Waffle King Richard
(?)Community Member
- Posted: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 05:30:24 +0000
It goes something like this:
"My neighbor went to Public Schools before joining the Military. He went to college on the GI Bill, bought his first home through the FHA, and received his health care through the VA and Medicare. He now receives Social Security. He's a conservative because he wants to get the government off his back."
On one side, you have the libertarian activist who encourages his allies to throw bricks through the windows of democratic offices to protest the Affordable Care Act. He hates government involvement in the lives of citizens, but his main income is tax-payer financed disability checks, which are sent to him every month by the Federal Government.
Take Tom Grimes for instance. In the last year, he has organized a local group and a state-wide coalition and he started a bus Czar website to marshal protesters to Washington on short notice. This individual mobilized over 200 other "Tea Party" activists to go to the local office of the same Congressman to protest what he sees as the government's take over of health care. "If you quit giving people that stuff, they would figure out how to do it on their own" he said. Yet when Mr. Grimes lost his job 15 months ago, one of his first steps was contacting his Congressman about available programs that might give him access to Government Health Care. He receives Social Security and is considering a job at the Census Bureau. But in the meantime, Grimes has filled the back seat of his Mercury Grand Marquis with literature, decrying any and all Government Aid to struggling Americans.
Then you have Diana Reimer, who is considered a Star Right-Wing activist for her efforts against government public programs. A campaign which she describes as her mission. Reimer of course currently enjoys Social Security and the socialized medicine that comes with Medicare.
The cognitive dissonance is rather remarkable. They perceive the government as the source of their economic distress, which itself doesn't make any sense, and then rely on the government to give them a hand, all the while demanding that the government do less to give people a hand. Their reflexive hatred for public programs is so irrational, they don't even see the contradiction! As the New York Times pointed out, after a year of angry debate, emotion now outweighs fact regarding the health care reform bill with the public.
I suggest that those on here who feel they are either for or against the bill (or even those who are neutral towards it), take a look at it yourselves and make the decision for yourselves based on what it says. Don't rely on what others tells you the bill does or does not do. It's better to think for oneself, rather than go with those who are letting emotions dictate what something is or isn't. I guarantee you, if you look at the bill with an open mind, you'll see there's more to this than emotions are letting one see. Not to mention, you'd have a lot of respect from others if you took the time to look at the bill and not decide before you've even read it, that it's a good thing or a bad thing.
The protests around the bill kind of remind me of kids when they see a new dish that their parents or someone else has made them, and they make up their mind before even trying it that it must taste bad. Remember the "You won't know unless you try it" saying? So many people are being quick to say they don't like the act, when they themselves don't really know much of anything about the bill. They rely on cognitive dissonance and their emotions to decide that it's a bad thing before they've even looked at it.
To finish off, a quote from Abe Lincoln.
"My neighbor went to Public Schools before joining the Military. He went to college on the GI Bill, bought his first home through the FHA, and received his health care through the VA and Medicare. He now receives Social Security. He's a conservative because he wants to get the government off his back."
On one side, you have the libertarian activist who encourages his allies to throw bricks through the windows of democratic offices to protest the Affordable Care Act. He hates government involvement in the lives of citizens, but his main income is tax-payer financed disability checks, which are sent to him every month by the Federal Government.
Take Tom Grimes for instance. In the last year, he has organized a local group and a state-wide coalition and he started a bus Czar website to marshal protesters to Washington on short notice. This individual mobilized over 200 other "Tea Party" activists to go to the local office of the same Congressman to protest what he sees as the government's take over of health care. "If you quit giving people that stuff, they would figure out how to do it on their own" he said. Yet when Mr. Grimes lost his job 15 months ago, one of his first steps was contacting his Congressman about available programs that might give him access to Government Health Care. He receives Social Security and is considering a job at the Census Bureau. But in the meantime, Grimes has filled the back seat of his Mercury Grand Marquis with literature, decrying any and all Government Aid to struggling Americans.
Then you have Diana Reimer, who is considered a Star Right-Wing activist for her efforts against government public programs. A campaign which she describes as her mission. Reimer of course currently enjoys Social Security and the socialized medicine that comes with Medicare.
The cognitive dissonance is rather remarkable. They perceive the government as the source of their economic distress, which itself doesn't make any sense, and then rely on the government to give them a hand, all the while demanding that the government do less to give people a hand. Their reflexive hatred for public programs is so irrational, they don't even see the contradiction! As the New York Times pointed out, after a year of angry debate, emotion now outweighs fact regarding the health care reform bill with the public.
I suggest that those on here who feel they are either for or against the bill (or even those who are neutral towards it), take a look at it yourselves and make the decision for yourselves based on what it says. Don't rely on what others tells you the bill does or does not do. It's better to think for oneself, rather than go with those who are letting emotions dictate what something is or isn't. I guarantee you, if you look at the bill with an open mind, you'll see there's more to this than emotions are letting one see. Not to mention, you'd have a lot of respect from others if you took the time to look at the bill and not decide before you've even read it, that it's a good thing or a bad thing.
The protests around the bill kind of remind me of kids when they see a new dish that their parents or someone else has made them, and they make up their mind before even trying it that it must taste bad. Remember the "You won't know unless you try it" saying? So many people are being quick to say they don't like the act, when they themselves don't really know much of anything about the bill. They rely on cognitive dissonance and their emotions to decide that it's a bad thing before they've even looked at it.
To finish off, a quote from Abe Lincoln.
Quote:
"When a corporation becomes enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow. And the money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people, until wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed."