Liberty MavenHow is Congress spending its time — and your money? (Part 11)
March 20th, 2009 9:10 am | by Mike Miller | Published in Bailouts, Big Government, congress, Constitution, Foreign Policy, globalism, government spending, Health Care, Individual Responsibility, law, Liberty, Market Regulation, Politics, Taxes | 59 Responses
In our continuing series on how Congress is wasting time and money, keep in mind that the U.S. Constitution is the document that founded this nation and our government, and is the Supreme Law of the Land. This founding document spells out 18 “enumerated powers” that are granted to the Federal Government, and according to the 9th and 10th amendments, all else is left up to the states. Therefore, at least 95% of what Congress does these days is unconstitutional.
Congress continues its misdeeds, indeed. Sixty-three new bills introduced on Tuesday, March 17th. Some of the most egregious are:
- S-626 – A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating sites in the Lower Mississippi River Area in the State of Louisiana as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes.
- S-625 – A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Waco Mammoth National Monument in the State of Texas.
- S-624 – A bill to provide 100,000,000 people with first-time access to safe drinking water and sanitation on a sustainable basis by 2015 by improving the capacity of the United States Government to fully implement the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005. [Keep in mind that while we all want everyone to have safe drinking water, such an effort is not authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution. If Congress is going to tax me and spend my money, I personally would prefer they spend it on something here in the United States. This bill is aimed at helping poor, undeveloped countries.]
- S-623 – A bill to amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, title XXVII of the Public Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit preexisting condition exclusions in group health plans and in health insurance coverage in the group and individual markets.
- S-622 – A bill to ensure parity between the temporary duty imposed on ethanol and tax credits provided on ethanol.
- S-621 (also HR1570) – A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to coordinate Federal congenital heart disease research efforts and to improve public education and awareness of congenital heart disease, and for other purposes. [See ensuing "discussion" below. A legion of mothers with children suffering from this terrible disease attempted to overwhelm us with heartfelt pleas to "understand" where they're coming from. What they simply don't understand is that even if a bill has the most noble of intentions, it doesn't necessarily make it legal/constitutional. This country is already in a fine mess because everybody wants to get "theirs" when that's not how it was set up to run in the first place. Once again, please read Davey Crockett Vs. Welfare.]
- S-619 – A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to preserve the effectiveness of medically important antibiotics used in the treatment of human and animal diseases.
- S-618 – A bill to improve the calculation of, the reporting of, and the accountability for, secondary graduation rates.
- S-617 (also HR1562) – A bill to provide compensation to the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Sioux Tribes of South Dakota for damage to tribal land caused by Pick-Sloan projects along the Missouri River. [We have to pay for unconstitutional projects, and then we have to pay to clean up the mess they make. Anyone see a problem with this pattern? If Congress honored their oaths of office, the Sioux Tribes would not have been harmed in the first place.]
- S-616 – A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize medical simulation enhancement programs, and for other purposes.
- S-613 – A bill to prohibit the use of Federal funds to approve certain biologics license applications by the Food and Drug Administration. [It's sad that bills like this are deemed necessary. Isn't it already clear that there's no provision in the Constitution for the Federal Government to be involved in this type of thing in the first place?]
- S-611 – A bill to provide for the reduction of adolescent pregnancy, HIV rates, and other sexually transmitted diseases, and for other purposes.
- S-609 – A bill to amend the National and Community Service Act of 1990 to establish a Nonprofit Capacity Building Program.
- S-608 – A bill to amend the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 to exclude secondary sales, repair services, and certain vehicles from the ban on lead in children’s products, and for other purposes.
- S-607 – A bill to amend the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 to clarify the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture regarding additional recreational uses of National Forest System land that are subject to ski area permits, and for other purposes.
- HR254 – Recognizing the designation of March 2009 as Irish American Heritage Month and honoring the significance of Irish Americans in the history and progress of the United States.
- HR255 – Expressing support for designation of the month of September as “National Atrial Fibrillation Awareness Month” and supporting efforts to educate the public about atrial fibrillation. [I have to wonder if Congress realizes there are only twelve months in a year.]
- HCR75 – Expressing the sense of Congress that a commemorative postage stamp should be issued to honor America’s barbers.
- HR1576 – For the relief of Daniel Wachira.
- HR1575 – To authorize the Attorney General to limit or recover excessive compensation paid or payable by entities that have received Federal financial assistance on or after September 1, 2008. [Bills like this are misguided. Government has no right telling business how its money should be disbursed. By the same token, no business should ever receive financial assistance, which is Moral Hazard.]
- HR1573 – To establish the National Home Energy Savings Revolving Fund within the Department of Energy to provide amounts to units of general local government to make loans to homeowners for qualified home energy audits and certified energy savings improvements, and for other purposes.
- HR1572 – To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid by business that receive TARP assistance.
- HR1542 – To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a 100 percent tax on bonuses paid by businesses that receive TARP assistance and are majority owned by the Federal Government.
- HR1571 – To amend title 49, United States Code, to permit certain revenues of private providers of public transportation by vanpool received from providing public transportation to be used for the purpose of acquiring rolling stock, and to permit certain expenditures of private vanpool contractors to be credited toward the local matching share of the costs of public transportation projects.
- HR1569 – To improve the calculation of, the reporting of, and the accountability for, secondary school graduation rates.
- HR1568 – Community Oriented Policing Services and Key Investments in Developmental Services Act of 2009.
- HR1565 – To provide for the issuance of a semipostal in order to afford a convenient means by which members of the public may contribute towards the acquisition of works of art to honor female pioneers in Government service.
- HR1564 – To designate the headquarters building of the Embassy of the United States in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, as the “Mickey Leland United States Embassy Building”.
- HR1563 – To authorize the conveyance of a portion of the campus of the Illiana Health Care System of the Department of Veterans Affairs to Danville Area Community College of Vermilion County, Illinois.
- HR1559 – To provide for the resolution of several land ownership and related issues with respect to parcels of land located within the Everglades National Park. [As mentioned previously, the Federal government owns nearly 1/3 of all U.S. land, which of course is asinine.]
- HR1558 – To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit preexisting condition exclusions in group health plans and health insurance coverage in the group and individual markets.
- HR1554 – To take certain property in McIntosh County, Oklahoma, into trust for the benefit of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and for other purposes.
- HR1553 – To amend the Home Owners’ Loan Act to provide equitable remedies to mutual savings institutions to defend against individuals acting as a de facto corporation attempting to implement a hostile takeover of the institution, and for other purposes.
- HR1551 – To provide for the reduction of adolescent pregnancy, HIV rates, and other sexually transmitted diseases, and for other purposes.
- HR1550 – To accelerate motor fuel savings nationwide and provide incentives to registered owners of high polluting automobiles to replace such automobiles with new fuel efficient and less polluting automobiles or public transportation.
- HR1549 – To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to preserve the effectiveness of medically important antibiotics used in the treatment of human and animal diseases.
- HR1548 – To amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a pathway for the licensure of biosimilar biological products, and for other purposes.
- HR1547 – To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for collegiate housing and infrastructure grants.
- HR256 – Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that all Americans should participate in a moment of silence to reflect upon the service and sacrifice of members of the United States Armed Forces both at home and abroad.
- HR253 – Honoring Ms. Lois Burton for setting an example for all women through her influence and dedication to the Choctaw Nation and to improved health care and education in honor of Women’s History Month.
Please take a couple of minutes out of your day to contact your representatives via telephone simply to tell them that you support or oppose a particular bill. It’ll take you less than two minutes.
If you don’t know who your Senators are, or how to contact them, click here to found out.
If you don’t know who your Representatives are, or how to contact them, click here to find out.
Loading ...
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:36 am (#)
I cannot stop my endless heart surgeries or even the physical pain that having half of a heart grants me every day. But I will be certain that I will no longer stand by and let people call my life a waste, or the lives of 1 million adults in the country alone that lives against all odds. We are not asking Congress or the Senate to give us the world we are just asking them to recognize the #1 birth defect, the #1 killer of children and one of the least funded diseases. We know how to fight for our lives we just ask for our government to let us be heard so we don’t have to bury more of our friend unnecessarily. We just want to live knowing that someday it will be better for future generations.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:34 pm (#)
It is interesting your twitter account description has the words "anything to increase pleasure and decrease pain with the word Freedom” considering you put Congenital heart future act bills as a waste. I have lived 30 years of my life battling everyday for survival, and I can assure you I have never had a day without pain. So for a site to stand for relieving pain, and trying to find what is right in the world you dont seem to stand up for the ones you should be supporting. So as someone who has spent 30 years being told that she will not live and the future is uncertain because the funding for education, medicine, and research is not there. I ask you how you can deny my freedom, or the freedom of the 1 out every 120 babies born in the country. Where is our hope? why is our lives less than yours? What do you say to the 4,000 babies that died this year before their first birthday? What do you say if this was your child, your sister or brother?
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:17 pm (#)
Teri, I personally sympathize with your ailment. My younger brother died of cancer in 1997. It was a very difficult time for my family. Even with that horrible event, it doesn't change the law as set forth in the U.S. Constitution. I'm not suddenly on the side of ignoring the supreme law of the land because I've had a tragic personal loss. I'm not lobbying the government to reach into the pockets of hard working Americans and hand that money to cancer research. However, I have lobbied friends, family, and co-workers to voluntarily donate their money and time toward cancer research.
Your hope should come from within and those close to you (your family, friends, church). The funding you desire should come from entities who voluntarily donate their money to your cause, not through force via the Federal government.
Lowering or abolishing the income tax is the single best action that can be taken to help your cause and others like it. Americans are generally charitable people (there are statistics on this) even with the income tax. Imagine how generous and more productive those funds would be if these charitable folks were able to direct their funds where they see fit rather than where the government sees fit.
So, I'm not denying your freedom at all. I'm merely pointing out that the Federal government is denying every single one of us the freedom to direct our earned money where we see fit, and in doing so is robbing these causes of much needed funds. So don't blame us at LM. You should be blaming the government.
That being said, I will voluntarily donate some of what is left of my salary this week (after the government takes their unfair share) to your cause. Please let me know where I can direct my donation.
And of course your life isn't a waste. The article never suggests such a thing. I will pray that the rest of your days on earth are filled with more pleasure than pain. Thank you for your comments.
Enjoy,
Marc
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:27 pm (#)
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
"Promote the general welfare" sticks out here.
"The ultimate goal of our entire system is to encourage both government and the people to "promote the general welfare"–namely, to work together for the common good. Are we achieving this broad goal in the country today or moving further away from it?"
Alexis de Tocqueville, "Self-Interest: Rightly Understood," From Democracy in America, Volume II, Chapter 8
My son's illness affects the general welfare. If research is not done and advances are not made, he may be disabled and unable to work as an adult – who will support him if he can't? Taxes. If he can't get medical coverage, do we just let him live his life in poverty because he was born with a high cost illness? Or, better yet, let's just let him die if he can't pay for it and no advances are made – Potter's Field is likely much cheaper. Lord knows if I have gone through sheer hell trying to get private medical insurance companies to cover his procedures, what he will face from "the people" when he is an adult will likely be that much worse. Who will cover him – for profit corporations? Like the ones that laughed at me when I applied to cover my child?
Those of us that are affected by CHD and know its horrendous affects would love to open our purses and pour money into research, support, and helping each other – unfortunately, we're too busy struggling to survive with the disease, and paying the enormous medical bills that come with that.
Until the goodness of individuals can be relied upon, until the anti-tax people aren't also corporate renegades and rich shills that are more interested in their lavish lifestyle than their fellow man, the government has a mandate to step in to promote the general welfare – because individuals have shown that as a whole, they are not.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:53 pm (#)
ONE
Like Teri, my son has a single ventricle heart. The larger problem for the CHD cause is that no one is directing their money to CHD research individually, governmentally, or institutionally in sufficient amounts to drastically improve research or progress. Ironically, children's heart programs are some of the only revenue-generating and certainly the largest revenue generating programs in the US Childrens' Hospitals. Still, nearly four times the research dollars go to non-life threatening issues like Autism and ADD. Not that I have anything against those issues or the people affected by them, but the staggering statistics Terri quoted demonstrate how underrepresented she and my son are when it comes to funding and research despite being one of the largest populations affected by a single disease.
As it stands truly disabled young adults and children who can easily be denied unaffordable private insurance are also being basic health care coverage through SSI or medicaid programs that are intended to help the truly disabled. No one would tell a person with one arm, one leg, or one lung that they are not disabled, but a person with half a functioning heart may be denied benefits under the current laws. When you look at someone like Oct-o-mom who genuinely abuses the system for benefits, it is amazing that children like my son might grow up to wallow in bankruptcy and abject poverty because of their medical condition being excluded from any form of recognized support. Because when the original American Disability laws were written children with these conditions had 100% mortality they are now wantonly excluded from protection.
You can argue the fundamental issue of offering public support of the disabled as a matter of ideology, but as long as it exists for some, the core issue is that it should exist for all who have no other recourse, and that is the point of this CHD legislation.
Additionally, as long as CHD has no Jenny McCarthy, or Michael Chickles, no Sheryl Crow or Melissa Etheridge, no enormous Susan G. Kommen foundation, no Michael J.Fox, no Bono , Geldof, or every pop-star of the week, no Elton John and no Liz Taylor to grab the spotlight, these aren't Jerry's kids, they're our kids, and no one is speaking up for them but us; and as long as the American Heart Association provides one penny on every dollar raised to facilitate CHD research and the lion's share to coronary artery disease research, and so long as the NIH is the primary but severely limited source of funding for any hope or research, we are s-o-l for getting the level of recognition necessary to mobilize the type of private philanthropic support that would make any conceivable difference in the future of our children. Even the AHA turns CHD profiles into lifestyle statements and their focus on childhood obesity, while laudible for its purpose completely undermines our efforts to help children BORN broken hearted.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:53 pm (#)
Two
My son has had 13 heart surgeries, and my family has never, not once been offered or accepted any subsidization. We have benefited from the Ronald McDonald House's reasonable fees for a place to stay, but never have local, state, or federal tax dollars helped our family settle our debt. That is fine with me, but no child should die if his or her family cannot afford the escalating costs of health care. I work, pay my insurance premiums and have spent $65,000 of my own money on out-of-pocket expenses that balloon each successive year. Doesn't leave a lot to invest in college savings. The system is broken. I don't believe in socialized medicine, but a system left unchecked with no regulation coupled with the audacity of human greed is what has brought us to this point where medicine will soon be entirely unfordable to the average American taxpayer. We watch as bankers, brokers, and business executives have used the economy to steal from the average to make themselves disgustingly rich. You can leave your trust in the goodness of individuals, unfortunately the least trustworthy ones seem to be holding all the power in corporations and insurance companies. I have an equally dim view of politicians, but we have to start somewhere.
Hundreds of parent advocates and adult survivors worked tirelessly to get this level of recognition and attention on the issue. Like drunk driving and seat belts, unless legislation happens, recognition is lacking. We could debate all day about the merits and failings of the system we have, but broken as it is it's the only system we have and as desperate parents trying to save their childrens' lives and adults just trying to pursue a little piece of happiness,despite their illness, it's within our rights to petition for any legislation that will keep our children alive and allow them to become productive members of society. Until the laws of the land treat everyone fairly, we must do what is necessary to protect the most vulnerable. Yes the system sucks, but we don't have time to be ideologues, we're trying to do what is necessary to save lives.
If you really want to donate, donate to the Congenital Heart Foundation, (www.ch ildrensheartfoundation.org/) the only organization in the world devoted solely to raising CHD research dollars, with a staff of five people – compare that to the AHA, to the Susan G. Kommen Foundation, to the American Cancer Society, compare our one 5-person beacon of hope against these enormous endowed foundations with their balls, walks, and enormous corporate sponsors, and tell us again how we should get public support and public funding when we're competing against institutions with power, connections, and more money than we will ever see from our fledgling legislation if it even passes. Sadly, you'll probably get a better tax break for your small donation than I will when my son has his next two surgeries and I lay out twelve thousand dollars to keep him alive. That's how fair the system is to those dealing with medical hardships, why on earth would we want to change it to our benefit?
In the American public I trust – trust them to buy the newest colored Crocs and watch and vote on American Idol, get i-phones, follow all the news on Brittney Spears, watch the Superbowl and riot in the winning town, and I trust them to start spending wildly on whatever Wal-mart is selling the mili-second the US economy turns a corner, but even if I trust in their generosity if you can get their attention for five seconds, I don't trust that our message will ever get through the noise of the day, the powerful established charities, or the worthy but competing causes to make enough difference in my son's lifetime to preserve his life – and he is only five years old. We have so far to go, so we start with congress. We cannot rely on the public, the public doesn't know who we are; this is one step to get the next politician on the campaign trail to mention CHD – as opposed the McCain, Pallin, Clinton and Obama who ALL mentioned Autism – these people don't even know what CHD is, and they should. You might consider this a waste of money, but it is one small foothold for a movement that desperately needs all the help it can get and is far more worthy than most items on your list and even more that are already receiving tax payer dollars.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:49 am (#)
here here Heart Mom 2!
March 24th, 2009 at 1:13 am (#)
The "they get the money so we should too" attitude is exactly the problem we are trying to expose with this series of articles. It is unconstitutional no matter who gets the money. The system being broken doesn't mean it should be a free-for-all at grabbing funds for whatever cause you deem necessary. In this case that necessity has been thrust upon you by having a child with CHD. I sympathize with you immensely. It must be a monumental struggle.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:39 am (#)
"Worthy" is quite relative. I'm sure there are parents with children with other ailments who make the same claim. Unfortunately, there are far too many "worthy" causes for the government to "fix". The government has been in the business to cure all that ails us for several decades. How many ailments have been cured?
Hopefully my voluntary private donation will help. Wish I could afford more. If I didn't just pay a boatload of money to the IRS this weekend when I did my taxes I could have given CHF 6-8 times as much.
———cut———–
Thank you so very much for your generosity! Here is a record of your charitable donation.
Merchant: The Children's Heart Foundation
Order ID: VUGA3CXXXXXXX
Order Placed: Monday Mar 23, 2009 06:31:41 PM PDT
———cut————-
Enjoy.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:51 am (#)
It does say "Promote the *GENERAL* welfare" not "Promote the *SPECIFIC* welfare".
The goodness of individuals can be relied upon, especially in the U.S.. The U.S. gives more money to charitable organizations than any other country. The US gives more than 1.5% of GDP even with the income tax burden. In second place is the UK with less than 1% of their GDP. Imagine how much easier it would be to raise money for your cause if American individuals and corporations weren't forced to fork over 25-40% of their money to the government to be spent mostly on administratively making the government larger.
And consider how much more wisely the money would be spent when it is funneled directly to the organizations rather than being laundered through the bureaucratic nightmare that is the Federal government.
We are on the same side when it comes to the need for funding. We just disagree on the best way to attain the funds.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:52 pm (#)
""Promote the general welfare", constitutionally speaking, means (and has always meant) that all spending must benefit all Americans equally."
No, Mike, that's what YOU interpret it to be. You can name a dozen scholars that agree with you, and I can name a dozen that totally refute your viewpoint and agree with mine I'm not going to open up a political debate that's going to go around and around in circles, never getting anywhere.
What I will say to you is that I hope that all of your political arguments continue to be theoretical for you, and that you're never put in a position where you have to be tested on them. I truly don't.
You are, however, clearly ensconced in your position, and clearly see what you want to see as long as it agrees with your position. If you hoped to change mine by your argument and the sharing of your opinion, you should have started out somewhere other than claiming research that may keep my only child alive as wasteful – because to me, your position appears to be:
"Sorry your kid could die. Government shouldn't pay for looking for ways to make him not dead. I shouldn't be forced to pay for it. But I would pay for it, you know, if only people let me keep my tax money. So would EVERYBODY!"
Right. The racists would support a black family in need of help, the antisemitites would help rebuild a burned down synagogue, the pharma companies would help with drug treatment, and no kid would ever be in foster care because everyone would just take them in out of the goodness of their heart! We'd all have so much money, if only our taxes were cut!
With an absence of government, the corporations would reign supreme. And that, my friend, is bloody well laughable.
You find me ONE SINGLE private medical insurance company in the ENTIRE COUNTRY that will insure my child with major medical because its the RIGHT thing to do for a sick kid, and I will eat my words.
Until then, your theories dissipate like smoke when you're talking about applying them to people's actual lives with regards to CHD.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:24 am (#)
"Promote the general welfare", constitutionally speaking, means (and has always meant) that all spending must benefit all Americans equally. It is supremely unconstitutional for any spending to benefits only a part of the citizenry. Besides, if everyone is forced to work in order to help pay for this research, then it would only be fair to work to also pay for every other kind of research there is. Of course such a thing is not impossible, and as I've said before, two wrongs never make a right.
"Working together for the common good" is socialism or communism, not a system our founding fathers devised. Such sytsems always fail, and why our system is failing.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:34 am (#)
You say, "I don't believe in socialized medicine, but a system left unchecked with no regulation coupled with the audacity of human greed is what has brought us to this point where medicine will soon be entirely unfordable to the average American taxpayer."
This is incorrect. It is precisely the overwhelming amount of stifling regulation that has brought the health care system to its knees. Before there was regulation, doctors weren't forced to charge so much, and they even made house calls. Seeing a doctor was cheap enough that the concept of having to have "health insurance" was simply asinine. But that's to the constant intrusion of government we now have an ugly, expensive system.
The fact of the matter is that "the greatest productive force is human selfishness." (RAH).
March 24th, 2009 at 2:35 am (#)
"The goodness of individuals can be relied upon, especially in the U.S."
You're wrong.
2 years ago, my husband and I both owned businesses. Mine of 10 years, his of 22 years. Texas didn't cause our businesses to close – medical insurance did. No company would touch us, because of my child. The taxes we pay every year don't even come close to how much out of pocket expenses cost.
He closed his. He made less money than me, and so he got the short straw. He now works for $10 an hour – because we have federal legal protections that tell that for profit insurance company what they have to pay for. We had no problem paying our taxes. None at all. Had we not paid any taxes, we still couldn't have afforded what we had to absorb as every private insurance company laughed at us.
You see one side, and you can find people to support your position – you ignore the sides that disagree with you. It's a political blog, and I get that. But the funniest thing that I have always found about Libertarians that I personally know is this – everyone believes in being a Libertarian to some extent, right up until the point they need help.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:43 am (#)
What I'm seeing here is the attitude that people with problems are ENTITLED to have everyone else help them. If people won't help voluntarily, then you feel it's legitimate and ethical to FORCE people to help. Do you not see a problem with that approach?
It's not fair that some people have medical problems, I agree. Some are downright heartbreaking.
But a lot of things are not fair, and campaigning to use the force of government to steal money out of other people's pockets to serve your need isn't fair either, I'm sorry to say.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:08 am (#)
Your own anecdotal story doesn't change the statistical fact that the U.S. is the most charitable country (by far) than any other country.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_2-oDfgGpQKg/RoCfAynVfRI…
So, in general, people in the U.S. are "good", even with their tax burden
The government creates a catch-22 system by justifying its own existence by continually duping people into believing it is necessary for the common good.
If the government wasn't involved in health care at all you would not need medical insurance because it would be cheap and in some cases completely free. You would get your wish. The evil corporate medical insurance company administrators would all have to find a new line of work.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:02 am (#)
Marc, I sincerely THANK YOU very, very much for your generosity, now if we could get four million more Americans, just over 1%, to make $23 donations, (23 because the admin fees for the sites that allow you to donate take a cut) we would have raised twice as much money as the AHA has for CHD research. You wouldn't happen to have 4 million subscribers?
It's really sad when you think that Oprah can get 10 million people to buy a single copy of a book, or Stand up to Cancer can get millions in one night, and the Avon Walk for a Cure raises millions in each state, but here I am some plain old mom engaged in an elaborate discourse on the merits of CHD research person by person day in and day out because the powers that be don't deem us "worthy" of a larger stage. In 20 years despite massive petitions Oprah's never done a single show on CHD.Don't mistake the people supporting this legislation as a bunch of liberals with their hands out – the liberals have ignored us just as much as the conservatives. We have no platform, so we're taking what we can get and I'm not goign to apologize for that. Hundreds of people didn't fight for this legislation becaue it doesn't matter.
Even people who know me and my son well and claim to love us won't part with $5 for CHD research in favor of their own priorities – they don't want to "set a precedent." where we might expect them to support our cause a second time. Pretty sad when the same people routinely blow the same amount at Starbucks every day. That's the individual's right, but it is an uphill climb when you have to break your back to win over the people you actually know who've seen your child suffer. I have full time job and two kids not a PR firm and tv ad space to win over support on the magnitude required to make any real difference.
I would far more prefer that Robert Wood Johnson give CHD the focus they're giving childhood obesity with their private funds instead of getting what we can from the NIH, but they're not giving it to us, they're giving it to the cause du jour. Private research happens more quickly, but hardly any is happening for CHD. Maybe if Congress recognizes the impact of this disease philanthropists will follow their lead. Maybe if we can get one senator or representative to take it up as something worth talking about, then the Target corporation will think CHD research is as important as St. Jude's research and make a medical funding exception for our kids too – but right now they don' t it'' s cancer or schools – everyone else is screwed.
Right now this is all we've got, so no ideologues or absolutists are going to convince me that it's wrong to seek the means to keep my child alive, well, and ultimately off of a lifetime welfare because of congestive heart failure that could have been prevented with research. No, by all means don't invest a few million today to save billions to support people whose lives don't need to be ruined by complacency. Let's also stop vaccinating the poor and see who gets measles. Go ahead and say our kids are as unworthy as studying pig emissions – are kids are equal to pig-poop because they might be aided by tax dollars.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:06 am (#)
Since I'm an anecdote, I'll leave the conversation here – however, I really do find your positions flatly amusing considering what you do for a living, and the medical insurance you likely carry for *your* family.
Thank you for your service, even if you were defending my right to completely disagree with just about every political stance you have.
Thankfully for my son, this year at the polls, the majority agreed with me.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:07 am (#)
Anecdotally, how about we stop defending the border of Alaska too, there aren't that many people living there -it's about the greatest good for the MOST people right – let's let N. Dakota go too – there, that's about the same number of American's affected by CHD today – yep, cut off N. Dakota and Alaska, no highways, schools, national guard or border patrol. If Russia comes, let them have it – there are more of us not living there, now they're on their own. All the better for the rest of of us! If we need to cut taxes more, let's drop S. Dakota, Montana, and WY, by 2030 there will be that many CHD adults – five states worth. Why help them be healthy and able to work and benefit society, when they can be indigent and dying?
I'm not going to argue the merits of the welfare state as a whole – I don't support it and I can appreciate the slippery slope of precedent. But, the precedent was set long ago and not by us.It may not be "ideal" to visit the trough, and two wrongs don't make a right, but it's just as wrong to force human suffering for the purpose of human greed. What's mine is mine all mine.
W hen it's down to live or die, and 20% of kids like my son die before kindergarten, we're lining up to save our children's lives not to attain an impossible Utopian ideal. The problem with ideology and utopias is that they always gets upset by reality and human frailty. Frailty in the greed of wall street or the desire to survive? Call my maternal love a frailty, it's the one thing above any and all ideologies from the dawn of human existence that has kept the human race alive and relevant for all time – that is the motivation behind my support and the love of a mother for her child is unshakable. The first great literature of Western Europe was about the wrath of Grendel's mother. No political musings or Disney matricidal fairy tales about how good people really are will change my reality. The selfish regard for material wealth rings hollow next to the solid passion of survival and human preservation – it it is selfish to want my child to live, I'll own that, better than being selfish in order to own cash or possessions or some illusion of power when we are all so frail, flawed, temporary and human. When you die, as we all will, you may have your convictions to see you off, I hope to have my child a real person who will remember me. I'll do what I've got to do to get there.
Until this boat turns around and we get equal representation and equal private research dollars proportionate to the actual population affected and killed by this disease, I stand by this legislation. It's all we've got. We're not standing still, it's just that no one is paying attention to how hard we're working.
Here's a thought, for every person who hates paying taxes of any sort, choose one of the pork items you don't want to support with tax dollars and work to help that issue secure private and sustainable funding – see just how easy that really is – about as easy as it was to ever get this legislation seen in Washington in the first place. Get us a bro bono PR person, a slick PSA to play repeatedly on hulu, a grant or two with your free time. Instead of begrudging tax dollars to save innocent American children and young adults, help us fix the problem by volunteering your time to find us reliable alternatives. If we can truly rely on the generosity of the human spirit I would expect a huge influx of human capital to champion our CHD cause – who's up for it? Who's going to be our Jenny McCarthy/Jim Carey dynamic duo to deliver our cause from obscurity so John & Jane Doe x 4 million will give us some of their dollars to put a dent in this problem?
When you can turn a legion of support in our favor and supplement the need we're seeking to remedy, I'll give up on government.
Yeah, while I'm waiting for that to happen, I'll stick with this legislation and keep trying to get through to people one cold heart at a time.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:17 am (#)
Hmmm… you were robbed by the payment processor if all you received from my 50 dollar donation was 23 bucks.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:20 am (#)
Good luck with your efforts. While you work to lobby our bloated bureaucracy I will do what I can to help spread the word about your cause to those I come in contact with.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:20 am (#)
"Anecdotally, how about we stop defending the border of Alaska too, there aren't that many people living there -it's about the greatest good for the MOST people right"
That's correct. It's not the business of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to be doing anything in Alaska.
" – let's let N. Dakota go too – there, that's about the same number of American's affected by CHD today – yep, cut off N. Dakota and Alaska, no highways, schools, national guard or border patrol."
That's correct. The FEDERAL government has no business running highways, schools, or any of that. If it's not mentioned in the constitution specifically, it's for the state to handle.
"If Russia comes, let them have it – there are more of us not living there, now they're on their own."
National defense is in the Constitution; therefore, it would be a legitimate function of the Federal government.
"All the better for the rest of of us! If we need to cut taxes more, let's drop S. Dakota, Montana, and WY, by 2030 there will be that many CHD adults – five states worth. Why help them be healthy and able to work and benefit society, when they can be indigent and dying?"
Has sarcasm served you well? Has it helped your cause?
"I'm not going to argue the merits of the welfare state as a whole – I don't support it and I can appreciate the slippery slope of precedent. But, the precedent was set long ago and not by us.It may not be "ideal" to visit the trough, and two wrongs don't make a right, but it's just as wrong to force human suffering for the purpose of human greed. What's mine is mine all mine."
Who is forcing human suffering? Is it greed for a person who makes a living by working hard to keep all that he legitimately earned?
"The problem with ideology and utopias is that they always gets upset by reality and human frailty."
I agree. The socialistic utopia which would have every worker's wages going into a pot for the "common good" always gets upset by reality.
People who look for government for the answer are doomed to suffer disappointment.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:23 am (#)
I don't follow. I don't think either of us has stated what we do for a living. It certainly isn't political blogging!
March 24th, 2009 at 4:33 am (#)
No, but this is the Internet, and Marc in particular has cross-linked. I'm not going to say any more because, like you say, he hasn't said what he did and I assume there is a reason for that (and I, of course, could be wrong in my supposition, though I don't think I am) – but he, at least, has cross-linked commentary enough that it took about 5 minutes to match up various profiles.to pinpoint a likely person.
If you're curious how, feel free to email me privately, as I remember the "trail", in case I was correct and this is something you need to delink.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:37 am (#)
"No, Mike, that's what YOU interpret it to be. You can name a dozen scholars that agree with you, and I can name a dozen that totally refute your viewpoint and agree with mine I'm not going to open up a political debate that's going to go around and around in circles, never getting anywhere."
Wrong. Scholarly opinions are usually worthless.
James Madison was the chief author of the Constitution, and it can be clearly be read in his writing, and in writing of other founding fathers, that the clear intent was to set up the Federal Government as a small and inept. The states are sovereign, and it's up to each state to handle its own affairs, except for the 18 clearly enumerated tasks given to the Federal Government. This is not opinion or interpretation. It's not theory. It's quite clear what the intentions of the founding fathers was, simply by reading their writings, such as in the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers.
Keep in mind that "government" doesn't pay for anything unless it has first stolen the money from productive workers.
You are clearly a desperate mom, wanting care for your child. Does your desperation excuse you from holding up a convenience store to pay for medical care? I would think not. But how is that different from lobbying the government to instead steal the money for you?
"With an absence of government, the corporations would reign supreme. And that, my friend, is bloody well laughable."
Laughable, perhaps. But exactly the opposite is true.
The corporation reign supreme now, and we're overloaded with regulation. Corporations are allowed to reign supreme NOW simply because they are given special treatment by the government (i.e. corporate welfare). Absent government, a rotten business would not be able to stay afloat. The market (i.e. you and I) would not do business with them, and they would collapse, all without any aid from the government.
"You find me ONE SINGLE private medical insurance company in the ENTIRE COUNTRY that will insure my child with major medical because its the RIGHT thing to do for a sick kid, and I will eat my words."
Medical insurance is a scam, set up my government. As previously discussed, there would be no need for evil insurance companies if the federal government hadn't intruded so much. Medical insurance was virtually unheard of 50-60 years ago.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:18 am (#)
"Medical insurance is a scam, set up my government. As previously discussed, there would be no need for evil insurance companies if the federal government hadn't intruded so much. Medical insurance was virtually unheard of 50-60 years ago."
50-60 years ago, Mike, my child would already be dead so, frankly, all hail the government. It ain't perfect, but its better than 50-60 years ago.
To you, he's anecdotal. To me, he's worth saving – as are every other one of the kids and adults being talked about in this comment stream.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:27 pm (#)
The sad part is that you can only see government force as a way to accomplish anything. You cannot see the possibility that the health care system would be MUCH BETTER and MUCH MORE ADVANCED if not for the force of government. (Alas, if not for the government stifling intrusion). Your conclusions and assumptions are based only on statist brainwashing, I'm afraid.
And please stop making the assumption that I think your child (and everyone else) is not worth saving. That's as incorrect as it is insulting. There are a lot of reasons (and real-world evidence) that medical care would be much better off without all the government meddling that we have now, and therefore it's logical to conclude that your son would have a much better chance of survival, and have much better (and less expensive) care if that were the case. The government has spent itself into oblivion in a large number of areas, and there is very little improvement to show for it. There's no logical reason to believe that if money had instead been funneled toward CHD research, you'd be any better off. Government has proven time and time again (see government schooling for a great example) that more spending in a particular area rarely, if ever, equates to improvement.
All children — indeed all people — are worthy of care. The only difference here is that I believe that it is unethical to rob people, against their will, in order to further your (or anyone else's) cause.
I've been down your road of putting all faith in government, voting for Bill Clinton (twice) among other things. But eventually I saw the light, and realized that neither Democrats nor Republicans, who both wish to buy me off so they can control one aspect of my life or another, have my best interest in mind; that in fact government is more of a problem-causer than a problem-solver. My world has turned upside down (or rather rightside-up) and now I see things much more clearly.
You've indicated previously that you were going to "leave this conversation" but since you have not, and it's clear (as you said) that you are too entrenched in your position to consider an alternate viewpoint, there is little point in continuing this discussion.
I wish you all the best with your family.
-Mike
March 26th, 2009 at 5:36 am (#)
I'm personally offended by the "support" and donation of marcg. Look at how much emotional strain was caused on the parent's of children with CHD'S during this conversation. They had to fight that hard for 50 dollars. Was it worth it? No, the battle will always be there because the bottom line is that CHD's are a low priority in the minds of those not affected by it. Don't pretend to have any sympathy or concern when it's obviously not there. Kinder words could have been said to these struggling parents but apparently debating (and being right) is more important to you.
March 26th, 2009 at 6:32 am (#)
Wow… you are personally offended? Well, I'm glad I was able to give a little bit of my own hard earned money voluntarily to your cause regardless of your being offended.
Thinking back on this "conversation"… those of us who don't have CHD nor are related to anyone with CHD should have realized the discussion would not be based on reason and logic. It's just not possible for those that are forced to live with CHD every single day to use reason and logic in this discussion because it is a purely emotional issue for them. It is not possible to keep the emotion out of the discussion. I know this because I went through it when my younger brother was dying of cancer.
Amber…. our singular disagreement is merely about WHERE/HOW the funds should come, not WHETHER the funds should come. You will believe what you will but I assure you I do have sympathy and concern for those with CHD. In fact this "conversation" has taught me more about it and most assuredly others have learned by reading it as well.
Here's a tip for your future fund raising work: If you expect to win over more people and money toward your efforts it is probably not a wise idea to attack/insult/mischaracterize those who actually have attempted to help by donating to your cause.
Enjoy,
Marc
March 26th, 2009 at 2:13 pm (#)
Wow indeed. This just goes to prove that some of these people are not soliciting donations so much as they're pushing their socialist/collectivist agenda. How sad.
March 26th, 2009 at 3:21 pm (#)
Please stop attacking these parents. Our children our dying. Imagine holding your brother in your arms while he died. I'm not saying your point is wrong or that I disagree with it, I just think you are looking for an argument. This is only kicking the parents while they are down on the ground. Please out of the humanity and kindness of your heart (which I know you do have because you donated) end this conversation. We are in the worst place possible, you are right we are very emotional, please let's end this.
March 26th, 2009 at 3:23 pm (#)
previous post was by Amber
March 26th, 2009 at 3:31 pm (#)
marcg,
I do want to say I am sorry that I attack/insult/mischaracterizeed you. This isn't a battle I am fighting right now, to win over funds. I am concentrating my energy on giving my son the best life that he can have with the time he has. This is a brutal experience, slowly watching our children suffer through painful surgeries and die. Of course I am not at my best emotionally and I'm sorry you felt attacked. We can ask everyone for their prayers, please pray. I think it would be doing the parents a tremendous favor to let this go now. Thank you for understanding.
March 26th, 2009 at 3:56 pm (#)
Hey, Marc, here's a tip for you – live your beliefs that government grants and subsidies and taxes are wrong and maybe people would believe you more as you tell others how they should not take anything from the government. You do know how the company you work for got where it is, right? And who subsidized it in the early 90's? And that a court ruled it charged illegal tax?
But, you know, it's just ideals, right – not like it needs to affect your paycheck. To be frank, I wouldn't work where you work because of the history or government grant abuse, monopoly, lawsuits, and violations of people's right of ownership. You ok with it, I imagine you've "rationalized" it to yourself as to why its ok to work there considering all the facts of its history.
You're a hypocrite. When it comes to your life, you overlook what you want to get what you want while attacking anyone else who doesn't believe the same way as you as "irrational".
Whatever.
March 26th, 2009 at 3:56 pm (#)
You and everyone with CHD have my prayers. Sometimes we all lose sight of the pain in reality when we converse online. We arrive at the discussion from very different perspectives.
In the end (as I've tried to make clear through my words) what truly matters is that people are made aware of CHD and funds are being devoted toward it.
I wish you and your family the best.
March 26th, 2009 at 4:01 pm (#)
ROTFLMAO!
Bahahahahahahahahahahaha!
March 26th, 2009 at 4:11 pm (#)
Thank you marcg. I truly do appreciate that, from the bottom of my heart. Sometimes the emotional support is more helpful than the monetary support. Please visit my little guy at http://www.theheartofaboy.blogspot.com And in the end, thanks for helping to bring light to this subject.
March 26th, 2009 at 4:14 pm (#)
You are just reinforcing my point.
March 26th, 2009 at 4:15 pm (#)
> Hey, Marc, here's a tip for you – live your beliefs that government
> grants and subsidies and taxes are wrong and maybe people
> would believe you more as you tell others how they should not
> take anything from the government.
I am not, and will not, speak for Marc or anyone else, but I'm pretty sure that nobody here is not telling (or even suggesting) that anyone not take anything from the government. On the contrary, if when something is stolen from me, and then it is offered back, I would be a fool not to take it.
I'm only arguing it from a policy angle, that money should not be stolen in the first place. But since it is, and the immoral payroll tax _was_ ratified as a Constitutional amendment, the main argument is that the federal government should not spend that money on anything it's not allowed to by law (by the Constitution).
And here's something that nobody seems to have considered: petition your state governments to allocate funds for your cause. We've been pointing out all along that that the _Federal _ government had no legal right to spend money on such things, but the Federal government has no right to dictate what the state can and cannot do (beyond what's specifically enumerated in the Constitution). Therefore, if your state's constitution and laws allow for appropriation of funds toward your cause then you should be focusing your attention on making that happen. There would be no problem with that from a legal standpoint.
And as Marc said, there is very little difference between any of us when it comes to the emotional issues (i.e. care of a child, etc.), and I sympathize with your struggles and heartache, and I will pray for the best possible outcome for you and your families.
-Mike
March 26th, 2009 at 4:16 pm (#)
I must say that your little boy is simply adorable!
March 26th, 2009 at 4:35 pm (#)
"I am not, and will not, speak for Marc or anyone else, but I'm pretty sure that nobody here is not telling (or even suggesting) that anyone not take anything from the government. On the contrary, if when something is stolen from me, and then it is offered back, I would be a fool not to take it."
Actually, I believe you guys accused us of being happy to take money out of other people's pocket ("stealing", I believe was the word) to save our kids. Now you say we would be fools not to take it since, you know, we pay our taxes like anyone else?
You guys either believe in subsidies, or you don't. Marc's very employment is evidence that despite what he claims, he has no problem with subsidies as long as it benefits him.
Not only does it cut ya'll's arguments, it points to them as hypocritical as heck. You all have spent days calling the parents and victims of CHD irrational, emotional, and wrong to denigrate and disregard nearly every point made – and yet when it comes down to it, Marc does it, too.
No offense, but for two people who believe in personal liberty, you have spent a lot of time telling us what you think we should be doing, and characterizing us as irrational because we disagree with you. Rather than finding out what we face, or what we do, you simply argued back how we were doing it wrong and should be doing it a different way, and how what we accomplished was wrong because it stole from you.
Before Marc, at least, did that, he should have made sure he lived in a public way the way that he was claiming we should be with regard to our kids, and that he didn't work for a historical monopoly subsidized by the federal government.
When you do to some extent what you claim is wrong for other people to do, you're the one that looks irrational. At least our positions are consistent.
His is not, and frankly, I'm tired of watching all these people get denigrated and dismissed for their beliefs and having a $50 bill waived at them to make Mark feel better about calling them government shills and thieves.
March 26th, 2009 at 4:52 pm (#)
"Actually, I believe you guys accused us of being happy to take money out of other people's pocket ("stealing", I believe was the word) to save our kids. "
No, no, no. Please re-reread what I wrote, and I apologize if I wasn't clear enough. The only ones I accuse of stealing is the government!
"No offense, but for two people who believe in personal liberty, you have spent a lot of time telling us what you think we should be doing, and characterizing us as irrational because we disagree with you. Rather than finding out what we face, or what we do, you simply argued back how we were doing it wrong and should be doing it a different way, and how what we accomplished was wrong because it stole from you."
This seems to go back to the previous misunderstanding. I fully understand why you all are emotional, and why you're fighting for your cause. I only disagree with some of the tactics. You have a right to support an unconstitutional bill, and I have a right to oppose it.
We are not telling you how to live, or how to act. We are simply pointing out that bills S-621 and HR1570, while certainly for a good cause (as are most bills!), they are illegal, according to the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. This is the center of our argument. If you feel these bills should pass, we will disagree with you on the grounds I just mentioned, not because we are heartless bastards.
I will repeat myself, so we are perfectly clear. In my eyes, the thieves (and other pejoratives you mentioned) are the GOVERNMENT. We have never called any of you any of these words. Maybe this simple misunderstanding is why this conversation has become personal. Hopefully I have cleared up our position, and we can return to civility.
-Mike
March 26th, 2009 at 2:26 pm (#)
[...] Hearts, which had picked up a story from Adventures of a Funky Heart by a Libertarian Blog called Liberty Maven. Liberty Maven had posted a list of the most egregious waste of tax dollars [...]
March 26th, 2009 at 7:26 pm (#)
I'd personally rather not see discussion stifled, and after discussing this with Marc, I've reopened comments on this topic. But I reserve the right to reclose it if personal attacks continue. For his part, Marc has stated that he will not participate further in the discussion because he has said all the he feels needed saying.
Mainly, I wanted to give Jen ("Another Heart Mom") a chance to reply since she had apparently misunderstood what I was saying. (i.e. I never _personally_ attacked anyone, and neither did Marc).
-Mike
March 26th, 2009 at 7:31 pm (#)
I've moved my argument to my own blog, where I can be sure both there can be an open discussion if anyone wants to have it without it getting shut down.
March 26th, 2009 at 5:28 pm (#)
At the request of Amber…
I think at this point it is most wise to enforce the end of this discussion by closing comments on this article. We have all presented our positions and further discussions are going into personal attacks rather than focusing on the original argument. Further discussion is redundant and unhelpful.
If you have the ability, please donate to CHD research and awareness.
http://childrensheartfoundation.org/
Thank you.
March 27th, 2009 at 8:30 pm (#)
Had this post originally been posted the way it is, you likely would not have gotten nearly as angry a reaction as you did, at least not from me. I can't speak for anyone else. This is not, however, what the original post said – the characterization of why you are posting this information is completely different.
While I'm impressed by the change and that you have made an attempt to clarify your underlying point as opposed to simply posting the assassination (wasteful, egregious misdeed) of the bills that was previously on here, the simple fact is you have edited this post without posting that it was edited or acknowledging anywhere what the original phrasing was, now removed, that the people took issue with.
It seems disingenuous at best, dishonest at worse.
Had this post looked this way when I first came across it, my attitude towards what you were presenting and the issues I took with it would have been completely different.
But this is not, of course, what was here when people became angry. Of course, no one knows that but those who have been here. Anyone coming across it will see hyperbolic parents reacting to phrasings that no longer exist, asking for explanations that are now posted but which weren't just two days ago.
With the closing of the discussions based on owner decision first, then an editing of the shutting down of the discussion putting the responsibility on Amber, and then the reopening only after you were taken to task for shutting down the discussion, and finally the editing of your original post to obfuscate what you actually said, I hardly can believe that this blog is actually called Liberty Maven.
If you realized the phrasing was important enough to change, an apology for the offensive terminology should have been given and an acknowledgment that it could be taken as an offensive attack on the bill should have been made. Instead of that, you backpedaled and hid what it was you actually said in the first place.
I can only take comfort in the fact that you clearly learned your lesson as you changed what you said, even if you won't admit that to anyone but yourselves.
March 27th, 2009 at 9:01 pm (#)
Jen, what world are you living in? This is getting quite tedious. Nothing I ever posted was offensive, and the original post was not changed at all except to add the text in red in the related bulled. Your characterization my intent is offensive. I've not "backed off" from any of my positions from the start, only attempted to clarify. As far as I know, nothing was "removed". (If I am mistaken, what was it?) Nothing was obfuscated. Your continued attempts at maligning this site are unfounded.
You obviously haven't read this series of articles from the beginning (notice it says part 11, and there are now 17 parts as of today), where I've already stated all of the things I've added into this post since it was published. (And I've said even more in most recent posts in this line of articles). In an attempt at not saying the same things over and over and over again, yes, the original version of this article was brief in its introduction. But I stand by my wording, that all bills listed are egregious misdeeds. All are unconstitutional, wasteful, or unnecessary as far as I can tell.
The fact is that you took those words as a personal attack against you and your cause, and I am not responsible for that. As I've stated on numerous occasions, those attacks are aimed at the Congress. I do not owe you or anyone else an apology for my adherence to the Constitution, nor for any of my harsh words against politicians who ignore it.
Marc has decided to refrain from this idiotic argument, and I respect his decision. If your next post contains additional falsehoods, I will have no other choice than to consider the possibility that you are delusional and I, too, will refrain as well.
-Mike
March 27th, 2009 at 10:57 pm (#)
Again, you admit here what you didn't up there, so…um… there wasn't a falsehood…
You added things to the post that were not there when this issue started. You also deleted things that were, like the word "wasteful" which was initially there, and is now not, and which so offended people.
To reiterate, again – what you have added changes the characterization of the purpose of the presented information for anyone that picks this post up on a topic aggregator, or is linked to it purely through a rebuttal, or seeks to understand the CHD folks issues with what you initially wrote – as what you initially wrote is not what is here. It has been modified so it is not what it was, and not what people took issue with.
People had issue with what you initially *said*, not solely your stance or agenda. What is up there now is not what you initially *said*. (Use "find" on your browser to find the word "wasteful" in this page – now, only people taking issue with your comment have that word appear – your comment and characterization, which was so offensive to us, is gone).
Again, thanks for admitting that you did it down here, at least, so the acknowledgment of the change appears on this page, and people will know when reading this they will not be able to understand or follow what people are saying, as the information has been changed by you.
The changes you made color the veracity of the arguments people took the time to make back to you because many no longer apply, and the people that took the time to engage you deserved for others reading to be able to see what they took issue with.
Their points are lost as what they took issue with has been deleted after the fact. It hides, for history, what you really said – leaving people no ability to judge for themselves the veracity of the arguments. It was, IMO, an abuse of power to hide the issue people had with you, and a refusal to stand by the words that hurt people while swearing you did, in fact, stand by them and we're nuts for taking issue.
If you honestly cannot see how changing your post and deleting words and adding absent points that people very specifically took issue with is somewhat dishonest to anyone reading this entire debate in the future – well, you're right. This is an idiotic debate.
March 27th, 2009 at 7:23 pm (#)
The one dimensional perspective that the government in place does not measure up (or really measure down) to the government described on paper centuries ago and idealized by those who subscribe to that cannon, leads to the belief that anyone who seeks to benefit from the dysfunctional government is equally egregious and flawed and also equally capable to seek relief from non-existent or unwilling private entities. This is wholly contrary to the multidimensional reality in which we live our daily lives as human beings not paper dolls.
The foundation of democracy is discourse and effective discourse means at least a fair attempt to understand the position of the opposition. I wish only that it be acknowledged that 1) All causes are not equally worthy or unworthy especially when the tenants of basic human life are concerned; regardless of the constitutionality or lack-there-of of the current system, not everyone seeking or even receiving support is unilaterally unworthy. 2) Not all advocates are given equal voice in a world fueled by a vapid media where the fourth estate has literally crumbled beneath the heels of greed, and 3) We're not just a bunch of hyper-emotional mommies, we are educated women who condemn the fact that advocacy efforts to benefit from the government as it is rather than how you wish it to be means our cause should be characterized as egregious or wasteful, and though not directly or possibly even intentionally, still implicitly and by association our own characters thus assassinated. I am at least slightly mollified the our efforts are now reclassified as unconstitutional instead of "wasteful," I'd rather be an anarchist than a sponge. . . rats – we're back to being wasteful!
Yes, I did read the Davy Crockett story, if the world was full of Bunces and Crockett's we wouldn't be having this conversation – if the world were full of Davy Crocketts, he wouldn't seem so special. I've been all over the web site this week, a week when yet another CHD child died and her family is overwhelmed with funeral expenses to pile on top of their medical bills and cannot rightfully mourn their child while worrying about how they will bury her and eschewing flowers to celebrate her life for the practicality of cash to settle their debts.
You would win over a lot more people to the Ron Paul mindset if you acknowledged that we have real problems that people would actually have to start solving if/when we ever could roll back the clock to the government you would like to see and then proposed actionable alternatives to those problems to replace the only problem you're willing to attack – the government. No, the government can't solve all of our problems, but until we collectively identify and implement REAL solutions to problems even wise old Ben couldn't envision, the government isn't going to get any better. Mike asks Jen what world she lives in, I ask Mike the same question.
March 27th, 2009 at 11:44 pm (#)
Jen…
I have to "pipe" in on this latest accusation…
I assume you are aware that WordPress has a revision feature. It's a neat feature.
I went back and tried to find where we deleted anything. Nothing was deleted in the top section (prior to the list of bills). Mike used the word "wasting" both in the original and the latest revision. Perhaps that is what you are talking about. I don't know, but that word is still there now.
Mike did add the section in red next to the CHD bill to draw attention to the discussion we've all had in the comments here. Nothing he said in that section changed the meaning or intent of his article.
Other than that addition the only other change was modifying a typo of the word "then" to "them".
Nothing was deleted. Not one word.
I took a screenshot of the revision page comparing the original post (at 9:10am on March 20th) with the current version you see above. The screenshot shows the portion of the article above the list of bills. You will see nothing different between the two, proving you your assertion that something was deleted is false.
If you'd like me to take more screenshots of the rest of the revision comparison page of the article I'd be happy to do so (I'm assuming your deletion assertion was regarding the beginning of the article).
Again, there were only 2 changes made to the article between now and the original post. First was changing a typo from "then" to "them". Second, was Mike adding the text in red after the CHD bill pointing people to the comments and linking to another article.
Not one word was removed from the original.
Here is the screenshot from the wordpress revision page comparing the article at 9:10am on March 20th (you will notice it matches with the published timestamp on the article itself) and the revision that is currently being presented on the page. The capture only shows the top portion of the article where (as you can see) nothing was deleted.
http://libertymaven.com/images/compare-top1.png
I leave it up to you to decide whether an apology is in order.
Enjoy,
Marc
March 27th, 2009 at 11:55 pm (#)
Why don't you email it to me, Marc. Since the server appears to be down.
Gosh… I can get to it through a proxy, though! I wonder why that is.
So, you invite me to comment, post something you claim will prove me
wrong, invite me to make an apology… and then block my IP?
Impressive, guys. REALLY impressive.
Long live Liberty. Blessings on you both.
March 28th, 2009 at 12:23 am (#)
Part one
Wow, Jen – we are now legion – all 3 of us! Is that a compliment to our voraciousness or an insult (I believe the demonic possession driven out by Christ called itself "legion."). Nope, only 3 heart moms came forward and made their point that the system is what it is, and we're going to keep doing what we have to do for the future (it's called a futures act) of our children. Perhaps the purity of our purpose made us seem a much stronger force than we are in fact.
I respect that these two gentlemen would rather see our federal government decrease its scale and roll back to the dimensions envisioned by THE framers, but that's not going to happen in our children's lifetimes. I think our primary argument here is that our (heart moms) willingness to use the system in place is not necessarily an endorsement of said system but rather the fact that we live in reality and must use the system, such as it is, to find funds that are not available to us through any other means in an effective time frame. Effective time frame = before our children literally die from their disease.
Their noble objective in lumping our passion with other legislation they consider frivolous is only to decry that the Federal government is a mockery of what it was envisioned to be over 200 years ago. I think they could make that point far more effectively if they acknowledged that the needs, causes, and human beings precipitating the legislation they deem egregious or wasteful are neither. If they just stuck to attacking the system itself, not our right to use the only recourse available, they would find more support in their viewpoint.
Our noble objective is simply saving our children's lives using the means in place. What I personally take exception to is that our children and our cause are so unceremoniously lumped in (and dumped on) with other initiatives when there is no parity in resources, alternatives, or even moral purpose. Were they to acknowledge that there truly are no other alternatives in place to meet our needs, they might have to concede that it will take far more work than just "stopping" the status quo in its tracks to effectively rebuild a society that would and could exist under their idealistic goals. The alternatives they propose are either non-existent, inaccessible or insufficient and that is a key point of contention. We need the government not because we like it, but because we have nothing else in place to meet our need – a need which they have conceded is valid but have not conceded is vastly under served.
To me it seems as though they want to put the genie back in the bottle without admitting that someone (everyone really) would have to clean up the mess that the genie made. They don't want to admit that people will not be lining up in droves with brooms and elbow grease. Admitting that their vision requires far more effort than the average person is willing to expend, or conceding that we can't simply turn away from the only recourse available just because they think "it's wrong" without sacrificing our children's lives to maintain an ideal does not in fact make us complicit in theft, would mean that living their American Dream is a lot harder than following the instructions on a document written primarily by the independently wealthy, educated, and affluent who felt nobles oblige, but never had to actually incite it in the masses, where it is sparse indeed.
March 28th, 2009 at 1:15 am (#)
Jen,
I did not block you. Why would I do that right after I post proof that you were wrong?
After I posted the reply above I was starting to get angry because I myself could not access my site nor my server the site runs on. The problem cleared itself up in a short time. You may have hit it at just the wrong time.
Please try again without a proxy and you should be able to get to it. If you still can't access it please let me know and I'll investigate further.
-Marc
March 28th, 2009 at 6:07 am (#)
I'm done. Post whatever you want. I've deleted my comments, say whatever you want to your followers. Frankly, this is getting ridiculous, from the changes to the IP blocks on my computer but three proxies getting through.
Just forget it. You win. You guys are saints. Really.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:43 am (#)
I think the crux of all that I post in this vein is simply:
"It's wrong for someone to confiscate your money, give it to someone else, and call that "compassion." — Harry Browne
April 17th, 2009 at 3:44 am (#)
Hi Laura. Speaking up for a cause it not unconstitutional, of course.
I was simply saying that the bill(s) in question are unconstitutional.
-Mike
April 17th, 2009 at 3:44 am (#)
Hi Laura. Speaking up for a cause is not unconstitutional, of course.
I was simply saying that the bill(s) in question are unconstitutional.
-Mike
April 17th, 2009 at 3:22 am (#)
How is speaking up for a cause unconstitutional?