“Because You Don’t Vote, And We Do”

This skit from the Jimmy Kimmel Show last night was spot on.

Kimmel talked about the problems with so few younger Americans signing up for Obamacare, and then showed a parody ad for Obamacare featuring an older couple talking about all the benefits they enjoy paid for by the tax dollars of younger generations.

“Because you don’t vote, and we do,” they say.

Between Medicare, Social Security and now Obamacare, America’s younger generations are getting fleeced.

I wonder how many of them are even aware of it?

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • tomorrowclear

    With minor adjustments, younger generations will get every cent they put in and then some. Not so for the over 50 crowd fleeced by the banksters via their 401Ks and so on.

    I encourage you to further trumpet Wonder Boy’s voucher plan. Please, trumpet it loudly.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      That’s always the response we get from apologists for the gigantic entitlement programs. Just a few tweaks. A few adjustments.

      Of course, what those tweaks and adjustments mean are higher taxes paid in, and fewer benefits paid out.

      In fact, the very idea that we would get what we put into the programs back “and then some” IS THE FLIPPING PROBLEM.

      Paying out more than you take in is called insolvency.

      • Bat 1

        Spot On! There is nothing that government does that can’t be done more effectively and more efficiently by the private sector. Government entitlement programs, “paying out more than you take in”, are exactly what has thrown half of Europe into the economic and financial quicksand.

        • Guest

          Hey genius, tell me again how those private sector inspections stopped the VA chemical spill into the water supply!

          LOL, typical con idiot.

          • Spartacus

            The E.P.A. and O.S.H.A., for that matter pretty much any regulatory agency can waltz into any place they want as often as they choose, tell us again how the government prevented the WEST Virginia chemical spill.

            LOL, typical Lib Idiot

          • tomorrowclear

            I can see Wednesday is going to be chock-full of idiotic assertions by the righties! But then, what’s new?

            I know this never does any good, but here it goes again: Uh, can you give us any evidence for your little assertion there? You know, the thing about OSHA and the EPA being able to “waltz into any place they want?”

            Waiting with bated breath for this one…

            This is what happens when you have a segment of the population who is marginally educated who devote the lion’s share of their free time to listening to folks with similar educational deficits talk about things for which they have no knowledge.

          • Bat 1

            Spartacus is correct… on all three of his assertions. 1).The EPA and OSHA can indeed enter any business they choose, whenever they choose to do so. Ask the guy who owns a local muffler and exhaust shop. 2).The chemical spill WAS in West Virginian, not Virginia as you incorrectly stated. 3. Given what you’ve written here at SAB, you are a “typical Lib Idiot,”

          • banjo kid

            I see again that the post has been killed D.O.A

          • Spartacus

            Isn’t that special? Someone that obviously has never worked in a regulated industry lecturing someone who does and has for 20+ years and has personally dealt with numerous foreign and domestic agency auditors over the years.
            Just a suggestion, before you spout off in public about how little you really know about regulating agencies visit their web sites and brush up on the facts. too late now, but it might help you in preventing yourself from proving to the world what kind of an idiot you really are. It’s easy to find those regulatory web sites, just type OSHA, EPA, FDA, etc into the Google search bar, they’re usually one of the first links in the search results. Of course the willingness to read and research is also a prerequisite, which you obviously lack, but that’s okay, if stupid and lazy has worked for you this far stick with it.

          • tomorrowclear

            A business owner may deny entry to OSHA and demand a warrant, which will probably cause a delay of a few days. So, no, you were full of crap when you claimed they can “waltz on in anywhere they please.” Additionally, small businesses with a minimal number of employees are exempt from programmed inspections. And, get this Sparty, small farms with ten or less employees for the past year (those would be businesses), are exempt from OSHA inspections altogether. Imagine that!

            Would you like the links?

            A bang-up day all around for our mighty righties in the facts department. Outstanding!!! Of course, there was another mighty righty who once said, “Facts are stupid things.” Care to venture a guess on who that was?

          • Bat 1

            Uh, no! The routine is to enter unannounced, without identifying who they are or why they are there until after they’re in the door. I have a small investment in such a business as I described, which is why I cited it. The book may say announce yourself and have a warrant, but just like Lois Lerner and the IRS that ain’t the way it works in real life.

          • tomorrowclear

            Try and follow, Batman. Yes, of course, that is their routine and most everyone simply allows them to enter. However, in contrast to Sparty’s misinformation, you do have the right to demand a warrant, which will usually keep them out for awhile. Also, small businesses have certain exceptions that allow them to deny entry without demanding a warrant. In other words, Sparty was wrong. Then again, being wrong and spreading misinformation is what’s right about many of you folks. Such are the perils for the folks whose information comes from AM talk radio, internet blogs and email chain letters that start off, “Did you hear about this one…”

            Do you find it at all odd that Sparty claims “20 years” experience in dealing with OSHA and does not know some basics rights extended to business owners?

          • Spartacus

            “Would you like the links?” yes, if you’re links lead directly to government agencies, and not your sex partners propaganda site, please do provide them. I’ll stick to what I’ve said in that regulatory agencies can waltz in anywhere they want when ever they want as often as they want until corporate attorneys tell me that I can tell them to take a hike, meanwhile, I will won’t share your interests in getting poked in the butt by the Obama regime, but you do what ever trips your trigger there sport.

          • tomorrowclear

            Sure, here you go, first paragraph from the OSHA website, with reference to warrants: https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/factsheet-inspections.pdf

            Now, why don’t you entertain me with your “20 years” of experience dealing with these agencies. Let me tell you something, sweetie: If you’ve got 20 years of dealing with these agencies and you don’t have the slightest knowledge of the most basic rights of employers in dealing with OSHA, you’re either an idiot, lying about your actual experience or you just don’t care. Perhaps all three.

            Yet another half-literate imbecile here spouting off “facts” about something for which he has not a clue what he’s talking about. Just some BS that some dolt on the radio or somewhere else told him and, being an idiot devoid of any skepticism or intelligence, the SAB commenter swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Rob needs to start selling talking bobblehead dolls. In this case, a bobblehead SAB dolt doll, nodding endlessly and babbling, “OSHA can come in anytime it wants, OSHA can come in anytime it wants, Obama’s thugs coming for us, Obama’s thugs coming for us…”

            I would ask you again if you will correct yourself and admit you were wrong, but that would count on the premise that you can read the linked document. I’m not at all convinced you can read polysyllabic words or stories that do not begin, “See Spot run” or “Did you hear about this one from Obama…”

            Now make a reference to someone else’s male genitalia, you raging heterosexual, you.

          • Guest

            Standing up for Batman?

            Sorry you missed the question, let’s try again: You know that big government meanie you kids keep crying about? Tell me how the private sector, when left to it’s own devices, takes precautionary measures to ensure public safety, without the government.

            It’s an easy and honest question, surely you shouldn’t have a problem answering it.

            Try again, because the batty, the coward, it’s big enough to back up his own talk.

          • Guest

            Sorry Sportispice, but the free market ignored Federal recommendations to prevent chemical spills into the water:

            Three years ago this month, a team of federal experts urged the state of West Virginia to help the Kanawha Valley create a new program to prevent hazardous chemical accidents.

            The U.S. Chemical Safety Board recommended the step after its extensive investigation of the August 2008 explosion and fire that killed two workers at the Bayer CropScience plant in Institute.

            Since then, the proposal has gone nowhere. The state Department of Health and Human Resources hasn’t stepped in to provide the legal authority the Kanawha-Charleston Health Department needs to start such a program. And Kanawha County officials never funded the plan, and seldom mention that the CSB recommendation was even made.

          • yy4u2

            The state Department of Health and Human Resources hasn’t stepped in to provide the legal authority the Kanawha-Charleston Health Department needs to start such a program.
            ___________________
            Yeah, I can smell the stench of the free market just in that statement.

          • Guest
          • Zog

            And what, exactly, does this gem of liberal wisdon have to do with entitlement programs?

          • Guest

            It had to do with Batman’s comments about how well companies do when unregulated. Of course he was wrong and I proved it and he went and hid from his previous comments.

            Happy?

        • tomorrowclear

          Like the military, Batman? The private sector, you must admit then, would be a more efficient provider of military service, yes? (Eagerly awaiting a giant asterisk and “Wait, wait, wait”)

          Some might wonder why I like torturing you folks so much. What’s the point? You have some dull people who make moronic statements like this one. What’s the point of doing it after awhile, time and again? Well, it’s helpful when we get to something like health care and one of you atom splitters announces that the federal government is inefficient. Actually, it’s one of the most, if not the most efficient paper-pushers on the face of the planet. In contrast, our blessed private health insurance companies are just about the most inefficient paper-pushers in the world. (“That’s because of the government!!!”) I know that makes your diminutive little brains nearly explode, but it’s the actual truth. No fooling.

          • Bat 1

            Actually, I don’t believe anyone here really cares what you write, or why.

            As for the military, I’ve had some experience with private sector operations, and I have no doubt that the private sector could manage a far more efficient and cost-effective military than what the government provides. Of course there are reasons – good ones – that the military is a federal government enterprise. But that doesn’t mean that the private sector couldn’t do the job better and more effectively.

          • tomorrowclear

            Ah, so even though the private sector could do a better job, we must mandate the federal government alone provide the service. Now, that is an acceptable argument to you, but when someone employs roughly the same argument to justify SS and Medicare as public services/programs, it is not a sufficient argument? My hunch is that one of your good reasons for a public monopoly on military force is that there must be a guarantee that it is always around. That is an eerily similar argument to what I and others would make about SS and Medicare.

          • Bat 1

            Clearly you wouldn’t know a “sufficient argument” if it bit you on the a$$, never mind a cogent, well-reasoned, fact-based one. The military is a federal government enterprise because it was long ago decided that national defense was a government responsibility – some of us would say it is the government’s primary responsibility – and because that much raw power ought to be at least nominally under the control of civilian, elected leadership. The Constitution is pretty explicit about this, as are the various Federalist Papers. You try reading them sometime.

            What you have written here is drivel.

          • tomorrowclear

            That a service is required to be provided by a particular government does not mean the government itself must employ the personnel and run the service itself, Batman. For instance, some states use private prisons to house the convicted. On a local level, a municipality in my state must have garbage service, but most contract out to private garbage services. In a similar vein, the federal government could fulfill its Constitutional duty and simply hire a private company, perhaps something like this fine lads at Black Water, to provide you your security. Mind you, those private prisons are not detached from civilian, elected leadership.

            Now, I agree that War Inc. should be squarely in the public sector because it’s too important to risk in the private sector. By the same token, retirement insurance is too important to risk in the private sector, with no elected leadership, mostly just a bunch of oligarchs with little to no accountability to the smaller investors.

          • yy4u2

            So if we as ‘free’ citizens choose to invest (not obama’s definition either), would it be more beneficial to invest in a company that actually has the potential to create wealth or one that doesn’t? Let me give you a hint…govt doesn’t create wealth. Would you rather invest in entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or a despot govt? Also, do you think the govt invests the SS deposits? If so, where do they invest it? Would it be in the private sector or do they print more monopoly bonds to increase their balance sheets while suckering recliner economists (like yourself) into thinking you’ve made the best investment possible? SS is a Ponzi scheme. Madoff gets sent to prison. Paulson, Geithner and the like go to the Fed Boardroom. Step away from the trough as you let all this sink in so you don’t upset the other sheep.

          • tomorrowclear

            Unless you argue that the federal government and U.S. Treasury do not exist, Social Security is not a ponzi scheme. You don’t actually know what “ponzi scheme” means, do you?

            “Wealth” simply means a lot of money. Governments create wealth all the time. The military, the highway system, NASA, et cetera have created untold wealth in this country.

            Having public retirement insurance does not stop you or I from making investments. It simply insures that you and I will have some retirement finds that will not be lost in the market, as happened to millions upon millions a few years back. I, like the vast majority of Americans, like that. I know some of you are incredulous of this fact, but that’s mostly because you live in little bubbles and talk mostly with folks who think just like you. I can assure you, and national polls consistently reflect this, that most Americans like the idea of public retirement insurance.

            *I was just looking over the Gallup poll on Social Security. Gosh, would you “freedom-lovers” be livid. Significantly more support for greater taxation on the rich and significantly less for cutting benefits.

          • yy4u2

            Oh to be young and dumb or old and senile; not sure which one you are but it is you cloudy that is sadly mistaken. Children like you have ran countries on your ideas. The countries are gone because of the ideas yet the ideas still persist. Kids are funny that way. Left to their own, the house is left in disarray. All play with no work or education or development of skills. And yet they still want to be heard…just like you a true follower of Keynes. Money is funneled out of the economy or printed out of thin air to do projects the govt busybodies feel might be worthwhile. Besides the military which is an actual necessity and also written into the Constitution, the others you listed are nothing but wealth redistribution. And we know you like that because you are a taker and not a producer which is obvious to anyone reading your childish diatribes clearly showing your lack of any modicum of economic sense or world history.

            The problem with socialism, is that you eventually run out of other people’s money. Margaret Thatcher

            A govt that robs Peter to pay Paul, can always depend on the support of Paul. George Bernard Shaw

            Greece has what you want. They just don’t have the money either and are living on the wealth of other countries. Please, move there and report back to us on how well it is with your boots on the ground.

          • Bat 1

            “Wealth” simply means a lot of money.”

            Thank you! What you’ve written so succinctly here is precisely what is wrong with liberal economic and fiscal policies and why the country struggles economically under liberal Democrat “leadership.”

            Wealth is NOT simply a lot of money. And government does NOT create wealth by creating more money, as you’ve implied. Wealth is really accumulated value, and money is the means by which that value is measured, stored, and exchanged. And the creation of more money, either by legislative fiat aimed at the central bank, or by insane, sustained deficit spending , doesn’t result in more wealth. It simply means that the money itself is worth that much less,

          • yy4u2

            I was unable to copy/paste this article to my most recent response. Feel free to peruse the rest of their articles which will solidify how wrong you really are on economic topics. http://mises.org/daily/6638/Welfare-Minimum-Wages-and-Unemployment

          • Guest

            You mean like those mercenary groups, like blackwater, batman?

            BTW, I care what he writes. It’s far more intellectual, logical and factual then anything you have written.

          • Spartacus

            When you use the term “mercenary” do you mean groups like Obama’s million man militia that he’s on the record for publicly saying he wanted to create? Google it, I know you can.

          • Guest

            When you decide to jump all in for stupid, you swan dive off the highest cliff, eh?

          • Bat 1

            Opinions are like…

          • Guest

            Batty, do you also believe Obama created 1 million man militia? Or, is that just a rather stupid idea?

          • Guest

            Blackwater has also failed to properly vet and train its men. The company has terminated one out of seven workers for wrongful conduct, including wrongful conduct that has resulted in the loss of life. Last Christmas Eve, a drunken Blackwater worker shot and killed Raheem Khalif, an Iraqi assigned to the personal security detail of Iraqi vice president Adel Abdul Mahdi. Raheem was shot three times.

          • yy4u2

            You mean like Obama’s circle jerk of good boys and girls? Good thing Holder isn’t running Blackwater as well. No one would have been terminated.

          • tomorrowclear

            We got an Eric Holder reference!

            Benghazi! Banghazi! Fast and Furious! Fast and Furious! Uh…Kenyan Commie Fascist Socialist!!!

          • Bat 1

            See my point #3 above.

          • Guest

            #1) You have me confused with tomorrowclear

            Learn it. Live it.

          • Bat 1

            So… you are both confused? Well, that was certainly easy.

          • Guest

            Meanwhile, I am still waiting for your response to the West Virginia chemical disaster. Please tell me the private sector success in this story, or how government intervention caused the problem. Hmmm?

            Forget about answering the questions about blackwater. You aren’t nearly up to the challenge.

          • Bat 1

            More “little man syndrome”? I had kinda hoped that you’d have outgrown that by now. I believe I’ve read that this sort of disability can be hereditary. Is anyone else in your family prone to witless attempts at bullying.

          • Guest

            Was that supposed to be an answer to the free market success story of the West Virginia chemical disaster? Surely you have something valuable to offer that explains why the lack of government regulations caused the problem, yes?

            Oh, wait, I forgot. You’re too busy trying to pretend you know what you are talking about and to whom.

          • yy4u2

            And a true one at that. What did you offer besides more belligerence? You might get away with those type of antics with your pals but not with adults. Run along. Certainly one of the mom’s in your circle of friends has milk and cookies laid out.

          • Guest
          • tomorrowclear

            Right, that’s why there are all these responses to me, mostly from you. Who are you kidding, kid?

            BTW, did none of you notice how Rob turned tail and ran from the outset, leaving you helpless souls here on your own?

          • Zog

            Actually, the private sector has provided and is still providing more effective military service than most governments. They’re called mercenaries.

          • JoeMN

            Actually, it’s one of the most, if not the most efficient paper-pushers on the face of the planet
            ________
            Or in this case, penis pump pushers

          • tomorrowclear

            That’s a knee-slapper, and a fine gambit in avoiding the issue, though I doubt Neiman approves of your language. You may want to start repenting right now.

          • JoeMN

            I tried to find another more mild reference for this latest example of government obscenity, (really I did), but I simply couldnt

          • Bat 1

            Joe, As previously noted, those penis pumps were purchased by liberal Democrats with the intent of screwing the American taxpayers and the private sector all that much more thoroughly.

          • tomorrowclear

            You do know that penis pumps aren’t used as screwing devices, yes? I’d hate for you to misuse and end up in an unfortunate situation, at an emergency room, possibly forcing someone else to pay for its extraction. Or have you already taken precautions in the case of that eventuality?

          • Bat 1

            Actually I knew none of that. Apparently you have far more experience with these devices than I do.

          • camsaure

            The dems probably really need those penis pumps, I mean you have seen what all the dem politician women look like haven’t you?

      • tomorrowclear

        Yes, it requires lifting caps on social security taxes. That will not require cutting benefits. That particular issue is simply a philosophical one. You believe we tax the rich too much and I do not. Rather than scaring people with falsehoods about declining benefits, let’s instead have a philosophical discussion. And let’s be honest, as well. You don’t really believe the federal government should be involved in programs like SS or Medicare, do you?

        BTW, others would do well to notice that Robert will not touch the issue of the banksters and robbing from 401K’s and those sorts of “private alternatives” to SS.

        • kevindf

          Are you admitting Social Security isn’t an insurance program, but welfare?

          • tomorrowclear

            Everything any government does, be it SS or the military, involves transferring money from individual to individual or entity to entity. Frankly, what we call it is utterly meaningless to me. If you’re asking me if it’s just to for a civil society to take some money from one person who is young and give it to another who is old, then, yes, I believe it is just. You may call that insurance, welfare, redistribution, chocolate ice cream…I don’t care.

          • yy4u2

            Those of us who aren’t children don’t throw those words around as being synonymous so take yourself and plop it into a socialist country of your liking. And I see things like a civil society are meaningless to you as well. What is civil about greed, covetousness, and serfdom?

          • tomorrowclear

            Yes, if there’s one economic system not pushing us towards serfdom right now, it would have to be capitalism. And, most certainly, not greed. Just ask West Virginians. (This is the part where you talk about the greatness of the rich, in all their benevolence, as opposed to those dirty poor people.) I mean, have you noticed all those unhappy serfs in Northern and Western Europe? Not like here, Tex, where the folks who want to work are movin’ on up. You know, while you’re here posting on internet forums, hard at it.

            BTW, I just knew chocolate ice cream was some sort of commie plot.

          • yy4u2

            Hmmm… why do you think the Revolutionary War, US Declaration of Independence, US Constitution came about as well as photos of all the European immigrants that funneled through Ellis Island? Most were able to improve their immediate position and their future generations improved as well due to capitalism. Why do you loathe the ability to prosper and not understand that some do, some don’t and even those differ in meaning to different people.?

          • Spartacus

            So why put any effort into creating personal wealth if the government, particularly extreme left democrats are just going to confiscate it so that they can give a small portion to someone else while pocketing the rest for themselves? Oh, that’s right, the Soviet model was absolutely flawless… I forgot about that, damn that Reagan.

        • JoeMN

          BTW, others would do well to notice that Robert will not touch the issue
          of the banksters and robbing from 401K’s and those sorts of “private
          alternatives” to SS.
          ______
          Because it is a stupid argument.
          For one, investing in the market carries with it risk

          Secondly, one could choose to go all in government bonds, and watch inflation eat it all up.

          • Bat 1

            Joe, Here’s a little thought exercise for anyone who thinks privatization of retirement savings is such a bed idea. Try to find any 35 year period, starting with 1946 when WW II vets came home and went to work and “Baby Boomers” were conceived, in which the the return on either the DJIA or the S&P 500 did NOT surpass the the then-current rate of return on SS withholdings.

      • banjo kid

        That is always the standard answer from the young ones . we should not get back more than we pay in so I could say the same about wall street . but that is off limits and also remember as it is today it was a forced tax not voluntary . Try this
        comparing the money we paid in to today’s money you know inflation, and so on . I used to buy hamburger for 25 cents a pound but I can’t even get a pack of gum for that much today. so your argument holds no water . It is your fight now not ours . Maybe if we could pay for things in yesterdays money you might have a valid point.

        • banjo kid

          I might add this : If people were not so into making money off of usury we might not have the inflation problem we have you know the money hungry people that have a portfolio rather than a savings account. Stock holders demand a good return on the money invested and so do I.

      • banjo kid

        stealing will also cause the same effect.

    • Bat 1

      If those “younger generations” thought that health insurance was such a good investment they would have bought policies for themselves back when they had a choice of coverages that were less costly than what is currently mandated by Obamacare. But they didn’t. When you’re young and healthy with more pressing financial goals and obligations, health insurance simply isn’t very high on the priority list. And if they weren’t buying it then, back when it better and cheaper, they clearly aren’t buying it now.

      • Guest

        And just think how much money a family could save of families didn’t force their children to brush their teeth.

        • kevindf

          So this is all about “force” by the government. It’s just as I figured; freedom be damned.

          • tomorrowclear

            Yes, Kev, coercion is inherently wrong. We get it. Society should be devoid of any force, in your little imaginary utopia. You know that utopia, Kev, don’t you? That’s the one where you don’t have to pay any taxes and thus, you are “free.”

            You really do a public service and I wish you had a broader platform from which to do your daily emoting. Every right-libertarian we encounter is more or less the equivalent of you, a petulant three year-old: “I shouldn’t have to do that! You can’t tell me what to do!” We know, Kev, it’s just flat out evil that you are required to have some responsibilities to others as it relates to civil society. You really need to go off the grid. Would you like to have some help with that? Let’s see how serious you are about remedying this oppression of taxes and laws and rules that are heaped upon you and ruining your life. Would you like some help escaping all that and living apart form it?

          • kevindf

            Why would I go off of “the grid?” I have a large investment in MDU.

          • tomorrowclear

            Ah, so all those taxes you’re whining about day-after-day and all those rules and laws you emote about and all that precious “freedom” being denied to you is important, but not THAT important. Got it.

          • Spartacus

            A large enough investment will yield quarterly dividends that more than pay for annual utilities, I’ve done exactly that with oil and nat. gas, my electricity is through a co-op so it’s cheaper than most people can buy it, and BTW, the co-op doesn’t buy wind or solar generated electricity… it’s too expensive and unreliable.

          • guest

            Yes, clearly, because the argument that children, who do not understand the health benefits of proactive care, would always choose to make the best decisions for their healthcare flew right over your head.

            Now, tell me again about slackers, slacker.

          • tomorrowclear

            Kev struggles with making big boy decisions. In fact, he’s precisely the type of youngster I’ve been talking about in terms of instilling the value of responsibility.

            One thing we have been able to confirm today is that most all of that whining he does about having to pay taxes and obey the rules expected of everyone else is that it’s mostly just whining and he really isn’t motivated to do something about it.

          • Guest

            It’s a combination of whining and portraying himself as a financial success, both are nothing less than self serving tripe. It wouldn’t be so bad if the only way he can lift himself up wasn’t at the expense of portraying others as slackers, when they aren’t. Sadly, he’s just a neer-do-well who suffers from self esteem issues and learned hatred for those “others” he has been told to hate.

            People like Kevin don’t do a lot of thinking on their own, forget about fact finding, that’s completely out of his repertoire.

        • yy4u2

          I’m going to type what everyone else is thinking…you are a dumbass.

        • Bat 1

          One more time… see my point #3 above.

      • tomorrowclear

        Younger people, as a rule, are myopic and irresponsible. Basing public policy decisions upon the decisions that young people make is a particularly poor one. If we did not require it, many, if not most, young people would choose not to purchase auto insurance. Some of you geniuses who really (and I mean REALLY) value “freedom” probably even like that idea. Fortunately, there is still sufficient sanity in our society to recognize that this should not be a matter of “choice.”

        • kevindf

          Why should I be forced to buy auto insurance if I don’t own a car?

          • tomorrowclear

            You aren’t.

            As to health insurance, if someone forces you to buy when you are dead, you will have point.

          • kevindf

            “1. Do all states require car insurance? No, although most states require drivers to purchase car insurance, not all do. But all states do have financial responsibility laws. These laws are in place to protect all drivers by requiring drivers to prove they are financially able to pay for anaccident. Most drivers comply to financial responsibility laws by purchasing car insurance.”

          • Guest

            And the rest pay into an uninsured motorist fund through their insurance, just for the ones that don’t.

          • kevindf

            A lot of people don’t pay anything for their Obamacare and never will.

        • Bat 1

          Shooting yourself in the foot would be a lot less embarrassing if you’d think to take it out of your mouth first. If those “younger people” are really “myopic and irresponsible” as you have stated, then obviously they shouldn’t be allowed to vote, right?

          “Basing public policy decisions upon the decisions that young people make is a particularly poor one [sic].

          After all, there is no more important public policy decision than the choice of our nation’s leaders.

          • tomorrowclear

            No, Batman, depriving people of responsibilities is usually not the answer in instilling positive values. One of the reasons to require young people to contribute to their health care expenses is to teach responsibility and the obligations one has not only to himself, but to others. In this case, not expecting others to foot the bill when he has an accident and could otherwise contribute to the costs. I know this idea is foreign to many of you, but mull it over for a bit.

          • JoeMN

            So that’s why they can stay on their parents plan until age 26
            Fail.

          • tomorrowclear

            Er, that more or less makes my point, does it not, Joseph?

            You folks are on a roll this morning. Did a new Benghazi update come through on Breitbart or the Powerline Blog?

          • Bat 1

            Its just a suggestion, okay? A modest suggestion. But if I was you, or any liberal, I’d leave the whole question of Benghazi alone. That “its all about the video” BS that Obama, Clinton, Rice and Carney tried to pass off to cover their flagrant incompetence is even more tattered and shot full of holes than the walls of the US consulate.

          • Bat 1

            Sorry, but talking out of both sides of your mouth doesn’t do a thing for your credibility. It is, however, both amusing and offensive.

            Look, the whole basis for liberal/progressive policy is to “deprive people of responsibilities.” That is one of conservatives’ principle objections. Whether is is an individual’s medical expenses (Medicaid, Medicare, Obamacare), retirement (Social Security), pensions (PBGC), housing (Section 8, FHA, GSEs), food on the table (Food Stamps, EBT, WIC) or simply people’s general welfare (welfare, AFDC, EIC, unemployment benefits), the whole litany of liberal programs is based on the notion that the government should DO more, thus absolving people of responsibility for their lives and the decisions they make.

            To write what you have written here about “depriving people of responsibilities” and “teaching value” is just about the most hypocritical BS you could have dreamed up. And believe me, no one on the RIGHT side of this issue is gonna buy into that self-congratulatory prattle. Really!

          • tomorrowclear

            Yes, I know Batman, that’s what the man on the radio tells you to believe. “Responsibility,” in this case, involves paying for your costs when you have the ability to pay, rather than pushing them onto someone else. This is one of the reasons, for instance, I’m opposed to middle class welfare programs in which folks who could pay for things like additional special ed services do not have to. Almost assuredly, that covers a few of you reading this, though you will never in a million years consider it “welfare.” “Welfare” is something that others receive, not you. Mostly poor people.

            We have many responsibilities. Most are not to ourselves, but to each other. This is what many of you either fail to grasp or willfully avoid grasping. When your country places a responsibility upon you (except military service), you explain that it is necessarily a limitation on your freedom. You would prefer to have to pay for the lack of insurance of someone who could pay because the lack of a mandate represents “freedom.” I would prefer to not have to pay for someone and require them to carry insurance because I believe I have more “freedom” in that situation than you have in yours paying for their medical costs.

            As a matter of fact, I think that last bit is roughly the argument those commies at the Heritage Foundation made about 20 years ago about this individual mandate issue.

          • Neiman

            You are arguing against dedicated Nanny-Staters, to the apostles of a no-fault, relative morality, situational ethics bunch of Left wingers that have sold their souls for this mess of pottage, for them there is no turning back and you will never get through their closed minds.

          • Guest

            Speaking of nanny staters. Tell me again about those restrictive laws against homosexuality.

          • tomorrowclear

            Not to mention forcing women to look at ultrasound pics.

            Ah, our small government warriors, fighting tyranny at every opportunity. Aren’t they precious?

          • Neiman

            What restrictive laws against homosexuality were those that I advocated, I forget?

            As to your brother tomorrowclear – maybe you can encourage him to copy paste any specific comments I made advocating ultra-sound pictures, okay?

          • Guest

            So you are against laws that restrict homosexuality, Neiman? Good to know. It’s not true, but good to know you admit to it.

          • Neiman

            I never said that either . . . you are deliberately twisting words. I asked you to copy/paste instances where I did advocate them, you failed and so you proved you lied about me.

          • Guest

            You are either for the nanny stater anti-homosexual laws or you are against them. So which side do you fall on, the nanny staters who implemented them or those who are against them?

            Don’t worry, we know which side. You lied again!

          • Neiman

            What did I lie about? I hope you have my exact words and the exact wording of what I lied about?

          • Guest

            So in your world the Constitution is Nanny-State because it protects individuals?

            Also, I asked you to tell me about the restrictive laws against homosexuality, you said i lied against you for saying that. So if that’s your loose definition of lying then you lie every time you ask a question.

            That aside, you are acting as if supporting the nanny state anti-sodomy laws are something you are against, until I specifically nail you to your previous weasel position that you don’t support those nanny state laws. So if you don’t support them, then you are against them, and if you aren’t against them, then you are for them.

            I’m certain you believe that lacking a spine helps you, but it doesn’t. It’s just more dishonest lying from you to play both sides.

          • Neiman

            You insinuated I would want laws against homosexuality absent any proof, that insinuation was a false accusation.

            The question you stated is based on a false premise: “So in your world the Constitution is Nanny-State because it protects individuals?” It would depend on what “protects” means to you as compared to what it meant to me and IMO that would be drastically different. So, it is a false premise.

            I believe the Constitution was only designed for individualists, based on their common love of liberty; and, as said by John Adam’s, for a religious people and can work for no others.

            Another false position: “, you are acting as if supporting the nanny state anti-sodomy laws are something you are against,” As Nanny-Staters are liberals, they would not support laws against Sodomy, laws against sodomy would be by conservative people of some sort of religious faith.

            I never said I support nor do not support those laws, what I said to another liberal like yourself was that, in our current ultra-liberal, politically stylish, anti-Christian atmosphere of today, no such laws are possible, so the question is mute, they would not happen here any longer. So, there is no point is discussing such a hypothetical question.

            I do not support Nanny-State Laws, but anti-homosexual laws are not from Nanny-Stater’s. So, you have no where to go with your false accusations.

            Lacking a spine? Hmm! I served in war, for a couple of years I was a police officer and for about 3 years I led a rescue team and in every case risked my life, more than once almost losing my life. Now here is where you place your record next to mine to prove you are qualified to call me spineless.

            Playing both sides? That is only in your extreme Left Wing, anti-Christian, hate filled mind, not in reality. I have learned that all liberals, like you, are game players, word game players, only looking for weaknesses and unwilling to debate anything in detail, ignoring what is said to argue side issues to avoid the subject, engaging in obfuscations, because you lose most debates. So, I have learned not to be as clear and direct as I would prefer, unless appealing to God’s Word; as Jesus warned us against engaging in vain disputations with non-believers and not to cast pearls of God’s Wisdom to swine (unbelievers).

          • Guest

            Here’s a tip: writing a series of words that ramble on and on but say nothing aren’t helping you come across as an honest learned individual who has principles, or a spine.

            What it does do is show the exact level of commitment you have to denial, immaturity and dishonesty.

            Nanny state laws that insert the government into your bedroom are conservative Nanny-State laws. Wishing it untrue doesn’t change that fact or count as an argument. Although I realize all you have is a strong belief in your denial, but that doesn’t change the facts either. The facts are what the facts are.

            That being said, asking you about those conservative Nanny-State laws isn’t implying anything. It’s a question that puts your rather absurd comment in it’s proper context. No wonder you would do your best to spin away from the reality than confront it, it’s what you do.

            When you realized you needed to take a stand, you avoided it. No doubt lacking a spine prevents you from standing on one side or the other.

            Getting drafted or working with the Police for 3 years isn’t very impressive, sorry.

          • Neiman

            But, I notice you avoided telling us of evidence of how/when you have risked your life for anyone? The only conclusion? You have never risked anything for anyone, being a wholly selfish human being. So your accusations against me are not based on your having any spine at all.

            I took my stand and made my position clear, the fact you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand the English language is your problem, not mine.

          • tomorroclear

            You are simply a dishonest debater. Given what you did the other day, fabricating a claim I never made and the refusing to cite where I wrote it, there is a clear pattern with you. Your books is clear about dishonesty. You may wish to consult it again. Your slipperiness here with regards to, “I never said I support nor do not support those laws,” is just par for the course with you.

            Now, you may proceed to get hysterical, damn me to hell and offer up some Biblical quote or threat to hide behind.

          • Neiman

            It is simple, I have no need to defend myself against a pathological liar like yourself.

          • tomorrowclear

            Please produce the statement in which I claimed those who oppose abortion are “evil.” If you cannot produce it, I did not write it and you fabricated it. Dodging and making accusations against me will not erase your prevarication. Someone above is watching you when you prevaricate, Neiman.

          • Neiman

            Question: As you are an admitted atheist, if I recall your history correctly, whom exactly do you think is watching me? The Spaghetti monster?

            I cannot be wasting my time defending myself against false accusations and your deliberate twisting of words for your perverse pleasure. I did not lie, your insistence otherwise will never change that simple and absolute fact.

            Either you are deliberately lying or perhaps it is just because you cannot comprehend the English language very well; but no matter the cause, my conscience is clear and I will not waste anymore time with your false accusations.

          • tomorrowclear

            There you go again. I have never stated I am an “atheist.” I do not know if there is a God. It cannot be proven. I believe it is possible.

            You made something up, kind of like you did here, claimed I had said it, and then did not provide any evidence that I said it. You know you did it and I know you did it. And, more importantly for you, the god you believe would know you did it. When someone puts himself forward as you do on the issue of Christianity, there should be a higher expectation of honesty. You have failed miserably. Failing is one thing, but you have not even tried to atone for making something up about me. It’s one thing to sin and then attempt to atone and reform your behavior. It’s quite another to make no effort whatsoever.

          • Neiman

            Dear SAB Readers, I am not interested in reply to the writer above, he is beneath contempt; but, here is an excellent example/study of how Liberals twist every word possible to make truth change into a lie or a lie change into the truth, when they find they are losing an argument.

            1. In the above overreaction to my words, by the extreme Liberal above, I said the following: “As you are an admitted atheist, if If recall your history correctly, whom exactly do you think is watching me”

            Not having archived his every word, I stated what I thought was his previous position on the existence of God, but not wanting to falsely accuse him, I added the careful caveat that ““if I recall [his] history correctly,” leaving room for honest correction if I was in error. That was not enough for this miscreant.

            Did he simply misunderstand the English language or did he, with malice, deliberately twist my words, overreact and blow a gasket? Being careful not to misstate his beliefs, I provided an out for him in noting that I was unsure of my memory. Is that all? No! (a) There is no such thing as an agnostic, that too is a Leftist word game, falsely called agnostics do not believe in the existence of God and that makes them atheists. (b) Note that he never answered whom he was referring to that was allegedly watching me, why? Because if he said it was God he undermined his pretended agnosticism.

            2. He has been going ballistic, demanding an apology over the following: He had made a passionate defense of abortion and was very, very critical of all those opposing abortion. I offered Scripture wherein God said that in the Last Days, men would call those things which He called evil, like abortion, to actually be good and those things that He called good, like defending helpless, innocent life from murder, to be evil. The case against the writer above was that he turned what God said about these things upside down, in effect calling abortion good and opposing abortion as being bad or evil.

            Then he went absolutely nuts, claiming that since he had not actually used the word “evil,” I had in effect lied. Now either he is a moron, a liar or a liberal, differences without any significance as far as I am concerned. For instance, one could doubt one’s honesty without ever using the word dishonest, but in effect by their words, they can question the honesty of another, calling them dishonest without actually using the word. Which was what happened in this case, while he never uttered the actual word evil, he was, that fact notwithstanding guilty of doing exactly what God said people like him would be doing, calling something He called god to in effect be wrong/evil and vice versa. You will also note that he did not get upset with my charge that he called abortion “good,” only that I called his attacks on people of conscience that opposed abortion as doing something bad/evil.

            See, liberals look for the tiniest word to hang their hat on and they go on the attack by obfuscation, by twisting the English language out of all proportion; a prominent example would the past Liar-In-Chief Billy Jeff, demanding that it all depended upon what the definition of “is” – “is!” These Liberals all twist things out of all proportion, to advance their evil agenda, just like their father Satan twisted God’s Word to Eve, which twisting of words, brought original sin and death on all mankind.

            I hold no malice for this cretin, he is suffering from the cancerous, fatal disease of Liberalism, in which there is not an ounce of truth or decency.

          • tomorrowclear

            A couple things for you, Neiman:

            1. Prefacing fabrication with, “If I recall your history correctly” does not change your resolute dishonesty. Or would you be fine if I stated, “If I your history correctly, Neiman worships Satan.” Do you like that, Neiman? Should I start repeating that? Maybe I should do that: “Neiman: Satan worshipper, if I remember correctly.” Has a nice ring to it.

            2. Abortion is never mentioned in the Bible. God has made no pronouncement on abortion. Man has.

            3. You again lie and claim I have called abortion “good.” I have never done that, just as I never claimed that those who oppose abortion are “evil,” your previous lie. I would never be so stupid as to state that abortion, regardless of context, is “good” or “evil.” Only a moron would do that. Love how you tried to weasel out of your previous prevarication by now acknowledging that I actually wrote it, but now argue that I implied it. Are you really this pathetic?

          • Neiman

            I will not waste any more time with you and your many, many lies.

          • kevindf

            Which laws are those?

          • Guest
          • Neiman

            Problem is – those are not my words, so more proof of your many lies?

          • kevindf

            It’s really about the freebies, even though homosexuals already enjoy the highest incomes of anyone else.

          • Bat 1

            Not so fast, my friend. We are now at a critical juncture. Knowingly or not, taking his comments in total, “Guest” has acknowledged that what we are arguing about isn’t really a matter of principle, but a matter of degree instead. As it happens, this is correct, and the question then becomes where to draw the line. And having abdicated on principle, we are left with a question of freedom vs. finance.

          • Guest

            You can’t very well have a discussion of freedom vs. finance if you can’t adequately define freedom.

            I realize you have an emotional attachment to that word, but that simply doesn’t help the adults who wish to ensure that Americans natural resources aren’t exploited by English Billionaires.

            You can offer up our resources as cheap commodities to ensure you worship big business, but there happens to be a larger picture here that people like you don’t quite understand.

          • Neiman

            IMO you cannot teach responsibility by force, but only by allowing them to suffer the consequences of their stupidity, by making them pay for their mistakes. If they do not choose to pay for insurance and they have need of it at some point, then make them no matter how long it takes, pay for their mistakes; but to keep them from suffering the consequences by forcing them to do what is right, they remain children, they cannot grow up. That is the no-fault society the Left wants us to have.

            You also teach responsibility by setting the right example, by the grown-ups doing that is right and young people seeing the wisdom of their ways. It was said that a goat herder (Liberals) drive their flocks forward, while sheep herders (conservatives) walk ahead of their flocks, because they earned their trust, leading them.

          • Bat 1

            Hmmm. I don’t recall that “instilling positive values” or “teaching responsibility” to young people is mentioned anywhere in the Constitution as a federal, public policy objective. Got a reference you’d care to share? Preferably one that isn’t peeking out from behind a penumbra of a shadow or some other such liberal nonsense?

      • Lianne

        And now Obama and his cronies are expecting the youngsters to sign up and PAY for insurance after they gave the youngsters free health care till they are 26. The youngsters THEY aren’t that dumb.

        • kevindf

          They voted for Obama, didn’t they?

          • Bat 1

            Some did. But those who did are older now… and wiser.

          • kevindf

            Obviously, not enough of them because they did it twice!

          • Bat 1

            They’d be a whole lot smarter if all they’d been educated at at private schools rather than government/union monopoly daycare and indoctrination centers. But they’ll catch on as they get older.

    • sbark

      “tweaks and adjustments”……..just means kicking the can down the road 1 or 2 more generations………the code word is “keep it solvent”—-be very suspicious when you hear a politictian (not a statesman)…….throw out the word on any govt program of “keep it solvent” (soon to be used on ObamaCare )………….
      The easy fix in these tweaks and adjustments are always to raise the retirement age and increase the withholding taxes for SS/Medicare—-which simply immediately puts more burden on the younger generation. As of 2010, SS retiriee’s are receiving 200% return on their payin’s……….after the 40 raises thruout the 70/80′s…..unsustainable and a simple re-distribution of wealth for a generation that didn’t plan at all on ave. for retirement.
      Problems need to be fixed….with permanent fixes, ………..the idea is not to keep a Ponzi scheme solvent…….but that is the mindset of the left: they presume at some period of time a GOP Potus will be elected, and that is the time to allocate blame permanently.

      • Bat 1

        “As of 2010, SS retiree’s are receiving 200% return on their payin’s…”

        And yet, had the same amount of withholding been invested in the market – conservative index funds for example – the payout would have been anywhere from 4 to 12 time greater, without the need to tap into the US General Fund to make the increased payouts.

    • Obamacide!

      Another victim of the left’s ongoing war with basic math and logic…..it’s so sad….

  • matthew_bosch

    So if the Boomers are collecting and the Gen Yers are collecting(unemployment checks), who’s paying?

    I suppose the establishment is placing their bets on under-skilled, under-educated migrants to flip the bill, who will also be bringing their extended family which will include retirees and the disabled who will need help.

    Oh and the uber rich are out of the picture as well, because their capital is mobile.

    • kevindf

      How did that work out for Europe?

      • Bat 1

        It hasn’t. Haircuts for everyone!

        • kevindf

          Yet, the Muslims from east Africa poured in to take advantage of the welfare state.

          • Guest

            Hey it’s a twofer! You got both blacks and immigrants as part of your slacker attacker mentality. Good job.

            What about whites in America? Why do they get a pass on their welfare habit?

          • jimlauten

            He was talking about people “pouring in from someplace else”. And no one us receiving a pass.

          • Guest

            So the whole Black Muslim thing just soared right over your head, eh? Or did it just go through it? Hard to tell when there’s that much willful ignorance employed in one comment.

          • Bat 1

            Predictable race-baiting. What’s next? Blame Bush… or is it the name-calling that’s next on the list?

  • scanham2

    America’s younger generation is significantly responsible for electing Barack Obama not once but twice, so the predicament is to a large degree due to their own ignorance and hence voting against their own best interests.

    • kevindf

      But Obama is a “cool cat.”

    • Drain52

      Ironically, no generation has had more communications devices than the current one, and yet none has been so willfully ignorant of what’s going on around it. Can’t these digital devotees actually spend some time on the Internet learning something, rather than sharing how many furballs their cat’s coughed up?

      • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

        To be fair, policies like social security and medicare were put in place long before this generation.

  • tomorrowclear

    Sparty made a claim. That claim was that OSHA can come into a business anytime they want. That is demonstrably false. In fact, there are businesses entirely protected from OSHA visits.

    What do you think the chances are that Sparty will admit he was wrong?

  • banjo kid

    Just because the Politicians spent our money is no reason to place blame on the older folks . try paying into the fund for 45 years and see if the younger ones would not want a return on their investment . Fact is the politicians are now scrambling to place blame for the money being gone. . When you compare the money to today’s standard we all in the older generation should be drawing enough to live but we are not . The video splits the country again. Social security needs to be revamped to keep it solvent but what do any of you suggest to fix it ? maybe cut the older people off. Remember Clinton and the lock box statement , I got news for every one, they blew the lock off and spent what was inside and also sold the dang box!

Top