About Me

My photo
I'm a simple man, not a simpleton. The worst thing any of our leaders can do is to get those two things confused. I'm a warrior for those things I believe in. I stand up for my friends, family, God, and country. All I truly want is for the government to stay as far out of my life as I can get it. Oh and just in case you haven't guessed it; I'm conservative in my bones.

Search

Custom Search

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Me, A Reactionary?!? Duh!

I was commenting on another site shortly after the passage of the Health Care Reform Act. And I had some refer to me as a "reactionary".  Having not heard of this outside of a reference in a John Wayne movie, and some vague references I saw in a history book some 26 years ago, I decided that I'd better look it up. 

 "Reactionary", adj. 1840 : relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially : ultraconservative in politics.  -Mirriam Webster Online Dictionary.
Or this one:
"Reactionary" -Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative. - American Heritage Dictionary.

Yeah, that pretty much sums me up, in a nutshell.  It pisses me off when an effetist leftist snob, tries to look down on me because my arguments are base on my moral compass and not on which letters come after my name or what school of philosophy that I have or haven't attended.  Most of them, to paraphrase a favorite movie, have their moral compasses so f***ed up that it's a miracle they can find their way to the parking lot.

They refuse to look at historical lessons that show the end result of current and past attempts at socialist eutopias.  The history books are replete with countries that NO LONGER EXIST or whose governments have fallen and been replaced, because socialism is impossible to maintain.  The human condition will not allow for socialism to work.  There will always be those that produce, and always be those that consume, and if you force the former to give up the fruits of his labors to support the latter, than you remove the drive for the producer to expand and innovate.  Stagnation occurs and everyone suffers.  Better by far for those who refuse to produce to be allowed to fail and be culled out by natural law, than for the whole citizenry be reduced just to give the leech sustanance.

I have no patience for those that say that healthcare is a right.  It's not a right, its a "good".  Goods are bought and sold.  They are the product of someone's hard work, ie doctor's education, practice, and dedication.  How can anyone be "entitled" to the work and sweat of another.  You can't.  The same can be said of Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Prescription Drug Coverage, Farm  subsidies, Business Subsidies, etc., etc..

Socialism, of any kind, is evil.  Because it reduces a person's desire to expand his knowlege and ability in favor of dependance on the benevolence of the government.  Anything that makes a person less, reduces the gifts that God gives each of us. 

If you look at other countries, they save more and are more thrifty than we have become in the last 50 years.  At one time, thrift was a virtue that was cultivated by our fore fathers.   Now, look at us.  We're gross consumers.  Always with our hands out waiting for our handouts from the All Powerful Oz....er... I mean Obama.  I've seen first hand what happens when a section of people that subsist on Government largesse.  I have been dealing extensively with the biodiesel industry in Missouri, Iowa, and Nebraska.  In case there are some that don't understand, the biodiesel industry is a government set up and subsidized industry that is not now, nor will be in the foreseeable future, a viable industry in its own right.  When the subsidies dried up and the government didn't renew the funding bill, plants all across Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, and I believe Kansas have shut their doors. Hundreds, if not thousands of people are out of work.  Is it because the government didn't renew the funding?  NO.  It's because the plants themselves are unsustainable.  If you have to have the government prop up your business because you can't do business on your own and be profitable, then that busisess shouldn't exist.

This is a reality that all Americans are going to have to face.  I don't much like the fact that so many people are out of work because of this, but on the other hand, if we didn't have so many people standing out there with their hand out waiting on government funding, then the plants would never have been opened in the first place.

11 comments:

gramma2many said...

Wow!! I wish I had your gift with words. You said it all and I appreciate it.
Shortly after "O" was elected I had a discussion with an innocent naive niece who could not see anything wrong with Socialism. I asked her how it was fair for her Uncle to spend $100,000.00+ to get his Dr. degree and she spend nothing to further her education, yet she feels she is entitled to the same level of living we have. I also pointed out to her that we have worked hard for over 40 years to be at the level of income we are at. She saw my point, but I do not think she is totally convinced. Another casualty of the public education system.

Greywolfe said...

I appreciate the kudos gramma. I find that after I read something that our founders wrote, it gives me more eloquence than I normally have. I just finished reading "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine. Great reading and good information for today.

I understand your confrontation with your niece. The other night, as I was on my way back through Kansas, I heard a couple twenty-somethings talking outside a convenience store.

One, a dope smoking, many times pierced, seldom washed, liberal type said that he didn't think that anyone should make 7 figures. I just laughed at him as I passed. You can't fix stupid.

Stopthepresses2 said...

In case anyone doubts Obama’s push for socialism, we have compiled an ever growing list of his socialist action. http://sosssn.blogspot.com/

Greywolfe said...

Thanks for the stop in, stopthepresses. I'll stop in and check your site.

M. Rigmaiden said...

GW, what is your suggestion for reforming the health care and delivery system in the USA? Are you for or against the safety nets like Medicare or Medicaid? I am against ObamaKare for many reasons, namely the fact that it will not work. You cannot put a bandaid on a diabetic ulcer. Our WHOLE financial system has to be changed to a system OF, BY and FOR the people. Otherwise, healthcare so called reform will do absolutely nothing.

We won't see any real change until politicians have profit incentives removed from their professions. Lobbyists should not be allowed to give gifts of any kind except dinner to a politician. Corporations cannot donate money or advertise for political causes. If we are to go back to being a country of the people then the people must be empowered. The recent SCOTUS decision that said a corporation was the same as an individual creates an imbalance of power because the corporation has MONEY to advertise and brainwash people that way but the average Joe saves only $392 a year! With that in mind, I think its time to move beyond socialism and other isms and into a rule of law that the people will benefit from!

This is why I like Sheriff Mack so much; he cares about the PEOPLE in this country over the rigid application of laws. If politicians and law enforcement adopts a more people centric attitude, we will be better off as a country.

BTW the guys in Michigan got caught by the Feds today...

Greywolfe said...

Disa, you're the first person to "call me out" on what I would like to see happen as a much needed reform in the U.S. system of economy. So, I'll take your questions one at a time.

First off, healthcare reform is really easy. Get. The Government. OUT!!! The cost of compliance eats up .33 of every dollar spent in a hospital. That's according to 2006 figures. Most recent I could find, sorry. So, if you got the government out of the medical industry, you have an immediate decrease of 33% across the board.

Market forces would make sure that hospitals and doctors would stay on the straight and narrow. Grant the ability to buy insurance across state lines, and penalties for frivolous law suits and you have a pretty good recipe for a permanant fix for healthcare that DOESN'T require the government to take over the entire industry by inches.

As for medicare, medicaid, and Social Security, I'd dismantle it for most Americans. Only those that are disabled to the point of not being able to earn a living should be provided such a safety net.

Thrift needs to be reintroduced to the American psyche as a necessary instrument to survival. Those of us who are able to do for ourselves, should be forced to do for ourselves. The government's purpose is not to provide for us, but to protect our ability to provide for ourselves.

Now as to your statements about politicians and lobbyists. I agree with you to a point. First, No senator or representative should be allowed to remain in power for more than two terms. Good for the goose, good for the gander. Same goes for the federal judges. We need to do away with life time appointments. It flies in the face of reason to think that a person who wields as much power as the judiciary does, and doesn't have to worry about being fire, will remain true to founding principles and rule of law. Power corrupts everyone if they are allowed to wield it indefinately and with impunity.

As for lobbyists, I am with you on that, lobbyists should not be able to do anything more than provide a meal for a politician. I see no reason why gifts are necessary to lobby for a cause that should be able to carry it's own water.

As to the supreme court's decision, the only way i'd go with a company having it's hands tied is if leftist organizations (such as acorn and ALL unions) are hamstrung as well. As long as the playing field isn't level, then I think companies should have the same advantages.

keep in mind that the Constitution doesn't make distinction between corporate entities and physical entities (corporations and people). That would have to be remedied before the scotus could really make any other determination than it did.

Your final statement bothers me. Care for people over rigid application of laws. That is a very slippery slope, Disa. EVERY dictator has used his "concern for the people" as a reason to usurp power and rule with tyrany rather than rule of law.

The problem with America isn't absolute rule of law, it's the fact that there are too many damned laws on the books. Each tailored to garner power or votes for the politicians that make them. Instead of being devices of protection of individual rights, they have become a harlet's tool for gaining power and favor.

The federal register, the book that contains every federal regulation on the books, is over 600,000 pages long. These are bureaucratic rules have never been voted on but have the power of law. Our founders never would have allowed that to happen.

Clean up these things, and you will free up American exceptionalism.

Joe said...

"As for medicare, medicaid, and Social Security,..."

I receive Social Security and am on Medicare and I hate them both!

As for laws, you are quite right: we have many more than we need.

In fact, two could very well do the job: 1) Do all you have agreed to do and 2) Do not encroach on other persons or their property.

Ducky's here said...

Market forces? The insurers have an antitrust exemption. What competitive forces are possible in that industry.

They own the legislative process and a public option would be one of the few competitive possibilities, which is why they are so dead set against it.

Greywolfe said...

Ducky, your intellectual dishonesty is showing again. First off, the easiest part; My statement on market forces in my comment post was on deregulation of the medical industry itself, not insurers.

Now, as to market forces on insurers the answer there is simple, allow all insurance companies and plans to be bought and sold across state lines, thereby granting free market forces to come to bear. People by what they want, not what is forced on them by a scarcity of market options. That is true reform. Not a so called public option that will steadily erode the options that we currently have. And if you are honest with yourself, you'll admit that the only real purpose for the reform law that was passed is to incrimentally disable and destroy the current insurance system so that it can be replaced by the government's holy grail: single payer (aka government run insurance).

By the way, I'm not at all sure why antitrust laws even enter into the equasion, no insurance company even comes close to holding a monopoly on the market, unlike federal programs such as the Postal Service, Education, Social Security, and medicare. Now, gee, which of the above is running in the black? oops. NONE of them.

And for your last statement, that the insurance companies own the legislative process, Dems are in power. Dems pushed the healthcare bill through (over the will of the people) and this bill will, in the end, destroy private healthcare insureres. So, you're saying that Pelosi, Reid, Barry, et al are owned by the insurance companies. Interesting argument there, duckworth. Hadn't heard that one yet.

Ducky's here said...

Well, Greywolfe, why would the insurance industry allow changes that decrease profits?

If you don't think insurance companies hold near monopolies then check out malpractice. It may help you understand why states that legislate the laughable "tort reform" see no decrease in malpractice premiums.

The market will extract every penny it can from you. Now that isn't true in countries with not for profit plans. Countries from Japan to Australia to Europe but we wouldn't want to learn from their examples.

Deregulation managed to get you the current recession, why do you wish for more? It's a strange silver bullet you right wingers believe in.

Greywolfe said...

Ducky, the problem with malpractice insurance is that the tort reforms that are on the books, what few there are, don't punish people for frivolous law suits. That is the only thing that we DO need to take from Great Britain's policies. If you lose, you pay all legal bills for both sides. You pass that reform measure, and you'll see a marked decrease in suits.

You statement that deregulation got us into this fiscal mess, is obsurd. I have to wonder if you actually think anything through before you type it, or do you just swing by the huffington post or moveon.org and pick up your talking points and run with them.

The reason we're in this mess now, is because of the mixture of socialism and quasi-free market capitalism that has been used for the last 30 years. Any time you have a government forcing industries to engage in unhealthy practices because of a percieved right (as opposed to an actual right) then their will be inherant instability.

Web Site Hit Counter
discount climbing gear