Makers and Takers

[paft.livejournal.com]

Mary Matalin: There are makers and takers, there are producers and there are parasites. Americans can distinguish between those who have produced and paid in through no fault of their own and because of Obama's horrible polices who cannot get a job or are underemployed. That's what the campaign is about.

This is Mary Matalin speaking in defense of Mitt Romney’s recently aired “off the cuff” remarks in which he denounced 47% of Americans as people “dependent upon government…who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.”

Commentators are putting a lot of focus on the casual contempt running through Romney’s comments. They’re missing the true ugliness -- which is Romney’s derision for the notion that human beings are entitled to food when they are hungry and medical care when they are sick or injured.

That’s where the hatred of the rich and powerful for the poor and powerless becomes not just unseemly, but dangerous. And Mary Matalin’s crack about “parasites” bolsters the sense that, as far as the right wing is concerned, the lives of the poor are just not worth saving.

God help you if someone like Matalin and Romney decide you or your kids qualify as a “parasites.”

You’re hungry? Starve. You’re sick? Die.

What makes you think you’re entitled even to what sustains life?

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Comments

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Well, there are certainly parasites in our society. It's just that a lot of them are capitalists, too.

[paft.livejournal.com]

I'm very leery of referring to any human being as a "parasite," especially in the context of a political discussion.

[mutive.livejournal.com]

Having traveled widely well...there's a good chunk of people in the world who aren't given enough food to sustain life, so unless we're on a mission to change that, I think it's fair to say that we're not considering the "basic things needed to sustain life" to be a basic human right, unless we see it only as a "basic human right for people who happen to live in the US".

With that said, considering that food is pretty cheap - I'm all for changing things. (Although there are very, very few people in the US who can't even get their hands on a bare 2,000 Calories a day, FWIW. And generally that's for reasons that aren't entirely due to poverty.)

Medical care is trickier. I'd like to see some form of universal health care, if for no other reason than that what we have going now is pretty inefficient, and I'd rather pay more in taxes than risk being out of work for a few months, get something minor, and die. (Or even just suffer a lot.) With that said, I don't believe that the government should offer to grant whatever medical care citizens want to citizens. (Honestly, I think that Medicare goes too far as is.) I think that there do need to be hard decisions as to what's worth paying for (as a public good) and what's just too expensive for how much it improves a human life. In my ideal world, we'd have a kind of stripped down Medicare offered to everyone, with the option to pay out of pocket or get insurance for more expensive treatments. (Such as breakthrough cancer drugs that are $5K/month or triple bypass surgeries for patients in their 80s.)

[paft.livejournal.com]

m: Having traveled widely well...there's a good chunk of people in the world who aren't given enough food to sustain life, so unless we're on a mission to change that, I think it's fair to say that we're not considering the "basic things needed to sustain life" to be a basic human right, unless we see it only as a "basic human right for people who happen to live in the US".

So your premise is that until all starvation in the world is eliminated, Americans shouldn't be worried about dealing with hunger here?
'
M: With that said, considering that food is pretty cheap - I'm all for changing things. (Although there are very, very few people in the US who can't even get their hands on a bare 2,000 Calories a day, FWIW. And generally that's for reasons that aren't entirely due to poverty.)

Food is becoming less and less cheap all the time. It's not just a matter of getting those 2,000 calories. It's a matter of getting healthy food. Kids who grow up on a high starch diet of macaroni because their parents can't afford much else are likely to end up with a host of medical problems including obesity and learning disabilities.

Does that matter to you?

And do you really believe we shouldn't worry about hunger until you we see people entering that stage of starvation where the body starts feeding on itself? You do realize, don't you, that many people will die from other malnutrition related illnesses before they get to that point?

Does that matter to you?

M: I think that there do need to be hard decisions as to what's worth paying for (as a public good) and what's just too expensive for how much it improves a human life. In my ideal world, we'd have a kind of stripped down Medicare offered to everyone, with the option to pay out of pocket or get insurance for more expensive treatments. (Such as breakthrough cancer drugs that are $5K/month or triple bypass surgeries for patients in their 80s.)

Why not something similar to the system that's offered in Canada?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

So Ayn Rand's ideology inches closer to ruining the USA the same way Communism ruined Russia. Fuck.

[paft.livejournal.com]

This is what happens when adherence to an economic system becomes a rigid ideology.

[fierceleaf.livejournal.com]

They profane libertarian ideas, aren't they?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

What makes you think you’re entitled even to what sustains life?

That is an excellent question.

Why do you think you are entitled to those things?

[paft.livejournal.com]

It's a belief solidly based on a concept called "human rights."

If we are not entitled to life, then what Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot did were not crimes.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Romney can't seem to help himself from sounding like the love child of Ebenezer Scrooge & Marie Antoinette.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Starrying: paul ryan as Mr. Smithers!

[di-glossia.livejournal.com]

Marie Antoinette was a huge supporter of charity and wasn't even born when Rousseau's Confessions was written.

[caerbannogbunny.livejournal.com]

I think the idea that the Federal government who also runs our tax system is or should be the "go to" institution for people who want food, healthcare, etc. is a bit odd. I mean, basically, you're saying that every institution and connection between the individual and the entire population of the planet has failed to give a crap about that individual making it a requirement that the institution that gets to literally tell you whether you can keep a reasonable percentage of your own income to live on gets to basically write a blank check for these problems.

Oh, and it's supposed to be popularly elected every so often.

Of course the system is borked up! The people in government WANT you to like them and can give you all sorts of stuff to get you to by basically pulling money off a relatively few people. It's literally a guarantee to explode debt over time because it's voters without regards to how much money they have voting to support a system that can take money from a few people worth the same as everyone else as voters.

No, people ideally shouldn't starve, but people closer to them should help first and people should be engaged enough with the people around them so people would want to help them.

I guess my problem is--when you look at what the incentives and costs are in the system--at the Federal level with a progressive system--you've basically created a pump to suck money out of everyone's pockets in larger and larger amounts until either people leave the system or the system collapses. All the while, when the solutions to the food and healthcare problems are best served LOCALLY where people actually care about these people more. Or, at least they should if we didn't have a society so fragmented and in-your-face that people are more interested in fighting along political and other lines.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Because the private system did so much for East Tennessee before the TVA brought into the civilized world.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

As I said in a prior thread...

National Parks warn visitors not to feed the animals for a reason. If habituated to handouts, creatures such as bears get aggressive and attack visitors who disappoint them by not providing the expected food. It’s the same with the people: habituating them to handouts and letting them think the benefits they recieve are tribute (rather than a debt to be repaid) will only result in violence when the bread and circuses come to an end.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I mean, basically, you're saying that every institution and connection between the individual and the entire population of the planet has failed to give a crap about that

Correct. Private institutions, in the past 2000 years, have not stepped up enough to help people on a massive enough scale. We have great charities nowadays, but they can't provide universal healthcare, let's not kid around.

Of course the system is borked up! The people in government WANT you to like them and can give you all sorts of stuff to get you to by basically pulling money off a relatively few people. It's literally a guarantee to explode debt over time because it's voters without regards to how much money they have voting to support a system that can take money from a few people worth the same as everyone else as voters.

There's one side of the aisle that likes passing legislation where they buy things without paying for them. Wars, Medicare Part D, Bush Tax Cuts, etc. Red states like to take in more federal dollars than blue states. I don't think it's intellectually honest to frame the issue as a government-wide problem. There are many legislators that are perfectly fine buying what they pay for, thus keeping the system solvent.

No, people ideally shouldn't starve, but people closer to them should help first and people should be engaged enough with the people around them so people would want to help them.

Not sure what you're suggesting here. If someone is already starving chances are their family is already unable to help them unless they purposely shut them out. I'd like you to at least consider a plausible scenario here.

I guess my problem is--when you look at what the incentives and costs are in the system--at the Federal level with a progressive system--you've basically created a pump to suck money out of everyone's pockets in larger and larger amounts until either people leave the system or the system collapses. All the while, when the solutions to the food and healthcare problems are best served LOCALLY where people actually care about these people more. Or, at least they should if we didn't have a society so fragmented and in-your-face that people are more interested in fighting along political and other lines.

Why do people repeat this talking point as if it's a fact? Ask all those other developed countries how they're doing with their 'progressive system' that 'sucks money out of everyone's pockets in larger and larger amounts'. They compensate their systems with taxes. Their systems are solvent, and no, their people aren't fleeing their countries in droves. In fact, they have harsher immigration laws than the USA because so many people want to get in.

Once again you repeat the 'local solutions' stuff but I still see no evidence that it's the best way. What's the local solution to healthcare? That's a new one I haven't heard before. I assume you don't mean the ER, or Planned Parenthood, or just dying, so what is it?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Parasites. Yeah, some folks at the VA seem to have that tude. But as many do not.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

The parasite, by definition, is someone who benefits at the expense of the other, the host.

If someone lives an unemployed life cheating the system to get various aids - this person is definitely a parasite (he does literally nothing except of cheating the system) and he's no doubt not a "good man" by either your or my standards.

Does it make him less human? No. Does it mean his human rights repealed? No. Does it mean the paramedics won't pick him up? No.
He can even (sight) vote.

Yet somehow a simple and obvious fact that you owe me nothing turns into "starve if you hungry" and stating someone is a "parasite" means "the lives of the poor are just not worth saving".

The amount of charities here in the US proves that people are very willing to help poor, ill and hungry.
We both won't let each other starving at the door, maybe even provide a shelter for a day or a week - but eventually we'll ask each other to move out and live our own lives (unless some of us is dedicated to help others).

Because how will you encourage a person who takes everything he need to exist (I won't call it "living") for granted, to pursue something bigger?

[paft.livejournal.com]

v: The parasite, by definition, is someone who benefits at the expense of the other, the host.If someone lives an unemployed life cheating the system to get various aids - this person is definitely a parasite (he does literally nothing except of cheating the system) and he's no doubt not a "good man" by either your or my standards.

Except that, you see, 47% of Americans do not live "unemployed lives cheating the system to get various aids." Nor do most of the people who currently get aid. And do you consider human beings who simply can't work because they are too elderly and too sick and must rely on government aid "parasites?" Are children parasites? How about people who cannot find work that pays enough to feed, clothe and house them in today's economy?

v: Yet somehow a simple and obvious fact that you owe me nothing turns into "starve if you hungry" and stating someone is a "parasite" means "the lives of the poor are just not worth saving".

If you believe you owe your fellow human beings "nothing," then why not let them starve if they are hungry, or die from easily treated diseases if they are sick?

The very concept of human rights is based on the assumption that human beings owe each other the basics that make life, healthy, and happiness possible. If we owe each other nothing, what Hitler and other mass murderers did were not crimes.

v: We both won't let each other starving at the door, maybe even provide a shelter for a day or a week - but eventually we'll ask each other to move out and live our own lives (unless some of us is dedicated to help others).

So all those homeless people I see on the streets are hallucinations?

v: Because how will you encourage a person who takes everything he need to exist (I won't call it "living") for granted, to pursue something bigger?

How can someone "pursue something bigger" when they are hungry, sick, and unable to find work?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

They’re missing the true ugliness -- which is Romney’s derision for the notion that human beings are entitled to food when they are hungry and medical care when they are sick or injured.

And you're missing that it isn't there. You are creating this fiction based on what you think the other side believes, and it's not true. But you never listen or seem to want to understand, so that's where it'll remain.

[paft.livejournal.com]

His derision for the concept was quite clearly stated. The only way you could have missed it is by deliberately unfocussing your eyes.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Why does that quote sound like some boring dribble one of Ayn Rand's fanboys would come up with?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

don't ask questions you already know the answers to. :P

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Mitch McConnell bravely ran away. When reporters reared their ugly heads, he bravely turned his tail and fled. Bravest of the brave, Mitch McConnell. (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/romney-tape-leaves-senate-gop-leaders-speechless.php?ref=fpa)

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

When large parts of the population are dependent on government handouts for their basic needs, there comes a real problem when the government runs out of money. If people have more opportunities for employment, entrepreneurship and economic freedom, they never need to worry about who does or doesn't consider them parasites.

[paft.livejournal.com]

People who need help in hard times shouldn't have to worry about smug and powerful millionaires not only calling them "parasites," but enacting policy on the assumption that they are parasites.

[turkleblot.livejournal.com]

I have heard that having so many things is a right that I am not sure what isn't a right anymore.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Got some examples to cite of Human rights that have confused you in this manner?

[zebra24.livejournal.com]

Do you really think you have a right to enslave people to produce benefits for you? Are you slavery supporter?

There is a huge difference between parasites and dependents. Hope you can learn it yourself.
47% aren't paying income tax at all.
Tiny part of them are truly dependents and truly can't feed themselves.
Most of them are parasites.
Most of them are Obama's electors.
Most of them are supporting OWS mob.
Most of them hatred against Mitt Romney.

1. *human beings are entitled to food when they are hungry and medical care when they are sick or injured*
Nobody is entitled. Entitlements for 47% means slavery for the rest of 53%.

Are you slavery supporter?
You can ask for help, but that's not what you want! You want the "right" to rape people for it.

You are lying that 47% Americans ARE HUNGRY!
You are lying that 47% Americans ARE SICK!
You are lying that 47% Americans can't pay income tax!
You have a hatred towards people that DO WANT WORK.
That DO want to use their money to feed and cure themselves and their families.

2. You are hungry or sick? Go find a job to feed yourself and your dependents.
Save for your pension. And do not lie that you can't.

[paft.livejournal.com]

z: You are hungry or sick? Go find a job to feed yourself and your dependents.

You have noticed that jobs aren't real thick upon the ground these days, right?

I know people who need jobs to feed themselves and their dependents. They spend the bulk of their days searching. Those who are over 50 in particular are coming up empty.

z: Save for your pension. And do not lie that you can't.

It's not a lie that many people just can't save money. Wages have stagnated. Jobs have disappeared. The cost of healthcare, in particular, has risen to the point where for many people, it's out of reach.

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

There's never enough money to feed the poor, but there's always money for another war.

[zebra24.livejournal.com]

If you loose one war you can loose everything.

If you won't feed the poor they will eventually start to work and earn money themselves, and might eventually become independent citizens and taxpayers.

So there is a good reason even behind this "immoral behavior".

Real problem to solve - choose your war carefully and find out 1% who really need a help out of those 47%.