Learning more about HCR
Ah yes, we’re learning ever more about the wonders of the health care reform bill. Now it’s college students’ health insurance policies that are imperiled.
Sweet.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
Ah yes, we’re learning ever more about the wonders of the health care reform bill. Now it’s college students’ health insurance policies that are imperiled.
Sweet.
You can almost cut the schadenfreude with a knife.
Back in the days of HillaryCare, Senator Phil Graham predicted that if it passed the public would hunt Democrats in the streets like rabid dogs once its effects were felt. It’s already starting with Obamacare.
Obama’s greatest legacy may be the destruction of the Democratic party for a generation.
I love it. I hope that all the college students who voted the Messiah get hammered as a direct consequence of their stupidity.
Occam’s Beard,
I have heard Rush mention more than once concerning the rising price of attending college that those institutions are mostly run by the left.
He really likes pointing that out.
jon baker:
I have come to regard government financial aid to students as essentially a taxpayer subsidy of leftist college professors.
rickl,
the entire federal government (save for the military) is one big money laundering institution for the left.
$30,000/yr per high school student in California.
Even the mob is embarrassed by this type of graft and extortion.
More than $500,000,000 to build a single high school in California.
This goes past the point of being criminal – it’s economic rape.
One has to wonder why Obama was fixated on having the federal government take over student loans.
Like Pelosi said, you have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.
The utter hopelessness of the position of those who, in a society which has thus grown rigid, are left outside the range of sheltered occupation, can be appreciated only by those who have experienced it. There has never been a more cruel exploitation of one class by another than that of the less fortunate members of a group of producers by the well-established. This has been made possible by the “regulation” of competition. Few catch-words have done so much harm as the ideal of a “stabilization” of particular prices or wages, which, while securing the income of some, makes the position of the rest more and more precarious.
We cannot blame our young men when they prefer the safe, salaried position to the risk of enterprise after they have heard from their earliest youth the former described as the superior, more unselfish and disinterested occupation. The younger generation of today has grown up in a world in which, in school and press, the spirit of commercial enterprise has been represented as disreputable and the making of profit as immoral, where to employ 100 people is represented as exploitation but to command the same number as honorable. Older people may regard this as an exaggeration, but the daily experience of the university teacher leaves little doubt that, as a result of anticapitalist propaganda, values have already altered far in advance of the change in institutions which has so far taken place. The question is whether, by changing our institutions to satisfy the new demands, we shall not unwittingly destroy values which we still rate higher.
The conflict with which we have to deal is a fundamental one between two irreconcilable types of social organization, which have often been described as the commercial and the military. In either both choice and risk rest with the individual or he is relieved or both. In the army, work and worker alike are allotted by authority, and this is the only system in which the individual can be conceded full economic security. This security is, however, inseparable from the restrictions on liberty and the hierarchical order of military life – it is the security of the barracks.
In a society used to freedom it is unlikely that many people would be ready deliberately to purchase security ar this price. But the policies which are followed now are nevertheless rapidly creating conditions in which the striving for security tends to become stronger than the love of freedom. Hayek – 1940—1943
Matthew M,
Actually, one doesn’t have to wonder at all. It’s all about the power, don’t ya know.
I had an interesting discussion with a dear friend of mine at work today, all about what the point of the power is. I have a hard time comprehending the notion of power for power’s sake–as Pournelle and Niven said in Inferno, “The purpose of power is power. Why have power, except to exercise it in the service of something else? If these wizards didn’t care about anything but the power, pure and simple, why would they care to what use it was put? No, they want it to serve Leftism. Of course, you could notice that, by extension, only the Left wants to use power to maintain and increase power. But that still puts the power in service of Leftism–so it’s not just the power.
Thanks, Artfl. I remember well my first encounter with the notion of exchanging freedom for security. It was while reading Paul Johnson’s Modern Times, back when it was first printed, in the early 1980s, he was speaking of the Nazi seduction of the German electorate. I thought at the time that that must have been unique. I have since learned better. Of course, the trick is that, having exchanged freedom for security, people will have neither (pace Churchill).
Betsy, wasn’t that Ben Franklin? Too tired to look it up. 🙂
Liz Cheney filled in for Hannity.
Yum.
I mean… gosh she’s smart. 🙂
rickl Says:
August 24th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
I have come to regard government financial aid to students as essentially a taxpayer subsidy of leftist college professors.
How right you are rickl, and it’s even better for congressional staffers.
Bonuses For Congressional Staff [College Repayment Benefits Worth Up To $60,000]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2325440/posts
Congressional Staffers Get Their Student Loans Paid for By the Government,
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100724163217AARFGai
Lawmakers Have Long Rewarded Their Aides With Bonuses
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123854799133476409.html
Given how things are on the higher level looking down, the coming election of a putatively financially conservative congress will probably be the catalyst and instigation for hyperinflation and that will facilitate war, and the potential for national collapse, with the need for someone to step in and take control for the good of it all.
…to weld together a closely coherent body of supporters, the leader must appeal to a common human weakness. It seems to be easier for people to agree on a negative program – on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off – than on any positive task. The contrast between the “we” and the “they” is consequently always employed by those who seek the allegiance of huge masses. The enemy may be internal, like the “Jew” in Germany or the “kulak” in Russia, or he may be external. In any case, this technique has the great advantage of leaving the leader greater freedom of action than would almost any positive program.
they have gone with the internal negative backed by the external potential if that failed. rather than a single egg, they have three or four eggs ready to break in several baskets, and are maneuvering them to converge on point, or near it.
the ‘internal enemy’ is Judaism (again), Christianity (again), Male Gender (especially white, but having room for Chinese), heterosexuality, Race (setting the three major races at each other in Hegelian conflict), etc
If you know the goals, and the hierarchical rules of protected classes and class warfare whats going on is as easy to understand as a football game.
but if you don’t know it, then its as hard to understand as wist to a person watching and not knowing how the game operates.
As i explained the game of chess is seldom explained as a way to make plans and have them appear and work even though 100% knowledge is present. That is, in chess, the FOG OF WAR is in your MIND, and comes from your beliefs, sex differences, experiences, teachings, etc.
So rather than be full of schadenfreude or think “sweet”, i see them throwing the lever to facilitate a move, not suffering a consequence they had no idea of.
THEY put that in the law knowing full well what the result will be as in this game of chess, they have the majority view as they know their “professional left” games, and coordination.
how long before this facilitates the Marxists and others? how long before they can get children to get riled up enough to die? and when our children start dying, even one, what then will be the cry?
Advancement within a totalitarian group or party depends largely on a willingness to do immoral things. The principle that the end justifies the means, which in individualist ethics is regarded as the denial of all morals, in collectivist ethics becomes necessarily the supreme rule. There is literally nothing which the consistent collectivist must not be prepared to do if it serves “the good of the whole,” because that is to him the only criterion of what ought to be done. Once you admit that the individual is merely a means to serve the ends of the higher entity called society or the nation, most of those features of totalitarianism which horrify us follow of necessity. From the collectivist standpoint intolerance and brutal suppression of dissent, deception and spying, the complete disregard of the life and happiness of the individual are essential and unavoidable. Acts which revolt all our feelings, such as the shooting of hostages or the killing of the old or sick, are treated as mere matters of expediency; the compulsory uprooting and transportation of hundreds of thousands becomes an instrument of policy approved by almost everybody except the victims. To be a useful assistant in the running of a totalitarian state, therefore, a man must be prepared to break every moral rule he has ever known if this seems necessary to achieve the end set for him. In the totalitarian machine there will be special opportunities for the ruthless and unscrupulous. Neither the Gestapo nor the administration of a concentration camp, neither the Ministry of Propaganda nor the SA or SS (or their Russian counterparts) are suitable places for the exercise of humanitarian feelings. Yet it is through such positions that the road to the highest positions in the totalitarian state leads. A distinguished American economist, Professor Frank H. Knight, correctly notes that the authorities of a collectivist state “would have to do these things whether they wanted to or not: and the probability of the people in power being individuals who would dislike the possession and exercise of power is on a level with the probability that an extremely tenderhearted person would get the job of whipping master in a slave plantation.”
Having a certain mental fluidity helps, and so is pragmatically made. Those with understanding, will just change their behavior on condition, those who cant change their behaviors, will become the victim class.
Rather than create a utopia, they create a mass hobbsian hell… from above it looks like the wall image behind Milton in the offices of “Milton, Chadwick & Waters” (everyone knows why they picked Milton, ever look up the other names?)
[edited for length by n-n]
Boo the frickin hoo…..you mean the little darlings aren’t going to have everything their way?
Waaaahhhhh…..
(OK, so I’m feeling particularly sarcastic these days…hopefully I’ll be in a much better mood by mid-November.)
The problem is, most of these students may never realize what opportunity is being denied them as they enter college this fall only to not be told about this particular problem in the HCR.
Never hear about it, it didn’t happen.
We need an ad campaign for everything like this that crops up just to make sure it’s rubbed into the faces of these useful idiots at every opportunity.