Obama Wasting Money on Gays "Who Won't Live Long Enough"
Before we entrust Secretary Kathleen Sebelius with health care reform, maybe Americans should take a closer look at how her Department spends other taxpayer dollars. Even The Washington Post called Friday's announcement from Health and Human Services (HHS) an "eye opener," writing that the President's "gay outreach continues." A $1.4 trillion deficit aside, HHS has set aside a quarter million dollars to launch the first-ever National Resource Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Elders.
Apparently, our nation is never too broke to advance a radical social agenda. The agency released a statement on the Center last week, saying its purpose would be to "help community-based organizations understand the unique needs... of older LGBT individuals and assist them in implementing programs for local service providers..."
In the release, HHS regurgitates the Left's propaganda to justify the waste, claiming that "1.5 to 4 million" LGBTs are age 60 and older. In reality, HHS has no idea how many LGBT seniors exist. No one does! The movement is only a few decades old, and people who are 80- or 90-years-old didn't grow up in a culture where it was acceptable to identify with this lifestyle.
Of course, the real tragedy here--apart from the unnecessary spending--is that, given the risks of homosexual conduct, few of these people are likely to live long enough to become senior citizens!
Yet once again, the Obama administration is rushing to reward a lifestyle that poses one of the greatest public health risks in America. If this is how HHS prioritizes, imagine what it could do with a trillion dollar health care overhaul!
Obama Wasting Money on Gays "Who Won't Live Long Enough"
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So, certain "Americans" aren't worth the money?
"Obama Wasting Money on Gays "Who Won't Live Long Enough""
By Family Research Council: "Defending Faith, Family and Freedom"
Really? So, the Faimly Research Council defends faith, family and freedom?
May I ask Whose?
"A $1.4 trillion deficit aside, HHS has set aside a quarter million dollars to launch the first-ever National Resource Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Elders"
Wow. So a whopping $250,000.00 (two-hundred and fifty thousand) is TOO much to spend on "certain" Americans .
MY HOUSE ISN'T EVEN WORTH $250k ANYMORE!!! (and I live in the SF Bay Area of Northern California...not some isolated backwater where the property values never got past $100k per single family home).
"Of course, the real tragedy here--apart from the unnecessary spending--is that, given the risks of homosexual conduct, few of these people are likely to live long enough to become senior citizens"
Hhmmm.....let's look at this from another angle, shall we?
What if I substitute "homosexual conduct" with:
Police Service
Fire Dept Service
US Armed Forces Service
Medical Personnel, or any other high risk career that could shorten one's lifespand? (the list would be long)
((oh, but that's right, homosexuality is a personal choice that benefits no one, where as the professions I've listed serve the greater good of "real" Americans))
Yet we spend tax dollars on these individuals and organizations? (though not nearly enough to compensate for the personal sacrafices often experienced in these occupations).
We also spend tax dollars on drug rehab facilities, homeless & women 's shelters, at-risk teen programs, job retraining, half-way houses, and many other social services that benefit only "certain" Americans (ones that may not be, at present, productively contributing to our society).
Maybe we should just take a page from "Mein Kampf" and humanely euthanize undesireables.
Excerpt from Wikipedia: "While the term "Holocaust victims" generally refers to Jews, the German Nazis also persecuted and often killed millions of members of other groups they considered inferior (Untermenschen), undesirable or dangerous. In addition to Jews, the targeted groups included Poles (of whom 2 million gentile Poles were killed) and some other Slavic peoples, Soviets (particularly prisoners of war ), Romanies (also known as Gypsies), some Africans, Asians and others who did not belong to the "Aryan race ", the mentally ill, physically disabled and the mentally retarded, homosexuals and transsexual people, and political opponents and religious dissidents such as communists, trade unionists, and Jehovah's Witnesses"
Family Research Council: defenders of discrimination , homophobia and the final solution.
- JBarnett
October 26, 2009 7:11PM
Reply to this Recommend
(7)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So Emotional
I don't like FRC either. They are religious. Religion clouds the mind.
But so does emotion. Yes, it hurts to see so much bigotry but let's step back and look at the real issue here. Money.
Yeah yeah, it's always about money you say. Well yes. It is.
What makes you able to support your own life? What allows you to get things you couldn't make yourself? What allows you to take vacations? What allows you to get food and shelter? Money.
America has a real spending problem these days. With borrowing, spending, loaning, buying, spending, and borrowing some more, we are crashing the monetary system. We already see the dollar falter right before our eyes.
Spending more, on ANYTHING will help plummet our security and our wealth. We should be cutting welfare programs and medicare and fannie mae and social security . Everything that favors one group of people over another group.
We are all going to suffer in the next couple of years. It's better to allow the suffering to occur now than try to stop it with more spending and more crashing of the system.
I am not bigoted or racist or religious. I am libertarian. I am for freedom.
- sunshiner424
October 28, 2009 2:29PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There are
There are many elderly gay and lesbian people. The fact that the civil rights movement for gays has only existed since the Stonewall Riots of 1969 does not mean that gay people did not exist prior to that time. There have always been gay and lesbian people existing quietly among straight society , facing discrimination and hatred with fear and loneliness. Many of those people were able to come out in the past 50 years, and find happiness and joy with a beloved partner with whom they could finally live openly.
But the fact is that now, yes, we do have a generation of elderly gay and lesbian people who often face a much more difficult retirement than their straight peers because of a variety of factors, including social security discrimination, inheritance discrimination, pension inheritance discrimination, and a lack of understanding in elder communities and care facilities.
We definitely need an elder resource center for aging glbt persons.
Additionally, the title of this OP is simply hateful and willfully offensive. I am continually appalled at how badly people calling themselves " Christians " will behave towards their fellow human-beings. Not a very good "witness" at all. Disgusting.
- Babaroni
October 26, 2009 7:12PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Believe me Babaroni....
I've gotten to the point where I don't even want to identify myself as a "Christian" anymore because of the conduct and attitudes of most so called "christians" (I find myself constantly apologizing for their hate and intolerance when Jesus was the ultimate "lead by example" icon).
I want absolutely NOTHING to do with them.
And I'm truly appalled at their influence in/over our once secular government . Our founding fathers & mothers must be weeping.
- JBarnett
October 26, 2009 7:40PM
Reply to this Recommend
(4)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thanks, J.
In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a Christian AND a lesbian, but I agree with you absolutely that for a large percentage of those who identify themselves as " Christians " in this society , their teachings have very little to do with following the example of Christ.
- Babaroni
October 26, 2009 8:05PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Just curious
I was just wondering about the basis on which Christians have traditionally disapproved of lesbianism. I know what the Old Testament says about male-male sex , but it says nothing at all about girl-on-girl action. Is there anything in the New Testament about it, or does the opposition to lesbianism begin with later Church fathers?
- fsilber
October 28, 2009 11:42AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
New Testament
There is one passage in the NT which is typically used to condemn lesbians. However, in context, it is actually a condemnation of idolatrous temple orgies in which heterosexuals would go and have riotous sex with temple prostitutes of either gender as a celebration of a pagan god or goddess. It has nothing whatsoever to do with committed monogamous relationships between same-gender-oriented people. Nor do any of the other Biblical passages generally used to condemn gay marriage .
- Babaroni
October 28, 2009 12:41PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Last line destroyed your credibility
I guess I'll have to read the NT for myself. What you wrote sounded plausible until you claimed that no other Biblical passages used to condemn gay marriage have anything to do with committed monogamous relationships. I, personally, have read (in the original Hebrew) at least two early Old Testament passages that condemned male-male sex in the harshest terms without regard for the time, place, or nature of the relationship. It most certainly does NOT say that a man who lays with another man as with a woman shall be put to death EXCEPT IF IT'S IN THE CONTEXT OF A COMMITTED MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIP. (I mean, maybe it should have made that exception. But it didn't.)
- fsilber
October 28, 2009 2:32PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Actually
Actually, the meaning of the verse to which you refer is quite obscure in the ancient Hebrew. The literal translation is something along the lines of, "Do not lie down with a man in beds of a woman." Some have *assumed* that this means, "Do not lie down with a man *in the manner in which you would lie down with a* woman," but this is not what the literal translation says. A better interpretation of this verse might very well be, "Do not lie with a man in your wife's bed," which would be more of an indication that the verse is referring to committing adultery -- "Don't disrespect your marriage bed by having sex with a man," in other words. There is no valid proof that this verse condemns sex between men in committed monogamous relationships with one another.
If you are not personally a scholar of ancient hebrew (as opposed to someone who has studied the language casually for Biblical purposes), check with some more in-depth sources on this, particularly ones which are not already laden with a religious bias against homosexuality . It's easy to assume that ancient scriptures are saying what you want them to say, or what you have been conditioned to believe they ought to say, but this is not always the truth.
- Babaroni
October 28, 2009 4:00PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
New Testament
Romans 1 is not speaking of temple prostitution as if other same-sex relations were approved. Surely everyone knows that same sex relationships of a sexual nature were abhorrent to Jews. there is no celebration of such relationships among the Jews no matter how one tries to twist the scriptures and shape a pro-homosexual line from them. One who claims to be a Christian and is also committed to a sexual union with a person of their own sex is deceived concerning sin and concerning righteousness in Christ.
- yar2009
October 31, 2009 2:53PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The issue
The issue between Jewish culture and homosexuality in the early Christian era was more related to the abhorrence by the Jews of the hellenistic influence being disseminated by the ongoing Roman invasasion and occupation of the Middle East. Homosexuality as practiced in Greek and Roman society took two basic forms: adulterous affairs (since the Roman Empire also had a legal requirement of heterosexual marriage and the production of a specific number of children by all Roman citizens); and Temple Prostitution/Temple Orgies. Both of these were anathema to observant Jews, and were resisted as marks of hellenistic influence upon Jewish culture.
Again, *primary* same-gender relationships were uncommon in Old and New Testament times, since individuals had little choice about early heterosexual marriage (in Roman society, a person could be put to death for vowing celibacy and refusing to marry). These scriptures are not addressing committed, primary, monogamous relationships between people of the same gender. They address adultery, prostitution , temple orgies and rape.
- Babaroni
October 31, 2009 3:32PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's in the New Testament, too...
but what is more important is the context. In Romans 1, Paul discusses how we allow all kinds of sin overtake our way of thinking instead of obeying God, and both female and male homosexuality is mentioned (homosexuality in general is also listed as sin in other passages of the New Testament). However, he's using many examples of sin to show that no one is exempt from this - that we've all sinned. Because of that none of us have the right to judge another.
For example: Gossip and homosexuality are in the same category with God, and we've all gossiped. As Christians we don't have to pretend that God approves of gossip, but we also don't need to make it a point constantlty announce publicly that we disapprove of it. It shouldn't be any different with homosexual acts.
God is our judge, and as judge he has decided what is appropriate behavior, but he also has offered grace and mercy to us for all of our sins. That message is supposed to be the mission of a Christian, not pointing out sin.
To the Family Research Council: I'm sure you think you are trying to help people have better lives, but it's not working... politics and posturing will only comes off as judging. It is counter-productive to communicating grace, love and compassion, so God actually hates it.
Some words to live by... (Remember, this comes right after the list of sins that includes arrogance, lack of mercy, gossip, etc.)
Rom 2:1 No matter who you are, if you judge anyone, you have no excuse. When you judge another person, you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the same things.
Rom 2:2 We know that God's judgment is right when he condemns people for doing these things.
Rom 2:3 When you judge people for doing these things but then do them yourself, do you think you will escape God's judgment?
Rom 2:4 Do you have contempt for God, who is very kind to you, puts up with you, and deals patiently with you? Don't you realize that it is God's kindness that is trying to lead you to him and change the way you think and act?
As to dying... death, according the Scripture is the result of sin. Not a specific sin... all of our sin. If I died of AIDS it's no different than dying of breast cancer or old age. Death exists because of sin, which means you will die someday because of sin, too. How we die is irrelevant. The Good News is that our spirits can be saved by God's grace.
- Curiarte
October 28, 2009 1:12PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I appreciate your comments........
and I have wondered how it is that the Family Research Center can proclaim Cristianity and be so vile.
I was raised with chrisrian beliefs and I am gay. I am not gay because I want to be gay, it is what comes naturally to me.
So, believing in the Bible tells me that I am living in sin unless I live in sbstinence. To explain this to my straight friends would be as if to spend your entire life living as another person instead of yourself. I can't find the reason to live if that is to be your life.
If being gay is truly a sin it is all consuming and in my opinion impossible to escape. You can chose not to act on your inner feelings but it will never be gone.
- bhall
October 28, 2009 9:28PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Incidentally...
Incidentally, I'd like to know what, exactly, about "homosexual conduct" is likely to shorten my lifespan? Please enlighten me.
- Babaroni
October 26, 2009 8:04PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
As far as I know....
as long as you're protecting yourself and your partner(s), abosolutely nothing should shorten your lifespan (I was directing that comment to the article writer(s)...I assumed the author was passive/agressively referring to HIV ).
- JBarnett
October 27, 2009 7:44PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I believe you are correct...
Your assumption of passive-agression was mine, as well.
Incidentally, I'd just like to point out to the OP that a committed, monogamous healthy gay couple has exactly the same risk of HIV (and other STD) transmission as a committed, monogamous healthy straight couple -- zero.
My risk as a lesbian who has been in a committed, monogamous relationship with her spouse for the past nearly 19 years is a GREAT deal less than that of a straight frat boy sleeping with anything warm and willing. Seems to me you'd do a great deal more good preaching against promiscuity (and unprotected sex ) than against gay people and gay marriage . I seem to recall a story about a beam and a mote...
- Babaroni
October 27, 2009 8:19PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You can't forget...
Don't forget Babaroni, according to those groups, we're also a bunch of alcoholic, drug addicted, dirty needle using sex -fiends, so that's probably how we're going to "not live" to those tender older ages.
- RonJ73
October 29, 2009 4:27PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Bigoted
I've always disliked the Family Research Council, and I knew this sort of thing represented their views, I just never imagined they'd be so open about it. Just about every single statement is either wrong, disgusting, or both. There is no statement in the "article" saying how much this will cost . Moreover, the Washington Post reference is meant to suggest that the author of the piece sees something wrong with the move, whereas no such sentiment is expressed in the piece ( http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/10/eye_opener_obama_administratio_1.html?hpid=news-col-blog for those interested in reading it). As others have already made clear, there are real issues facing LGBT seniors, and there are many of them. Perhaps this project will help to determine more closely how many.
And then "few of these people are likely to live long enough to become senior citizens!" Really, do they have any statistics on that? Apart from entirely lacking any evidence to make such a claim, there is also no argument as to why such a claim should mean we shouldn't be paying attention to the specific needs of a group of people that is often discriminated against. Everyone who reads the OP and finds it distasteful and wrong should comment and show what we think about the "Family" Research Council's rhetoric. It's time the shame is turned back on them.
- ToddG
October 26, 2009 10:55PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Beg pardon?
Where are you getting your data? Your claims are unsourced. (Surprise, surprise...making things up is pretty much a hallmark of you folks these days...)
So, where's the information about people "who won't live long enough" to benefit from this program?
Clue for you: there are lots of people over 60 who are LGBT. You might not like it, but it's true. These are people who have to make extraordinary efforts to protect themselves and their partners legally simply because people like you think that they shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of us. And now you suggest that we as a people should continue to pretend they don't exist?
Shame on you. You claim to defend families, but you only care about the families that look like yours.
- hap
October 27, 2009 4:28AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Right for the wrong reason
Personally, I'm sick of all the agencies, grants, studies, etc. that collectively have run our country into the ground with deficit spending on an endless list of special interests.
As a reasonably wise man put it, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have.".
The write up is offensive to the point of disgusting any right thinking person, but in terms of the big picture is little more than a smokescreen.
When I was a young man, in my early 20s, I sat down one day and calculated how much a person would have in the bank at retirement if the monies they paid into Social Security were put into a passbook savings account at 6% interest. A person who worked from age 18 to age 65 would retire with over a million dollars in the bank.
By all rights, retired American citizens, regardless of whatever special interest group they might nominally identify with, should be some of the richest people on earth. Instead, most of us look forward to our so called "golden years" in a state of quiet desperation.
Consider this: What if instead of raiding the Social Security fund to the tune of nearly $2 trillion, that money had been invested in mortgage backed securities, i.e. real estate contracts? And, what if instead of turning Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over to the private sector to be gutted by investment bankers, it had been retained by we the people?
The interest income being generated would be so huge that every retiring American worker could be paid a lump sum of one million dollars, WITHOUT COLLECTING ANOTHER DIME IN SSI TAXES EVER AGAIN.
With a million dollars in the bank, I doubt anyone, gay or otherwise, would have much need for taxpayer funded, special interest, social programs.
- Don Earl
October 27, 2009 5:32AM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Doesn't make much sense
You do realize that if everyone had one million dollars that prices on everything would skyrocket to a place where 2 million dollars is the new poverty line. Basic economics 101.
- SteveSinCa
October 28, 2009 12:04PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
assuming...
he actually meant everyone (instead of every retired individual) and that they all spent it immediately.
If the money is in the bank for them to draw a reasonable income from when needed, it would not change the economy. Over 20 years in retirement (which is the least that people should plan on just in case), $1 million is $50k a year, and a decent portion of that would likely be spent on medical expenses.
Just curious... Did you really take economics?
- Curiarte
October 28, 2009 1:23PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Economics and common sense
Yes, economics in high school and college .
If every senior citizen had 1 million in the bank, it would most definitely change the economy . Companies would charge 100 dollars for a box of Depends. Medicines would cost 10 times as much. One can simply look at how the free market operates to know that.
Also, many Americans have shown they do not have the ability to delegate their money yearly like that. Some would, most would not.
It's a nice dream but realistically unfeasible.
- SteveSinCa
October 28, 2009 1:40PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Confused
You're saying the value of the dollar would decrease if we all had lots of money ? Here we are, all pretty damn poor with no jobs and the value of the dollar is dropping....
How do we increase the value of a dollar?
- sunshiner424
October 28, 2009 2:33PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Think about it
The value of the dollar increases when we spend. They are talking about a scenario where people have a million dollars in the bank and only spend 50k per year. That's 950k OUT of circulation per person (decreasing) each year.
- SteveSinCa
October 28, 2009 4:23PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Have you studied economics?
When more people are able to buy things, prices come down. I'll give you a simple, real world example. In the late 90s, when unemployment was at all time lows, and good paying jobs were going begging, prices were both low and stable. A pound of hamburger, a pound of butter, a gallon of gas or a gallon of milk all cost about a dollar. The dollar was strong and the Federal deficit was actually reversing.
When people have money to buy the things they need, it keeps everyone working. Additionally, everyone who has enough money to get by on their own, is one less person on welfare.
There would likely be a certin trickle down effect on labor as children and grand children inherited. With less incentive to work, labor costs would likely rise. On the flip side, employer paid taxes and overall costs would go down because there'd be no reason to subsidize that portion of the population that doesn't work anyway, or to fund all the programs designed to supply workers with the services they require because they can't afford it.
Furthermore, the brightest and the best could afford the kind of educations and training that increase their productivity and value to a company, while also creating the kind of brain trust that fuels innovation.
Simply stated, the financial stability of the individual determines the financial stability of society as a whole. If you don't understand that, I'd suggest you read a few headlines in any business publication that suits your fancy.
- Don Earl
October 28, 2009 3:00PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You are missing my point
"In the late 90s, when unemployment was at all time lows, and good paying jobs were going begging, prices were both low and stable."
That's debatable. I know people that couldn't afford milk and beef in the 90's at those prices. Remember in the fifties when you were paid 2 dollars per hour and milk was 20 cents? Wages went up, prices went up. The more wages go up, the more prices go up. AND vice versa. It's called inflation.
I agree with most of your statement, but it is irrelevant to my point. Yes, people with money are people off welfare, yes, people with money get better educated and that increases productivity. I get all that. That has nothing to do with pricing. You are missing my point.
If someone has a product and knows that there is a person who can afford to pay 10 dollars for it, they are going to sell it for 10 dollars. That's the free market.
- SteveSinCa
October 28, 2009 4:27PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Different wavelengths
"When more people are able to buy things, prices come down. I'll give you a simple, real world example."
I think I understand the confusion now. You are throwing economic principles at me with the assumption that they are always true. I was using economic principles fused with reality which changes things. Let ME give YOU an example.
Walmart buys things in bulk, so because of the bigger purchasing power, they can sell things cheaper. It goes on the premise you promote that the more people can buy, the cheaper things are. The reality is that then WalMart becomes the only option for suburbs across the nation and then prices simply go right back up to what the consumer can afford to pay . The consumer is left with no alternative. See where I am coming from now?
- SteveSinCa
October 28, 2009 4:54PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your assumptions make no sense.
Inflation has one, and only one, cause: devaluation of the underlying currency. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with an individual's ability to pay . It has EVERYTHING to do with the purchasing power of the currency being used. Unleveraged, personal wealth is anti inflationary. In essence, inflation is caused by borrowing against future productivity.
When the Fed prints up an extra trillion in fiat currency, it is basically an IOU issued against the future labor of every man, woman and child in the country. The only way to service that debt is to devalue the currency and issue more IOUs. For example, you borrow a million dollars, then ten years later when a million dollars is worth half as much, you borrow another million to pay it back. When currency is backed by real assets, such as gold or real estate, it is issued debt free, hence no inflation.
Your assumptions about free market pricing are seriously flawed, for the simple reason we do not have free markets under current conditions . Your Walmart example actually refutes your argument. What you describe is anti competitive practices, not free markets.
Medical care would be a good example. If seniors could afford to pay cash for medical care, it would create a free market for medical services that currently does not exist. Among other things, the insurance company middlemen would be eliminated. Those bargaining for medical services would pay cash for services when the services are rendered, without price fixing or the need to subsidize medical care by young, healthy persons. Medical care providers would not have to factor nonpayment into the cost of services. Since those needing medical care would by paying up front, out of their own pockets, they would shop for the best rates, rather than take whatever is available, at whatever price is fixed in an anti competitive market.
Furthermore, those with the ability to pay cash for what they need have far more control over price discovery. They can afford to stock up when prices are low, and as a result, refuse to spend when prices are high. They get to pick and choose when they enter the market. As their need becomes less urgent, they become immune to volatile markets and being whipsawed by radical price swings. If a vendor isn't willing to sell for what they're willing to pay, they simply don't buy.
- Don Earl
October 28, 2009 5:48PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Final word
"Inflation has one, and only one, cause: devaluation of the underlying currency."
This is semantics and a waste of time. Yes, and what can cause a devaluation of the currency? Increased wages for one thing (rise in production costs), hence my earlier comment.
"Your Walmart example actually refutes your argument. What you describe is anti competitive practices, not free markets."
I know it's not a free market system, I was using the term flippantly, because it's a common conservative term. I should have been clearer.
Neither political party has any interest in promoting any scenario where the citizen has all the money in the bank and there is no need for insurance companies or big government (Bush increased the size of government 10fold over Clinton, it is too early to tell for Obama). The "ideal" scenarios you push and the earlier commenter pushed for are absolutely never going to happen, no politician will allow it, so it's rather moot to continue this conversation.
- SteveSinCa
October 28, 2009 6:02PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
this is offensive
Plain and simple. Just very offensive... Its unrealistic and purely based on skeptics . Sorry, but i cant beleive people ,like the person who wrote this , actually think they know what they are talking about.
"acceptable to identify with this lifestyle" "few of these people are likely to live long enough to become senior citizens!"
Statistics that probably help his case and point, is the fact that a good majority of teen and adult suicide (in depression ) is from the GLBT community. NTM the hundreds upon hundreds of hate crimes that occur during the year and never looked at or even publisized! With all these things and to add , AIDS , of course there is going to be a good dent in a community of people. But then again, all of these things are mostly caused through hate from others. Even AIDS, several articles that i have read suggest that AIDS spreads so quicly through the gay male community because of unsafe sex . Carelessness and promiscuity and drugs have been shown to decrease when a specific group of people are met in a nicer atmosphere and a better life. (also in my sociology book btw) Also statistically, it has been proven, that while passing aids is more commen among gay men, starting that strain (even in the gay male community) is usually caused by a heterosexual. Also in my text book :) i love now being in college ! (so much materials in my possession)
SO for all those christians that say these people are so bad, i beleive the tables should turn and it is indeed the christians and other religious/homophobe affiliates that cause most of these problems. If the world was a better place, and more accepting, i beleive you would see a less promiscuity, less drug use , basically less bad things. SO STOP IT!!!!
- zman676
October 28, 2009 9:53AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I see you know it all...
and every one else are idiots!
- CitizenZebra
November 7, 2009 6:15PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
refute
Can you refute his arguments?
It is quite clear that the prevalence of suicide in the gay community stems not from the homosexuals themselves but from societies attitude towards homosexuals.
This attitude further pushes homosexuals into dangerous lifestyles, contributing to the spread of disease and drug use .
- MrBook
November 8, 2009 7:04AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Amazing,
it is allways amazing to see one that knows it all.
- Argenious November 7, 2009 6:17PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Family Research Council fronts for Republicans
Sounds to me like the Family Research Council is like FOX news, just a shill for Republican policy. Who in the hell are you to judge whether certain people are not " likely to live to old age"? You surely are not representing or defending my Faith, Family and Freedom. You are nothing but a bunch of biggots who, like hard core Republicans, misrepresent yourselves and lie through your teeth. No, I am NOT gay, just a free, white, male, married (to a woman) American who feels like EVERYBODY has worth and is worth fighting for.
- richgrec
October 28, 2009 11:35AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
do unto others as you would have them do unto you
If you would want Americans to deny you equal rights because they do not agree with you, approve of you, tolerate you or accept you, then go ahead and advocate denying other Americans equal rights. Otherwise, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. How can anyone who calls themselves a Christian not do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
- planetspinz
October 28, 2009 11:45AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good point
I would have others NOT take my money . I would also have others NOT give me money out of pity. Likewise, I would not give out money or take money to give out.
Why does everyone seem to support the taking of money from some to give to others? Are those others so pitiable that we need to demean them with handouts? I would be offended.
Even individuals in the GLBT community can survive on their own. I bet you they can handle it. Unless you want to call it an even trade and have them give something back in exchange for all that money to the people it was taken from. I'm not exactly having an easy time either. Nobody is.
- sunshiner424
October 28, 2009 2:38PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
do unto others as you would have them do unto you
The taxes these senior citizens paid over a lifetime are now being given back to them.
Since those seniors citizens are not allowed to marry their long-term same-gender significant others, they are deprived of the rights heterosexuals have of Social Security and pension benefits , with their Social Security deposits being given to the spouses of heterosexual married couples.
So now how would you do unto others as you would have them do unto you,if you knew your money was not being given back to you, or if you knew you could not receive your spouse's Social Security or pension benefits because of who you love? Would you want that to happen to you?
- planetspinz
October 28, 2009 3:23PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
their money shouldn't have been taken in the first place!
Yes, it's too late now for that but their money was taken to fund social programs and now you want to create another social program? Just pointing out the hypocrisy.
These people knew exactly what they were getting into. Nobody lied and said they'd have pension benefits like married couples. They knew they wouldn't. Is the reason that this is up for debate because some homosexual elderly people complained about it or is it because some "genius" thought "OMG we need to give them handouts because LIFE is UNFAIR!" Sorry. It really is unfair. There's no way we can make life fair by spending buttloads of money (despite the obvious attempt).
I can tell you, it wouldn't happen to me. I would know it was coming and save up my earnings so I could retire with some money. I would NEVER depend on government .
And btw, you're debating by appealing to emotional responses. Shame on you.
- sunshiner424
October 28, 2009 8:29PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thank you
Finally a few sentences that are simple and honest sounding. I can't understand why everyone is feeling so entitled now - what is wrong with people - where is their pride? Perhaps that is not even in vogue anymore - how sad. I, like you, just want the government to stay out of my money and I do not want any they have taken away from others. I had much rather keep struggling and maintain my independence. I feel good when I help other people but I would not feel the same if I were forced to do so. I do not intend to start a conversation about this issue so there is no need to start attacking. Good evening.
- just a thought
October 28, 2009 8:17PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
sunshiner 424
Mt comment was intended as a reply to Sunshiner424 but I failed to mention that in my post..........
- just a thought
October 28, 2009 8:20PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Figure about 8% of the population is gay...
that carries over into the adult and elderly population since you don't really "decide" to "be" gay. (Don't buy it? They you right now decide to be gay- decide to have one with a same gendered person. Gross? Can't imagine it? NEITHER can a gay, doof!) Now amongst the elderly gay community, there hasn't been the same support that a person in his 40's now can expect. many were cast off by family and -oh, that's right- they can't choose MORE family by getting married so- who helps when they get old and strange? Not family who won't care and not spouses because they are illegal . Please. Think- it won't hurt- promise!
- Mathematicaster
October 28, 2009 11:48AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Bad logic or believing your own propaganda?
"The movement is only a few decades old, and people who are 80- or 90-years-old didn't grow up in a culture where it was acceptable to identify with this lifestyle."
Wait a minute, what? So you can only be gay if you spent your entire life living in a culture that accepts homosexuality ?
The movement is about 40 years old. The people who started the movement were in their 20s and 30s then. Making them 70s and 80s now. Not to mention all the people who were closeted and have come out since then.
The FRC seems to believe that if we don't approve of something, it won't exist. Apparently we can just shun things we don't like right out of existence!
- emikoala
October 28, 2009 11:49AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I am a Bible-believing Christian
...and I have a great respect for Dr. James Dobson, the founder of Family Research Council. But in this, they are wrong.
Jesus of Nazareth knew the hearts of those He healed, and He probably knew that many of them had led "sinful" lives, like the woman who anointed His feet in Bethany; yet He consistently reached out to her and others like her who the Pharisees, the "religious right" of those days, shunned. He didn't ask questions about their lifestyles or specific acts. (He didn't need to, but that's beside the point.) He healed all who came to Him.
Whatever we feel about homosexuals and what they do, they are still humans in need of our healing touch. When we give it, we are acting as both "conservatives," conserving the values of mercy and justice, and "liberals," showing compassion liberally and without counting the costs to ourselves, just as He did on the Cross. "Against such things there is no law ." (Galatians 5:23)
If we are to claim the name of the Christ, we must act as He did and not let our minds and spirits become like those of the Pharisees, more concerned with outward "righteousness" than with love, justice and mercy.
- jochanaan
October 28, 2009 11:57AM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Judgment Day
If, in fact, God created heaven and earth and everything therein, then He also created homosexuals . Who am I to judge?
Furthermore, if these self-proclaimed Christians really believe in the power of God, then why don't they trust that in the end the guilty will be punished accordingly...whatever God's idea of the guilty is, and get on with trying to be better humans in their own houses?
Some of the sanctimonious might be in for some unpleasant surprises come Judgment Day.
- joolmaker
October 31, 2009 12:06PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Same philosophy as the Taliban
Can't you just feel the love of Jesus emanating from the Family Research Council? Such fine representatives of the Christian faith.
If society condemns gay relationships and creates a hostile environment that forces gays to live in the closet and be promiscuous, then of course, there is going to be a higher mortality rate, stemming from substance abuse and other self destructive behaviors caused by low self esteem, to an increase in sexually transmitted diseases.
If society allows gay people to settle down with the one they love, then more gay people choose monogamy and as someone who is involved in the gay community (and partnered for 24 years - now married), I can say that those who choose monogamy grow to be very old indeed.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.
- SteveSinCa
October 28, 2009 11:58AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why single out gay elders?
I'm not sure why we're singling out gay elderly people when all elderly people need help and support . Does being gay make you more worthy than just being elderly? Why can't gay elderly people apply for help through elder care programs we already have?
- Jerica
October 28, 2009 12:20PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
For the same reason
For the same reason we single out Black elderly, Hispanic elderly, Asian elderly...each minority has special needs not necessarily needed by the others. This so called Christian bigoted group makes me just want to run out and become a Christian...NOT!!!!
At least My religion does not discriminate against any one, including them. But if they keep this type of hate speech up...that may change .
- oldfoxbob
October 28, 2009 1:16PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
well what about the rest of them?
Why do we single out anybody? Isn't singling out unfair? I want special treatment too!!!
This country has practically eliminated racism and bigotry. We ought to start eliminating special treatment. Raze the playing field.
- sunshiner424
October 28, 2009 2:40PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
On "singling out" gay elders
Yes, Jerica, all elderly people need help and support . However, society has placed gay and lesbian elders at a severe disadvantage in taking care of themselves. Because we are unable to get married, we are unable to receive health benefits on our spouse's plans, become recipients of their pension plan benefits and take advantage of the social security benefits that heterosexual spouses are able to claim. So all of that impacts negatively our ability to care for ourselves as we age.
- Pat Cheney
October 29, 2009 9:40PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Incredible bigotry
The fundamentalist Christian bigotry rears its ugly head again:
"Apparently, our nation is never too broke to advance a radical social agenda."
Yes, damn the Civil Rights movement. Why can't the blacks just stay where they belong, as slaves to the superior whites? Abolishing slavery is a radical social agenda, and radical social agendas are pure evil!
"given the risks of homosexual conduct, few of these people are likely to live long enough to become senior citizens"
The risks of homosexual conduct? What on earth is that supposed to mean? "Homosexual conduct" is no riskier than "heterosexual conduct".
You are nothing but bigots. If it isn't the color of their skin, it's their sexual orientation.
- WayOfTheDodo October 28, 2009 12:55PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Family Research Council: All War & No Peace. Where's the morality?
I hadn't realized that Opposing Views broadcasts the unsubstantiated radical viewpoints of Fox News-like propaganda machines.
Honestly, the government blows through hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars on an unnecessary war and this organization is fine with it, even with their own children dying, but they will absolutely not allow a few hundred THOUSAND dollars to be spent on people that organizations like these have been responsible for harassing for decades now.
This organization is clearly composed of the same caucasian people that shouted with ugly disdain when African Americans first began to be desegregated into public schools . It's petty and it's despicable.
- the13thzen
October 28, 2009 4:54PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Well, I have read all of these comments
and I feel like I have been in the middle of a saloon fight in the old west. Tables and chairs flying everywhere and the only safe place is behind the bar.FRC is sewing seeds of disruption again. I think its time for a posse and some rope.
- bhall
October 28, 2009 9:51PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Reagan Lives
Actually, this piece is the right wing's answer to all the uninsured -- die soon. It's just that with homosexuals , they're willing to admit it. This is hardly the first time they've tried to use the government as a passive killing tool, by denying funds. The Reagan administration did it at the beginning of the AIDS crisis. Now, with all the focus on health care , we're simply seeing how much more broadly they are willing to watch Americans die: the elderly poor, minorities, those unlucky enough to contract very unusual ailments, and basically anybody who isn't affluent enough to afford rising insurance premiums. They even pretend that nobody's health is impacted by the lack of insurance. This article -- with it's Just Say Drop Dead -- message is actually one of the less dishonest things they have publicly said.
- ducdebrabant
October 29, 2009 8:48AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Greatest Health Risk in America
The greatest health risk in America is the food the majority of us stuff ourselves with, not homosexual "conduct".
The next greatest threat to America's overall health is, in my view, radical groups giving themselves lofty names who seek to deny any who disagree with them any rights whatsoever.
- joolmaker
October 31, 2009 12:00PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.