the emergency room he could get a referral to be seen at the oncology clinic. The ER visit, complete with labs, etc., will probably run him around $1,000 or $2,000, if he’s lucky. Since he’s not “indigent” but has an income and probably some assets, he will have to pay for that. The hospital will know he’s not indigent because he will go through a financial screening process.
The subsequent clinic visits, scans, labs, etc., he will also have to pay for. So he now owes some thousands of dollars even before treatment has been started. Oops, there goes the kid’s college fund. Treatment will be very expensive and any inpatient hospitalizations will be extremely expensive.
His bills at this point are probably around $50,000, perhaps more. There goes the retirement money. And since he’s sick and can’t work he loses his income. Little by little things go downhill. The family starts buying groceries and gas on the credit card. That card is maxed out, so they get another card to make payments on the first card. Now they have $20 or $30 thousand on a card with 20 percent interest. Bankruptcy soon follows.
The house is abandoned because they can’t make payments on it. The car goes back to the bank because they can’t make payments on that either. The business is long gone. The family moves into a rent-subsidized apartment. (That same day an article is posted on the OrthodoxNet blog denouncing rent subsidies as an example of inappropriate redistribution of income.) Dean S. gives the family $2,000 so they can buy an old used car.
At this point the family is indeed medically indigent, and the father’s care is now paid for by Medicaid, another example of income redistribution.
So yes, the relative can in fact get medical care. It’s quite simple.
Cepik - Your suggestion is that people without health insurance should forego relatively inexpensive prevenative care, wait until they get really sick, then go to the emergency room, where they can’t be turned away,would result in the worst possible medical and economic outcomes.
A middle-aged man, like my relative, should be visiting his primary care physician at least once, every two years, for preventative health screening. He should have his blood pressure monitored as well as his blood glucose and HDL and LDL cholesterol. If he is taking any medications his creatinine levels should also be checked for possible liver damage. His doctor should discuss with him any lifestyle changes that he needs to make like smoking cessation, cutting back on alcohol conmsumption or weight loss. Over fifty, men should also have a periodic colonoscopy and prostate exams.
This type of preventative health care is relatively inexpensive and can help physicians detect and begin correcting small health problems in their early stages before they turn into expensive acute problems. Preventative health care is not offered in the Emergency Room. Many people on public aid use the Emergency Room for non-emergency health care treatment and this is not only economically inefficient, but contributes to the crisis of overcrowding in our nation’s trauma centers.
A visit to the emergency room is billed at a higher rate than a visit to a primary care physician and usually generate far greater costs overall. Because the person may have waited until they were feeling sick to get treatment this means that they will probably receive medical attention at a more advanced stage in their illness, when it is more expensive to treat, than at an early stage in their illness when it would probably be cheaper to treat.
If the person going to the emergency room is absolutely destitude their unreimbursed costs are passed on to the taxpayers in the form of higher taxes and and people with insurance in the form of higher premiums. Every year the Federal Government makes billions of dollars in DSH, (Disproportionate Share Hospital) payments to help hospitals with the cots of treating the uninsured.
People with insurance typically pay discounted rates that their Plans are able to negotiate with the Hospitals. People without insurance, however pay an undiscounted rates which are the highest rates of all. If they own any assets, like a home or car, these bills will be turned over to collection and they will be hounded and their life made a living hell. In America today inability to pay crushing medical expenses is by far the number one cause of bankruptcy.
So no, I don’t agree that just sending uninsured people to the emergency room is preferable to implementing some sort of public/private universal health care.
Mr. Scourtes,
What is keeping your relative from visiting his Primary care physician for a yearly physical? What is keeping him from getting insurance? I have middle aged friends who have had heart transplants and can still get affordable coverage. Please provide details and we can discuss.
Mr. Holman,
That is a clever little tale, which I seem to have heard before. Do you have any sources? I know of several private hospitals that treat indigents. Btw, what do you do in a hospital? Oh, and I do stand corrected. I believe w/ that little tale you are the king of drama.
Best regards,
Let me add that my comment to Mr. Holman was not meant in snark or disdain. I tend to take things lightly and kid around, my apologies if he interpreted my comment as offensive.
Regards,
Note 7, House, car and college fund but no insurance
My 45 year old husband gets major/medical from Blue Cross for $75.00 per month.
I get the same for $150/month.
We use high deductibles and budget yearly for standard expenses.
Odd that someone with an income which is steady enough to support a house payment can pay for insurance. Health insurance for the adults should have come before college fund for the kids. Kids can work part-time and get their own loans and scholarships.
Just doesn’t seem right here.
Cepik writes: “That is a clever little tale, which I seem to have heard before. Do you have any sources? I know of several private hospitals that treat indigents. Btw, what do you do in a hospital?”
Yes, there are private hospitals that will treat indigents, but many of them do not have the financial resources to treat a large number of indigent patients.
I spent over a year in the Patient Accounts department as an account analyst, working with commercial, medicaid, miscellaneous governmental, and uninsured accounts, making sure that all charges had been properly billed, collected, written off, etc. Then I spent eight years as a medical data analyst reporting on managed care contracts in all their variety, transplant and other programs. I also did cost-of-care studies and worked with researchers in identifying cases used in research projects. After that I worked doing process improvement and cost reduction with hospital supplies and services.
Cepik: ” . . . my apologies if he interpreted my comment as offensive.”
No offense taken. And snark at me all you want. I’m not above the occasional snark myself.
Old So Soon Smart So Late writes: “House, car and college fund but no insurance.”
This was obviously just a hypothetical example. I agree that high-deductible health plans can work well for some people, especially for people with some resources and assets who are looking for protection against catastrophic illness. HDHP plans are very tricky, and it’s important that people understand the details of the plan so they are not nickle-and-dimed to death. They work remarkably well for healthy and lucky people.
I think here is where government could be very helpful. One of the problems with individual health plans is that the person or family is basically an individual “risk pool” and an individual “contractor.” States could contract with insurers to provide coverage for a large number of people who would then be able to take advantage of contracted provider rates and premiums. Insurers would benefit because insurance would be more affordable and more people would sign up. In addition, the risk pool would be larger, which means that the risk would be spread across a much larger population. The administrative and marketing costs per client would be lower because the same plan would be offered to a larger population.
Note to those who don’t like the idea of “mandatory insurance”: mandatory insurance sounds bad, but that’s how you achieve larger risk pools (and thus greater statistical predictability), volume discounts, and economies of scale. These are all good things.
RE: No. 11: It should be understood that the type of high deductible, high copay iinsurance policy you can buy for $150 a month is not a realistic option for many people with a limited income and ongoing medical expenses. People may be ineligible for these low cost policies if they are older or in poor health For example one can go to http://www.ehealthinsurance.com and request a quote for a 22-year-old male, and compare that with a quote for a 52-year-old male to seethe huge difference.
The cost of traditional health insurance is much greater than $150 a month. In 2005 USA Today reported that:
Source: “Average family health policy nears $11,000″ , USA Today, 9/14/2005
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2005-09-14-family-health-policy_x.htm
While the number of uninsured Americans, now over 47 million, or 15.8% of the population, contnues to creep higher even this figure is misleading. According to Consumer Reports 1 in 4 Americans with health insurance was considered “underinsured”.
Consumer Reports found that:
Source: “Are you really covered? Why 4 in 10 Americans can’t depend on their health insurance”, Consumer Reports, September 2007
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/health-fitness/health-care/health-insurance-9-07/overview/0709_health_ov.htm
In “Insured But Not Protected: How Many Adults Are Underinsured?” (Health Affairs Web Exclusive, June 14, 2005), The Commonwealth Fund’s Cathy Schoen, Michelle M. Doty, Sara R. Collins, and Alyssa L. Holmgren found:
Source: Insured But Not Protected: How Many Adults Are Underinsured?, The Commonwealth Fund, June 13, 2005
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=280812
Jim,
Thank you for the reply. I enjoy a little heckling as well, I figure if it is light hearted and makes others laugh then I’ll be the butt of the joke. Life is too short to take it too seriously.
Regarding your discussion of the HDHP, while it may not be for everyone, it is an excellent option for most. Regarding the High risk and the “tricky parts”, isn’t that why long term and chronic conditions are assigned a case manager (who is usually a nurse) to translate treatment options, cost management, grant and financial assistance eligibilty. etc.?
Also, regarding the mandatory insurance; isn’t your analogy identical to a statewide risk pool for “high risk” automobile insurance? To be able to insure someone with multiple DWI’s, excessive tickets etc. They are afforded the minimum coverage with the highest rates and the least customer service. To float them (with taxpayers funds) does not ensure them quality coverage nor does it encourage preventive care. Are you familiar with a different comparison?
Mr. Scourtes,
Instead of cutting and pasting, please tell us what you think is fair and just. Give us an argument instead of “feeding the screed”, You sound like you are running for hall monitor, LOL!. When you discussed your relative’s coverage and in your epistle above, you don’t mention how regional costs (as well as cost of living and pay rates) affect a national average nor did you separate out the different coverages (maternal/childbirth is the highest cost, I know this personally).
Btw, how did we get off on this when the thread deals with how Hillary got smacked down by her fellow primary opponents?
Regards all,
Mr. Scourtes #3:
“Or we can elect someone with the patience to do the hard, unexciting work of governance and policy making, which among other things requires weighing the pros and cons of various courses of action and making sometimes difficult compromises to achieve the best possible net outcomes.”
The question was simple: Do you agree with Elliot Spitzer’s plan to license illegal immigrants or not? Clinton’s previous answer was simple, too: Yes. The response in the debate wasn’t nuanced at all. It was an attempt to evade the question because she knew her previous answer would be unpopular and possibly cost her points in the general election. She obviously is not so skilled at this as her husband.
Nuance would have involved details defending her previous position, or explaining why her position changed, or perhaps even explaining why she supports the licenses in NY but not elsewhere, etc.
To make matters worse, Clinton’s moves after the debate were to:
1) blame Russert for trying to get her to take a position on the question (one of her aides saying he should be shot) and
2) post a video (”The Politics of Pile-On”) that implies she was a poor helpless woman getting attacked by a bunch of rude men. She played this card against her opponent in her first senatorial election and it worked. Will she get away with doing this whenever someone aggressively questions her in the presidential race? She is apparently counting on it.
These post-debate approaches weren’t any more “nuanced” than her answer in the debate. There is no way to label her performance in the debate or her tactics after it as anything involving rational discussion or “nuance.”
Dear Bloggers: This has made interesting reading, though it has rambled. 2 points here:1.Hillary,as manipulators always do, has tried to blame someone else for HER mis-steps.She’s a known liar(the Peter Paul court case,et al) & a revengeful person.Talk about an Imperial Presidency-that’s what she lived in & as in Bill’s useless 8 yrs. She is as genuine as counterfeit money;she is like a cardboard caricature:barely a 1/4 thick. When questions get tough,she cries discrimination.The adage “If ican’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen”applies here. If you “play” with the big, tough guys, you better be tough.If you aren’t tough, then we don’t need you as President.
2.Health Insurance:Hillary’s style is socialism. There are reports from legitimate sources which state that many who can AFFORD health insurance CHOOSE not to purchase it.There are families whose female leaders buy Dooney & Burke purses, gold teeth, etc., but won’t take care of their children…Why are the taxpayers required to protect people from the consequences of the people’s own poor choices? At some point, if my brother/sister)keeps doing unwise things, I am not morally obliged to pick up his/her responsibilities.Why am I expected to care more for those who don’t work than they care for themselves & their own offspring?Why is there less & less required of some citizens who won’t work, while the workers become poorer & poorer,so that “government” provides for needs by redistributing the “wealth”(?)? Why does the government support the “culture of non-workers”? The U.S. citizenry better wake up; socialism is only good for the leaders. Hillary wants to be that socialistic leader.
Note 16, No money for health care, or legal assistance
When I was actively practicing law, I would have people come in who needed to spend some money to hire me. I would quote a fee and people would totally recoil from $1,500. They would immediately say “We can’t afford that.” Frequently, these same people would get an advance on their credit card, come back and hire me, and I would get to know their finances.
House payment. Very high based on the two incomes, no margin of error left. House payment traditionally shouldn’t be more than 25% of take-home, it was frequently 30% and higher.
Vehicles. Two cars at a minimum and one recreational vehicle as well, such as a motorcycle, motor home or boat
Entertainment:/strong> At least two, if not three TV’s, many times including a big screen TV that had to cost at least $1,500. VCR’s, stereos, etc., etc. etc.
Credit cards: Usually $3,000, $5,000 or even $10,000 on credit cards which they treated as “normal.”
Essentially most clients had a decent income but they spent every last, everyloving dime on consumer goods, plus went into debt for more. Not a penny in savings and very little in equity. I would see this for couples with combined incomes up to $80,000 even up to $100,000.
In many cases, these people had no life insurance. They had no savings, not even a small reserve account. The only health insurance they had was that offered by their employers at no cost to them.
If they had arranged their economic life differently they could have afforded a decent house (albeit a smaller one), two cars, some entertainment AND still had some significant savings. As it was, they truly could not afford health insurance or attorney’s fees.
So, pul-leeeze, be very, very skeptical when politicians quote figures for the number of people who cannot afford health insurance or legal assistance. “Can’t afford” is subjective.
Contrast, I once counseled a lady who had worked as a charwoman for
a major corporation. She had maxed out her contribution to the retirement program over a 25 year span. At 60 she had a nest egg of over $1.3 million, the result of 25 years of working and savings. Retirement was going to be quite pleasant for this lady. So some can do it, some cannot.
Michael is fond of reminding us that the three duties of the Christian are giving alms to the needy, praying and fasting. Given that there are apparently no needy people in the United States (at least according to Christopher’s definition), the first duty must be pretty easy, I would think!
It has been asked here how the Orthodox here suggest getting various necessities to these needy people (should they actually exist). To date, the question has yet to be answered. Should handicapped or homeless war veterans pick up their local white pages and cold call families to request assistance? I now see that any government intervention is pure evil, so I’m just wondering what everyone here has in mind. In an Orthodox world, should I expect the needy to line up outside my door every day asking for funds for some necessary surgery or some other life emergency? How does that work, exactly? Am I supposed to take the initiative to determine who is “worthy” of assistance and who is not?
Do we expect private charities to handle the management of all these cases? Do you suppose you could avoid the red tape intrinsic to government enterprises by having these hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of cases handled by private efforts?
But of course, none of these questions will be answered. Why? Well, it’s much easier to simply argue that government intervention in any form is socialism than come up with any even moderately helpful solutions.
JamesK can’t imagine life without the welfare state
The only way he can imagine “helping” someone is through the welfare-state, therefore, anyone who opposes the growth of the welfare state is selfish.
First, Marxist statism destroys religious faith, destroys the nuclear family, undercuts marriages, trivializes parenthood, makes sexual impulses an idol and the reason for living THEN
it faces problems such as
unwed mothers
delinquent children
abandoned old people
neighborhoods blighted by crime
schools made dysfunctional by near feral children
ANSWER? more government power, more government control.
A Labor Party policy research papers recently drafted in the U.K. suggests replacing baptism with a ceremony at a government office where the parents agree to work with the State to raise their children. An important part of baptism was the pledge by the parents, god-parents and the rest of the congregation to oversee and care for the upbringing of the child. Children who have many loving adults involved in their lives rarely become delinquents. On the other hand, fatherless boys have a very high chance of doing so.
JamesK can’t imagine a society in which very few children are born out-of-wedlock, in which most children have a father, in which most schools are not overridden by delinguents, in which families help their own members, in which extended families and the Church help the needy. This entire world is strange to him.
No Orthodox on this board has every suggested dismantling the existing social welfare program—programs which already consume
40% of GNP. We have simply asked that the true effects of these programs be acknowledged and that the growth stop at 40%
JamesK says, “Michael is fond of reminding us that the three duties of the Christian are giving alms to the needy, praying and fasting.”
They are not duties, I don’t think I ever used that terminology, they are part of the spiritual warfare of the Christian inseparable from the Liturgy, repentance and love. They are as far removed from being duties as one can get. They are weapons founded upon the grace of the theandric mystery.
Since western Christian humanism and secularism are devoid of any sense of such grace, it is to be expected that such dynamic and powerful spiritual tools be reduced to “duties”.
Such reduction to legalistic, academic ideas also leads to the idea that it is proper and sufficient to fulfill those “duties” through the egis of the state. Not far beyond that absudity is the idea that such use of the state is required by the “true” Christian. Then come the pejorative comments from folks like you and DeanS that all those who object to using the state’s coercive power to play Robin Hood hate the poor, etc.
It is wrong.
JamesK, clear example of the manner in which government entitlements promote dysfunctional behavior.
I personally know of a young couple who had a child out-of-wedlock.
They loved each other and were ready to marry, however, IF THEY MARRIED, the household income would have been TOO HIGH for the child to qualify for government health insurance. Consequently, they DID NOT MARRY.
The entire family considered it SMART to behave in a way that MAXMIZED GOVERNMENT BENEFITS. They would have considered it SMART to remain unmarried to collect the insurance benefits. The family actually consisted at least 2 adults who were at middle-class income level or ABOVE, and who could have paid for insurance for the child until the income level of the parents was sufficient.
The child was born out-of-wedlock and the ties between her parents are much, much looser than if her parents were married. The child has much higher odds of her father drifting away from the family than if he had been married.
Two factors generated this problem: a) the government entitlement mentality and B) an abandonment of a sense of duty on the ended family to help a young couple getting started. All it would have taken was about $40/month for BC/BS for the baby and the problem would have been fixed.
Here’s another example of the rampant dysfunction in the system. To take advantage of free medical care, welfare payments and other programs many couples in New York purposely divorce and the wife can then apply for evey possible gov’t assistance program. I have family members that work at several hospitals across the city where women wearing expensive clothes, with designer multi-thousand dollars handbags, and diamond rings show up with 3-4 kids in tow and whip out the Medicare/Medicaid cards to pay for it all. On the paperwork they claim “single mother” but the husbands show up to pick up the family in various luxury cars. How’s that for abusing the system and promoting criminal and unethical behavior so more opportunists can suck money and benefits from the gov’t trough?
These “single mothers” also benefit from gov’t housing, food stamps, phone, electricity and gas susbsidies, free prescriptions, etc. etc., plus get more money via the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), yet they are really not poor and abuse the system regularly. Billions of dollars being stolen from the taxpayers and the poor that reward unethical and criminal individuals and yet little is done to further reform the system and bring back accountability and common sense. And the only “solution” being offered by the Democrats and liberals is “throw more money at it.” Sheer idiocy!
Culture of poverty
Any professional social worker who has handled a poverty caseload will tell you that the chronically poor have a set of ideas about money that are different than those held by the middle class or by the upper class.
Chronically poor people don’t believe that they will ever leave the status of chronically poor. They frequently have a defeatist attitude from the beginning. This has an impact on how they handle money. If a wind-fall comes along, a chronically poor person will simply spend the windfall on entertaining consumption and “enjoy it while its here.”
Middle-class folks don’t do very well with large windfalls either but they are more likely to aspire to improving their finances and therefore they see things like saving even small amounts a week to be worthwhile. I don’t want to overstate things because the American middle class is notorious for failing to save but there do exist cultural differences.
Michael says
alms to the needy, praying and fasting…..they are part of the spiritual warfare of the Christian inseparable from the Liturgy, repentance and love. They are as far removed from being duties as one can get. They are weapons founded upon the grace of the theandric mystery….Since western Christian humanism and secularism are devoid of any sense of such grace, it is to be expected that such dynamic and powerful spiritual tools be reduced to “duties”. Such reduction to legalistic, academic ideas also leads to the idea that it is proper and sufficient to fulfill those “duties” through the egis of the state. Not far beyond that absudity is the idea that such use of the state is required by the “true” Christian. Then come the pejorative comments from folks like you and DeanS that all those who object to using the state’s coercive power to play Robin Hood hate the poor, etc. It is wrong.
Well stated
JamesK, clear example of the manner in which government entitlements promote dysfunctional behavior.
It does not matter to the liberal statist - intentions are that matter, as “good” is simply what you feel and intend, not what you actually do. No “system” is perfect, and as all the liberal statist can imagine is another “system”, then another system is all you can really expect…
Christopher, Note 25, Exactly
Christopher, you nailed it! The “unintended consequences” of the “good intentions” of the liberal statists and their “gov’t will solve everything” programs are never considered or reflected upon. There is little critical analysis, evaluation, reflection, correction, thorough analysis, accountability, and common sense. Everything is reductio ad absurdum to “more bureaucracy, more money, no accountability” and “punish success and discourage risk-taking.” No amount of failure is ever enough for them, the “solutions” are always virtually the same. This is, of course, the classic definition of insanity = doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results (Albert Einstein).
Let’s forget welfare moms for a moment and focus on a group that I think is much less controversial — elderly patients whose care is paid for by Medicaid, many of whom are very sick, feeble, and/or suffering from dementia. Since these people are on Medicaid, it means that their personal financial resources have been exhausted.
Some questions –
1) What is the obligation of an Orthodox Christian to people in this situation? Presumably private charity is a given. But in the event that private charity were insufficient, would an Orthodox Christian have a moral obligation to advocate for government assistance for these people?
2) Would advocating for governmental assistance for this group be consistent with Orthodoxy? If so, under what conditions?
3) Could an Orthodox Christian rightly feel a religious obligation to advocate for governmental assistance for this group?
4) Could an Orthodox Christian rightly oppose governmental assistance to this group on principal, without regard to the consequences?
5) Could an Orthodox Christian rightly oppose governmental assistance to this group if it could be shown that the lack of such assistance caused extreme hardship for many people?
In other words, rather than lumping together everything under the heading of “the poor,” perhaps it would be helpful to consider specific situations that are less controversial.
Jim at the risk of my sanity I’ll attempt a reply:
You assume that the underlying societal structure that promotes and almost requires Medicaid is a given. Therefore to answer your questions directly accepts a dysfunctional social structure built on decades of events and policy that dismembered families, dirupted communities and promoted dependancy on the state.
One assumption I will emphatically deny is that everyone on Medicaid is really indigent. There are quite a number of folks who artifically bankrupt themselves so that they can qualify. The states used to acquiese in such flagrant violations even assist. Now there is a slow movement away from such stupidity, but acutal enforcement is rare.
In general the Orthodox approach is to build and maintain strong communities founded on families which care for their own first and as many others as possible. In my parish, for example, there has been an ongoing discussion which has yet to bear tangible fruit of the possiblity of building and running a facility for older members that would promote the community care giving and support the continuance of extended families.
Note 28, Jim Holman, examples constructed to produce false results
ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCTION
Your example is an artificial construct. These people didn’t spring into existence in their particular condition from nothing, they had a past, they had a history. They lived in a society with broken families that can’t even stay together for children let along the elderly and sick.
IMPACT OF POST-CHRISTIAN MORES ON THE ELDERLY
Today, a family would not hesitate to move across country to obtain a higher paying position even if it meant leaving an elderly parent behind. In earlier generations, any economic decision which meant abandoning an elderly parent was much more likely to be rejected out of hand. Imagine, as a parallel, being offered a substantial raise if you move to another town, but, you must agree to leave your minor children behind.
You wouldn’t even consider such an offer.
EXPECTATION OF GOVERNMENT BENEFITS WEAKENS INCENTIVE TO SAVE OR PROVICE FOR OURSELVES
People have begun to believe that government assistance IS an ENTITLEMENT and consequently they don’t work as hard to provide for themselves. If you are leaving on a trip and you know that there will not be any restaurants or grocery stores open to provide food for you, won’t you be pretty careful to take adequate food for the trip? What if you assume that restaurants and grocery stores will be plentiful and cheap? What if you assume that tax dollars have paid for those grocery stores?
SAME OLD STRAW MAN
The Orthodox on this board have not advocated repealing every social welfare program. What we have advocated, and been branded every kind of evil for, is a review of current government programs to see whether they really help or hurt society.
Note 28, Damage done to Blacks through affirmative action
Thomas Sowell has documented quite well that affirmative action in law and medical schools has damaged blacks in certain very concrete ways. Every black student has moved up a notch from the institution he should have attended. A black engineering student gets admitted to MIT and does not attend his local state college. He is competitive at his local state college, he is not competitive at MIT and drops out.
Researchers have asked the California Board of Regents to release adminsions and graduation data to see how affirmative action affect minority students but the Regents have refused to allow researchers to review the effects of affirmative action because, IMHO, there is substantial risk that affirmative action will be seen for the utter failure that it is.
Michael writes: “You assume that the underlying societal structure that promotes and almost requires Medicaid is a given.”
But of course any question on social issues necessarily involves an underlying social structure. To paraphrase a former Secretary of Defense, we have to go with the social structure we have, not the social structure we might wish or want to have. Were we in a different time or place we might be having a different discussion, asking different questions.
An important issue today is that through medical care people live much longer than they used to. Related to that, nursing homes are a relatively recent phenomenon, beginning in the 1930s, to address the issue of an increasingly larger population of elderly people.
In the past, for example, elderly people unable to support themselves ended up in the poorhouse:
http://medicine.jrank.org/pages/1243/Nursing-Homes-History.html
So there have always been elderly people who were, though a variety of circumstances, unable to support themselves. This is the situation that I tried to address in my series of questions.
Michael: “In general the Orthodox approach is to build and maintain strong communities founded on families which care for their own first and as many others as possible.”
Yes, one impetus of the original “retirement homes” was “taking care of one’s own,” so that elder members of the group would end up in better circumstances than those found in poorhouses and asylums.
Ok, so Michael takes the question and punts. Comes now Old So Soon Smart So Late:
Old So Soon Smart So Late writes: “Your example is an artificial construct.”
First, might Old So Soon Smart So Late be a new nom de guerre of the esteemed long-time poster Missourian? I think it must be, but am ready to stand corrected.
A thousand pardons if my example is an artificial construct. So permit me to pose the question in a more general way without relying upon example:
Are there situations in which there is a human need so great that it cannot be met through private charity, so great that it can only be addressed, however imperfectly, through governmental assistance, and so great that an Orthodox Christian would have a religious/moral obligation to support such governmental action?
I think there may be. For example, in another thread Chris B. wrote “not one conservative who posts on this blog . . . has any issues with the gov’t taking care of the sick, the elderly, the disabled, veterans, etc.”
What I hope to clarify is the distinction between what is permitted vs. what is a morally obligatory. The phrase “has any issues” is ambiguous. It is not clear whether it means that such support is merely permitted, or is a Christian obligation.
If there are specific situations in which Orthodox Christians are morally obligated to support governmental assistance, then the discussion moves to a different level. Rather than staying at the level of liberal and conservative, socialist and capitalist or libertarian, we can start talking about the human need, the practicality of government assistance, and so on. We also end up talking about specific situations and programs rather than “the poor,” and “socialism.”
Believe me, I’m not trying to pick an argument here. I’m looking for ways in which the discussion can become clarified and move forward, and real differences of opinion can be explored.
Note 28, Jim H, Feedback theory, Jim, feedback theory
Year One: No government programs exist and everybody does the best they can economically. Most people do fairly well. Some people goof off and fail. Some people, a very small percentage, fail despite their best efforts. Families and churches help those who fail. No one believes that they are “entitled” to help because it is received as charity directly from others.
Year Two: Liberals win debate and society creates a “last resort” medical care plan paid for by tax dollars. People without health insurance get free medical care. Another economic year starts and everybody knows that this care exists. Everybody knows that it helps those without health insurance. Everybody knows that they are paying for this program with tax dollars.
What do you think happens in Year Two? It is called “feedback theory” in engineering, where the output from the last cycle becomes the input for the next cycle. Now people plan ahead with the knowledge that government will pay for health care for those who have no insurance.
Guess what, in Year Two very few people have health insurance. Just about everybody relies on the government for health care. Now, each individual really does have health problems and they really do need health care. If anyone objects to paying for their health care, they are by definition ogres and heartless, unChristian people.
This is just an observation about predictable human behavior.
We Orthodox on the new calendar just celebrated the Feast of St. Michael and all the heavenly host. Since I bear St. Michael’s name, it has special significance for me. It means, “Who is like God?” As we begin our approach to the Nativity of our Lord, God and Savior, it is good to remember what Michael’s name means and also to remember the angelic salutation, “Fear not..” If we were each to face our fears ourselves, the politicians would no longer have power over us. We would be able to assert our power over them in a compassionate, effective and healing way.
Old So Soon Smart So Late writes: “Some people, a very small percentage, fail despite their best efforts. Families and churches help those who fail. No one believes that they are “entitled” to help because it is received as charity directly from others.”
This kind of example evokes the idea of an idyllic past, a golden era that existed before liberals had ruined everything, a wonderful time when people looked out for each oher and private charity sufficed.
I don’t believe that time ever existed, or that people today are any more or less likely to help than they did in years past.
In 1926, back in the golden, pre-liberal era, my grandfather, a prison guard at the Oregon State Penitentiary, was shot and killed during a prison breakout. (You can read about it here, but sometimes the site takes a long time to load:
http://www.odmp.org/officer.php?oid=6648
Another guard, John Sweeney, was also killed, and a third was wounded. I have looked at microfilm copies of the newspaper back then, and this was front page headline news for days. There couldn’t have been anyone in the entire city that did’t know about it.
Back then workers compensation didn’t exist, and my grandmother was left with three minor children to support. Since the whole town knew what had happened, private charity began to flow in, right? Wrong. There was no private charity, nothing. What happened was that my father dropped out of high school at age 16 and worked to support his mother and two sisters, thereupon launching a 50-year career of low-paying jobs as a cook and bartender.
For all of you here who have such a rosy view of private charity, I wish my grandmother and father were still alive, because they would have some very choice words for you, not all of which could be published here.
Note 34, What is it about “straw man” you don’t understand
Jim, discussing anything with you is like chewing gum. It feels as if you are actually eating something but you are just moving your jaws. The body is not receiving any real nutrition. We seem to be discussing issues but in fact you are just trotting out your standard themes and repeating them over and over and over again.
Anytime someone brings up facts or arguments for which you have no answer you trot of the “liberal heart-wrenching anecdote.” Yes, Jim many times bad things happen to good people. We are not debating that fact. What we are debating is whether government help is the best answer. Given your position on Christianity, government is the only answer you will ever have.
As I, and others, have said 1,567,879 times no Orthodox here propose the total elimination of all social welfare programs. We want those social programs analyzed, discussed and evaluated objectively. Most should be changed, many should be eliminated. By the way, Worker’s Compensation (WC) IS NOT, repeat NOT, a social welfare program. WC is a substitute for the general right of a person to sue for negligence, but, you don’t want to engage in real analysis.
Michael, you should publish, you write that well
Thanks again for an excellent contribution.
Jim, there you go again. Jumping off a cliff you don’t have to jump off. I can’t recall anyone here ever maintaining that governement has no role. Why do you persist in the delusion that we do?
Workers compensation is not a government dependency program, it is a government mandated and designed insurance program. In all but seven states private insurance carriers sell the insurance to employers and pay the level of benefits mandated by state law when workers are injured on the job or become sick due to work related causes. In the seven, the premium is collected by the state and all benefits paid by the state, but it is still an insurance program that is actuarially monitored and controlled (a far cry from the universal health plans being floated around). Each state is different but the benefits are strictly defined and the employer retains the right to self-insure (in many states). The death benefit in Kansas currently is $100,000, plus monthly payments to the surviving spouse until minor children reach age 18 with unlimited medical benefits for non-fatal injuries. There is a national organization that collects claims information from all businesses and sets the base rates for each type of job. The private insurers then add to or subtract from those rates based upon their own risk pool and the experience of the employer being insured. It is not a single payor plan, nor is it an entitlement program. Few tax dollars are used to run the programs.
There is no question that such benefits would have made a substantial difference to your family. I’d like to see more safeguards to control fraud, but it works as long as the state mandates are close to reasonable and the lawyers more or less behave themselves. In Kansas there is a whole separate court system to adjudicate contested work comp claims in which the employer rarely wins even when clear fraud can be shown.
IMPAO(probably arrogant)Your family’s experience had more to due with the effects of industrialization and urbanization than with anything else. The controls on work place saftey, wage and hour laws, etc put into effect as a response to industrialization are not bad things when kept within bounds and applied reasonably. It is a big leap from that type of government action to the kind of massive government controlled programs that promise to take care of every little hang-nail and bad hair day.
I live in a poor rural county. Several times a year some family or individual gets in a bind because of an accident, death or health related problem. There are county wide fund drives to help raise the money the folks need. That type of community charity is less apt to happen in an urban setting because of the fracture of family and community ties that urbanization and industrialzation have helped to created.
There is a complex ecology to all of these social support issues, simplistic answers from any place on the polictial spectrum will not suffice and no political solution will ever be sufficient in and of itself. My contention is that the money and the effort both public and private should be focused on empowering people to take care of themselves rather than requiring them to become dependent. Government has a real tough time doing that especially when it is based in a philosophy that intrinsically devalues the personal and the human by either atomizing and/or collectivising people and families.
Most people don’t like freedom because we have a tendancy to want someone else to be responsible for us and we don’t like bad outcomes for anyone. Freedom requires both individual and coroporate responsibility in a harmonious balance. The trick is finding the balance. No matter what we do some folks will fail and have bad stuff happen to them. It is unpreventable because we live in a fallen, sinful world. The ideas that good intentions are sufficient, that we should seek the greatest good for the greatest number, or allow the devil to take the hindmost only add to the problem.
When you want to stop your over-wrought hand wringing and the crocidile tears, maybe you can actually use your intelligence to contribute something.
Michael writes: “Jim, there you go again. Jumping off a cliff you don’t have to jump off. I can’t recall anyone here ever maintaining that governement has no role. Why do you persist in the delusion that we do?”
My point wasn’t about workers compensation. It was about the idea that at some splendid time in the pre-liberal past private charity kicked in, and that liberalism ruined that. Private charity didn’t always kick in, nor does it now.
In the case of my grandfather we’re talking about a high-profile murder and prison breakout case in what was then a small town. It left a widow with three minor children, the youngest of whom was three years old. (By the way I got the year wrong; it was 1925, not 1926, and my father had just turned 15, not 16, when he had to drop out of school to support the family.) The absence of workers compensation back then simply meant that the family was without income. Private charity was not forthcoming either from churches or from individuals.
Michael: “When you want to stop your over-wrought hand wringing and the crocidile tears, maybe you can actually use your intelligence to contribute something.”
Well, I asked several specific questions about when, according to people here, government assistance might be appropriate in a specific kind of situation. You didn’t answer the questions, but talked about what your church was thinking of doing for its members and maybe a few others. Old So Soon Smart So Late also gave a non-answer. They didn’t seem like difficult questions to me. In post #32 I asked a similar, more general question, but no one has answered that one yet. Were someone to actually answer the questions, it might help to clarify the issues and point the discussion in a constructive direction. Does that count as “contributing something?” If not, then perhaps you could suggest something else.
Note 39, JimH, you just make demands on others
Go and learn what classical economics teaches. Crack a book by Milton Friedman once in your life. No classical economist has EVER suggested that there is no role for government in economic or social life. This is the SIXTH or SEVENTH time someone on this board has suggested the very same thing to you. You simply go around and around in the same circles.
O.K. your post consists of finding an example where a bad thing happened to a good person then challenging everyone on this board to create on overall plan of government organization detailing when government assistance was appropriate. Something like that would take a week to prepare.
For a short summary, here are my ideas, which have been posted before.
Regulate just enough to ensure the honesty and stability of marketsFederal Reserve System: yes, produces a stable banking system
and a stable money supply
FDIC: supports a stable banking system
FERC: yes, promotes stable and plentiful supply of electric power
Invest in nation-wide fundamental transporation systemsNational highway system-yes, promotes commerce and economic growth
Air traffic controller system
Great Lakes Canals: yes
Hoover Dam: yes
Protect consumers from hazards beyond their ability to assess
FDA protect food supply and drug consumers
MilitaryCreate and maintain strong military and provide for the needs
of injured or retired military people.
WorkplaceFair Labor Standards Act
Basic discrimination laws: these laws need to be partially repealed
and stripped back to basics they have become overly elaborate
and restrictive on economic growth
Educationvoucher system
eliminate teacher’s unions
Health Care
Promote and reward saving
Establish a TRUE health care market so that consumers can shop
for non-emergency services and the price of health care will
go down. End the day when doctors have no idea of the
cost of what they do.
How about some answers from you Jim H
After years of taking pot shots at traditional sexual morality, you were asked to provide your standard of sexual morality. Your answer was something like….. any mutually agreed upon sexual relationship between adults was acceptable and therefore moral.
The questions you never answered were these:
In your world, it is moral for John to abandon is his child and the mother of his child and form another relationship with Jill?
Does John owe Jack anything more than a monthly child support check and two visits a month?
If so, how does society provides for any stability for the growth of children?
If so, why would any woman agree to have a child since the father can walk off at any time (nearly the case today, a fact which depresss the birth rate)
If so, why would any man agree to have a child since the mother can walk off at any time.
If the presence of unpredictable sexual attractions between adults the only criteria you have to create a set of rules of behavior?
I think so. I think you have no answers, neither does the intellectually bankrupt liberal establishment which has been responsible for the destruction of the black family and the undermining of so many other families. Congratulations, JimH, divorce is a common as dandelions and more children than either don’t know their father in any real sense.
Hooray for sexual license, ain’t it grand. Ain’t everybody happy now?
Missourian writes: “How about some answers from you Jim H”
You know, I’m happy to answer your questions, but since the blog is under new management, and the moderator appreciates posts that are on-topic, I hesitate to begin a discussion that goes in an entirely new direction. So for now I’ll just say that I don’t believe that every consensual sexual relationship is moral, especially when children and marriage vows are involved. If a new topic related to sexual morality comes along, please feel free to ask the same questions and I’ll do my best to answer.
The issues under discussion were related to care for the poor, income redistribution, the appropriateness (or not) of various governmental programs, and so on. The question that I asked is whether there may be circumstances in which a Christian might have a moral obligation to support a governmental program that involved a redistribution of income, or what here is often described as socialism.
I asked that question not to attack potential respondents, but to understand how they think about such issues. I want to try to get beyond the “evil liberal,” “evil conservative” kind of discussion. I want to understand what the real differences of opinion are. If you would like to answer one of more of the questions I would be happy to see what you have to say.
Old So Soon, Smart So Late writes: “As I, and others, have said 1,567,879 times no Orthodox here propose the total elimination of all social welfare programs. We want those social programs analyzed, discussed and evaluated objectively. Most should be changed, many should be eliminated.”
To a large extent I agree with you. I would be interested to know which programs you think should be eliminated. And of those programs of which you approve, do any of them involve income redistribution?
Old So Soon Smart So Late: “For a short summary, here are my ideas, which have been posted before.”
I didn’t notice any social programs there. Let’s take the example I mentioned earlier. Do you favor Medicaid programs that pay for nursing home care for eldery and disabled patients? If so, then it would be correct to say that you approve of at least one program that involves income redistribution, right? I mean, it is your income going to feed and house someone else. If you do approve of such a program, do you feel that Christians have a religious obligation to support such a program, or would such support be “optional” for lack of a better word.
Again, I’m not trying to make unreasonable demands on anyone. I’m just trying to see how people think about specific issues. Given the large number of posts here that have been critical of what is perceived as Dean’s inappropriate support of governmental programs involving income redistribution, I thought it would be fairly easy for his critics to state whether they might support at least some small subset of those programs, and if they do, why they support them.
Jim, You raised some valid questions on how conservatives view the various social programs out there. As myself and others have stated we are not against the care and support of the elderly, the sick, the disabled, veterans, and the very young. We are opposed to the mindless and unaccountable social structures and heartless bureaucracy that undermine Christian values and morals, pit individuals against one another, and hurt and enslave large portions of the population without actually helping them in a proper Christian manner.
You posed some good questions about the proper balance and use of gov’t assistance for those who are in need and must rely on the charity and support of others. I simply do not have the time and resources to thoroughly address every point but I will look into finding resources and articles that others have written on the subject and reflect a mature and proper Orthodox Christian perspective. The good news is that many conservatives have critically approached these issues and are trying to correct the problems. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about most liberal statists, all communists, most Democrats, and too many “big gov’t” and secular Republicans.
Great writing here, very thought-provoking. I believe in taxing more equitably on earned income, and no tax credits, which entitles those who don’t work to income. Let all give some, fairly. Just because I went to college and can work, doesen’t mean I have an obligation to work for those who WON’T. Young women can. I gave up my “freedom” to work for a living so that my 2 children would actually get an sufficient education, since the public schools where I live of absolutely run by people who can’t speak English properly, nor teach their assigned subject matter effectively, but due to affirmative action, must be hired, regardless of their skills, or lack thereof. To make up for their deficeits, both my husband and I work in order to afford our offspring proper education, including proper social conduct and responsibility. Current Medicare programs, WIC, breakfast and lunches at school remove the responsibility of mothers to have children only if they can afford to take care of them: children are not a “right”; they are a “responsibility”. Typically, those females leave their offspring to raise themselves, w/o discipline and/or direction;those children frequently are the ones who drop out of school and commit crimes in order to get cash to do whatever they want to do with it.
So, can you say these government programs really helped these people? If they really helped, they would change the behavior of these mothers, whose families have continue to have financial support from these social programs for 40 yrs. More people are getting on these programs; these aren’t “hands-up” programs, but “hands-out” which encourage more people to do LESS. Of course, the politicians are buying votes w/these give-aways. How long will it take for the takers to outnumber the taxed? At their reproductive rate, probably not another 40 yrs. Then what? Who’re they going to get the money from then?Then factor in the illegal aliens and their drain on the social systems.They will help bankrupt it faster. And we, the taxed, aren’t supposed to complain. The “needy” have “rights” no responsibilities; we the taxed have no rights but all responsibility? this isn’t psychologically sound.
Note 43, Jim H, will you ever retire the “straw man”
Jim, I know you love your straw man dearly, but, do you think you can allow him to retire after all these years?
One more time. The Orthodox here do not, REPEAT, do not object to all government programs or all assistance to the needy. What we are asking for is this: a real accounting for the true effects of existing welfare programs AND a re-emphasis away from government as the answer to everything.
I am not in the position to provide a complete analysis of the entire crisis in retirement funding and health care. Why? I have a job and I am not a health care and retirement economist. These are huge, huge issues and cannot be easily solved or easily summarized.
The entire tone and thrust of your comment is ridiculous. Again, no one on this board have advocated a complete abolition of government programs. We has asked for a realistic accounting for the full effects of government programs. We have shown on government entitlements become self-fullfilling and self-perpetuating. We have shown (Thomas Sowell has shown) how affirmative action has actually had the effect of suppressing the number of Black students who graduate from law school and pass the bar on the first try.
How about some government programs that reward work and saving instead of penalizing it. How about some government programs that strenghen marriage instead of mocking it and trivializing it. How about some government programs that provide guidance to young people rather than programs that are built on what I call the “parental surrender” posture of “well, they’ll have sex anyway.”
You are to be given credit for your persistance. I think I have been following the debate here for several years and for several years you have persisted in assuming that anyone who doesn’t see government is the answer has no compassion for others.
Note 46, sorry about the error filled note
I released my note before adequate proofing and it is full of grammer and spelling errors. My apologies.
I am too busy to engage in a discussion which would require me to develop an entire national program for retirement and health care. Sorry, I have a life. I don’t think that the position I have taken requires that I supply such a massive piece of work.
Again, my point is that Americans deserve an objective evaluation of existing government programs. There is a great deal of research which clearly indicates that welfare programs have devastated the Black family. Here I define “welfare” as payments for nothing more than being alive. These are always debiliatating and addictive, few people could remain self-sufficient when an easy life is offered without work.This is simply human nature. Any program which doesn’t recognize this is unacceptable, it merely perpetuates dependency and poverty to another generation.
I am not a public sector economist and I don’t have a 400 page “solution” package ready to publish, that doesn’t mean I am not justified in commenting on the various issues under discussion.
I do know that very, very few people in America go without enough food, adequate clothing or housing. American has reduced the level of objective poverty BELOW any other country in the world. While we are ethically required to keep working to better our results, there is no reason to condemn America as a country for its performance. We have done better than everyone else.
Perhaps some attention should be paid to the murderous, kleptocratic dictatorships and the 7th century death cults that keep much of the Third World in poverty. Perhaps they deserve some attention.
Missourian writes: “One more time. The Orthodox here do not, REPEAT, do not object to all government programs or all assistance to the needy.”
To say that you don’t dislike all soda pop is not to say that you like Pepsi.
To say that you do not object to all such programs is not to say that you approve of the program in question. The “one more time” doesn’t help, because it simply does not answer the question. Not answering the question multiple times does not somehow constitute an answer.
If you want to answer the question, I would be happy to see what you say. If you want the “take the 5th” and not answer, that’s fine too. But so far all you’ve done is to evade the question. You’re a lawyer, you’re smart, you know what I’m talking about.
Missourian: “Again, no one on this board have advocated a complete abolition of government programs.”
Nor have I said that anyone has. Simply put, the issue is that people here have stated at length what programs they oppose, but there has not been much said about what specific programs they favor, and why. And by “specific programs” I don’t mean “efficient,” and “constructive,” and things like that. I assume that no one wants inefficient and destructive programs.